CNN |
United States Government Simulation > Archives > Reset 7 Archive > News and Elections > Fourth Estate  |
CNN |
 18 January 2010, 23:28
Post
#21
|
|
|
National. Champions.  Group: Administrators Posts: 559 Joined: 11-November 08, 19:26 From: Alexandria Member No.: 116 Gender: Male Office: President  |
Aired daytime
BLAKE LAWLOR: Hello and welcome to Sunday Morning Roundtable. I'm Blake Lawlor, and today we're discussing the Democratic Presidential Primary. With me is Republican Analyst and Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, Dr. Mosche Silverstein; Professor of International Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and Democratic Analyst Dr. Mitsy Collins; and our very own political correspondent, Joshua Shelton. Let's start off with the debate held last week. The debate was formatted somewhat differently than what we've seen, what effect did this have on the performance of the candidates? MOSCHE SILVERSTEIN: Well, Blake, I think it shows a large degree of constraint in the issues able to be discussed. I think it was a large mistake for the Democrats, because people simply won't appreciate the fact they're going to be hearing these two candidates to respond to only four questions for the entire duration of this debate. For many people sitting at home, this is the first time they'll have seen either candidate speak and they want access to more knowledge not only about their personality but their stances on the issues. MITSY COLLINS: I think that the format was a little bit too drawn out. I would've prefered the standard response, the opposing viewpoint and then the original responder's rebuttle. The second rebuttle seemed unecessary, as highlighted by the question about dealing with natural disaster posed to Senator Winters. The rebuttles consisted of merely the two candidates agreeing with one another and the final response seemed unnecessary when the candidates could've been talking about other important issues and therefore more time would've been available for additional questions. JOSHUA SHELTON: I'm going to take a different approach here and say that the narrow scope of this debate really helped Senator Rose. LAWLOR: In what way, Josh? SHELTON: As a Senator he has taken some really extreme viewpoints on a lot of issues and with only 4 major questions he was able to skirt a lot of those issues. VIDEO CLIP: Senator Rose's Opening Statements at the DNC Primary Debate SILVERSTEIN: This is some really really left liberal stuff, Blake. Rose is coming out here tonight saying: here I am, take it or leave it. The problem for Rose is that audacity in offending the political sensibilities of the vast majority of voters is going to result in them leaving it. He comes right out and says "I disagree with the structure of our economy that has made us the richest and freest nation in the world, I disagree with your moral compasses, and I want to fundamentally change your way of life." People want stability and confidence in their president, and while this'll gin up the left-wing of the Democratic Party it's going to come back and hurt him during the general election if he wins. SHELTON: I disagree with you Mosche when you say that Rose is going to offend the voters. Sure his support for socialized medicine and throwing out our free trade deals will hurt him in a general election against a moderate incumbent President but in a Democratic primary where progressives make up the bulk of voters those stances could really help propel him towards the nomination. SILVERSTEIN: Well, you see, that's the thing. It won't do him any good if he wins the battle and loses the war. We've seen this sort of thing happen to the Democrats against Nixon and Reagan, where they go to the far left field to find a candidate against a popular incumbent. Maybe this'll be another defiance year for them. SHELTON: Well Mosche, I would say Rose is trying to pull off what Barack Obama did back in 2008 with Senator Winters in the Hillary Clinton role. Obama ran to the left of Hillary, who was setting herself up to be a more centrist, electable candidate, and then moved to the center during the general. COLLINS: Well we have to remember Senator Rose's statements in their context: right now, he's campaigning to be the Democratic nominee and I think this helps him. Being the true blue Democrat is really appealing to the base and this is why he's polling well in big states like New York and Massachusetts. I disagree that when Senator Rose state's he wants to 'bring about a fairer economy', that he's striving for fundamental change or disagrees with the current structure. If you look at our economy now, you see we have a mixed economy and a progressive tax structure and by fairer, I see him saying that he simply wants to expand our existing economic policy when he uses the term 'fairer' and that populist position is going to resonate with a majority of voters when the economy is the way that it is. I think this strategy is going to pay off in rallying support for him during the primary and its something he can hit the Pizzuto campaign on in the General. SILVERSTEIN: I've followed Senator Rose's record, and he's a true believer in everything he's been saying. I don't think he's going to move center if he gets the nomination. COLLINS: Wanting to re-assess our trade agreements will also play well in the general in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania where both Republicans and Democrats always campaign on that very issue. President Pizzuto was a popular Governor there and so its his to lose, but not if Senator Rose can establish himself now as the candidate who is really going to fight for workers in the rust belt or just another campaign slogan to capture that critical swing vote. VIDEO CLIP: Senator Winters's Opening Statements at the DNC Primary Debate LAWLOR: So this is obviously the message of a frontrunner: broad, not specifically ideological, very vague. How's it going to play? SHELTON: Winters' opening statement continues to follow my belief that this is going to be a rehash of the 2008 Democratic primary. Like Hillary, we see Winters lining up as the centrist candidate. The candidate who can win the independents that Rose won't be able to capture and winning back the White House. The only problem I see is that he is running as the anti-Pizzuto and that simply isn't going to work when the President has an approval rating of over 50%. LAWLOR: The question is: is Winters actually a centrist? SHELTON: Of course not, and you can see that if you look at his record, but the fact of the matter is that a lot of voters aren't going to look at a Senators votes and are merely going to listen to advertisements and statements by the campaign and I think that Senator Rose is content to let the primary voters continue to believe winters is a centrist because it helps rose win the primary SILVERSTEIN: I think it'll play the way he wants it to play: he'll get the support of the majority of the establishment and will be in a decent position for hitting the issues in the general election. The problem for him is that centrism isn't sexy in primaries, and the activists have a lot of control over who wins. Winters is also slightly moderating himself versus his role as Senator. That's another reason Rose won't moderate: if he follows his opponent to the center, that's conceding defeat already. COLLINS: Senator Winters really captures what its going to take to challenge the President when he says ''reform' is something that is nice in election years but not meaningful in governing.' The big thing that the Democratic candidates and will need to hit hard on is the nonexistant domestic policy offered by the Pizzuto White House. People who are worried about the economy are going to be upset that the White House hasn't done more to address the situation and vague as it may be, this is exactly what those voters want to hear. SHELTON: President Pizzuto had a huge domestic agenda in which every single bill passed the House of Representatives with bipartisan support only to be ignored by the Democratic held Senate COLLINS: Well for most people at home, this is there first introduction to Senator Winters. Therefore, the portrayal of him being a centrist, particularly in contrast with Senator Rose, is going to be believeable and play well in the General if he can survive the primary. SILVERSTEIN: Out of all the criticism's of President Pizzuto I've seen, I've never heard of someone accusing him of not having an Agenda. He's been very ambitious in pursuing domestic reforms all around the board. LAWLOR: Is either candidate going to be tagged with that label of inaction in the Senate, or do you think one candidate will be able to dodge it better than the other? COLLINS: He might have some other bills that passed the House, but no sweeping reform legislation and when you're running for President, you make a lot of promises you can't cash in on, and the President has not cashed in on a single domestic policy to date. SHELTON: I think both Senators will be able to dodge the inaction label because neither were in any real positions of leadership and didn't control the docket LAWLOR: Although Winters led the charge against CHOICE in the Senate... SHELTON: That is an excellent point but he seems to relish the role as one of the main contributors to killing a popular reform of the Presidents. LAWLOR: For the first topic of the night, the candidates were asked about their economic proposals. Winters's economic plan is very broad, he mentions middle class tax breaks and impovement of education. Rose focuses more on trade. Which do you think is going to resonate with Americans? SHELTON: Winters without a doubt. SILVERSTEIN: Winters is going to resonate with sane Americans. Rose is going to resonate with the liberal pundits and the "Hate America" crowd. This is essentially the archetypical primary between the straight man and the extremist. COLLINS: Well in that context, Winters definitely resonates with more votes, but Senator Rose has also mentioned the effects of healthcare cost on lower and middle income Americans and pushing for a 'living wage'. His economic policy isn't exclusively trade. Winters is more ambiguous and that is a both a good and a bad campaign tactic as it allow both supporters and detractors to project their own interpretation of you on the candidate. SHELTON: Most people don't understand the intricacies of international trade, I know I don't, but they do understand cutting taxes. LAWLOR: So while Winters may present the more centrist proposal, it is also more simplistic? SHELTON: Simplicity works. People tend to have short attention spans and start to zone out with drawn out explanations SILVERSTEIN: Winters is definitely trying to take the vanilla candidate position because he's afraid of coming across as being wrong compared to President Pizzuto who has been able to unite a coalition of supporters across the political spectrum. He doesn't want to stick out his neck on any issue and make a splash in this election just yet. He isn't out there trying to fire anyone up but win credibility and name recognition. SHELTON: I think Winters loses on the education front though. When you look at the President's plan it would've helped build 5000 vocational schools across the country, a plan that passed the house with broad bipartisan support and was stonewalled by the democratic Senate. The President has already taken action on improving school infrastructure and Senator Winters is nothing but talk, at this point COLLINS: Well the same bill that Mr. Shelton is mentioning called for repealing No Child Left Behind to pay for those vocational schools. That means less money going into the public school system in both rural and inner city neighborhoods and that's going to hurt far more Americans than the vocational schools are going to benefit. LAWLOR: Moving on to foreign policy. Senator Rose has expressed his policy of "noninterventionism", yet he still expresses a degree of support for engagement in Mexico. Thoughts? SHELTON: I think the Senator is recognizing that a huge number of Americans support President Pizzuto's actions in Mexico and he is simply jumping on the wagon. Now that's not to say it's the only reason for that support though. The fact is that the drug cartels have been in a de facto war with us since kidnapping American citizens in El Paso, and even non-interventionist can support that. SILVERSTEIN: We must engage with Mexico, as President Pizzuto has, and if they cannot carry the load themselves then we must continue to take part in military operations to destroy the narcoterrorists that are a danger to American lives and security. COLLINS: Senator Rose is right in making a distinction between involving ourselves in the interal matters of two major powers and supporting involvement in Mexico. I don't think there's anyone on the Democratic side openly opposed to involvement in Mexico in the wake of the bombings, Darius Graham and other events that have occured over the years and it directly threatens our national security, the events in China and Russia do not. LAWLOR: It's also possible that Rose wants to distance himself from Winters, who not only is openly critical of President Pizzuto's Mexico Policy, but possibly involved in the stalling of the US-Mexico Treaty. Which brings us to Senator Winters and his proposal. He's very critical of the President's foreign policy, which most people agree is a strong point for the President, and he's calling for talks with Russia and China and... well what do you all make of it? I'm a little confused on exactly what Senator Winters is proposing. SHELTON: As I mentioned before, Senator Winters is running as the anti-Pizzuto. But honestly I don't know where he is getting his information that President Pizzuto hasn't spoken to China anytime recently. As far as I can tell he hasn't even tried contacting the White House to find out if any talks are going on or not he is simply running around calling the President a failure because it suits his political needs, even if it happens to be blatantly false. COLLINS: Blake, I think that Senator Winters fairs better in this context. He's targeting the President's plan as short-sighted and suggests that more domestic initiatives within Mexico need to be implemented beyond what Cardenas is doing and supported by our government. His position is clearly that not doing so will only make Mexico poorer and as Dr. Silverstein said we'll see more people getting involved with the narcoterrorist and perpetuating this fight. SHELTON: Well Misty we don't know what the President has offered President Cardenas in their talks and what may have been rejected. But the facts seem to be that Senator Winters hasn't even spoken to President Cardenas about what Mexico needs and simply seems content to try and force them to take our aid and use it how we want them to use it. Mexico isn't our colony and we shouldn't treat them like one. SILVERSTEIN: Senator Winters is tapping into the irrational spirits on the left that deny the ability of America to be a force for good in the world. He does not want us to proactively defend ourselves or involve ourselves in a meaningful way in Mexico as President Pizzuto has done. He wants to go back to the old ways that saw several of our border cities attacked by terrorists and throw humanitarian money at serious problems with some very seriously dangerous and evil people. He does not want us to help ensure that the people of Russia and China enjoy free and democratic governments, which will increase the security and prosperity of the entire world. Democratic countries are our natural friends and allies, and failing that, peaceful global neighbors. His policy promotes global disorder and a weak United States presence in protecting our interests from those who want to tear down the peaceful order that has been established. LAWLOR: Alright, let's move away from the debate. Senator Rose just won Iowa. Polls in New Hampshire show that it's still very competitive, and Winters is ahead by a huge margin in South Carolina. How is this going to go? Is Senator Rose going to be able to take down Senator Winters, who's largely considered the frontrunner? SHELTON: Senator Rose's best bet to be the nominee is to win New Hampshire, skip South Carolina, and focus on Super Tuesday. But he can't get sucked into spending close to 20 million dollars to win New Hampshire. He has to limit himself to save some of that money for what may become a long primary LAWLOR: I'd agree. The question here is will his political advisers overcome what many think is an issue of temperament: From what I've heard, Senator Rose is going to want to campaign everywhere where they're taking a vote. Will he be able to break from that temptation and skip South Carolina? SHELTON: Senator Rose may want to compete everywhere but sometimes you can't. Right now he is down 14 in South Carolina, that is a lot of ground to make up in a very short period of time and it will be nearly impossible to do without spending most of his campaign money. Rose supporters better hope his advisers are able to convince him to look at this race strategically. COLLINS: I would disagree that Senator Winters is the frontrunner now, Blake. If Senator Winters loses New Hampshire as well, than he's going to have a really hard time competing with Senator Rose on Super Tuesday who maintains his funding advantage and is leading in most of the big delegate states that are home to the liberal base that Rose is motivating to come out and vote. SILVERSTEIN: I agree with that analysis. I think if Rose wins he needs to go for the core left-wing Democratic states. He has a far-left countercultural message and I don't think that'll play for him well in states like South Carolina. LAWLOR:A recent poll has shown that a fairly large majority of voters think Senator Winters is running a more negative message. How will this effect him in the coming primaries or the general election, should he win? SHELTON: I really don't think it will hurt him too much. If we look back to 2012 you will see that Governor Mitchell was viewed as the positive candidate and look how much that helped him. SILVERSTEIN: I don't know. Senator Winters has built his recent image through opposing President Pizzuto in Mexico and now he is trying to use that negative message to push him through the primary as well. I truly believe Winters would be a better candidate for America than Rose, but with his level of negativity, he certainly doesn't come across that way. He's not showing the leadership the American people expect out of a Presidential candiate. And certainly, President Pizzuto has no reason to be negative given his current popularity and success. If he makes it through to the general, that's going to be a stark contrast. No one wants to be part of a neurotic campaign. SHELTON: I think you're wrong. Again look back at 2012. President Cullen was viewed as the more negative candidate accusing Governor Mitchell of being a slimy used car salesman, wanting to deprive kids of a chance to go to college and of destroying public education in America, and yet she still won. SILVERSTEIN: 2012 was a bad year for Republicans for a number of reasons, not the least of which being the fact that Mitchell was considered by many to be the Republican analogue of what Senator Rose is today. COLLINS: I don't see the Winters campaign as overly negative. I see Senator Winters being critical of the differences on the issues he has with the President and pointing out where he thinks the President could've done better to inform the public of where he stands on the issues and why supporting him is the better option. LAWLOR: Alright guys, we're running out of time, but before we go, I want predictions for how the rest of the primaries will go. Joshua Shelton? SHELTON: Rose will win NH by 6-7%, get absolutely crushed in South Carolina, and then win big on Super Tuesday. I would say in a month we will be gearing up for a Senator Rose vs President Pizzuto general election LAWLOR: Dr. Collins? COLLINS: I agree with Josh. Senator Rose has the momentum going into New Hampshire but won't be able to close the gap in South Carolina. Super Tuesday will still swing his way and swing his way big. LAWLOR: Dr. Silverstein? SILVERSTEIN: I think it's going to be a close race. I ultimately think Rose is going to pull Winters left to compete in some of the states with more left-wing factions of the DNC in control, like California, but that Winters will win a tightly contested primary that goes well beyond Super Tuesday. I think this is going to be a damaging primary, given the fact that Winters has more appealing stances on the issues to most traditional voters but Senator Rose is running a better campaign. It's a classic case of the establishment against grass roots activists, and I think it'll be damaging for the Democratic Party. LAWLOR: Thank you to our panelists, and thank you all for watching. That's all for Sunday Morning Roundtable, I'm Blake Lawlor. |
 |
 
|
|
19 January 2010, 12:40
Post
#22
|
|
|
National. Champions. Group: Administrators Posts: 559 Joined: 11-November 08, 19:26 From: Alexandria Member No.: 116 Gender: Male Office: President |
Aired prime time
ANNOUNCER: Welcome back to the Hill Report with your host, Doug Hill, reporting live from Washington, D.C. ADMINISTRATION SETS STAGE FOR NEW VIETNAM IN MEXICO? Administration Ignores Economic Impact on Mexico Crisis Politico with no diplomatic experience heading State Dept's Mexico policy HILL: Recently, I was approached by sources from within the U.S. Department of State who were concerned about U.S. policy in the Mexico Crisis. The first source, as you'll see in my interview, described the administration's approach as taking the "non-interventionist approach about five steps past sensible." My sources reiterated that Brooke Winthrop, the State Department's official charged with handling our national policy with Mexico, is as an inexperienced diplomat and mere politico nicknamed 'diplomat barbie' by insiders. This picture paints this administration's handling of U.S. foreign and diplomatic policy in the Mexican crisis as alarmingly ill-run. With politics trumping diplomacy at the State Department and, according to our sources, a severe lack of pressure on Mexico City to focus on economic recovery and a nearly sole focus on combat operations, it's been said that the U.S. may face a new Vietnam with the Mexico crisis. With Vietnam, politics and body counts were the major players and the same is being said of this Administration's handling of the Mexico crisis. There are two pillars to the crisis: combat and economics, but only one is getting the Administration's attention, a clear failure by the State Department to pressure the Mexican President to focus on improving economic conditions because, as our source claims: QUOTE (Source) We're very strongly focused on bodycounts and keeping track of the number of people we've killed or captured, just like Vietnam. Now, the theory behind this comes from the idea that the cartel fighters are in it for the money - as we kill them, it raises the price for new people to sign up with them and, of course, it puts a cramp in their operations. This assumption emphasizes the importance of the economy - it only works if the Mexicans believe that they can make enough money without turning to the cartels. If the economy goes South, regardless of how they might feel about the cartels, they'll go to the place where they can mke money and all killing cartel fighters will do is create a big pile of bodies. With a war being fought in their own backyard, which is unlikely to make them pleased to begin with, the Mexican people need a tangible reason to turn away from supporting and working the cartels, who happen to pay very well. This reason lies with economic factors -- a better standard of living for Mexican families, proving they no longer need the cartels. And so, without a focus on improving Mexico's economic conditions, the Mexican people won't see a better option, won't see a better life and may become even more disenchanted with combat operations -- all adding up to more support for the cartels. And if the economic collapses, as my source suggests, then things could get worse in Mexico as economic dependence on the cartels grows exponentially. After checking with the Department of State and attempting to clarify facts with Secretary Kellogg on multiple allegations brought up by my sources, I found the department's response lacking. While I made repeated requests for full disclosure before this show aired, the Secretary declined to provide complete information and productively cooperate with this show's investigation. Despite his refusal to answer all of my questions and declining to fully cooperate, the Secretary held a press conference mere hours after declining my requests and disclosed information I had asked for. In light of the Secretary's and his Departments refusal for full and complete disclosure, I will attempt to air the information I have received from my sources, specifically an interview with one source, and the State Department to the best of my ability. So, please join me in this exercize of getting to the bottom of this mess at the Department of State. *footage with source rolls* THE HILL EXCLUSIVE DIPLOMAT BARBIE HEADS MEXICO POLICY Unqualified? Brooke Winthrop: Director, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs Interview with Source from the State Department's Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs QUOTE SOURCE: Good evening, Mr. Hill. I'm glad you've decided to meet me. I have serious concerns about the future of our Mexico Policy. HILL: Do your concerns center around today's finding of the American, Mr. Graham's body? SOURCE: Well, in a way. I would have expected that the Department would issue an update to the travel alerts to account for the initiation of combat operations. I understand that they don't want to give away information that migh endanger operations, but there's no reason why after the treaty passed, we couldn't have said "with operations potentially beginning soon, everyone should be extra careful. HILL: Do you feel that the State Department's error caused the death of Mr. Graham, and could endanger more Americans in the process? SOURCE: "Caused" might be wording it a little bit strongly, and I would hope that now that this tragedy has happened, most Americans would realize they need to be careful. But yes, I think it may have contributed to it. Really, though, I'm particularly worried about the overall strategy and leadership. HILL: In regards to strategy and leadership, what are your specific concerns? SOURCE: Well, I have problems with Ms. Brooke Winthrop, who heads the Department. She's a woman with no particular expertise in Mexico or Latin America. Her expertise is in political maneuvering and public relations. HILL: As an employee of the State Department, one might assume these could be issues with upper management. Both Mr. Sarmento, during his time as State Secretary-designate and Secretary Kellogg have placed a great deal of trust in her. Has she been neglecting her duties, mismanaging policy or abusing her authority in anyway? SOURCE: Well, there was one time during the height of the crisis, when she took a week-long vacation. Really, the problem with the administration's approach is that it takes a non-interventionist approach about five steps past sensible. It's turned "don't meddle with Mexico" into "just provide the troops, let Mexico deal with the rest." HILL: The President, the Vice President, both the Secretary of State and Defense, have said that the United States is operating in joint combat with Mexico. Are you saying this isn't true? Could you define exactly what you mean by the U.S. engaging in unsensible non-interventionist policy in Mexico? SOURCE: Well, it's true, we're engaging in joint combat. What I mean is that Cardenas is on our side, that's true. The administration thinks he's genuinely committed to fighting the cartels and we agree. My problem is that we've gotten the idea that anything apart from military operations are now entirely Mexico's problem and that we shouldn't press. Cardenas on things that we think might work better. HILL: You're talking about non-internventionist diplomacy in the State Department? Basically, no diplomactic outreach or pressure from the US on Mexico is happening? SOURCE: Well, we're communicating, but, well, let me give you an example. President Cardenas wants to go for what we call the "total denarcification of Mexico." It's ambitious, but he needs money for it to work. If it does work, then, admittedly it'll be the best we could reasonably hope for, but if it doesn't work, things will be worse than they ever were. Now, what Cardenas is doing with the expropriations is hindering foreign investment and if he doesn't get his economy going, he won't have the money to pull this off. We're not really pressing him on that or telling him some of the economic consequneces of his policies. HILL: Have folks in the State Department expressed this concern to the Administration? SOURCE: I've mentioned it to Brooke Winthrop once, she seemed to agree with the assessment regarding the investment issue, but I don't think it ever got followed up on at any higher level. HILL: Does Secretary Kellogg work closely with Ms. Winthrop? SOURCE: I'd say so. HILL: Yet, Ms. Winthrop doesn't seem to pass on policy concerns regarding Mexico? That's deeply concerning. You claimed she had no experience in such an important diplomatic post - could you elaborate on her background? SOURCE: Her background's public relations. She was head of the Bureau of Public Affairs, so technically, this job was a lateral move but in practical terms it's a huge promotion. Public Affairs basically writes minor press releases and the like. She was only 36 when she got her current job As our head, she's still only 39. HILL: So, your claim is that the State Department has a Press Secretary running the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, the office dedicated to resolving the crisis in Mexico? SOURCE: Don't get me wrong, she's not stupid and she's supposed to have been an efficient manager when she was there. But yeah, her background is public relations and not Mexico. HILL: On the flip side, folks may claim your a disgruntled employee. To prove otherwise, could you name specific situations where Ms. Winthrop has caused harm to U.S. policy, failed to lead or made a bad strategic decision? SOURCE: Right, I understand that. I mentioned the week-long vacation, which happened as the Brasilia summit was falling apart, and Ii've mentioned my criticisms of U.S. policy. I'm not in the habit of spying on my bosses so that's most of it, but I think what's there is pretty significant. HILL: I'd say taking a vacation during the Brasilia summit, which failed, is a big concern. What was Secretary Kellogg's response to her vacation during such a crucial diplomatic mission? SOURCE: I think it was to pretend it didn't happen. Nobody really mentioned that she was gone from the office for a week. And no, she wasn't in Brasilia. HILL: And this is almost four after the fact and she's still got her job. Why do you think the White House hasn't fired her? SOURCE: I'm not sure. She does have a talent for intra-office maneuvering, I'll give her that. HILL: Do you think she has information on higher level officials in the Administration that's protecting her? SOURCE: Like blackmail? No, I wouldn't make that accusation without hard proof. HILL: Due to your concerns, are you calling for Ms. Brooke Winthrop's resignation? SOURCE: Well, that's not my call to make and like you said, I don't want to be some disgruntled employee who doesn't like his boss, I have problems with specific policies and actions that have happened. I think Brooke does have talents that the government can use, although I'm not sure that this bureau is the best use of them. HILL: Agreed. Would you like the final word? SOURCE: No, that's okay. Thank you for speaking with me. HILL: Thank you for your time. *footage ends* HILL: Before airing this interview, I contacted Secretary of State Kellogg with a series of in-depth questions concerning the issues presented to me by the source. These questions requested specifics from the Secretary about State Department policies addressing the Mexican crisis, specifically the Mexican economy as highlighted by our source, and specifics on Ms. Winthrops job preformance. I'll provide a copy of the questions I sent to the Secretary of State: QUOTE (Hill questions to Secretary Kellogg) EMPLOYMENT Our source has claimed Ms. Brooke Winthrop lacks appropriate experience for her current position of authority in the Department of State's Buearu of Western Hemisphere Affairs, especially as her job relates handling diplomatic missions in the ongoing crisis with Mexico. Q1: Please describe Ms. Winthrops' professional background, including any and all experience with Mexico prior to her current position. Q2: Please describe the hiring process that resulted in her current employment as head of the State Department's Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs Q3: Please describe her current relations and daily contact with the Pizzuto White House, specifically the President, Vice President and yourself as the Secretary of State. Q4: What is the reason Ms. Winthrop was hired for this position by Mr. Sarmento and subsequently retained by you upon your confirmation as Secretary of State? Q5: At any time in the last four years, has there been discussions about requesting a resignation from Ms. Brooke Winthrop? BRASILA SUMMIT Our source has claimed that Ms. Winthrop was absent during the President's summit with the Mexican President in Brazil, suggesting a serious lapse of judgement and leadership as one of the State Department's key policy heads in the Mexican crisis. Q1: Please describe the reason for Ms. Winthrop's absence during the Brasilia Summit. Q2: What contingencies were taken by the White House and State Department during her absence? Q3: As Secretary of State and her supervisor, were you aware of and had you approved of Ms. Winthrop's absence during the summit? Q4: Do you believe her absence could have contributed to the failure of the President's Brasilia Summit? Q5: Is there a reason why Ms. Winthrop was retained after the Brasilia Summit's failure? MEXICAN CRISIS Our source has claimed that the combination of Ms. Winthrop's diplomatic inexperience and failure to pursue strategic U.S. policy with Mexico has made her an ineffective leader in her current position, which is a key post in the ongoing crisis with Mexico. Q1: Please describe any recent conversations Ms. Winthrop has had with you, Secretary Kellogg, or other cabinet-level or White House officials, in regards to pursuing stronger diplomatic pressures for Mexico to focus on its economy, jointly with combat operations Q2: Please outline the activities, regarding the U.S. relations with Mexico, that are actively underway and headed by Ms. Winthrop. Q3: Did Ms. Winthrop relay State Department analysts' concerns to you about the lack of focus on economic concerns in Mexico which, according to our source, could lead to an increase of problems in Mexico? Q4: Please describe current diplomatic pressures pursued by the State Department, under Ms. Winthrop's direct authority, that has resulted in positive progress for the State Department with Mexico. Q5: Please describe a situation where Ms. Winthrop's leadership has provided positive strategic or policy leadership in her post at the Department of State. HILL:In response, Secretary Kellogg forwarded a memo to me, as I'll provide in full: QUOTE (Kellogg response to Hill questions) Mr. Hill, The following is in response to the questions you sent me. Brooke was the head of the Bureau of Public Affairs prior to taking her current position. She performed her duty at that Bureau very well. Based on a very brief exchange with my predecessor, I gather that Brooke was selected to replace the outgoing Bureau chief for Western Hemisphere affairs. I believe either the impending retirement of that chief or the thought that the previous administration's contacts with Mexico were tainted went into that decision. Again, that was a very brief exchange, and, obviously, I can't read Senator Sarmento's mind on the matter either. It was during Senator Sarmento's time at the State Department that groundbreaking progress was made on several issues and I saw no reason to break up a team that was having such successes. Since moving to head up the Western Hemisphere Bureau, Brooke's performance has been nothing short of excellent. When called upon for reports she is thorough and professional. In addition, when she becomes aware of information or developments that she believes require my attention, she does not hesitate to voice her concerns. Assuming I remain in my position as Secretary of State, I will be proud to have her continue on in her current position if she wishes to do so. In particular, Brooke's assistance in dealing with Mexico has been helpful from the beginning of my tenure right up to the present. She has been absolutely indispensable in that regard. With military operations under way and Mexico not seeking other direct assistance, I have not tasked Brooke's Bureau with any significant activities related to Mexico at this time. I will in the near future, however, be asking for a reassessment of the travel warning issued with respect to Mexico. Regarding the Brasilia Summit, both President Pizzuto and I were present for the talks with former President Villalobos. The President was fully briefed and prepared for the summit and neither of us felt that the presence of multiple individuals from the State Department was either necessary or a prudent use of time and resources. At my direction, Brooke was attending to other duties relating to the Mexico situation elsewhere. Sincerely, /s/ Victoria Kellogg Secretary of State HILL: It is clear that Secretary Kellogg does not deny Ms. Winthrop's inexperience as a diplomat. She was a press secretary, not a policymaker. Yet, due to her political connections, she was placed in charge of one of the most important diplomatic and policymaking Bureaus at the Department of State. Remember, the Mexico crisis began long before the Pizzuto Administration came to Washington; therefore, it was very clear that an emphasis would need to be placed on diplomacy with Mexico. But, as we can see today, only combat - not diplomatic - progress has been made. And, it looks as if much of the reason is due to an inexperienced Bureau chief, really more of a politico, at the helm of the Mexican crisis. ADMINISTRATION FAILS TO PRESSURE MEXICO FOR ECONOMIC SOLUTIONS Source: Department of State not presssing Mexico on Economy HILL: It is common knowledge that a citizen's complacency with his government, especially in a second or third world countries, is largely based on current economic conditions. Frankly, economic conditions aren't too hot in Mexico right now and war in your backyard is never popular. So, with Washington and Mexico City engaging in joint combat operations against the drug cartels inside Mexico, combined with the Mexican President all but ignoring his nation's souring economy, things in Mexico are spiraling down the drain. So, what is the Pizzuto Administration doing about it? According to our source, Ms. Winthrop, head of State's Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, ignored calls by her analysts for the Administration to increase pressure on Mexico City to pay attention to the Mexico's fragile economy. If the economy falls, so too may the President of Mexico, an American ally and friend. Despite my question sent to Secretary Kellogg: QUOTE (Hill question to Kellogg) Did Ms. Winthrop relay State Department analysts' concerns to you about the lack of focus on economic concerns in Mexico which, according to our source, could lead to an increase of problems in Mexico? HILL:The Secretary of State responded thusly: QUOTE (Kellogg response to Hill) when she becomes aware of information or developments that she believes require my attention, she does not hesitate to voice her concerns. HILL:Apparently, Secretary Kellogg is either unwittingly blind to Ms. Winthrop's errors, even when they're pointed out, or purposefully careless in regards to holding State Department policymakers and officials accountable in their posts. Either way, it does not bode well for the Pizzuto Administration's foreign policy, the Mexican crisis or the American people who are counting on an end to the threat without Mexico falling apart again. WHERE WAS WINTHROP WHEN BRASILIA SUMMIT FAILED? Sources said vacation. Secretary Kellogg said "other duties". HILL: The summit, historic for its failure, was an key administration foreign policy priority, but where was Ms. Winthrop? My sources claim she was on somesort of vacation and no one explained to those in the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, the department she heads, where she'd gone or why. When I asked Secretary Kellogg about her absence during the summit, she claimed that Ms. Winthrop was "attending to other duties relating to the Mexico situation elsewhere." When I issued a FOIA request as to her official whereabouts, the Secretary of State refused to provide a copy of her work travel schedule during the Brasilia Summit, but claimed that "Brooke Winthrop was not on vacation during the Brasilia Summit." Mere hours after my request, the Secretary spoke publicly about Ms. Winthrop's travel during the summit: QUOTE (Secretary Kellogg) Though it was a classified operation at the time, I can now reveal that Ms. Winthrop was sent to Mexico to meet with Miguel Rosario--now General Rosario, Ground Component Commander of our operations in Mexico. General--at that time Colonel--Rosario wished to speak with someone in our government and specifically requested someone from the State Department. HILL: If this was declassified, why couldn't Secretary Kellogg answer my questions or provide the information when I requested it through the Freedome of Information Act? Instead of merely answering, my request for information was declined and my interview questions to the Secretary about Ms. Winthrops' travel were refused, as you've clearly seen. It makes you wonder how the Secretary of State manages her department when keeping unqualified individuals in posts of extreme importance while refusing to provide information to the public when asked, then turning around and doing it to save political face. More than one opportunity was provided to Secretary Kellogg, Ms. Winthrop and the State Department to comment on this matter and each time they declined or failed to give a full account. It makes you wonder what else is going on behind the scenes that we don't yet know about! This could have been settled immediately and without fanfare, but unfortunately Secretary Kellogg chose the route most folks in Washington take, but I'll let you be the judge of what to call it. After the press conference with Secretary Kellogg, Ms. Winthrop sent out an email to her employees: QUOTE (email) To all: As you may have noticed, there's been some concern over my travel schedule. I'll keep it short and sweet. We cannot afford continued speculation over where I may have been and when, and my personal leave schedule is just that, personal. Thank you, -BW HILL: Ms. Winthrop, there's no concern with your personal travel schedule. There is a concern with your credentials, the failure of the Brasilia Summit and the purposeful refusal to provide a full account of your activities when requested followed, mere hours later, by the political use of a State Department press conference in an attempt to clear your name. SEC. KELLOGG CLAIMS MEXICO CRISIS RESOLVED? Sources say failed State policies leave Mexico on brink of economic collapse HILL: In her public statement, the Secretary of State actually praises Ms. Winthrop for solving the Mexico crisis: QUOTE (Secretary Kellogg) So far Ms. Winthrop has not been publicly recognized for her role in resolving the Mexican crisis. I know that she would prefer that I allow her work to remain anonymous. However, I cannot help but end this briefing by noting that the many Americans and Mexicans whose lives were spared because of the understanding to which our nations have come owe her a debt of gratitude. HILL: I'm sorry, what? The Secretary of State is actually claiming that the Mexico crisis has been solved? Mexico City and Washington commenced combat operations to kill the drug cartels, but apparently the crisis has already been solved according to Secretary Kellogg! No, no, no. The Mexico crisis is far from solved! In fact, there's a long ways to go until anyone can claim it's over, or especially take any credit for doing it. And, our sources claim that Ms. Winthrop's ignorance of diplomatic policymaking and the subsequent failure of the Pizzuto Administration to pressure Mexico to focus on economic stability puts our southern neighbor on the brink of increased instability. It seems politics and saving face have become more important to the State Department, under Secretary Kellogg, than actually doing its job. Hill's Final Word HILL: Ms. Brook Winthrop has declined to comment on these allegations twice now. Secretary Kellogg's only response to me on these allegations was the memo provided, nothing more. If this looks bad, that's because it is. What kind of administration puts a former press secretary, a politico without any diplomatic experience, in charge of its biggest foreign policy problem? First, it was Marcos Sarmento as acting Secretary of State before his nomination was defeated by the Senate. But, it's been Secretary Kellogg whose kept Ms. Winthrop in charge of the Mexico crisis for nearly four years and, even when asked, she was unable to give me real examples of progress made at the hands of Ms. Winthrop. I asked about Mexico's economy, a clear concern in the State Department, but the Administration seems content with overlooking it and focusing on military operations which is certainly not sitting well with our diplomats who know that diplomacy must be front and center, even during combat. Despite Winthrop's lack of qualifications and clear inability to form sound diplomatic policy, Secretary Kellogg claims she would be "proud to have [Brooke Winthrop] continue on in her current position" which means President Pizzuto needs to take a hard look at the folks his cabinet is hiring, as well as the folks he has hired for his cabinet. As the Pizzuto Administration ignores the economic consequences of the Mexico crisis and focuses almost soley on racking up body counts, are we heading towards a new Vietnam? Will the State Department's new "non-interventionist" lack of diplomatic pressure cause damage to U.S. interests and foreign policy in Mexico? Only time will tell. But, if we are looking at a new Vietnam, it won't be on the other side of the world. This time, it'll be in our own backyard. I'm Doug Hill with The Hill Report. Until next time! |
|
|
|
|
20 January 2010, 23:41
Post
#23
|
|
|
National. Champions. Group: Administrators Posts: 559 Joined: 11-November 08, 19:26 From: Alexandria Member No.: 116 Gender: Male Office: President |
Aired primetime
Title: The Lone Star Report Suggested Outlet: CNN (IMG:http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii134/axfseilf/lonestarreport2.png) McCoy: Howdy and welcome to the Lone Star Report. I’m Bill McCoy. Today, we’re going to begin with an update of the ongoing presidential primary. Animation: Spider Man with Winter’s face shouting “Great power, great responsibility” and fighting The Incredible Hulk with Rose’s face shouting “Rose smash!” McCoy: Senator Rose has won a narrow victory in New Hampshire. This following a nearly twenty point Rose victory in Iowa. All despite the nearly unanimous endorsement of the democratic beltway establishment and an air of inevitability Senator Winters enjoyed. Now admittedly, Senator Rose managed to heavily outspend his opponent and Iowa and New Hampshire have long histories of supporting both underdogs and progressive breakthroughs. Nevertheless, after such a stinging defeat in Iowa and a failure to pull off a rebound victory in New Hampshire it is hard to imagine that the dynamics of this race haven’t seen a quantum shift. Winters is still showing a 10% lead in South Carolina, down from a 14% lead prior to New Hampshire. The problem for Winters is that he is looking less and less like the frontrunner in this race, and with expectations so high in South Carolina Winters really has no opportunity to beat expectations before the all-important supertuesday. Winters hasn’t given up though. He has made bold promises to put education first, to put health care first, to be a President who will put the country first. To study math a little harder. Rose meanwhile has been out displaying his presidential dignity. QUOTE Rose: They like to say that the women's movement killed the traditional family. That's a load of crap. McCoy …or not. Winters has repeatedly suggested that we can’t solve today’s problems by looking at yesterday’s solutions. That is why he is proposing a bold new initiative to eliminate all history classes from our public schools. Rose, however, remains preoccupied with history, asserting that the history of tomorrow is being written right now in New Hampshire. In a Delorean. Winters maintains that, by focusing on a strong economy, working families and small businesses and renewing innovation we can lead the charge into the next decade. And the charge so far? Image: national debt clock McCoy: Rose reminded us about how Hubert Humphry took on the party bosses. Presumably because he wants to share the legacy of the candidate who began a twenty-four year period in which democrats won only a single presidential election. Winters, meanwhile, pledged to be the president that “puts results before the American People.” Okay, so that’s results first, the American People second, health care third and education fourth? Both candidates have opined about the vital and central role of education. Both candidates have then put forward education plans focusing heavily on the college level. It is, of course, widely recognized that it is in the younger years that the most headway can be made in education. But why bother with efficient help if it benefits people who can’t vote… Winters has repeatedly made the case that he is the moderate candidate. Which is presumably why Rose enjoys a double-digit lead in such left-wing states as Idaho, Utah and Wyoming. Rose smash! Returning to the real world, the equal pay for equal work amendment has officially failed to accumulate approval from sufficient state governments. One wonders if equality for women will ever be the law of the land. All hope is not lost, however—there have been no reports of Neanderthals receiving less pay for equivalent work recently. Congressmen Markovitch and Trent, of New York and Massachusetts respectively, have been bickering incessantly in the press. Of particular note was Proposal Five to adopt a slew of laws from the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. Trent characterizes his opposition to Proposal Five as opposition to one or two of the nearly 40 laws that are included—such as a compromise between the two regions’ minimum wages which would be a lowering of the Northeast’s higher minimum wage and an acceptance of gun rights “without regard for what the Northeast wants.” Apparently, Trent wasn’t paying attention when the Northeastern legislature passed gun rights legislation. Markovitch has asserted that Trent’s opposition is partisan, an odd argument when one considers that Trent is the only prominent democrat to vote against Proposal Five and Markovitch is the only prominent republican to vote for it. Markovitch has proudly pointed out his proposal of the highest minimum wage increase of anyone at the convention. Of course, his proposal does not link the minimum wage to the CVI so as inflation happens, people will gradually be making less. Trent has suggested that Markovitch’s proposed minimum wage increase is the same as Senator Justice’s desire to eliminate the minimum wage entirely. In related news, Congressman Trent will no longer stand for spending more on education or environmental protection because that’s the same as eliminating all spending on education and environmental protection. Back home in Jefferson, Senator Justice and Governor Kennedy have reached a compromise on the issue of abortion. The Governor, in the name of his pro-choice constituents, had to make certain sacrifices—such as outlawing abortion after the first trimester, waiting periods and a requirement to notify abusive parents so they can abuse their pregnant children. But Senator Justice had to make some sacrifices too. At no point does the bill decriminalize the shooting of abortion doctors or contain the phrase “Texas rules, Mid-West drools”. Pro-choice delegates have revolted, characterizing this so-called compromise as Heartlanders annexing the Midwest while tossing Midwesterners meaningless crumbs. It is understandable, that Governor Kennedy considered it a reasonable compromise, as he has argued that the Mid-Atlantic did not ban abortion before viability. The Mid-Atlantic, in fact, banned abortions beginning six weeks after conception. If Governor Kennedy considers “viability” to be halfway through the first trimester then it is understandable why he would consider this a great victory for the pro-choice movement, although it does raise the question of how he could consider himself pro-choice. Rose Smash! (IMG:http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii134/axfseilf/lonestarreport1.png) <commercial break> McCoy: Joining us tonight is North Governor Natalya Kudrov. Welcome, Governor. Kudrov: It's a pleasure to be here. McCoy: You’ve made quite a splash with your decision to leave the Republican party. Is this a decision you came to gradually? Was there any particular incident that broke the camel’s back? And why do you feel your going to be in a stronger position to maintain Northern stability and leadership without the backing of either major party? Kudrov: It's a decision that I did not make lightly. I would say that the merging of the Mid-Atlantic Region with the Northeast was probably the biggest incident because of the politics of the Mid-Atlantic GOP and its elected representatives. In the Northeast, we enjoyed several representatives from the Republican Party who shared the views of freedom, restriction of Government Intrusion in the privacy of others, and fighting for efficient Government. Now we have Republicans advocating for restricting freedoms enjoyed by thousands of Northeastern Residents, that being the right to marry the person that you love without the Government intruding. We have also seen the push to return to inefficient and inadequate Government programs that leave thousands out in the cold when it comes to health care. These are not the values that I envision for my region, and it is not what I felt that I could continue to support by remaining a member of the Republican Party. I have never Governed for any party, be it Republican or Democrat but based on what I felt was best for my region and that is how I will continue to Govern. McCoy: Can we expect any changes to your philosophy and approach to governing now that you don’t have GOP leaders to answer to? Kudrov: My politics have not changed. I will continue to support protecting and expanding freedoms enjoyed to everyone, and in ensuring that we have efficient Government programs that benefit the tax payers. That is the philosophy I have and will continue to endeavor to Govern by. McCoy: You have played a crucial role in the passage of the Northeast’s comprehensive health care system, were one of the few republicans to object to President Pizzuto’s CHOICE bill and have been an ardent voice in the Megaregional convention on health care policy. Ideally, what should health care policy look like? How much of health care policy ought to be the purview of regional as opposed to national government? Kudrov: I think that it would be unfair for me to take credit for the passage of the Northeast's health care system. Lt. Governor Joanna Stewart, Del. DeWitt, and Governor Straw played key roles in passing the legislation. But contrary to what some have said, we have one of the best health care systems in the nation because it insures everyone. One of the largest problems with President Pizzuto's health care legislation was that there was no viable public option to fall back on for those who cannot afford expensive premiums, and that is something that we do not have a problem with in the Northeast. I think health care policy needs to be reformed both at the federal and the regional level. Personally, I would like to see a strong National Insurance Program similiar to what we have in the Northeast but if that is not possible I believe we must implement reforms at the regional level that include a government-run option at the very least. We have had success in the Northeast and I would hope that our system could be an example to the rest of the nation that good reforms are possible. McCoy: In your time in office you have shown great leadership in protecting Northeastern freedom. You’ve rolled back many of the firearms restrictions put in place by Governor Francis. You’ve cut back many of the excesses of drug possession punishments. You’ve overturned longstanding policies whereby officers of the Northeast were prosecuting based on blatantly unconstitutional laws. How will the regional merger with the Mid-Atlantic effect the freedoms enjoyed by Northeasterners? How will the need to govern the entire region effect your decisions and approach to governing? Kudrov: I hope that this merger will lead to more freedoms for both regions when it comes to issues like the firearms restrictions we were able to roll back. Many did not think we could achieve what we accomplished, but we were able to put our heads together and come up with stronger protections. I hope that one of the things we can gain out of regionalization is a concealed carry reciprocity law that benefits both regions. McCoy: You have been a major, perhaps the major player at the North convention. Do you have any particular insights or observations on how that convention is progressing that you would like to share with our audience? Kudrov: I think we are making a lot of progress both for the people of the Mid-Atlantic and the people of the Northeast. I am hopeful that we will pass a constitutional provision expanding marriage rights for same-sex couples to the people of the Mid-Atlantic as well as ending the awful practice of partial birth abortions. McCoy: Governor Kudrov, thanks for being with us. Kudrov: Thank you for having me. McCoy: And that’s all for this evening folks. See ya next week, same Armadillo-time, same Armadillo-channel. (IMG:http://i852.photobucket.com/albums/ab90/Knuckle_Curve/seal-1-1.gif) |
|
|
|
|
22 January 2010, 18:30
Post
#24
|
|
|
National. Champions. Group: Administrators Posts: 559 Joined: 11-November 08, 19:26 From: Alexandria Member No.: 116 Gender: Male Office: President |
Aired late night
ANNOUNCER: Welcome back to the Hill Report with your host, Doug Hill, reporting live from Washington, D.C. THE RACE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE Exclusive insight into the 2020 Presidential Campaign HILL: Welcome back to my exclusive insight into the 2010 race for the White House. Tonight, I'm in the studio with the DNC's big names from the last Presidential race. Please welcome Senate Majority Leader Jackson Rockefeller, Governor James Kennedy, Senator Kevin Santos-Carter and former Senator Rebekah Merrilin. Welcome all. THE HILL EXCLUSIVE Jackson Rockefeller SENATE MAJORITY LEADER | U.S. SENATOR FOR THE ALLEGHENIES 2016 DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE FOR PRESIDENT James Kennedy GOVERNOR OF THE MIDWEST | FORMER U.S. SENATOR FOR THE WABASH VALLEY 2016 DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE FOR VICE PRESIDENT Kevin Santos-Carter U.S. SENATOR FOR NEW YORK 2016 CANDIDATE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION Rebeka Merrilin FORMER U.S. SENATOR FOR THE GREAT LAKES 2016 CANDIDATE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION HILL: You guys are some of the most recognizable Democrats in the country, and certainly four of the biggest names of 2016; and you're all backing Lincoln Winters for President. Why? With the exception of Senator Rockefeller, you are not considered "moderates" or "centrists" by any measure. In 2016, both Senator Santos-Carter and Senator Merrilin were considered the representatives of the liberal wing of the Democratic party. And, as I said, Senator Rockefeller was considered the moderate in the primary race of 2016. And yet here you all are, including Governor Kennedy, backing the same candidate. So, why? Why back Lincoln Winters over Hunter Rose, especially with Rose being clearly much, much more liberal on certain issues like trade and taxation. ROCKEFELLER: Democrats want a Presidential candidate who shares their core values. Democrats need a candidate that can defeat the incumbent President. In both cases, Lincoln Winters fits the bill. With every measure of respect for Senator Rose, who is a colleage and friend of mine, I believe Senator Winters can not only live up to the values and expectations of Demorcats across the country, but also win over independents which are a crucial voting block in the general election. And, time and time again, Senator Winters has proven he's a dedicated public servant that will establish, fight and pass a strong foreign and domestic agenda, unlike President Pizzuto. KENNEDY: Well, I already mentioned many of the reasons for which I decided to endorse Lincoln Winters when I joined him at his announcement speech at Grant Park a few weeks ago. He's got the strength and the commitment I think our next President will need to address the many challenges our nation faces. Now, you're right, he's not the most liberal candidate in this race, but neither was Senator Cullen back in 2012, or Jackson Rockefeller in 2016. I endorsed them both, and now Lincoln, because I was confident in their ability to actually make a difference as Presidents. The three were leaders, prepared and willing to lead. The three had strong records which showed they knew how to get things done. Lincoln Winters is, in my opinion, the best candidate for Democrats this cycle. He has repeatedly offered, both on the campaign trail and at Congress an alternative to CHOICE which can get through Congress. His tax plan is, let's say, more realistic that Senator Rose's, and one which most moderates and liberals will find appealing. And, after having worked with him for over four years at Springfield and the Senate, I know he means it when he says he will bring a much needed reform to our education system. SANTOS-CARTER: Well Doug, as I stated in my press release, this was certainly a tough decision to make. As you have noted, Senator Rose has more progressive issues on certain stances, including issues like LGBT equality and women's rights. However, all in all, I would say that Senator Winters is fairly progressive as well, including on issues such as the environment. To be perfectly honest, neither candidate lines up really well with all of my progressive views and stances. However, when it comes to issues like trade, I think Senator Rose's stances are more radical than liberal. I do agree that we need better, fairer trade agreements, but pulling out of agreements that run our global economy isn't progressive, it's poor foresight. MERRILIN: I endorsed Senator Rockefeller over Senator Santos-Carter in 2016, if you will remember. It isnt about who represents what wing of the party, but who has the best chance of winning the White House and actually bringing about the progressive reforms our nation needs. Senator Rose has good intentions, but he has an all or nothing mentality that has caused little to no traction on important debates like Health Care Reform. We cannot afford to continue to wait another 100 years because we refused to take steps in the right direction because we allowed ourselves to stick to our guns and demand everything on a silver platter. Senator Winters represents an ability to move things forward, and he is the type of leader who will put us on the pathway to necessary progressive reforms, even if we dont get everything we want in a perfect bill. We aren't going to get that anyways, because we have seen an increased effort by Republicans to block anything meaningful on these issues. HILL: Senator Santos-Carter, you say Rose is more "radical than liberal" -- do you think that would hinder him if he were to face President Pizzuto in the general. SANTOS-CARTER: Well on the issue of trade. However I think on many issues Senator Rose has a message that resonates with the American people and their needs. If Senator Rose wins the primary and can carry that message in the general against the increasing frustration over do-nothing President Pizzuto, I think Senator Rose would certainly not be hindered. ROCKEFELLER: Democrats need a candidate who has wide-appeal, period. Democrats would be at a competitive disadvantage with a nominee who lacks a connection, specifically on policy, with ordinary Americans. And, as Senator Santos-Carter pointed out, there is some disconnect between mainstream policy and Hunter Rose; the fact is that this is just who our friend Senator Rose is and we respect him for it. But, as far as the Presidential election goes, Senator Winters has wide-appeal both in policy, stature and personality making him a strong candidate both as a progressive, mainstream Democrat, an American citizen and a candidate for the Presidency. HILL: So, what's the hold up? If Senator Winters is so perfect for the nomination, why's he having trouble sweeping the Democratic primary? SANTOS-CARTER: Because we have two strong candidates vying for the nomination. While I do support Senator Winters because I think he is the better candidate, the fact is that the Democrats have two strong candidates, and I think that is a testament to the strength and the vision of the Democratic party. ROCKEFELLER: It's an election, not a coronation. And despite our opinions, some voters feel differently. As we've said and will continue to say, we have much respect for Hunter Rose. As all of us here know, running in the Presidential race - whether its just the primary or the general - is a very, very challenging endeavor. With that said, it'd be inappropriate to not show Senator Rose the respect he's earned for waging a Presidential campaign. However, that doesn't change my opinion that Lincoln Winters is the best man for our party's nomination this year. MERRILIN: We have seen numerous close primaries over the last few years, Obama and Clinton, Cullen and Renzetti, the 2016 primary between Rockefeller, Santos-Carter and myself. A close primary is not an indication of whether or not a candidate is perfect or not. I think the close primary will, as in the recent past, be good for Senator Winters heading into the general HILL: Why would you classify Senator Winters as "progressive" when some liberals tend to favor Senator Rose as the real progressive candidate in the primary? SANTOS-CARTER: Well, Doug, if you actually take a look at Senator Winters' record and platform, you'd see that the senator has very progressive stances on issues such as transportation, the environment, civil liberties, and ethics reform. So on the issues, Senator Winters does have fairly progressive stances. KENNEDY: Because he is a progressive - just check his record. In 2016, he'd have been rated as the first or second most liberal candidate, yet, he's called a moderate this time around. The fact is, this election may be the first in many years with two left-wingers running neck and neck for the Democratic nomination. That does not mean Senator Winters' a candidate moderates can't support, as many have said of liberal candidates in the past. He's got an impressive platform which will satisfy most liberals, but which also appeals to the American moderate. MERRILIN: The difference really boils down to who can and will push for an agenda that takes us in the right direction. As Senator Kennedy said, never let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Senator Rose's commitment to a single-payer health care system is a wonderful goal, and its something I fought for in the Senate myself. But, we cannot allow ourselves refuse to pass meaningful reforms or allow those reforms to be roadblocked because we refuse to take steps that might not include everything we want. Senator Winters understands this, and I believe that with him as President we will see real progressive reforms because we will take necessary steps that might not accomplish everything we desire in one bill. ROCKEFELLER: As someone whose been classified as many different things over the years, I can tell you that 'labels' aren't always accurate. But, as someone who'se worked with Lincoln Winters since he came to the U.S. Senate, I can attest to his progressive policies and his constant urge for Washington to take the next step towards major progressive goals, including a public option, advancing women's rights, protecting the environment, increasing federal investment in education, healthcare and championing civil rights for all minorities as well as fighting for stronger civil liberties protections. But, I think his strongest appeal comes from his economic plan that is focused on providing relief for working families and better protections for America's workforce and unions. HILL: But, you'd admit that many Democrats are excited by the idea of having an extremely, perhaps even "fringe", progressive, such as Hunter Rose, at the top of the ticket? ROCKEFELLER: Senator Rose certainly has received support for his Presidential bid, as evidenced by his success in the primary thusfar. But, the factor we've all weighed is -- overall, who is better for the whole party for the 2020 nomination? And our conclusion is Lincoln Winters. HILL: Still, Hunter Rose seems to be resonating with many Democrats this year. You've all called Senator Winters "progressive" and "electable" and the "right candidate" for this year. But, is he really the right candidate for the Democratic party? MERRILIN: I think Senator Winters represents the ideals of our party much better than Senator Rose. I also believe he will be an instigator for pushing Washington to finally enacting much needed reforms on a wide range of issues. KENNEDY: Indeed, he is. He's the candidate with the strongest support, experience and record; and he's better positioned to succesfully challenge President Pizzuto. Senator Rose's a great man, but I don't think his policies would resonate too well in the general election should he be nominated. ROCKEFELLER: Senator Winters' ideas are progressive and pragmatic, a dynamic combination that spells success in a Presidency. Senator Winters is progressive, yes, and he's also pragmatic on how he goes about bringing progressive change to Washington which is a necessary attribute to turining promises into reality. 'Radical change' has a habit of dying in Washington. But, the pragmatic way Senator Winters pushes progress on major issues, he'll be able to make his progressive ideas become policy, rather than watch them burn out and die like we've witnessed so many times before. SANTOS-CARTER: I do believe Senator Winters is the right candidate for the Democratic party. I believe that his message resonates with many Democrats as well and can unite Democrats as we try to move America forward from four years of stagnation. HILL: Even after his loss of IA and NH, you're all still backing Senator Winters. I assume you think he still can pull out a win in the primary race? ROCKEFELLER: Take it from the early frontrunner in 2016 who didn't fare as well as expected in the early primaries --I still won the nomination and, so yes, I think Senator Winters can win the nomination. He just won South Carolina by a huge margin and he's going into Super Tuesday on a strong note. Lincoln is spreading his progressive message combined with his pragmatism and electability, all of which are key for our party's success this year. MERRILIN: Senator Rose spent alot of time, money, and energy in Iowa. It was not surprising to see him pull out a sizeable win there when Senator Winters did not put as much effort into a ground game. New Hampshire is more telling, because we saw what should have been another big win for Senator Rose turn into a thin margin victory. And as we all remember from 2016, while Iowa and New Hampshire are important as the first states in the primary, they are hardly game-ending. SANTOS-CARTER: Yes. Senator Winters, after all, did just win the South Carolina primary. In addition, Winters does have some good leads in Super Tuesday states, including California. There's a lot more primary to go and, as we saw during the last Democratic Presidential Primary and 2008, it's not over til it's over. KENNEDY: Of course I do. It will obviously not be easy, it never was, but he just made a strong showing in New Hampshire and pulled out a great win in South Carolina, and has been doing a great job at spreading his message all across the states. I'm very confident Lincoln will pull ahead after Super Tuesday. HILL: What happens if Senator Rose wins the primary? As some of the most recognizable Democrats in America today, many will watch to see what you guys do if the horse you bet against wins the race. And you're all very sure that Lincoln Winters can take on the President. But, if Rose wins the primary, you're not so sure he can beat Jack Pizzuto? SANTOS-CARTER: As I said before, I spent a careful amount of time deliberating who I should endorse, speaking to both candidates as well, especially as I consider both to be personal friends. Thus, if Senator Rose wins I will gladly support his candidacy to be our next president. People are getting frustrated with the lack of progress, the exposed dirty partisanship, and the stagnation under the Pizzuto administration. Senator Rose would represent the change that people want. MERRILIN: I think Senator Rose would stand a decent chance against President Pizzuto, largely because I believe that Americans are fed up with the do-nothing leadership we currently have in the White House. At the same time, I believe Americans honestly want a leader who is willing to work towards compromise to achieve their goals. That's something we have yet to see out of President Pizzuto and something that Senator Rose appears to lack as well. Senator Rose would have to convince more people that he is willing to work with both sides to get things done in Washington, and I'm just not convinced he has that ability. KENNEDY: Well, let me say first, I endorsed Gore in '00, Kerry in '04, Obama in '08, Cullen in '12 and Rockefeller in '16. My horse has never lost the Democratic Primaries. *laughs* Seriously, though, I'll just say I believe his platform may not play too well with moderate voters - but I guess we'd just have to wait and see what'd happen should Senator Rose win the primaries. ROCKEFELLER: But, quite obviously, we here are all in agreement that Senator Winters is the best choice for Democrats all-around. And, like I said, Lincoln Winters is not only ready to lead, but his appeal within the DNC is wide ranging, evidenced by the four of us sitting here today endorsing, supporting and stumping for Senator Winters. It's important for the party to unite behind our nominee and I do believe the best option for the entire party is Lincoln Winters. HILL: If Senator Winters does win the primary race, what makes you all so confident that he can beat President Pizzuto? KENNEDY: I met Senator Winters back in 2010. I've served and worked with him, and have seen at first hand he's the right man for 2020. He's got a strong record, an appealing platform and a great support from both moderates and liberals. If there's someone who can beat Jack Pizzuto, it's him. ROCKEFELLER: Candidate Jack Pizzuto and President Jack Pizzuto are two very different people. One made tons of promises and the other didn't live up to them. Frankly, the President has been a lackluster leader whose racked up one failure after the next. Even today, it's coming to light that the President's handling of the Mexico crisis, or lack thereof, could be making things worse. On the other hand, Senator Winters has been fighting for a stronger focus on diplomatic pressure in Mexico, not solely focusing on combat and body counts. Senator Winters has also successfully passed tax relief for working Americans through the U.S. Senate whereas President Pizzuto not only failed to focus on our nation's struggling economy, but even vetoed tax relief after candidate Pizzuto clearly promised to cut taxes. It all boils down to a strong comparison between Senator Winters and the President, where Senator Lincoln looks like a viable and appealing leader to do the job of the Presidency where the current President has failed. MERRILIN: I think CHOICE is the largest detractor on President Pizzuto going into this election, along with California relief and the situation in Mexico. If the President and his supporters are right that 60% of Americans supported his health care reforms, then all that means is he let 60% of Americans down when he failed to work with Democratic leaders to pass that reform proposal. With California and Mexico added into the mix, he is largely seen as a President who has been missing in action and I think alot of voters are going to remember that when it comes time to cast their ballots. SANTOS-CARTER: Senator Winters has all the tools he needs. In addition to his ability to unite Democrats together, his message of renewing the American Dream with thoughtful, mainstream progressive policies and ideas will resonate with Indpendents and swingable Republicans. Combine this with the increasing frustration with President Pizzuto, and I think you have a good recipe to win in November. HILL: And there you have it folks -- the 2020 Democratic primary summed up by the four top Democrats from the Presidential race of 2016. Despite the split in the primary results between Senators Winters and Rose, the big names in the DNC are still backing Lincoln Winters. And, again, I'll leave an open invitation for an interview with President Pizzuto and hope he, at some point, accepts it and joins us here on The Hill Report. Until next time, this has been Doug Hill. |
|
|
|
|
22 January 2010, 18:30
Post
#25
|
|
|
National. Champions. Group: Administrators Posts: 559 Joined: 11-November 08, 19:26 From: Alexandria Member No.: 116 Gender: Male Office: President |
Aired daytime
Title: The Lone Star Report #5 Author: Bill McCoy (IMG:http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii134/axfseilf/lonestarreport2.png) McCoy: Good evening and welcome to the Lone Star Report. I’m Bill McCoy. We begin this evening’s show right here in Jefferson. We’ll, not here—up north in Missouri, but in Jefferson nevertheless. Can we have some advice from our dignified representatives there? QUOTE Kennedy: don’t let the truth get in the way of a good argument. McCoy: Amen! We love us a good argument. Governor Kennedy also suggested that Governor Jefferson would “strike back with his abortion-like remarks”. What exactly is an abortion-like remark? Senator Taylor has suggested that the Heartlands are not annexing the Midwest. Perhaps he hasn’t been paying attention. That’s okay, Senator Justice has been paying so little attention that he didn’t even notice that Taylor was there. The Jefferson convention has been replete with arguments about the virtues of compromise. Democratic leaders, particularly Governor Kennedy, have argued that merging the Heartlands with the Midwest requires finding a middle ground between the laws of the two very different regions. Governor Jefferson disagrees, suggesting which his own views—which rest somewhat to the right of the more conservative Heartlands—should be adopted for the entire region, after all the region is named after him. A few democrats are curious why nobody’s there to fight for their side. A final word from Saint Louis on reasons for one side not to force its will on the other: QUOTE Kennedy: I haven’t been elected governor of Jefferson and neither have you, Davis. McCoy: Burn. Up north, Congressman Kim of New Jersey has objected to Governor Kudrov’s corporate tax proposal, proclaiming that it would drive businesses out of the Mid-Atlantic. The proposal in question would have decreased taxes on business by nearly twenty percent. No! Don’t cut my taxes or I’ll take my business elsewhere! And a word from out West: QUOTE Reiber: I am disappointed that this body has rejected reason and logic for the appeals to the blind, emotional, and irrational ranting of the Governor of the Southwest. I am disappointed that the Governor of the Northwest who signed the original bill made a liar of herself, driving a rusty dagger into her constituents' backs. McCoy Well that wasn’t an emotional rant or anything. And finally, a look at the ongoing presidential primary. QUOTE Winters: I am not running to saturate the airwaves[/b] McCoy: And yet the airwaves in Michigan couldn’t be more saturated with both candidates spending huge portions of their time in this hotly contested state. It is also interesting to note that despite his comment, Senator Winters is the only candidate to have put commercials on the airwaves within the past week. One such commercial dramatizes the horror of Senator Rose’s proposal to preserve Americans’ right to bear arms. The commercial suggests that if guns are on the street “I might die”. Hate to break it to ya, but we’re all going to die. Life is a disease, sexually transmitted and always fatal. Senator Rose meanwhile has continued to call for low-cost, high-quality healthcare. Presumably because Winters would prefer high costs and low quality. Winters has stepped up his attacks on President Pizzuto, suggesting that a dedicated president would have passed health care reform. It remains unclear whether he plans to apologize to Presidents Clinton or Obama for suggesting that they weren’t dedicated. Rose continues to call for a tax plan which will eliminate income taxes completely for all but the richest ten percent of Americans. Winters, however, is sick of reckless tax cuts. He says he will have one criterion for tax cuts—what we can sustain and where it can do the most good. Our two chief weapons are fear and surprise… and cold ruthless efficiency. Our three… Two final comments from the campaign trail: QUOTE Winters: the worst thing that could be done is to make a woman dis-empowered over her own body. McCoy: As many decades as this abortion debate’s been going on, how is it that the pro-choice movement still doesn’t know how to talk about the issue. Pro-lifers have it down pat. You won’t hear Buford Justice opining about making an unborn child ‘dis-empowered over its own body.’ And the winner of the saying the opposite of what you mean award for the day: QUOTE Rose: it is inexcusable that such popular disquiet be allowed to poison the public discourse. (IMG:http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii134/axfseilf/lonestarreport1.png) <commercial break> (IMG:http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_2tggLZ2rGkg/R_7iVp_TJTI/AAAAAAAACto/bq6ypY4mkOA/s400/pptaylor100408.jpg) McCoy: It is my great privilege this evening to present to you Texas’ outgoing Senator Basil Taylor. Welcome, Senator. Taylor: As always, it's a pleasure to join a fellow Texan on television. McCoy: Senator, you hold the distinction of being perhaps the most prominent Democrat in the Heartland delegation. This convention more than some of the others has been tasked with joining two very different regions with two very different laws. So much of this convention has come down to regional divides and regional primacy on most issues. Should the Heartlands be worried that you have so often found yourself on the Midwest side of a number of arguments? Is finding compromise and balance more important than ensuring the convention chooses laws you agree with personally? Taylor: Well, the thing about this convention is that it's supposed to nullify the difference between Heartland and Midwest, much like the previous regionalization was supposed to nullify the difference between Texas and, say, Oklahoma. I'm interested in providing the entire Region of Jefferson with policies that the general population will find acceptable, and the simple fact of the matter is that the Midwest is chipping in half of that population. Some people have looked at this convention as an annexation rather than as the marriage it's supposed to be, and I think that compromise now is the only way we can build the foundation for a successful regional government. Ultimately, what I want is for the eighty million people in Jefferson to have a fair government that'll work on their behalf. That won't happen if ideologues control this convention. McCoy: The convention has gone back and forth between support for a Taylor bill of rights, a Justice bill of rights… What should the delegates be considering in choosing a bill of rights for Jefferson? Taylor: I strongly believe that a bill of rights should state the general principles in which the people believe. I'm talking about things like the right to bear arms, the right to freedom of speech, and so on. My bill of rights contained all of those kinds of things and passed with something like 59% of the vote. On the other hand, Justice's bill of rights, which departs mightily from both the Heartland and Midwest bills, is a testament to extremism, and not to the fundamental rights that we must protect. A perfect example is the case of eminent domain. It is a practice that was specifically protected by both Regional Constitutions, and Davis Jefferson never attempted to ban it when he was Heartland Governor. But now we're going to get rid of it? When it serves a useful function and was protected by both previous regions? My bill of rights represents the expressed interests of the regions, and that's the only thing a bill of rights should do. It isn't the place to try and slip in far-wing policy decisions. McCoy: You stand as author of a prominent tax compromise. Would you like to explain what that compromise is and why we should be supporting it? Also, how do you figure that a 10.5% sales tax is low. Considering that the highest rate of sales tax… hmm, it’s 2008 numbers I have in front of me, but the nation’s highest state sales tax rate was California at 7.25%. Taylor: That actually isn't the current tax compromise on the table, though I'd note that the high sales tax figure you cite was actually seven percentage points lower than what the Republicans I was negotiating with originally proposed. I've offered a code with a 6.25% sales tax, a 3% flat income tax, a 4.5% corporate tax, and a few other similarly low taxes. Overall, the per capita tax burden will be about $5,000 per person, which would have ranked it in the lowest 10% prior to 2010's regionalization. The way the numbers work out, the revenue generated will allow the continuation of the basic programs that the Midwest has deemed necessary, and that I imagine many in the Heartland will like, without making anyone shoulder a particularly heavy burden. Actually, the per capita tax burden would be significantly lower than Texas' during the 2000s, so I think it's pretty clear that it's a good plan. McCoy: What prompted you to run for Governor and what do you intend to do in that office? Taylor: I enjoyed my time in the Senate, and I gave the people of Texas and the United States my all. But now is the time, as a great new region emerges, to take care of the homefront. I will be running for Governor of the Region of Jefferson, and I plan to bridge our region's polarizing divide between extreme conservatives and extreme liberals by providing straight-forward, practical leadership. I was originally elected because I promised to work, and work hard, for compassionate, efficient government. That's the kind of senator I was, and that's the kind of governor I'll be. McCoy: And most importantly, Longhorns or Aggies? Taylor: Neither. Go Horned Frogs! McCoy: Senator Taylor, thank you for joining us this evening. Taylor: Anytime. The dinner spread backstage is delicious. McCoy: And that’s the show for this evening. Good night everybody. (IMG:http://i852.photobucket.com/albums/ab90/Knuckle_Curve/seal-1-1.gif) |
|
|
|
|
26 January 2010, 21:07
Post
#26
|
|
|
National. Champions. Group: Administrators Posts: 559 Joined: 11-November 08, 19:26 From: Alexandria Member No.: 116 Gender: Male Office: President |
Aired primetime
Title: The Lone Star Report Author: Bill McCoy (IMG:http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii134/axfseilf/lonestarreport2.png) McCoy: Good evening and welcome to the Lone Star Report. I’m Bill McCoy. The word out of China this evening is cautious optimism. Chinese leaders’ rhetoric at least is showing a significant shift towards expanding freedom, even if their actual progress has been, at best, small. Particularly hopeful, however, is their move towards greater provincial autonomy, allowing local control to the communities that know best their own needs. America, meanwhile, is continuing its move away from local control as megaregional conventions come to a close. China—more freedom. America—less freedom. China—more freedom. America—less freedom. It’s not all bad news for Uncle Sam’s freedom lovers, though. The West has enshrined comprehensive gun owners’ rights into its very constitution, along with Senator MacLeod’s comprehensive Bill of Rights, as amended to dull some of the more partisan edges. It flatly rejected, however, Governor Renzetti’s proposal to provide protections for brass knuckles and nunchaku. Don’t our legislators understand that when nunchaku are outlawed—only criminals have nunchaku? As conventions finnish up business, capitals have been determined. The capital of Jefferson will be Jefferson City, Missouri—which may not be Texas but at least it has a certain poetic quality. The capitol of Dixie will be Columbia, South Carolina. The capitol of the North will be Boston, Massachusetts. And The West will have capitols in Sacramento, Carson City, Olympia, Phoenix, Denver, Honolulu, Boise, Salt Lake City, Salem, Santa Fe, Bismark, Cheyenne, Juneau, Hlena, Pierre, and in the back of an unmarked SUV being driven each day in a direction determined by the roll of a die. Up north, Congressman Walsh has proposed taxing abortion. The unsettling tax that’s actually getting support, however, is Governor Kudrov’s estate tax. Now don’t get me wrong—I’m in favor of a reasonable estate tax. But the idea is that it’s a tax for folks rich enough to have estates. Governor Kurdrov’s proposal—which admittedly was pulled straight out of Pennsylvania law—would impose an estate tax on even the poorest citizens who are having trouble putting bread on the table and might just be able to make this month’s rent payment with what little money mom and dad left them. A flat inheritance tax. And who is supporting this flat tax, a tax hitting the poor as heavily as the rich? Eighty percent of prominent Democrats and very few Republicans. Well what do you know? Seems like democrats in Jefferson supported a flat tax too. What is this world coming to? And taxes were quite the contentious issue in Jefferson as well. Senator Justice objected to sticking Heartland citizens with the bill for Mid-West levels of spending. Governor Kennedy objected to Justice tax cuts that would leave the region so deeply underfunded that completely removing the department of education wouldn’t cover the difference. There was also scuffling over whether the motto of the region should be “Lands of Justice, Liberty and Opportunity”—the motto which has actually been adopted, or “liberty or death”. Voting broke down largely partisan lines—both parties, presumably, like liberty. But democrats apparently would also like justice and opportunity, while republicans prefer death. It is with some chagrin that I noticed that Senator Justice was one of those who voted against justice. The convention ended with Governor Kennedy noting that he was yielding for the last time. So y’all better not let him talk ever again or he’ll filibuster. Senator Justice has, not surprisingly, endorsed republicans down the line on the regional ballot. He also declared Senator Taylor “Texas most infamous liberal.” Hey! What about me? Coming out of supertuesday, Senator Winters has managed to rack up a small lead over Senator Rose, in part by running up significant leads in the largest states. Senator Rose has the advantage of looking forward to votes in the West and North where his ideology is most likely to win accolades, but faces the problem of facing southern primaries first. Senator Winters is running ads equating Senator Rose’s defense of the second amendment to defense of prohibition-era gangsters, not so subtly connecting him with Senators MacLeod and Justice who also strongly support this freedom. Rose, meanwhile has advertised his lack of marionette strings by dancing with giant hands. Giant hands. Rose smash! (IMG:http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii134/axfseilf/lonestarreport1.png) <commercial break> (IMG:http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/images/06/11/the-rock.jpg) McCoy: With us today we have the People’s President of These United States, Jack Pizzuto. Mr. President it is such an honor to have you here with us. President Pizzuto: I’m glad to be here. You know we’re so busy right now in the White House I can’t do as many interviews as I wish I could; however, your show has a reputation for being tough…but fair, so it’s a pleasure to be here McCoy: Mr. President, there are some of us who have long been concerned that in a world which no longer contains any other military superpower we still maintain a military budget founded on the assumption that will have to fight two and a half simultaneous wars with two and a half superpowers. Your budget took the common-sense step of cutting costs by removing redundancies and inefficiencies in every department except defense. Is our defense department uniquely devoid of such inefficiencies and bureaucracy? And doesn’t such a high defense budget risk placing in the mindset that leads to war? President Pizzuto: You know many folks have, what I consider to be, a false belief that our world is now somehow magically safer because Ronald Reagan helped us emerge from the Cold War as the “only” super power. And if life was that simple, then maybe that would be true. However, the world isn’t that simple. The fact is that we have allies and interests all around the globe. In addition, huge economies are springing up in places like Brazil, India, China, and Russia. And for the most part military buildups do come with growth in economies….that’s just how it works. So we must not only see what is, but what is coming. And we must always remember that we can not be safe, if we are not strong. And that is why there will always be a floor to our military budget, that we must not sink below. That said, you want to know about the most recent budget and I can speak to that. You see, when I took office I was looking at a hostile North Korean situation; Mexico openly antagonizing us into an armed conflict; a nation of Afghanistan still in disarray. I campaigned against a Washington D.C. that thought that it was time to cut defense and homeland security. So when I got hold of the budget, we did not cut it. Now, as situations change, we will of course evolve. Afghanistan is finally becoming a safer and more orderly place. We’re winning the peace there. I have worked hard with Mexican President Cardenas to move away from a war footing, and towards an alliance. Yes we have spent on defeating narcoterrorists, but that’s nowhere near the costs of rolling tanks in to defend Arizona…as was previously the fear. So as situations change, we can begin to consider that in future budgets. McCoy: On the campaign trail, Senator Winters has been suggesting that your approach to Mexico has been a solely military one. Now that’s clearly an exaggeration at the very least as we have seen attempts at diplomacy. How much of an exaggeration is it? And might we have had better luck with diplomacy if Senator Sarmento had been our Secretary of State? President Pizzuto: You know I respect Senator Winters, but he’s wrong. The bill he supported was wrong, and his campaign rhetoric is not only wrong, it’s misleading to the American people. Firstly, our approach has always been to ensure American security first. And sometimes that does involve a military piece. While his bill wants a commission to study how to defeat terror…I’ve said, I don’t need a commission for it, I’ll just go DO it. I don’t need a commission to tell me that these thugs need to be defeated, or that drugs are bad for American kids. The American people are smart enough to know that, and so am I. Secondly, our approach has always been to treat Mexico like an equal partner and to actually LISTEN to what they need. Senator Winters, with all due respect, has never done that. So he’s speaking from a theory that has no relevance in the real world. I HAVE spoken with President Cardenas. I have listened to President Cardenas. I can tell you, and America, that there is more than just a military component with regards to defeating the terrorists. It’s something we’ve been working on since day 1, and we will continue to until the problem is solved. The simple fact of the matter is that what we’re doing is working. Our bold new tactics and plan is working where the old rhetoric and ideas failed. That’s what America voted for 4 years ago…and it’s on the ballot once again this November. Lastly, let me just say I was shocked and disappointed with how Senator Sarmento was treated by the Senate. And you know what, check the news, so were the American people. He is a great man, and did great things for us in his short stay. I won’t speculate about our luck with Marcos, but let me say how grateful this nation should be that we have Secretary Kellogg leading our diplomatic efforts around the world. She’s sharp, she’s tough, she’s not afraid to think outside the box, and she shares the ideals that say that we need to move towards as little intervention as possible lest we “over-entangle” ourselves in places we have no business being. She’s been more than we could have asked for. McCoy: With Chinese leaders talking about liberalization of policy, how optimistic are you about the prospects of a freer China in the near future? And what implications does this have for the Pizzuto Administration’s policy, economic and otherwise, toward China? President Pizzuto: Freedom is always something to be optimistic about. And you know sometimes we have to take risks on freedom. Now, that’s not the policy of the Democratic Party, and it won’t be the policy of my opponent in November. They have been clear: They believe we should pull away from the world. They believe free trade and integration are dirty words. And they believe that China should be out there alone. I don’t believe that. No, I’m always optimistic about freedom and yeah there will be some ups and downs, but we’ll push forward because it’s the right thing to do. McCoy: Your CHOICE health care plan passed the house with the support of most republicans and about half of democrats, but the democrat-controlled senate has successfully buried the bill. How fair or unfair is Senator Winters’ assertion that CHOICE failed because of lack of effort from the White House and what does the fact that it has not passed portend for America’s health care future? President Pizzuto: Well of course it’s unfair. Look our leadership got it passed, in the House, with broad support. But let’s be clear: 15 people denied health care to 32 million Americans. Senator Winters is one of those 15 people. It’s HIS job, during this campaign, to explain to those 32 million why he left them hanging out to dry. It’s HIS job to explain why his kids can afford to get sick at night, but for millions of others…they can’t. For my part I will say this: I will not quit making this an issue until those millions and millions have proper health care in America. And we will get there. Senator Winters, and anyone else can try to stand in my way of making that happen…but it will happen. I can be a bipartisan effort with a health exchange of ideas, as it will have to be, but the gloves are off when it comes to stonewalling the American People. McCoy: It has been asserted that your administration’s successes have largely occurred on the foreign policy front. What have you accomplished domestically, and what will be the domestic policy legacy of your first term? President Pizzuto: I think that you can talk about one bill or another but my legacy will be two-fold: One, Jeff Pooty, and I, went to Washington and did battle with that city. We tangled with reforming our entire health care system, and with trying to reform our education system. And as Hillary Clinton has said about her attempts….”we have the scars to prove it.” But you know what, good ideas are always good ideas and I’m asking America to give me 4 more years and a mandate from THEM that says that the Senate better stop stonewalling and start getting to work. Because, let me tell you something, what scares the hell out of folks like Senator Winters, Senator Rose, and everyone else…is us winning re-election. Because if we win it will be a mandate; not just on what we did, but on our ideas. And they will be FORCED to act. Second, our budget. We cut the deficit by more than anyone imagined and more then my predecessors. We didn’t raise taxes to do it, and we didn’t cut the vitial spending on security that you, and I, spoke about before. I’m proud of that budget and I was happy to work with folks on both sides to make it happen. Secretary McKenas Cole deserves a ton of credit here too. McCoy: Looking back at your first term, what do you wish you had done differently? What accomplishment are you most proud of? And what should we expect from a second Pizzuto term? President Pizzuto: When I took office our nation was preparing for possible war with our brothers in Mexico. Our diplomatic efforts to that point had failed, our policies on defense had failed, our policies on border security had failed. My first day in office I actually had to prepare a contingency plan for what to do if tens of millions of Mexicans appeared as refugees on our southern border. That’s the level of clean up job I had in front of me. And now? The whole ballgame has changed. Mexico is a great and equal ally, not just dedicated to their security…but OURS! We tossed aside the broken border strategy and went in a bold new direction. A direction my predecessors could not, or would not, take us. So I would say I’m most proud of our accomplishments with regard to Mexico. As far as what I would have done differently? I really wanted to get a Social Security Reform bill in front of Congress. However, with CHOICE being bogged down so much in partisan muck, we simply couldn’t fight that battle and get SSI to Congress. I wish CHOICE had passed so that we could have put our SSI bill before America. But I can say that we will should we win in November. We understand the battle for CHOICE now, and we understand how to navigate the waters when it comes to reforming Social Security. We must do something and at some point some Administration has to be brave and take on this issue…we will. McCoy: Mr. President, thank you so much for being here this evening. President Pizzuto: Thank you so much for having me. McCoy: And that’s it tonight. Come back next week when you’ll hear Nurse Piggy say… well, nothing. This isn’t The Muppet Show. (IMG:http://i852.photobucket.com/albums/ab90/Knuckle_Curve/seal-1-1.gif) |
|
|
|
|
07 February 2010, 21:58
Post
#27
|
|
|
National. Champions. Group: Administrators Posts: 559 Joined: 11-November 08, 19:26 From: Alexandria Member No.: 116 Gender: Male Office: President |
Aired primetime
Title: The Lone Star Report Author: Bill McCoy (IMG:http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii134/axfseilf/lonestarreport2.png) McCoy: Good evening and welcome to The Lone Star Report. I’m Bill McCoy. Presidential nominating conventions have been the talk of the day. And I was, of course, there in San Diego where the Republicans held theirs. You know, because Republicans love California. I joke—but it did toss an awful lot of electoral votes to Pizzuto four years ago. Day one focused on freedom, with the possible exception of Northwest Majority Leader Reiber who seemed more interested in cross-country uphill walking. Representative Teller asked who the candidate was that put at their core the advancement of individual freedoms. Hmm. Reproductive freedom. Marriage freedom. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. Corporate bailouts Pizzuto has supported. First Amendment freedoms in general. Teller realizes that this is the republican convention, right? Representative Kim then called for change. Of course, the sitting president is Pizzuto so change would mean… <scratches head> And Senator Justice stepped forward to suggest that we desperately needed to rein in spending on “wasteful social programs” and that President Pizzuto is the only man who can fill that role. This is, of course, the same Senator Justice that considers Pizzuto’s primary legislative priority—the CHOICE Act—to be a “wasteful social program”. At this point I double-checked to make sure I was at the right convention. Secretary Cauthon provided the evening’s keynote, announcing that she was “proud to join this party tonight.” Funny, I thought she was a member of the party back when she was serving as senator. The second night focused on Law an’ Order. I’ll be honest, I missed most of it. All the anti-those-accused-of-crime rhetoric had me retching. I did catch Representative Reiber’s speech, however, whose central theme seemed to be that tariffs and protectionism were huge mistakes. This is, again, the convention to nominate President Pizzuto who signed protectionist legislation as Governor of the Mid-Atlantic. *shrug* I went back to my hotel room after the convention. Apparently they had some “special event” later with Vice President Pooty’s speech. On day three, the Republicans declared themselves the party of free love. Oh, wait… republicans… make that love for whoever can afford it. Love, it turns out, is just another way of saying protect the environment by empowering the coal companies and protect loving marriage by making sure that marriage isn’t about love but rather about sex. The second half of the day, however, delved into trickier issues—there was a large focus progress, specifically regarding health care but also in general. Senator Sarmento, himself the poster child of Democrats choosing ‘bad for Pizzuto’ over ‘good for America’, made probably the most succinct and persuasive speech of the convention—laying out a convincing map of the many times in recent years Democrats have declined to move us forward for fear it would make the President look good. The Democrats, meanwhile met up on the other end of the country in Charlotte, North Carolina. Senator Wells began the convention with the assertion that The Democratic Party chose Senator Winters to stand up against Pizzuto. You know, not to be president or anything. Governor Renzetti suggested that President Pizzuto has been “asleep at the wheel”; citing Mexico, healthcare, education—all issues Pizzuto has worked on as President, presumably while asleep. She then cited Pizzuto’s actions she disagreed with—such as conditional relief dollars for California, again presumably while asleep. If Pizzuto can do all this while asleep, imagine what he’ll accomplish when he wakes up. Senator Maximiliano suggested that gay rights are “the last vestiges of discrimination”. Really? Fix gay rights and you really don’t think there will be any more discrimination issues tomorrow? Day one ended with two keynote speakers—Senators Rockefeller and Jackson—neither of which could be bothered to actually show up. But at least they weren’t asleep. Minority Leader Dixon kicked off day two by suggesting that America had spend the last 75 years as “beacon of hope, liberty, and freedom.” Until Pizzuto was elected. Then it evidently suddenly stopped being such a beacon. Senator Taylor suggested that dealing with Mexican drug lords wasn’t a game of chess. Presumably because chess is so unsophisticated. Senator Santos-Carter talked about going hiking. We’re still looking into whether he and Majority Leader Reiber have decided to hike together. Senator Wells wore a lot of hats and introduced Vice Presidential Candidate MacLaggan. Representative Trent spoke about health care, declaring President Pizzuto’s failure to pass health care reform. Trent never actually said that he also considered Presidents Clinton and Obama failures, although he did so characterize the 1990s. The third day’s keynote speaker, Governor Kennedy, also couldn’t be bothered to show up in person. He suggested that President Pizzuto had come into office unused to dealing with an unfriendly legislature, even though he had faced an unfriendly legislature for fully two thirds of his gubernatorial term. Senator Rose, Winters’ primary opponent, played the symbolically significant role of seconding the motion to declare Winters the nominee by acclamation. It is equally symbolically significant, however, that such a prominent figure did not have a speech at the convention. In all, the republicans had a very structured convention, if a bit off-tune at times, built around “Freedom, Law and Love” while the democrats built the entire convention around a vague promise of “Renewing America’s Dream”. Don’t get me wrong. I’m strongly leaning toward a Winters vote personally. But if the democrats want a victory they’re going to need to show a less chaotic face than this and they’re going to need a stronger rallying cry than “Pizzuto hasn’t accomplished anything except for the things he’s accomplished.” (IMG:http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii134/axfseilf/lonestarreport1.png) <commercial break> McCoy: Ladies and gentlemen we have a special treat for you tonight—Texas’ own Senator Buford T. Justice. Come on out Senator. Welcome to the show. Justice: Thank you kindly good sir, it’s a pleasure to be here. McCoy: Please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong—but I believe you share my belief that the main reason for even having a government in the first place is to secure and protect our freedom. You have said yourself that “I always evaluate whether privacy is going to be invaded or freedoms removed when assessing whether I'm going to vote for a bill and if it does either of those things, I will vote against it.” Yet one of the big accomplishments you point to in the recent megaregionalization convention is a ban on gay marriage. What business does the government have poking its nose in and telling us who we are or aren’t allowed to marry? Justice: America is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles – and as an elected officer of the Constitution it my job to support the principles and values upon which our Union was created. In giving homosexuals the right to marry, you undermine procreation which is the primary purpose of heterosexual marriage whilst legitimizing sodomy which is wrong and condemned as so in the Good Book. Since marriage for legal purposes is controlled by the government, there is no good reason as to why same sex marriage cannot and should not be banned by that same government. McCoy: Does it really make sense that marriage is controlled by the government? Wouldn't marriage, being a religeous ceremony, be better defined by the churches than by a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington? Justice: Marriage is already also defined for religious purposes by religious organizations and some churches do perform gay marriage ceremonies whilst the majority do not, in line with the Good Book. However for legal purposes, it makes more sense to have marriage defined by the government as the central legal entity. McCoy: Continuing with the interaction of freedom and government, you have been a major advocate of business deregulation, the abolition of the environmental protection agency, et-cetera. Why is a corporation’s right to pollute than an individual’s right not to be poisoned? Why is a corporation’s right to be execute deceptive contracts more important than the freedom of an individual who isn’t fluent in legalese? In short, why is corporate freedom more important than individual freedom? Justice: To be equally short, corporate freedom is no more important than individual freedom, but individual freedom is no more important than corporate freedom either. To pick up on a couple of points, in a state of complete business deregulation, corporations are not going to pollute everything they can because that’s not going to win them business. In terms of contracts, anybody has a right to enter into a contract with a company on whatever terms they negotiate between them and they also have an absolute right not to be subject to contracts they don’t understand or accept that’s why I support freedom of contract principles and oppose restrictive labor laws. McCoy: With your selection as the senior senator providing over the Heartlands you have pledged to work as hard for the Farmbelt as you have for Texas. Can we still count on you to put Texas first? Justice: I will do my utmost to work for Farmbelt with all my might, but Texas will always have a special place in my heart. It’s where I was born, raised and where I will be laid to rest. Texas is a nation within our union where everything is bigger and better and as someone poetic once said, “”the sun has riz, the sun has set, and here I is in Texas yet". McCoy: You have claimed as a personal accomplishment the removal of President Pizzuto’s health care plan from Senate consideration. Are you at all worried that you may have played a part in undermining your President’s domestic credibility? And what do you feel is an appropriate approach to health care? Justice: Not at all – I was elected by the state of Texas to serve Texas, not serve my party or the man in the White House. I made it abundantly clear that I would not support any big government health plan like that proposed by the President and hence I did my best to see that CHOICE did not pass. An appropriate approach to healthcare is completely removing government from the arena – government is the problem, not the solution. McCoy: Tax policy. Do you fundamentally believe that some level of taxation is necessary for a functioning government? Where do you feel those tax dollars should be coming from? Justice: I do not believe that any level of taxation is necessary for a functioning government – I believe that our government could survive on the generosity and patriotism of hardworking Americans once they are freed from the barbaric shackles of taxation. McCoy: Longhorns or Aggies? Justice: The dear old Texas Aggies McCoy: Senator Justice, thank you for joining us this evening. Justice: Thank you, sir. McCoy: And that’s it for The Lone Star Report this evening. May free love renew America. Good night. (IMG:http://i852.photobucket.com/albums/ab90/Knuckle_Curve/seal-1-1.gif) |
|
|
|
|
13 February 2010, 19:48
Post
#28
|
|
|
National. Champions. Group: Administrators Posts: 559 Joined: 11-November 08, 19:26 From: Alexandria Member No.: 116 Gender: Male Office: President |
Aired daytime
Title: The Lone Star Report Author: Bill McCoy (IMG:http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii134/axfseilf/lonestarreport2.png) McCoy: Good evening and welcome to The Lone Star Report. I’m Bill McCoy. Election season is upon us, and so leaping right in—Secretary Cauthon would like to be our governor. Among the positions she lays out in her platform: “Support the successful merger of the Heartland and Midwest Regional Guard.” This… as opposed to the numerous candidates supporting a failed merger? “Encourage Schools will better options to buy food from local farms through tax credits.” Also encourage schools will better teaching talking and grammar. The Secretary has also called for massive tax cuts, tax incentives and a veto of new taxes; massive new spending on border control, crime fighting, education and touted her support for Pizzuto’s government investment in health care; and vowed that she would only propose balanced budgets. Less money coming in. More going out. Balanced budgets. If she has time, she will also be taking a math class. Meanwhile, Senator Taylor lays out in his platform an agenda that is eerily similar to the Secretary’s in many respects. He does, however, seem a bit less specific; a bit less obsessed with tax cuts; and perhaps more realistic economically, although it is unclear how much of that is just lack of specifics. Senator Taylor also manages to hint at protecting gay rights without having to use the word “gay’, manages to remain so vague about abortion as to leave his position, were one to look solely at his platform, entirely unclear and pledges to empower voters—although I wonder how politic it is to describe criminal conduct as a “race-related barrier”. Senator Fitzgerald is so interested in the needs of Texas that he has titled his platform “Fitzgerald for the Farmbelt”. Really Fitz? Really? Fitzgerald has gone on to propose instituting a national sales tax. Are your sales taxes too low? How’d you like them cranked up by an additional 30% of the purchase price? He believes all persons should have access to basic healthcare. To make this a reality, he would like to let health insurance companies engage nationwide in a race-to-the-bottom to see who can provide the least care to make the most money and to “allow” poor people to buy health insurance. He also wants to protect traditional marriage. You know, in case anyone runs at it with a bayonet or anything. Congressman Chang’s platform at least has the appearance of having been dusted in the last half-decade. He is running, he informs us, as himself. I didn’t realize there was another option. Once he gets down to outlining his plans, however, Congressman Chang presents the usual excessive military funding and immigrant-bashing, abortion restriction and educational expenditures so typical of a candidate trying to hold down the base while appealing across the aisle in a very red state. Meanwhile, people are running for races outside of the farmbelt. Anyone care about those? <pause> Moving on. Polls show republicans and democrats both prefer their vice presidential candidates to the top of the ticket. Well duh. Last time we had a real democrat running for president my daughter hadn’t even been born yet. (IMG:http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii134/axfseilf/lonestarreport1.png) <commercial break> McCoy: Tonight it is my pleasure to welcome the lovely Governor Amanda Renzetti. Welcome, Governor. Renzetti: It is a pleasure to be here, Bill. McCoy: You have the distinction of being the most prominent voice at the recent regionalization convention. Yet with a democratic edge at the convention, you managed to come up with a constitution that independent analysts have described as “the most right-leaning Constitution in the nation”. What happened? Renzetti: Simply put, in spite of democratic opposition to the conservative MacLeod bill of rights and MacLeod gun laws, the Republicans mustered more votes, and they passed. The conservative elements out-voted us, and this constitution is the result. There were as many Republicans as Democrats at the convention, and when they lined up to re-write the constitution from politically neutral to conservative we did not have the votes to stop them. McCoy: You have stated your support for the second amendment, but you have also pushed to roll back the regional constitution to state-level control for the Big Sky and Sunbelt. Why are states’ rights more important than individual rights? If Colorado wanted to become a slave state, would that be more important than a Coloradan’s right not to be enslaved? Also, why just the Big Sky and Sunbelt? If Wyoming deserves the right to determine its own gun laws, why doesn’t Oregon? Renzetti: My motion to amend the constitution isn't about states rights at all. It is about individual rights. When the Southwest was formed, the individuals of the Southwest decided that they would write a constitution that protected the will of the people in each of its component states. So, when the megaregional convention came around, I fought for this right to self-determination in my original draft of the Constitution. I am fundamentally uncomfortable with the concept of the clear and manifest will of the people being overwritten in what could best be described as a smoke filled room. Even if I disagree with this will of the people, I absolutely cannot in good conscience go into a back room and run roughshod over it. This system was the choice of the people of the Southwest, and an identical system could have worked quite well for the Northwest. While the Republicans proved time and time again in the megaregional convention that they do not care about the freely chosen laws and constitutions of the people of the West, I do. So my referendum is about giving the people of the West a choice on the issue. If they choose to keep the MacLeod gun laws, I would be fine with that. If they show that they do not want these laws, though, then it is absolutely the right thing to give them that choice. McCoy: In the past you have presented yourself as a champion of equal rights for America’s gay citizens. You say that, given the opportunity, you will work to amend the constitution to secure gay marriage rights. Yet at the same time, you personally wrote the constitution that denies them. Were you wrong to push that constitution then? Or are you wrong to seek to change it now? Renzetti: Neither. My proposed constitution maintains all referendums passed by the Southwest, save for the dangerously misguided legislative approval system for senators. The fact of the matter is, as I said earlier, I cannot in good conscience go into a smoke filled room and will away the manifest will of the region, even if I vehemently disagree with it, as I do in this case. And besides that, if we had attempted to enshrine equal rights in this constitution, I am afraid that the backlash would set the movement back years. The people have been very clear on the issue - and how exactly would having a couple hundred politicians overriding that will prevent equal rights from being banned again in 2020 or 2022? That could be a setback that pushes the movement back years. It would be a setback that we simply cannot afford if we want true equality soon. The fight for equal rights is not going to be won in legislative chambers. It is going to be won in the hearts and the minds of the people of the West. Woman's suffrage was not implemented from a smoke filled room. Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King had to take their stands of defiance before racial equality could be truly established. If we want to see real gains - permanent gains - in equal rights for the LGBT community, we will need to push for them from the bottom up. And unlike my predecessor I am ready and willing to make that push. By the end of my first term in office, I will make sure that marriage equality is on the ballot, and I will do all in my power to make it a reality. McCoy: You are proposing tax cuts and spending increases. How does that work? Are you planning to just run up debts and leave your successor with the tab? Or do you have a secret plan to pay for it? Renzetti: A number of ways. First of all, tax revenues in the Southwest have been raising these last four years since the earthquake, this natural increase in tax revenue will pay for some increases in spending and tax cuts without necessitating anything else. Second, I will implement the lions share of the reforms pushed for in the California Performance Review. Analysis of the California Performance Review stated that if all of its components were implemented, it could save the state of California 32 billion dollars over five years. Now, it is extremely doubtful that that number is anywhere close to accurate at this point, but the Government of the West is derivative of the Government of California, and so there is still billions of savings to be had from these recommendations. Thirdly, my Healthcare for all Southwesterners act, due to my initial underestimating the magnitude of the cost savings contained therein, should mathematically produce a net revenue for the Western government. This frees up more then a billion dollars in government savings I was originally planning on being spent on Healthcare to be spent on other issues, such as improving the economy. And, finally, merging the tax codes of the Southwest and Northwest presents the unique opportunity to minimize the economically toxic sales tax, lower and middle tax income tax, and corporate income tax, while maintaining a balanced budget. McCoy: Senator Adcock-Carson, who represented one of the most conservative former regions and holds uncommonly strong anti-gay and anti-women’s rights positions is the democratic candidate for Lieutenant Governor of the West. In a megaregion consisting of the very socially liberal California and Cascadia and the Big Sky and the Sunbelt—both arguably more economically than socially conservative—is the Senator really a viable option? And if she wins who will the sizeable number of socially liberal democrats in the legislature have to turn to for leadership? Renzetti: From an electoral standpoint, I would say that Senator Adcock-Carson is viable. She was able to, in spite of all odds, defeat a popular incumbent for re-election in 2014, and so I see no reason why she could not be elected Lt. Governor. Now, yes, I think Senator Adcock-Carson's views on LGBT equality and abortion are backwards, and I disagree completely with them. I feel that Senator Adcock-Carson and myself agree on a range of issues, from regional security to economics to education, and by and large we should be able to work together for the region. But make no mistake, if I am elected Governor of the West I will continue to be a steadfast warrior for the right to choice and LGBT equality no matter who the Lt. Governor is. So, they could turn to myself, or my good friend, former Southwest Majority Leader Caroline Washington. McCoy: Governer Renzetti, thank you so much for joining us this evening. Renzetti: Thank you. It has been a pleasure to be here. McCoy: (IMG:http://i852.photobucket.com/albums/ab90/Knuckle_Curve/seal-1-1.gif) |
|
|
|
|
21 February 2010, 17:38
Post
#29
|
|
|
National. Champions. Group: Administrators Posts: 559 Joined: 11-November 08, 19:26 From: Alexandria Member No.: 116 Gender: Male Office: President |
Aired daytime (in The Hill Report's old timeslot)
Live With (IMG:http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/3584/rockefellerlogo.gif) JACKSON P. ROCKEFELLER (IMG:http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/1505/1720jfk20jr21.jpg) Live from Toledo, Ohio PIZZUTO RE-ELECTED, BUT AT WHAT PRICE? Does the loss of the popular vote mean no mandate? ROCKEFELLER: Barely edging out Democratic challenger Lincoln Winters, President Jack Pizzuto wins re-election but loses the national popular vote. I should also note that the President's electoral victory was even closer than it was four years ago against me. In most cases, incumbents are re-elected with some measure of an increase of support, such as Bill Clinton's increase in electoral votes in 1996 despite still failing to get over the 50% popular vote threshold and, in 2004, George W. Bush finally won the popular vote. But, for President Pizzuto, it seems he's gone backwards from 2016 to 2020. But, does that really mean anything in Washington or to the nation? Let's discuss with our political analysts, Bob Nare and Nancy Kefer. KEFER: The loss of the popular vote always signals trouble for a President, but losing it in a re-election bid is a bad sign for the Pizzuto Administration. It means that, despite an electoral college victory, Jack Pizzuto's first term left a bad taste in the mouths of the majority of American voters. NARE: But the question is -- does it really mean anything? I'd say no. To get things done, the President needs Congress and not really a popular vote victory. ROCKEFELLER: Are you suggesting that mandates are not real? NARE: I think popular opinion sways Congress, giving members - especially those in the President's party - either more or less freedom on backing the President's agenda and policies. But, do that have a direct affect - no, not really. ROCKEFELLER: And President Pizzuto is now dealing with a split Congress, with House Democrats and Senate Republicans in charge. So, it won't exactly be easy in that respect. We didn't see much bipartisan efforts out of the White House during the President's first term. Do you think we'll see more now? KEFER: The President's loss of the popular vote and poor electoral vote performance, compared to 2016, means that he has won little, if any, political capital. So, if the Administration wants to push an agenda with any measure of real success, the President will have to reach out to both sides of the aisle. NARE: That's a fair assessment. While I think talk of mandates is more for spin purposes, its fair to say that people on the Hill won't feel any initial pressure to tow the White House line. ROCKEFELLER: We saw that in the Senate last session where quite a few members of the President's party refused to back the White House's healthcare proposal, their one key initiative. Granted, by its very nature, the Senate is a difficult place to garner votes. But, the lack of effort in the past to reach out by this Administration makes me wonder if the President's second term will be any different. Yet, President Pizzuto's post-election speech sent the same signals as the last four years -- let's take a look.... QUOTE (President Pizzuto on election night) You know, a lot of folks are asking me if The People's President no longer applies. Many on the left are claiming that the vote this evening is proof that this is so. But my friends, what The People understand and what the left never has.....is that being The People's President was never about me, it was about them. I'm not the People's President because the people will always love Jack Pizzuto. I'm the People's President because, Jack Pizzuto, will ALWAYS love The People. I'm not the People's President because the people will always back me, no matter my position. I'm the People's President because I will ALWAYS back America! Finally, I'm not the People's President because I win, or don't win, an election. I'm the People's President because I have elected to spend my life serving the finest folks that mankind has ever known. ROCKEFELLER: First, no one can ignore the ridiculousness of the President giving himself a title like the People's President. I've always thought that was absurd, but that's that. My question is who is asking Jack Pizzuto if 'The People's President no longer applies'? Who are these 'many people on the left'? And why does Jack Pizzuto think the American people care? KEFER: If the President is asking, then he should realize that, no, he does not deserve to give himself such a title. It's one thing if the media does it, but this is evidence of a huge ego and, with the loss of the popular vote, he should know better now. Jack Pizzuto's poor re-election preformance should be a wake-up call for the White House. If it's not, then we're stuck in another four years of domestic inaction and foreign policy blunders - except this time, the majority of Americans did not approve. NARE: Why the President focused his post-election speech on his self-given title, I'm not sure. But, if the President has any sense of the political climate he is walking into for his second term, he'll be prepared to manuever within it. However, history does show us that modern Presidents who earn a second term are less likely to adapt, like Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and Bush all ran into major problems that were largely absent from their first term. ROCKEFELLER: Bottom-line, the title matters little because it does nothing for the American people and sounds like a President more concerned with his own ego. The real concern for the American people are the poor election results for the incumbent that should be a wake-up call for the Pizzuto Administration, and very well might go unnoticed if the President's post-election speech is any indicator. With the megaregional conventions and post-convention elections, Senate Republicans have walked away with a heavy majority. Technically, this should really help the White House. However, personalities tend to outweigh numbers in the U.S. Senate, so that could end up being a difficult road to haul for any Presidential agenda. And, as stated earlier, the Democrats retook control of the House majority after two years in the minority. It will be interesting to see how the next two years plays out between Congress and the White House, special title or not for the President himself. THE BUDGET BATTLE Will Washington repeat the 2017 Budget Crisis? ROCKEFELLER: In 2017, the nation went through the agony of the federal budget crisis. First, the budget was late and when I say late, I mean two continuing resolutions later we still didn't have a proposal. Second, the Administration's promise of bipartisan negociations never happened. And, the clock was ticking towards a full government shutdown only years after the last one. So, after opening my own bipartisan talks and establishing an agreement with leaders in Congress on a general framework, the budget was introduced and the process began. We passed the budget in record time working against the clock and, while it was too close for comfort, Congress delivered a federal budget to the White House and averted a federal government shutdown. To be honest folks, this was a nightmare scenario. In fact, I still don't know why Treasury Secretary McKenas Cole still has a job in Washington after this debacle. But, here we stand - at the precipice of another budget cycle - and I'm calling on both the White House and leaders in Congress, on both sides of the aisle, to get their butts in gear and begin bipartisan negociations that will establish a clear, workable framework for the budget process and to start it, if not yesterday, now. To discuss the budget process, I invited two old friends, Speaker Jennifer Dixon and Senate Majority Leader Archie Foster, to speak with me so we could see where the process was at now and where it was going. Live with Rockefeller Jennifer Dixon SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE (IMG:http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee197/ThomasUSG/kirsten-gillibrand.jpg) ROCKEFELLER: Where does the House currently stand in the budget process? Have any negotiations begun with Senate leaders or the White House? DIXON: Neither the White House nor the Senate Majority have approached us for any negotiations, talks, brainstorming, nothing. At the moment we have to prepare for the worst case scenario which is partisan trench warfare, in that, if need be we will prepare our own responsible budget to compete with the Administration's if we continue to be shut out of the process. I hope it doesn't come to that and we can all deliberate and put our heads together so we can all avoid as much conflict as possible. Recently myself, Majority Leader Kennedy and Majority Whip Maximiliano held a press conference in which we all said we want to work and talk with everyone to make the best possible product. The ball's in their court now. ROCKEFELLER: What is your plan for proceeding with the budget process in the House, with the Senate and with the White House? How will you avoid an impasse on the budget? If the budget is late, like it was in 2017, what is your plan to avoid a federal government shutdown? DIXON: My plan for negotiating and discussing the budgetary matters is if they call us and invite us to the table we'll go sit down with them in good faith and see what we can all accomplish together. The budget, or budgets will go through the BIC Committee, and upon passage will go to the floor. At this point I plan for the budget to be the only item on the House floor when that happens. I can't promise that we'll not have an impass because we feel as strongly on issues important to us as the Republicans feel are important to them so naturally both sides are going to dig their heels in a bit but the crux is, for us to get this nation back on track we have to all come together and prioritize, make some hard choices, and do what is best for our people. If worse comes to worse we'll do a continuing resolution if we're in the process of good faith talks and making progress. ROCKEFELLER: After the budget debacle of 2017, do you think Treasury Secretary McKenas Cole has the credibility to remain the Administration's key figure in the budget process again? DIXON: I honestly didn't know he was still on the job as he hasn't said anything public since the last time the President submitted a budget. In times like this I would have thought he'd be out there as the voice of reason and to calm fears but he seems to be AWOL. I don't think this serves the President, nor the American people very well and its my deep hope that the President has someone around him who knows what they're doing. ROCKEFELLER: What is off the table in terms of items, cuts or changes to the budget? What will you demand to be included in the budget? Obviously, you, the Senate and the White House can't get everything you want, so how will you compromise with the President's budget proposal? DIXON: I don't want to go into this with a mindset of this is off the table and that is off the table. Obviously through our different ideologies, we value certain spending and certain tax cuts and hikes and the Republicans do the same. This is a time to come together and work together to find as good a solution as we both can manage and both agree to, even if we grit our teeth a little. Recently myself, Majority Leader Kennedy and Majority Whip Maximiliano held a press conference and our message was united: We will sit down in good faith with the Senate and the White House to try and find a roadmap back to prosperity. The President says he's consulting Congressional Leadership but he isn't talking to us. I've said it before; he has my number and he knows where I work. The ball's in his court if he's serious about finding solutions to this mess. ROCKEFELLER: Thank you Madam Speaker and good luck! With respect to balance and fairness, I did ask Senate Majority Leader Archie Foster to join us today as well. However, his office did not issue any comment to our interview request, but hopefully next time he'll be able to join us. And that's all the time we have today. See you next time. |
|
|
|
|
01 March 2010, 07:40
Post
#30
|
|
|
National. Champions. Group: Administrators Posts: 559 Joined: 11-November 08, 19:26 From: Alexandria Member No.: 116 Gender: Male Office: President |
Aired daytime
QUOTE The camera pans around the studio. The skyline of Phoenix is visible in the background through the glass walls of the studio. After a few seconds, it focuses in on the host, Matt Berryhill.
Berryhill: Good evening, America. After our extended hiatus, I would like to welcome you all back to the new and improved Matt Berryhill show. This evening, we discuss the current events that are on everyone's mind: the war in Asia. For those of you who have been out of contact with TV the world these last few days, one of the former world Superpowers is once again involved in a shooting war. Russia, Georgia and Turkey are at it, and in a turn of events I do not think anyone saw coming, Russia is getting beaten badly. Berryhill: Here to share his view on these events, we would like to welcome former US Senator Julian Gervasius Williams. Senator Williams was on the Foreign Relations, Intelligence and Defense committee for the entirety of his Senate career, and was its Chairman for 2 years. He is also a veteran of the US's wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia. The camera pans out slightly to show Williams sitting next to Berryhill (IMG:http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm312/Krispy37/USGS/JulWIMG/viggo-mortensen-20061013-168553-1.jpg) Berryhill: So, Senator, how surprising is the... we have to say resounding victories the Turks have had on the battlefield. Williams: Not very, Matt. What the world has to realize is that the Russian Army that the Turko-Georgian forces are facing now are not the Red Army of 1943 to 1970. This is not the same Russian Army that developed the T-33 tank that decimated Nazi Germany, the MiG 15 which gave the US Air Force all it could handle over Korea. This is not the same Russia who beat us into space, developed the first successful Assault Rifle, and was a real threat to US military dominance. No, what we are seeing is a clear continuation of what we saw the last time Russia fought the Georgians; that the Russian military is a paper tiger - a backwards, by the numbers military. Berryhill: You are saying that the Russians are not a threat to Turkey then? Williams: No. Absolutely not. The Russians are a very, very real threat to Turkey. The Russian Army is absolutely massive, the Russian Air force is massive. While the Black Sea Fleet may be a highly atrophied relic of no particular consequence, the sheer size of the Russian military makes them dangerous to Turkey alone. Berryhill: Then what exactly are you saying? Williams: Let me put it this way. In 2008, Russia and Georgia went to war. Even though Georgia had no air force to speak of, even though it is a tiny state, and their army could generously be called minuscule and inconsequential, it took Russia a full 9 days to defeat them. For reference, it took only 100 hours for the Allied offensive in Operation Desert Storm to bring the massive Iraqi army to its knees. Russia's performance in that war, was in short pathetic. This same Russian army was defeated by the Mujahadeen in the 80s. Even if the Mujahadeen had American backing, the fact is that a ragtag force of that nature, even armed with stingers and anti-tank missiles, has no business beating a 'superpower' army on the field. Williams: Breaking down the actual air and ground units engaged, the Sukhoi Su-35 and Mikoyan MiG-29 are relics at best. While simulated air combat between the US Air Force and Indian Air Force has shown that they would likely be able to hold their own against the likes of the F-16 and F-15, the export model F-35 Lightning IIs Turkey fields are in a whole different league. And we can see that by the 4 to 1 kill ratio in favor of the Turks in the air. On the ground, a technological breakdown is less clear cut, but organizationally, the Russians Army has a long history of being lackluster. Historically, it has by and large lacks professional Non Commissioned Officers, morale among junior officers has tended to be extremely low due to high workloads and arbitrary whims of superiors, and more then five hundred Russian soldiers died in 2002 due to accidents and crimes. For reference, less then 500 American soldiers died in Iraq in 2008 and 2009 combined. As of 2005, two in seven Russian conscripts were addicted to drugs, and one in twenty were victims of rape. While there is no good data on how modernization efforts have helped, the overall picture is of an army less ready to win a war and more ready to collapse on the field. Williams: However, I must stress highly that all of what I just said does not mean doom for Russia's army in this war, just most likely a high casualty rate. There are many historic examples of a large, poorly armed army defeating or at least fighting to a standstill a smaller high tech army. There was China fighting the UN police force in Korea to a standstill. There was Iran, with only the aid of North Korea, fighting US and USSR backed Iraq to a standstill in the eighties. According to Jane's Information Group, individual troop survivability has never been a priority for the Russian military. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that a large factor in the success of the Turks and Georgians so far is that they were the ones who initiated open war, ensuring that they would have a large tactical advantage initially. But if Russia keeps throwing bodies into the gap, this tactical advantage will vanish. If the Russian people are ready and willing to suck it up, and throw their entire military into the meat grinder, this could yet end very poorly for Turkey and Georgia. Williams: What I am saying is this. What we are seeing is a war of numbers versus technology. Quality versus Quantity. And I honestly cannot say which will win out if this battle continues as it is presently. Berryhill: The Russians seem to be doing well enough in the Azerbaijan theater. Williams: Azerbaijan's military is nothing special. Russia has numbers in that theater, and Turkish air power can not reach out that far. However, in the grand scheme of this war, Armenia and Azerbaijan will most likely largely cancel each other out. Berryhill: And of course, there is always the nuclear option for Russia. Williams: As long as this conflict stays local, I do not see Russia taking the nuclear way out. While there is a real chance NATO may not get involved given that the war seems to be a result of Georgian aggression, using nuclear weapons on Turkey would certainly cause the alliance to intervene, at best leading to a resounding military defeat for Russia and at worst leading to the end of the world as we know it. Russians are nationalistic, not stupid. They are not going to nuke someone they know has the US nuclear stockpile behind them. However, if Turkish forces set foot on Russian soil, and especially if they make strong progress into Russia, all bets are off. And I cannot begin to predict what would happen if this becomes a multi-front war for Russia. Berryhill: So what exactly do you think Russia is going to do going forward? Williams: I would like to start by saying that that is impossible for me to predict, given that I am sure Russia has had back channel diplomatic communications with at the very least America and China. Without knowing how China responded, or knowing what face America has presented behind the scenes, an accurate prediction is impossible. However, I think that unless both the US and China present a strong, united, public push for a cease fire, Russia is probably not going to back down. Russians are a very nationalistic people, and they will not want to be humbled by Turkey, a nation long considered a second or third rate power at best. It would be horrible for both Russian morale back home, and Russian interests abroad. How will they be able to bully Ukraine when Ukraine can point to the Russian history of military defeat? Given that Medvedev rose to power in what was essentially a coup, a defeat at the hands of Turkey could very well undermine the legitimacy of their government at home... and it is obvious that Medvedev does not want to let that happen, lest he go the way of his predecessor. They already rejected one Turkish offer of a cease fire, even though it would have given them an opportunity to move more troops to the theater. And now that President Pizzuto has framed this not as Russia versus Turkey but Russia versus America... well... Russia cannot afford to back down now. Berryhill: So is there any hope for peace without additional bloodshed? Williams: Again, unless the United States and China both come strongly down on Russia, I doubt it. Russia is going to be desperate to save face, and so the terms for peace for them would at the very least require returning to the pre-war status quo I think. Turkey and Georgia are not going to give up the gains that they have made. Berryhill: Some commentators have expressed concern about this war spreading further - say, into Eastern Europe. Do you think this, or perhaps an outpouring of Middle Eastern support for Turkey, is possible? Williams: In the Middle East... Iran, if it intervened, could certainly pose a problem for either Russia or Turkey, but I cannot see that happening. Iran does not particularly like either Turkey or Russia, and a nation with that many problems is not going to want to invite military hostilities of any sort. And I do not think Israel has the ability to project power far enough to actually help Turkey. Williams: I do not see this conflict spreading into Eastern Europe either, barring obviously a NATO intervention. Russia probably does not want to tangle with either Poland or Ukraine right now, simply because a two front war would take vital manpower away from defeating the surging Turks. On the flip side, I do not see either Poland or Ukraine being confident enough in their military prowess to try and take a bite out of Russia - they still use mostly post-soviet equipment, and much of eastern Ukraine is Russian speaking anyway. And even though Finland made a deal with the devil to try and regain land and national pride from Russia in World War 2, I cannot see them making the same choice today. Finnish Karelia, Salla, and Petsamo are too long gone for them to go to war over. Not to mention, there is the not so insubstantial fact that Finland and Russia get along very well. Of course, if NATO land armies invade Russia, all of this goes out the window, but such a scenario is likely to lead to nuclear war so I do not see it as likely. Berryhill: Moving a bit more into the political angle of this, Senator, what do you make of President Pizzuto's response to the war? Williams: I am under no illusion that I am seeing all that is going on. President Pizzuto has never been an open president, and he certainly has not been keeping the public at all informed about his actions here. His public actions have so far been... bad at the very best. His public speech consisted largely of talking down to the Russian people, while barely playing lip service to peace. He has pinned publicly all the responsibility for this war on Russia, when all public information available indicates that Georgia was the nation that got this mess started. That is not a recipe to get Russia to the table. Now, there is a very real chance that the President has information showing that Russia actually was the aggressor here, but if he does, why isn't he making it public? And the public declaration that the US will be giving Turkey major arms shipments seems unnecessarily belligerent to me as well - these shipments would be better not talked about if he feels the need to make them. President Pizzuto could have made a strong public peace push, but he didn't, and I feel that is a major mistake. Williams: And, well, it seems like this mistake has come back to bite us. Medvedev has publicly came out and condemned the speech, so it does not look like he will be coming to the peace table any time soon. Obviously any undermining of the peace process is dangerous to say the least, but that isn't even the worst part. The worst part is now Medvedev has President Pizzuto on tape condemning his nation. Let me tell you, there is nothing that will rally Russians to this faltering war effort then handing them the ability to propagandize this conflict as Russian interests versus American interests. Russians versus their historic enemy. Getting Russia to stand down will be a lot harder now. Berryhill: What about the pair of resolutions on this conflict that have come up in Congress? Williams: I do not think either of those resolutions ever should have been written, introduced or brought up for debate. Unless FRAS has turned up information that is not public, which it would not have had time to yet, it is foolish for Congress to try and pass resolutions of any sort right now. We should not encourage Georgo-Turkish aggression, but neither should we publicly abandon them either, and Congress very well could do one of those things. Berryhill: There was recently an arcticle in the New York Times advocating a dissolution of NATO. Your thoughts on this? Williams: I feel that dissolving NATO would be a horrible mistake. It was NATO that brought an end to the ethnic cleansing that was going on in Serbia. I fought alongside NATO troops in the mountains of Afghanistan. There always has been and always will be factions who seek to return America to a state of pre-1917 isolationism, but that would be the worst mistake we could make. We need to keep our friends close, because there will someday again be a day that we will need them. However, we also need to make it clear that being a NATO member does not give a nation a blank check to start wars. And... well, I think that this incident proves that we cannot trust Georgia to join NATO. Berryhill: Interesting. One last question, Senator. Is there any chance we may see you return to politics in the future? Williams: I will never say never, but with my recent health problems I cannot see it happening. Berryhill: That is too bad to hear, but thank you for your time, Senator. Williams: Thank you for having me, Matt. |
|
|
|
|
04 March 2010, 18:09
Post
#31
|
|
|
National. Champions. Group: Administrators Posts: 559 Joined: 11-November 08, 19:26 From: Alexandria Member No.: 116 Gender: Male Office: President |
Aired prime time
(IMG:http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01009/question-460_1009767c.jpg) Lars Johansen: Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to the first Episode of "Question Time" with me, Lars Johansen. This show has one aim: to get past talking points and force politicians to interact and debate with each other and defend their ideas in front of the American people. The first panel to be put under the microscope consists of Democrats Senator Addie Jackson and Congressman Hunter Rose, Independent Senator Chester! Perry and Republican Congressman Dan Welty. Let's jump right in. Lars Johansen: Does the Help America Act cut taxes or raise them? Senator Jackson? Senator Jackson: Cut taxes overall, Lars. It provides for more credits for working folks, programs that they need to pay for to help them focus on their jobs, and the like. The only reason that the current administration is concerned about it is because this bill just ensures that corportations are paying the taxes they should. Ensuring fairness is what we're told is a hike now by the Republican Party. But that's not what this is. Lars Johansen: Congressman Welty? Congressman Welty: This is a stealth tax hike, Lars. Ending the tax deferral will cost us billions and hurt the economy overall. Senator Jackson: Billions? Really? Congressman Welty: $100 billion in domestic investments. Lars Johansen: Where is that number from, Congressman? Congressman Welty: The President's veto statement, Lars. Congressman Rose: And where did he get it from? I'm genuinely curious, because the President cited no source. So, I wonder if that number came out of the sky, or if it has a basis in fact. Senator Jackson: So, that $100 billion in investments will magically disappear? Lars Johansen: Please, one at a time gentlemen. Senator Chester, you have something to say? Senator CHESTER!: Thank you, Lars... it's interesting to see the only criticism of Congressman Welty's critique of the bill is in its magnitude. The fact remains that yes, there will be a detrimental effect on domestic investments as a result of this bill. Senator Jackson: <shakes his head> Lars Johansen: You disagree Senator Jackson? Senator Jackson: Of course. Once we see where these so-called "facts" come from, then I think we can talk about whether or not this bill is truly detrimental. I don't see anyone jumping to the fact that this bill eliminates- completely- capital gains taxes on small businesses. And I can tell you that's going to help investments. Where's the number for that? Oh, we can't talk about it. Senator CHESTER!: I think that's a fair point, Senator Jackson. Why not make eliminating the capital gains tax on small businesses a legislative goal in its own right? Lars Johansen: Senator Jackson? Senator Jackson: There are 14 other Senators you could ask that of, Senator. Most of them are your friends in the majority. Senator CHESTER!: I think that's a fair point, Senator Jackson. Why not make eliminating the capital gains tax on small businesses a legislative goal in its own right? Lars Johansen: Senator Jackson? Senator Jackson: There are 14 other Senators you could ask that of, Senator. Most of them are your friends in the majority. Senator CHESTER!: Lars, if I may... I'd like to ask Senator Jackson if the Democratic Senate Caucus would support a bill to eliminate capital gains taxes on small businesses... Lars Johansen: Senator Jackson? Senator Jackson: Lars, my answer to Senator Perry is simple, but probably not what he's looking for. I don't see any reason why not. Then again, I didn't se any reason why the Republican Senate majority would stand in the way of amendments that would cut taxes for working Americans or that would stand in the way of programs designed to help people find jobs that paid for through cost offsets. Senator CHESTER!: Senator, I was not looking for a specific answer, but merely an answer at all. I hope we see your enthusiasm for small businesses continue as the session unfolds Lars Johansen: Congressman Rose, do you think the President did the right thing in vetoing the bill? Congressman Rose: No, I don't, Lars. I think the President vetoed this bill because the people it raises taxes on are the same people who donate money to his campaign, and the people it cuts them for don't. That's real reason he vetoed a package of tax cuts for working Americans is claiming it's because of a crackdown on offshore tax evasion. Lars Johansen: Congressman Welty, I'll give you the last word on this topic before we move on. Congressman Welty: Lars, we need to be able to compete globally, and taxing overseas investments will cripple that. Lars Johansen: Moving topics, did President Pizzuto go too far by sending troops to Turkey during the recent crisis? Senator CHESTER? Senator CHESTER!: Absolutely not, Lars. Turkey responded to Russia's aggression in Georgia in the way I think we'd like any NATO ally to respond. It was appropriate for the President to provide support for our ally in their mission to restore peace and order to the region. Lars Johansen: Congresman Rose, I have a feeling you're going to disagree with that? Congressman Rose: I think the Senator's answer demonstrates exactly what's been wrong with the President's response to the crisis: a knee-jerk assumption that it is Russia that fired the first shots, and that therefore Georgia and Turkey are the defenders in this instance. Maybe they're getting different news reports than I am, but from what I understand, it was Georgia that sent in the troops. Senator CHESTER!: Lars, I'd like for Congressman Rose to elaborate on any reasonable situation for which the Russian army should be on the ground in Georgia engaging Georgian forces, and then spreading the conflict to Azerbaijan. Congressman Rose: They're not in Georgia, they're in South Ossetia, which has been de facto independent from Georgia for decades. Senator CHESTER!: Only a small handful of nations recognize South Ossetia's claims of independence ... Congressman Rose: ... Which is why I said "de facto," not "de jure," Senator. Senator CHESTER!: The only thing "de facto" about their claim to sovereignty is the aggressive stance of Russia's armed forces. Georgia does not have the capability to stand up to Russia in an armed conflict, which is why Russia can hold a gun to its head and keep tanks on Georgian soil. Gunboat diplomacy has been dead for centuries amongst civilized nations. It is my hope with this latest conflict we can see it die in the Caucuses as well. Lars Johansen: Congressman Welty, your take on the President's actions? Congressman Welty: It is worth noting here, that U.S. forces were never engaged in combat with the Russians. What the President did was draw a line in the sand and say "if you enter turkish airspace or invade Turkish soil, we will defend it. Given that the conflict did not spread to Turkey itself, that demonstration of support should be considered a success. Senator CHESTER!: I think that's the important thing to remember, Lars, the President's actions worked. Peace was restored and Russian hostilities have been put in check for now. Lars Johansen: Congressman Rose do you think that this problem could have been avoided if Ameria left NATO, as you have proposed in recent legislation? Congressman Rose: Yes, I do. The only reason there was a problem in the first place is that America remains bound, by a seventy-year-old treaty that it is thirty years behind its expiration date, to defend Turkey from all attacks, even ones it initiates. If there were no treaty, then this conflict would be nothing more than yet another in a long line of Eastern European territorial spats, with no potential whatsoever to turn into a full-scale global war between thermonuclear powers. Lars Johansen: Senator Jackson, your thoughts before we move topics? Senator CHESTER!: Before we hear from the Senator, would the Congressman like to point out what, exactly, Turkey invaded? Congressman Rose: Would the Senator like to point out what, exactly, Russia invaded? Russians troops had been in South Ossetia for almost three decades. It was Georgia that launched an attack, and Turkey that joined them in the attack. Congressman Welty: ... And what about Russia's invasion of Azerbaijan? Was that justified as well? Senator CHESTER!: I believe the Congressman answered his own question. For three decades, Russia has been holding invasion forces on Georgian territory. Turkey joined an ally in defending its own soil when hostilities erupted. Senator Jackson: Standing up to defend our allies, that's fine- though I agree with Congressman Rose that we need to be careful if a treaty requires us to defend an ally that is playing the role of aggressor. All I'll say is that I'm glad it ended how it did- with a cease-fire. Lars Johansen: Gentlemen, it's time to move on ... no ... Senator CHESTER!: ... Yes -- I'd like to hear about what Turkey invaded and why it was alright for Russia to expand its invasion into Azerbaijan ... Lars Johansen: No, I must insist. It's time to move on. Lars Johansen: After again seeing a President elected without a majority of the popular vote, is it time to repeal the Electoral College? Congressman Rose? Congressman Rose: It's been time to repeal it for decades, Lars. A system that allows a President to be elected despite a majority of the country voting against him? A system that spits in the face of "one man, one vote" by giving the votes of some states more weight than others? A system that crushes the possibility of a multi-party democracy by reducing every race for President to a two-man campaign? Yes, it is time for the Electoral College to go. Lars Johansen: Congressman Welty, as a Republican you must be breathing a sigh of relief that we still have the electoral college? Congressman Welty: Well, the electoral college has been a successful way of choosing our Presidents for 230 years. I expect these arguments will die down over time. I would add that the idea of miltiple parties has nothing to do with the electoral college, or we'd see more third parties at the congressional level. I'd also ask Congressman Rose if he's in favor of eliminating the Senate, since it also gives disproportionate representation to the lesser populated regions. Congressman Rose: The American people have been successful in choosing our President for 230 years. Presidents who are chosen by the Electoral College tend to be duds. And whether I would consider doing away with the Senate is irrelevant, because the Constitution forbids it. Lars Johansen: I'd like to bring in Senator Jackson at this point. Senator, your thoughts? Senator Jackson: I wonder if the COngressman is saying that because his party seems to be the benefactor in these situations. Frankly, this is a discussion we need to be having more often- not just every four years. Talking about the electoral college every once in awhile gets drowned out by the party that happens to win because they can just say "oh, you're bitter!" and be done with it. Our Founding Fathers had a great idea. I doubt they thought that the U.S. would ever have 300 million people in it. And the current system, combined with our two-party system which didn't exist in the first elections, may have more perverse effects than even the founders intended. Lars Johansen: Okay gentlemen, I think we have time for two more questions. With Mexican drug cartels dragging America into a shooting war in Central America, is it time that politicians addressed the real cause of this problem - drug prohibition? I'm going to throw this one to Congressman Welty. Congressman Welty: Well, Lars, I opposed to ending prohibition of certain drugs, but I'm certainly willing to have that discussion, but I don't see how ending it will somehow cripple these cartels, but as long as these cartels are trying to violently establish their own authority within Mexico and influence Mexican politics on the local and national level, our border areas are going to be threatened. Senator CHESTER!: I largely agree with the Congressman's assessment. It just doesn't make sense to deregulate the very narcotics fueling the cartels' violence. Keeping our drug laws intact and cracking down on organized crime are absolutely necessary going forward. Lars Johansen: Don't these cartels draw their power from the fact that legal organisations can't get involved in the industry, like when gangsters took over alcohol production in the thirties? Congressman Rose? Congressman Rose: Lars, with all due respect to the Senator and the Congressman, I think they lack a fairly basic understanding of the laws of supply and demand. When you ban a narcotic, you don't make the demand go away, you simply restrict the supply, which causes the price to skyrocket and fills the coffers of these drug gangs. And, as you say, the prohibition on drugs does prevent legitimate corporations from entering the market and competing ... Lars Johansen: Senator CHESTER you'll have your chance in a moment, let the Congressman finish! Congressman Rose: Now, this is not to say that legalization is necessarily the way to go, but if it isn't, then eliminating the demand clearly is, because trying to stamp out supply has failed on a catastrophic, level. Senator CHESTER!: Doesn't the Congressman think it a bit reckless to introduce a larger supply of narcotics into American neighborhoods? And what is to stop the cartels from using a legalized drug merely as a springboard to increase the trade of more extreme drugs to maintain profits? Congressman Rose: I think it's might very well be more reckless to leave these drugs totally unregulated, and to treat those addicted to them as criminals, rather than people in need of medical help. And I do not believe that will be the case because, in a competitive market, I believe that legitimate businesses would drive out the criminal element. Lars Johansen: Senator Jackson? Senator Jackson: Apparently we believe in liberty except when it comes to what you put in your body. The new Republican slogan. I agree in part with Congressman Rose. And I'm surprised that my colleagues here don't give the free market a bit more credit. More production of marijuana- which, by the way, is less harmful than a lot of legal substances that we let people smoke in the streets- would bring down costs. The problem of consumption should be an issue left to states if anything. But by doing this, we take money away from the cartels. So long as there is a limited market, they can continue to line their pokcets with greenbacks- and their competitiors with lead. Do we need to legalize every drug? No, that would be absurd. But we can't sit here and say that the current path is the best one. Senator CHESTER!: I agree with the Senator's sentiment about local control. We need to be in the business of shrinking federal government in regional and state government. His perception is refreshing in light of many of his caucus's actions in relation to local rights. But to somehow trust the cartels to back off once we've ruined their marijuana sales is absurd. It will simply up the ante and put their muscle behind more expensive, more dangerous, and more addictive drugs.... Senator Jackson: <laughs and shakes his head> Senator CHESTER!: ... We've even seen this within the marijuana trade. The marijuana smoked today has been honed to be far more addictive and harmful than the grass smoked in the 1960s. Lars Johansen: How do you know that, Senator? Senator CHESTER!: <laughs> Purely on what I've read, Lars. I assure you. Lars Johansen: Okay gentlemen. The last question, or should I say, questions, please try and give me a one word answer. What is your favourite sport? Senator CHESTER!: Baseball. Congressman Welty: Baseball. Senator Jackson: Baseball Congressman Rose: Figure-skating. *cheeky grin* (crowd laughs) Lars Johansen: Favourite vacation spot? Senator Jackson: New Mexico Congressman Rose: Las Vegas. Senator CHESTER!: the Carolina shore Congressman Welty: Las Vegas Lars Johansen: and finally, the one item you would take with you to a desert island? Congressman Rose: A teleporter. Lars Johansen: That exists, congressman Congressman Rose: My copy of The Essential Gore Vidal. Senator Jackson: Satellite phone. Those do exist. Congressman Welty: A big bag of water purification tablets. Senator CHESTER!: Actually, I'd probably bring my prop plane. Lars Johansen: You own a plane? You must be the only member of Congress to own your own plane. Senator CHESTER!: It hasn't been flown in a long long time, but my grandfather bought one to dust our fields. I think we could rig it up again, though. Lars Johansen: That's all we have time for tonight. I'd like to thank our panel, Senator Jackson, Senator CHESTER!, Congressman Rose and Congressman Welty. Music plays out |
|
|
|
|
09 March 2010, 09:19
Post
#32
|
|
|
National. Champions. Group: Administrators Posts: 559 Joined: 11-November 08, 19:26 From: Alexandria Member No.: 116 Gender: Male Office: President |
Aired prime time
Title: The Lone Star Report Author: Bill McCoy (IMG:http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii134/axfseilf/lonestarreport2.png) McCoy: Good evening and welcome to The Lone Star Report. I'm Bill McCoy. With election results in, President Pizzuto spent an inordinate portion of his acceptance speech explaining why he can still be referred to as “The People’s President” despite losing The People’s Vote. He did not, however, explain why anyone should care whether or not he refers to himself as The People’s anything. Congresswoman Rockefeller, as well as Senators Sarmento and Justice and numerous democratic leaders, were shocked—shocked—at Congressman Bradley’s assertion that there is racism in the south. Next you're going to tell me there’s snow in Alaska. Governor Kowalchuk was so horrified he called for Congressman Bradley to apologize and to be limited to only 3/5 of a vote in congress. Bradley also authored legislation to create a government agency to tell people where to work. Democrats were quick to join republicans in stripping the bill of virtually all provisions. As of yet there are no reports of a new Bradley “hammer, sickle and stripes” flag. Recent power polls describe Congressman Bradley as having “significant sway within his caucus”. This is, of course, the same caucus that runs from him and his positions at every opportunity. Congresswoman Topov has argued that military veterans have provided service to their country and therefore deserve special treatment for the rest of their lives. Evidently, killing people is the only service one can provide the country deserving of such special rights. He explained this position with an apt metaphor—if someone helps paint your house, Topov explains, you become responsible for every medical bill they will ever incur. You can’t make up stuff like this. Congressman Cobb felt the need to propose an amendment forcing schools to teach English. Because there are so many schools that don’t teach English. He went on to explain, however, that he kept the amendment intentionally vague so no school would have to do what it didn’t want to. So, the purpose for the amendment again was….? The West has been struggling between two competing visions for minimum wage policy—neither of which works. Democrats want to throw money hand-over-fist at corporations. Republicans want a complex, bureaucratic system. Democrats subservient to big business. Republicans pushing for big, bureaucratic government. In other news, Hell has opened an ice skating rink. And back home in the Region Of Jefferson (ferson… erson… son….), Governor Houston has explained that the reason health care costs so much is because doctors do a good job and that isn’t always a good thing. *shakes head* Comedy is dead. Tonight, we have a freedometer reading for the House of Representatives. As always, the higher the ranking the more pro-freedom the voting record. Negative numbers are bad. Without further ado: Freedometer: 5: Quartermain, Rose 4: 3: Cameron, Cobb, McClure, Reiber, Straw 2: Brennan, Durham, Hamilton, Hayden, Henry, Kant, Kennedy, Knightly, MacLeod, Malina, Norton, Rhodes, Roberts, Rockefeller of Illinois, Silas, Snow, Topol, White of Arizona 1: Abernathy, Alice, Bickenbach, Cannon, Chang, Clayton, Davenport, Everson, Glavine, Green, Hall, Hennessey, Kane, Kinte, Layne, Maximiliano, Miller, Payne, Rashid, Richards-Kennedy, Rodriguez, Stark, Steenberghe, Townsend, Vanleer, Vaughn, Watkiss, Wheeler, Young 0: Bradley, Dixon, Goodman, Houston, Joyce, Kagura, Kim, LaSalle, Morey, Rockefeller of Ohio, Schurz, Williams -1: Ashford, Goldbeck, Haller, Kasten, Lyakhou, Morrison, Richardson, Sullivan, Wallace, Walsh, White of California -2: -3: Thompson McCoy: Dixon's ranking may be somewhat misleading. As a tie-breaking speaker she has taken far less opportunities to vote and thereby missed opportunities to improve (or harm) her ranking. The freedometer’s never been asked to compile such a large set of ratings before. We’ll need to let her take a rest before we can get senate rankings together. (IMG:http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii134/axfseilf/lonestarreport1.png) <commercial break> (IMG:http://blog.prospect.org/blog/ezraklein/s-KIRSTENG-large.jpg) McCoy: This evening we are joined by Speaker of the House and all-around powerhouse Jennifer Dixon. Welcome Madam Speaker. Dixon: It's a pleasure to be here Bill. McCoy: Recent House polling found you to be the most powerful member of the house, specifically noting your ironclad ability to get democrats behind your agenda. Leading a caucus as famously fractious as the democrats how do you hold the party together? Dixon: I'm blessed to have not only a great caucus but terrific leadership around me. Leader Kennedy and Whip Maximiliano have done a top notch job. It's a real team effort and as a team we know what our ultimate goals are. McCoy: With a republican president and a commanding republican majority in the Senate how much power does a democratic house of representatives really have? Dixon: *grin* Well I'd like to think when it comes to a national agenda it's truly fortunate that we are the House majority. We have shown all session long that we are pushing the real reforms for this nation and this economy. Anyone who's concerned about education, labor rights, civil rights, middle class tax reform, or a dozen other topics can rest assured we're fighting for them. McCoy: With the recent presidential veto, backed by unanimous republican opposition to tax cuts, job support and day care—have Democrats become the party of low taxes, jobs and family values? Dixon: Democrats traditionally have always held the hard working people of America in the highest regard. We fight for their safe working conditions, we fight for a clean environment for them, we fight for lower taxes on the people who do the heaviest lifting and we fight to give them the best educational opportunities for themselves and their children as possible. I don't think its a situation where suddenly our values have changed, I think its more shocking how quickly the Republican agenda wants to leave these folks behind. Every time we send the President a bill to cut someone's taxes he vetoes it and then complains that we had the audacity to want to make it harder for CEOs to hide their money in the Cayman islands. We send him a bill to help expand health care professionals to more people can get more access and he vetoes it. Well I hope he has his pen ready because we're going to keep passing legislation to benefit this country and it's up to him if he wants to keep vetoing them. McCoy: From ending the death penalty and segregation of gays in the regional guard as lieutenant governor of the Northeast through your Senate career and Speakership, what accomplishment are you most proud of? Dixon: That's a hard question. I think it would be the 2020 election where the American people chose us to lead again in the House. I spoke to literally thousands of people personally and hearing their stories and their problems really puts it into focus. We're here to represent them and to make their lives better. It's a huge responsibility but every time we pass a bill like the Veterans Mental Health Act, the Voting Rights Act permanent extension, or the Help American Recover Act that we talked about a moment ago, it makes it worth it. McCoy: What plans do you have for the future, both personally and for the democratic party? Dixon: For the party I just want to be a Speaker which my caucus and the people of this nation can respect. I show up to work every day, I keep order pretty well, and we're advancing a steady stream of legislation for the good of the nation. Personally, you never can tell what will come down the pike. I can say though that I love my job. McCoy: Speaker Dixon, thank you so much for joining us this evening. Well folks, that’s all for tonight. Until next time, keep your friends close and your handgun closer. (IMG:http://i852.photobucket.com/albums/ab90/Knuckle_Curve/seal-1-1.gif) |
|
|
|
|
13 March 2010, 13:34
Post
#33
|
|
|
National. Champions. Group: Administrators Posts: 559 Joined: 11-November 08, 19:26 From: Alexandria Member No.: 116 Gender: Male Office: President |
Aired Primetime
(IMG:http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Media/Pix/pictures/2008/04/30/DavidDimbleby460.jpg) Lars Johansen: Welcome to the second episode of Question Time, with me Lars Johansen. We go past the talking points to force the newsmakers of the day to confront the American people over the issues that Americans are talking about. With me under the microscope today are House Majority Whip Maximiliano and Governor Kudrov for the Democrats, and Congressman Durham and Congressman Kim for the Republicans. With that, I'd like to go straight to our first question. Lars Johansen: Does the panel believe that the Federal Government should pass a national law allowing abortion until viability? Governor Kudrov? Governor Kudrov: I think we have an issue that has very strong believes on both sides. I don't believe this is an issue the Federal Government should be interferring with. Several Regions have taken it upon themselves to enact different regulations, regulations that passed with the approval of the voters of those regions through referendum. For the Federal Government to override the will of those voters would just be a gross misstep of power. Lars Johansen: Congressman Durham? Congressman Durham: Well, no. I don't believe that the Federal Government should be the ones to regulate abortion. Ultimately, I think that abortion legality and regulation should be handled by individual regions and states. So I suppose the Governor and I are in a degree of agreement there. Lars Johansen: Congressman Maximiliano? Congressman Maximiliano: Generally I agree with both the Governor and Congressman Durham. Abortion is a very divisive issue, and like with other equally controversial issues, such as, say, same-sex marriage, we should try and leave it to the regions whenever possible. Lars Johansen: And yet it is your party, Congressman Maximiliano, that has brought up the Freedom of Choice Act in the House - indeed you are part of the leadership team that sets the docket ... Governor Kudrov: I hate to interrupt here, but Congressman Maximilano, if you feel its best left to the region then why did you vote for the Freedom of Choice Act which would overturn regional regulations? Congressman Maximiliano: Because I still feel very strongly that abortion is a right that we shouldn't take away from women, though we may find it either immoral or distasteful. So, presented with an opportunity to defend abortion at a national level, I chose to act on it, even if I wouldn't have brought it up myself Governor Kudrov: So it isnt an issue that should be left to the regions? Those are two conflicting statements. Congressman Maximiliano: I personally do not think the matter should have been brought up, but my feelings on the issue are such that I could not vote against it either. Congressman Kim: Do you typically vote based on your feelings or where you think the law should properly be decided? Congressman Maximiliano: Typically, I vote based on my feelings when it is an issue which I feel particularly strongly about. Abortion is one of those issues. As to the governor, I will say once again that I would not have brought up the Freedom of Choice Act, precisely because I would rather the issue be left to individual regions, but this was an opportunity to advance the pro-choice cause that I could not, in good conscience, pass up. Lars Johansen: I'll give Congressman Kim the last word. Congressman Kim: This is an issue traditionally left to the states, and it should be decided in the regional legislatures. It brings unnecessary division along social lines into our nation's capital and around the country. It is absolutely scandalous that the Speaker has not only pursued her course of action with regards to the abortion bill in the house, but also the manner in which she has presided over it. It is merely a means to polarize this country in an effort to gain more solid control over certain areas. Lars Johansen: Alright I'd like to move on to our second question. What does the total absence of CHOICE from the Senate docket say about President Pizzuto's style of leadership in the domestic sphere? Congressman Kim? Congressman Kim: Well, Lars, I feel that the fact that President Pizzuto remains committed to CHOICE, as I have discussed this very issue with him before, reflects well enough on his leadership style. I remain confident that CHOICE will be addressed by the Senate, but it ultimately isn't the President's prerogative to set the docket. Lars Johansen: Congressman Durham, would you like to come in here? Congressman Durham: I'll be honest, I'm not close enough to the Pizzuto Administration to know what the President's plans are for CHOICE. And, in my own opinion, I'm not a proponent of CHOICE. But I do believe that the lack of CHOICE on the Senate floor does bring some question to what the President's agenda is on the matter. If I'm not mistaking, there was a considerable public backing to CHOICE. And it would be a shame to see that kind of public support ignored. Lars Johansen: Congressman Durham, are you suggesting that the Senate Republican leadership is moving too slowly on this? Congressman Durham: Yes. Governor Kudrov: What leadership style are we talking about here? Is it the type of leadership that remained silent all last session until it was pretty much too late to do anything? Or is it the type of leadership that is refusing to use his bullpit to demand Congress take action on this issue? Congressman Kim: With all due respect, the President has no authority to demand any action of Congress. That is our republican system of government, Governor. He can give his opinion, and he has, but he cannot instruct. Governor Kudrov: President Pizzuto has shown largely that hes a hands off type of President, remaining largelt silent. So how can we claim that hes doing anything to move his agenda forward? And Mr. Kim, please. We both know what he can do and what I meant. Health Care Reform needs to be adressed now and President Pizzuto is doing nothing to try to advance any type of reform. This is the same thing we saw from last session, and despite campaign promises and what the American Electorate said they wanted, we continue to see utter silence. Lars Johansen: Congressman Maximilano - the House has already passed a different comprehensive reform package. Do you think that there is any chance of a bi-partisan consensus on this critical issue? Congressman Maximiliano: I'd like to say there is, but at this point, I'm not so sure. CHOICE doesn't even seem to be popular within the President's own party, as evidenced by the fact that it's not even being discussed in a Senate dominated by the GOP, so I can't see how Republicans would be willing to work with Democrats on the issue... Lars Johansen: This leads me to ask the question to the Republican members of my panel: is the President too moderate for the conservative base of the GOP? Congressman Kim: He won the nomination, didn't he? He's not too moderate at all. He is a solid Republican. Lars Johansen: Congressman Durham? Congressman Durham: Lars, I consider myself to be on the far conservative side of the Republican Party. You would be hard pressed to find a President that would fall in line with some of my stances, but that's the beauty of our system. Differing opinions. Do I think President Pizzuto is too moderate? Yes, I do. But in the same sense, I think the President carries a degree of moderation that may be necessary for the Presidency. Governor Kudrov: He is a solid Republican who supports reforms that his own party members can't get behind. How does that make any sense? If he were a solid Republican and his health care package was solid republican, why has his own party thus far refused to consider it? Lars Johansen: Congressman Kim? Congressman Kim: I think you'll find that the Republican Party, including its representation in the House and Senate, supported the Pizzuto CHOICE bill last session. It would not surprise me, given changes in the composition of the Senate since that time, some more preparation time in ensuring that the bill is passed in acceptable form, especially given the Democratic Party's attempts to completely change the contents last time it was considered. Lars Johansen: Okay I think it's time to move on to our next topic. Governor Kudrov: The Senate also seems to be made up of less of those Republicans ... Lars Johansen: Thank you Governor but we have to move on ... Governor Kudrov: ... and more of the Justice and MacLeod types or those who oppose it. Lars Johansen: Really Governor, we're moving on now. Next question: do the recent partisan flare-ups over decorum in the House suggest that Jennifer Dixon should not be retained as Speaker moving forward? Congressman Maximiliano? Congressman Maximiliano: Short answer? Absolutely. Long answer? Some House Republicans have crossed the line repeatedly, including I have to say Congressman Kim who's here with us today. It is the Speaker's job to maintain decorum, no matter who's being called to order, it just so happens that Republicans have crossed that line far more often than Democrats have. I also have to say that it's only a "flare up" because House Republicans have completely overreacted. Lars Johansen: Congressman Kim, I think you might have a response? Congressman Kim: The fact of the matter is that Speaker Dixon has repeatedly abused the power of the Chair in her dealings with the House and has had to been corrected numerous times by the Parliamentarian. I stand by every single one of my comments directed at her conduct while controlling the chair. It is a fact that during the most recent abortion debate that Speaker Dixon repeatedly allowed members of the Democratic Party to claim spurious motives on the part of the Republican Party, she has repeatedly abused the amendment process in an attempt to prevent the legislature from conducting its business, and in all of this she has refused to maintain the basic standards of impartiality and objectivity required of the chair of any parliamentary body. Purpose comes before order, and if the Speaker flagrantly disrespects the very purpose of the House I will call her out on it. Lars Johansen: Congressman Durham? Congressman Durham: To the original question, I think that Speaker Dixon should be removed. Let me tell you, Lars, I was on the floor of the House when Congresswoman Henry, Minority Leader Reiber, and myself made motions to appeal the ruling of the chair. Speaker Dixon chose to blatantly ignore those appeals, despite being motioned and properly seconded. Now, I hold a great deal of respect for the authority of the gavel, but the Speaker DOES NOT have the authority to ignore an appeal of the chair's decision. I'd like to point out that, after ignoring the properly stated and back claims by the minority, Speaker Dixon conceded on the point of the Henry Amendment and suspended voting on the Rose Amendment anyway. So I'm confused as to why the Speaker wanted to cause the chaotic "flare-up" in the first place. Especially after lecturing the House a number of times on supposed infractions to the Rules of Decorum. Congressman Maximiliano: It's called a mistake, they happen Congressman Durham: No, Congressman. It's called blatant ignorance of the rules of the House and tyranny of the Majority. Lars Johansen: Governor Kudrov. As an outsider, what are your feelings on this issue? Governor Kudrov: I wont pretend to be up to date on all of the procedures of the House, or everything that has happened there. As an interested party in some of the Debates, I was able to witness some of the more dramatic flare ups. I will say I would hardly call Mr. Kim's conduct as simply calling the Speaker out. And these supposed remarks made by Rep. Nelson were completely twisted by Republicans into something that was never said. I think Jennifer Dixon has always represented her region well, and I have not seen or heard anything justifying removing her as Speaker. Lars Johansen: Okay Congressman Maximiliano, I'm going to give you the last word on this Congressman Kim: Mr. Maximiliano, I have one question for you. Congressman Maximiliano: I'll let the congressmen ask me his question, it's only fair. <Lars Nods> Congressman Kim: Do you not agree that if the Speaker were shown to intentionally be disregarding the rule and traditions of the House to pursue a specific agenda that the Speaker should be held to account by whatever meants possible? Seeing as breaking those rules is a direct attack against the procedures of government. Congressman Maximiliano: By whatever means possible? Congressman, Speaker Dixon made a mistake, a mistake which she quickly rectified when the Parliamentarian informed her that it was, in fact, a mistake. As for pursuing a specific agenda, that's what Leader Kennedy and myself are for, and considering how poor Republican turnout has been, abuses of power are frankly unnecessary and she's just as aware of this as I am. Congressman Kim: There are no codified means by which to hold the Speaker to account besides motioning to challenge her ruling, motions that she flagrantly ignored. I don't know how many mistakes one is entitled to when entrusted with upholding lawful government. Lars Johansen: Final question before the quickfire section. With Turkey negotiating a settlement over Israel-Palestine and the flare up in the Caucuses still unresolved - albeit quiet for now - are the panel concerned that America's leading role in world affairs is eroding? Congressman Durham? Congressman Durham: I'm not so much worried about the country's position in leading global affairs as I am about where we actually belong when dealing with issues like this. I think that the Pizzuto Administration has handled this entire affair extremely well thus far, but I personally don't believe that we should use NATO to respond to every border dispute in the world. Lars, we've got a lot of problems at home. I'm more worried about the problems of Americans citizens then I am about the problems of Georgian citizens. Lars Johansen: Congressman Maximiliano, your thoughts? Is American global leadership on the wane? Congressman Maximiliano: Lars, as you may know, I was one of the few Democrats who was vocal supporting action in the Transcaucas conflict, and my reasoning was simple: the United States still have a role to play in the world. However, I think that calling what America has "global leadership" is misleading. America hasn't had the ability to really act alone in decades, and whatever stranglehold we had on our allies was absolutely crushed following the Iraq invasion. What America does have though is a group of allies who share many of our beliefs and goals, and we need to show them that we remain as committed as ever to them. I also want to point out that isolationism isn't an option: it didn't work in the past, and it certainly won't work now. Congressman Kim: I agree with the Administration's tempered response to the situation in the Caucusus. We certainly must not escalate every international dispute with which were are involved, but we cannot allow the blatant attempts of some powers in the world to gain geolpolitical power through aggresive war. Turkey is our ally, so I support our standing by them, and I condemn the Russian Federation's blatant efforts to gain control of the oil supply routes in Central Asia. As for whether we've lost our leadership role, we most certainly haven't. We remain the first among equals of liberal democracies and the strongest military power, but perhaps it is time for a period of introspection and internal investment rather than constantly increasing our expenditures overseas. I think that the current Administration has done an admirable job in that, and I'm sure our allies with which we maintain strong and lasting ties would agree. Lars Johansen: Okay, with that I'd like to move on to the quick fire segment of our show. Gut reactions please gentlemen. Super-regions or megaregions? Congressman Maximiliano: Megaregions Congressman Kim: Superregions. Congressman Durham: The smaller the better. Lars Johansen: Night out or night in? Congressman Kim: Night out. Congressman Maximiliano: Night in with my fiancé, a good wine and a good movie Congressman Durham: Night in. Lars Johansen: Favourite TV program? Congressman Kim: I rather enjoy historical documentaries and shows about natural science, you know what I mean. Congressman Maximiliano: Psych ... Congressman Durham: Morrison Roundtable. Congressman Maximiliano: ... Shawn Spencer reminds me of myself. . Lars Johansen: Alright, that's all we have time for tonight. I'd like to thank our panel House Majority Whip Maximiliano for the Democrats; Congressmen Durham and Kim for the Republicans, and Governor Kudrov who had to leave the set early. Good night. Music plays out... |
|
|
|
|
21 March 2010, 20:48
Post
#34
|
|
|
National. Champions. Group: Administrators Posts: 559 Joined: 11-November 08, 19:26 From: Alexandria Member No.: 116 Gender: Male Office: President |
Aired daytime
Live With (IMG:http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/3584/rockefellerlogo.gif) JACKSON P. ROCKEFELLER (IMG:http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/1505/1720jfk20jr21.jpg) Live from Toledo, Ohio US PUSH FOR WAR CAUSES RIFT WITH NATO Pizzuto Administration plays fringe role in peace process ROCKEFELLER: Sources claim that the Pizzuto Administration played a heavy hand in urging its NATO allies to support a war against Russia, despite objections from cautious European leaders who viewed war with Russia as an undesirable goal. With the President's speech in support of Turkey and the arrival of U.S. forces in the region, these claims have a deafening ring of truth. And while I have never been a fan of Russian aggression, especially against Georgia, I question the actions that could have caused a nuclear exchange. Was the President's actions an ill-advised act of warmongering or a strategic move in the process? KEFER: Bad, bad move, Mr. President. You never corner an enemy, especially one with nuclear weapons. The White House is very, very lucky this didn't end in a mushroom cloud. And this will have ramifications within NATO. NARE: The President backed a NATO ally. Wouldn't you expect him to do the same for Britian or France? ROCKEFELLER: But, Turkey entered this conflict of its own free will. It is not the same situation if Russia bombed Paris. KEFER: Supporting an ally against an aggressor is one thing, but sending U.S. forces into the region was an aggressive step into dangerous territory. President Pizzuto completely removed the United States as a peacemaker. He escalated tensions rather than using our diplomatic authority to ease the conflict. NARE: But the President did not send U.S. forces into Russia. They were sent to Turkey to make sure Russia didn't attack our ally's homeland. ROCKEFELLER: But Moscow knows better than to attack Turkish territory because they know that attacking Turkey directly would bring about the full retaliation of NATO, including the United States. KEFER: And if President Pizzuto felt Russia needed a reminder, he merely needed to say it. Sending U.S. forces into Turkey didn't provide the Turks with any needed support - it only escalated the conflict, pissed off Moscow and made nuclear war even more plausible. The fact is that the White House was never interested in peace, it wanted war and the proof is in the President's actions that escalated the conflict and made a real peace treaty impossible. ROCKEFELLER: In search for some answers about the Administration's involvement in this conflict, I asked the State Department about its role in the peace process, especifically the ceasefire agreement which I had been suggesting for weeks prior. QUOTE (Secretary Kellogg) Throughout the conflict, the State Department was in contact with leaders of the various nations involved and working with them toward a cessation of hostilities. ROCKEFELLER: The Secretary of State informed me that the U.S. role in the ceasefire was to "diplomatically urge the parties to cease hostilities." However, this is in conflict with sources in Europe that claim the U.S. was more interested in increasing NATO support for backing Turkey in the war, not peace. NARE: Again, Turkey is an ally. Against Russia, the President is bound to side with Turkey and urge support for our ally from within NATO. KEFER: At the expense of peace and in a conflict that, in all frankness, was not about Turkey? From the looks of it, Georgia is not blameless in this conflict. While we all know that Russia is not an innocent party and the U.S. has its issues with Moscow, but Russia is not the big bad guy it used to be and Turkey used this conflict as an opportunity to exert its dominance in the region -- it was not directly under threat here. So, just because they could, Turkey entered the fight. And the U.S. just backs Turkey simply because they're in NATO? Yes, Turkey is an ally, but this was not our fight. We should have eased tensions and, as I said, President Pizzuto merely escalated them to the point where the U.S. was no longer a peacemaker, but an aggitator, and the best outcome was an armistice which means this war is not over, just on pause. NARE: While an armistice is not a peace treaty, that does not automatically mean the conflict is still open. I'm sure the White House is still working towards peace. HOW WILL PEACE BECOME PERMANENT? Armistice achieved, but permanent peace remains elusive QUOTE (Secretary Kellogg) we are satisfied that the current armistice and the conditions agreed to have set the parties on the path toward a lasting peace and a permanent treaty. ROCKEFELLER: But, an armistice is not a peace treaty. It is not a permanent agreement or a full settlement of the issues. And while the Secretary hopes for one, could the opportunity have been killed by the President's actions in this conflict? KEFER: The aggression showed by the U.S. in escalating tensions killed these peace talks from the start. While credit is given to Italy and Greece for their efforts, the United States is the only global power with the diplomatic authority over both Ankara and Moscow to make real peace a possibility. NARE: Are you suggesting we abandon our allies? ROCKEFELLER: Was this a fight where Turkey needed us? It's homeland was not attacked and Turkey certainly proved it can handle itself. And, perhaps if the U.S. had been a peace-making third party, we could have secured a real peace treaty that made permanent most of the Turkish gains in the conflict, as well as helped settle the still ongoing disputes between Russia and Georgia. If I was Secretary Kellogg, I would not be satisfied with with an armistice. KEFER: This war is not over. Moscow will want revenge against Turkey, and it will find a way to have it. And then there will be major problems for the U.S. and NATO. NARE: Don't forget, there is a peace-keeping mission being setup under the armistice. ROCKEFELLER: A peace-keeping mission that, according to Secretary Kellogg, the U.S. will not be a part of. KEFER: And that's telling, too. While the United States is a member of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, we're not providing troops. We're seen as an aggressor in this conflict. ROCKEFELLER: But is peace an attainable goal? Tensions between Georgia and Russia have been heavy for decades now. NARE: Peace between them is possible, but not plausible. It's an ethnic and territorial dispute with deep, historic foundations. KEFER: Unfortunately, peace between Russia and Georgia became a sideline issue. The real conflict happened between Turkey and Russia and, yes, peace was possible if the United States hadn't become an accomplice in the conflict. Unfortunately, Italy and Greece didn't have the diplomatic gravitas to make it happen and, with the U.S. backroom push for war, the only power that could have created peace became unable to negociate it. ROCKEFELLER: And what about the future of NATO? According to the source in Europe, some NATO allies are not happy with the way the United States operated in this conflict. NARE: The primary function of NATO is mutual defense. The President knows this and used it effectively. KEFER: And the President should have known better than to use a military option first rather than a diplomatic one. This administration made a difficult conflict worse. ROCKEFELLER: Throughout the conflict, there was growing bipartisan support in Congress for withdrawal from NATO. Do you think that has any legs? NARE: No. Especially now that the ceasefire is in effect, it's dead on arrival. KEFER: NATO has its use and, in fact, it did keep Russia from attacking Turkish territory. My argument is that the President went too far and became part of the problem, rather than the solution to this conflict. NATO, by the mere fact that Moscow knows of its mutual defense agreement, would have kept Ankara safe from direct attack. The introduction of NATO forces into Turkey aggitated the situation and did little to truly protect Turkey and, apparently, the inclusion of NATO forces was due to the lobbying of this White House. ROCKEFELLER: From personal knowledge, I don't think the U.S. will be withdrawing from NATO any time soon. It would be a mistake, in my own opinion, because NATO is an important alliance for both North America and Europe when utilized appropriately. So, withdrawal is unlikely to say the least. And with that, our time is up. See you next time on Live with Rockefeller. |
|
|
|
|
21 March 2010, 20:49
Post
#35
|
|
|
National. Champions. Group: Administrators Posts: 559 Joined: 11-November 08, 19:26 From: Alexandria Member No.: 116 Gender: Male Office: President |
Aired primetime
(IMG:http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01009/question-460_1009767c.jpg) Lars Johansen: Welcome to Question Time, broadcast tonight from Thaniel Hall in downtown Boston. Under the microscope tonight are, for the Republicans Senate Majority Leader Archie Foster, and House Minority Leader Samantha Reiber, and for the Democrats, Governor Dmitri Kowalchuck and Congressman Gregory Wolff. *Applause* Lars Johansen: Welcome to our panel, and with that I'd like to go to our first question please. Dr Jack Liberio. A wheelchair creaks down the aisle to microphone. Dr. Jack Liberio, world-famous paleontolgist, clears his throat. Dr Liberio: Does it show a lack of respect for the honoured dead that several Senators have suggested desecrating the memorial site of the USS Arizona to stop oil leaking that has been leaking anyway since the ship sank? Lars Johansen: Senator Foster? Senator Foster: Thank you for the question, Dr. Liberio. I think this is mainly a Navy issue. The environmental concerns are there, but my opinion is that the Navy needs to make the decision whether or not they are capable of repairing the Arizona in a way that is respectful to the final resting place of those soldiers. After all they're the ones who've been monitoring the memorial all these years. I trust that they know what's best for the USS Arizona and for the memorial of those fallen. Lars Johansen: Governor Kowalchuck, if the Arizona were lying off New Orleans or Miami Dade, what course of action would you be asking the President to take? Governor Kowalchuck: Well in that situation I'd probably agree with Senator Foster. I am not an expert in the field nor will I pretend to be. If the Navy came to me and said Governor we're sure its perfectly safe to let be then i'd accept their judgement. But if they said something could severely damage one of our ports I'd want the President to do something about it. Those men died defending our country and i'm sure they'd want whats best for the people living in the area to be done. Lars Johansen: Congresswoman Reiber, your thoughts? How far should the Navy be allowed to go in repairing or even possibly removing the oil storage on the Arizona? Congresswoman Reiber: I think it ultimately comes down to the jurisdiction of the Navy and what they think is best for the site. We leave it to their administration *because* they know best, and I think I'm with the governor and the Senator in trusting the Navy to properly balance honoring our fallen heroes and doing what's best for the surrounding area. Lars Johansen: Congressman Wolff? Congressman Wolff: I am going to have to agree with my colleagues. The Arizona is leaking oil though, but I believe the Navy has the ability to handle the problem, should it begin spiraling out of control. Lars Johansen: Alright, I think we've covered that topic. Let's move on to our next question please. Dorothy Mantoon please. Dorothy Mantooth: Recently, members of the House Republican Caucus sent Speaker Dixon and Majority Leader Brocklin a letter concerning bipartisanship in the House, and the House Democratic Caucus responded with their own letter. The exchange didn't seem to accomplish anything, and frankly just seemed to be an act of theatrics by House Republicans. Furthermore, current debate looks more partisan than ever. And this isn't just an attitude specific to the House, it's a problem in the Senate and the regions as well. Should the American people be worried about the growingly partisan bickering between Republicans and Democrats, and the obstructionist politics of House Republicans? Lars Johansen: Congresswoman Reiber? Congresswoman Reiber: I know a lot of the rhetoric from the House might not always be encouraging, and I won't absolve myself for a moment from a good deal of it, but ultimately my caucus meant every word in that letter. We're willing to work with Democrats and we've been working with Democrats throughout the entire session. I don't think obstruction is a fair label for us as we've repeatedly worked with the Democrats to pass bills on the docket that we agree with them on and have been trying to improve bills on the House floor, even ones we don't support. What comes to mind off the top of my head as an example would be the American Health Renewal Act, where we passed a number of amendments that polls indicated made the bill more popular despite our ultimate opposition to it. Are there problems related to rhetoric? Certainly, but I think ultimately our actions speak louder than any words, and I'm proud of the work the Republican caucus has done across the aisle and proud of the stands we've taken when we thought the bills put forth weren't the right thing for this country. *Applause* Lars Johansen: Congressman Wolff? Congressman Wolff: As an old saying goes, Washington is a funnel for crazy people. But people forget that the House is a place of debate, Congresswoman Rieber and I come from two different parts of the country. She comes from Florida, I from Washington, our constituents have different views on the issues of the day. So obviously this debate, and strong emotions that come with said debate, are going to produce anger and fury. What I think we need to be able to compartmentalize our jobs better though. Their is no reason why Democrats and Republicans can't play poker together, have and have annual get-togethers. Debate is healthy, we just need to make sure we keep the debate in the house chamber constructive, and not full of sarcasm and witticisms in an attempt to get on the evening news. *Muttering in Audience* Lars Johansen: Senator Foster, what do you make of the flare up in the House? Do you think that House Republicans have gone too far in their criticisms of Speaker Dixon notably by Congressman Kim and Durham on this show last week? Senator Foster: Lars, the House is an inherently political body. It's partisan, but that's somewhat by design. Does that mean that members of the House shouldn't strive for bipartisanship? No. But I don't think partisan behavior is necessarily indicative of bad governance. That being said, we have a Speaker of the House who's made it reasonably clear she isn't interested in bipartisanship. I don't think it's fair to call the letter sent by Republican leadership "obstructionist". But I do think it's fair to look at the activities of both parties under a critical light. Lars Johansen: Governor Kowalchuck, do you think that the Republicans have gone too far in this instance? Governor Kowalchuck: I think they are doing what everyone Washington minority does. The bipartisanship people want is not something we get in Washington because that would mean people would be content with the distribution of power. That would mean whoever is in power stays in power and no opposition in Washington is going to just lay down and die. I honestly hate the way Washington works but to change it there really has to be a change from inside the parties. Until there some serious internal overview on both sides I don't see anything changing. *Applause* Congresswoman Reiber: Now I know we weren't singled out, but I think its unfair to a lot of productive work minorities on both sides of the aisle have done. The minority exists as a check on the majority's absolute power, and I think we've done a lot of good work in it. You can want to gain the majority, as I would like to and as every member of Congress would like to or would like to keep, and still do good from the minority without throwing bipartisanship out in the name of power. Could my caucus have simply opposed the Health Renewal Act, left it more unpopular, and scored points for opposing it? Certainly, but we were more interested in improving the bill and we ultimate proposed amendments that made it less politically expedient, less popular to vote against. I don't agree with the governor that bipartisanship and the minority status are mutually exclusive. Lars Johansen: Alright, with that I'd like to move on to our next question. Dr Jean-Olivier Perry of Vermont, please. Dr Perry: Governor Kowalchuk, as a college professor I have frankly been very concerned with the direction you have taken education in your region of late. You have openly supported teaching creationism in its religious context during science classes in public schools. How can you defend invading public classrooms with religious theology? How can you pick and choose when state-sponsored theology will be spoon-fed to our children? Lars Johansen: Governor Kowalchuck? Governor Kowalchuck: We actually worked our creationism package to fit multiple faiths all into one course so we could avoid picking and choosing which ones would be favored. So when a child takes this course they are getting a set of ideas on creation and not just the Christian version. Parents are also able to refuse to have their child take the course just like with evolution. Lars Johansen: Senator Foster, should Dixie be teaching creationism in science classes? Governor Kowalchuck: Lars, its not in science classes to be fair. Separate course entirely Senator Foster: Creationism is a broad term. I think public schools should be teaching theories that are backed up by scientific fact. If that doesn't jive with what a parent wants taught to their children, then they should supplement that education at home or they should send them to a private school of their choice. I do think that regions like Dixie should be doing more to expand school choice, however. Lars Johansen: I'd like to ask Dr Perry if he's satisified with the response of the Governor? Dr Perry: Not especially, Lars. No. I think frankly he's ignored the premise of the question. How can he be spending state dollars to pick and choose theocratic positions as though he's the director of some sort of state-sponsored spirituality schmorgageboard? Governor Kowalchuck: Dixie is a region where we embrace our faith. I was elected by the people with them knowing that I accept Jesus Christ as my savior. My predecessor believed as I do. We will offer these ideas because frankly they have great merit. Evolution is a theory and should not be treated as fact. So we will offer kids every option we can so they can make their own choices on the matter. Lars Johansen: Congresswoman Reiber, you're from Dixie. Do you agree that evolution is just a 'theory'? And what do you think of what the Governor has said? Congresswoman Reiber: I don't particularly object to teaching creationism in schools, but I'm also not sure I agree with allowing people to "opt-out" of courses on evolution any moreso than they are allowed to opt out on any course. Saying evolution is "just a theory" is like saying the big bang is "just a theory", which is a bit of a cop-out especially when the vast majority of the scientific community considers it, in some form, to be pretty solid science. I also want to know if, why we're into letting people make choice that matter, why we're not broadening our appeal to vouchers. I don't know if it's on your agenda, but I'd say where a kid goes to school is a choice that definitely matters. Lars Johansen: Congressman Wolff, I'll give you the last word on this topic before we move on. Congressman Wolff: Let me state that I believe teaching of any type of religion in school is a violation of church and state seperation. If religion is important to your family, go to church on sundays, and have your children go to religious schools. The job of state schools is to help kids be prepared to move on to the upper grades. As a Public School teacher this is something I feel strongly about. I am not against God, I just believe that teaching religious beliefs in school isn't appropriate. Since evolution is the only "theory" that has scientific evidence to back it up, its the only thing that should be taught in science class rooms. Lars Johansen: Thank you Congressman we have to move on. Parker McMannis please. Parker McMannis: For 61 years, the United States has imposed a commercial, financial, and economic embargo on Cuba. Many political scholars and economists agree that the embargo has been widely unsuccessful while the most recent polling data suggests that slightly more Americans favor the embargo than those who don't. Do you feel that it is time to end this decades-long embargo? Lars Johansen: Congresswoman Reiber? Congresswoman Reiber: Like I voted on the issue in the House, yes, I do. Ultimately, the Cuban embargo has inadvertantly empowered the Castro regime and its abuses by allowing them to make scapegoats of our nation from behind our blockade on people and objects going to and from Cuba, so people over there have been getting one side of the story and it's not the truth. By opening our trade with them we not only help the Cuban people but empower them to know how we really feel, what we really think, and that we want to work with them for a better world. *Loudest applause of evening* Lars Johansen: Governor Kowalchuck, you are Governor of the region closest to Cuba. Do you agree with Congresswoman Reiber? Governor Kowalchuck: I agree 100% percent. Senator Foster: I would agree with Congresswoman Reiber that our policy towards Cuba has somewhat turned against us. Castro uses it as anti-American propaganda, and that’s a serious concern. However, I’m hesitant to seek a change in policy until Cuba shows it’s ready to change some of it’s authoritarian policies. Congressman Wolff: I'd just say that the embargo was idiotic. We have traded and had diplomatic relations with people alot worse then the Castro regime. Senator Foster: I also would wait for a go ahead from the White House. I wouldn't pursue any policies that would step on the toes of the President or his foreign policy agenda. Lars Johansen: Alright, with that we'll go to our finall question of the night. Suffy Bummers, you've waited patiently to ask your question. Suffy Bummers: Yessir. House Majority Leader James Kennedy is one of several people sitting on a bi-partisan group called by Vice President Jefferson Pooty at the White House to address the important issue of Social Security reform. Recently, his caucus introduced a partisan proposal that would raise Social Security taxes on people earning more than $100,000 a year. My question is whether or not Democrats are truly serious about these negotiations, and how this partisan proposal is going to alter and affect the future course of what has been bipartisanly reported as a successful effort by both parties to introduce Social Security reform this Congress. Lars Johansen: Congressman Wolff? Congressman Wolff: If the only way to solve the social security crisis is to raise taxes, then I would support that measure. The wealthy in this country, and that includes myself by the way, should pay the country back in some form for the success they have enjoyed in this country. I don't mind paying more because I make more. This is why I am happy to pay higher taxes if it means saving social security, something that I believe is one of the best programs ever introduced in this country. It's FDR's legacy, and I am willing to consider plenty of constructive proposals in an attempt to fix a program like Social Security for future generations. Lars Johansen: Senator Foster, I believe that you are sitting on the reform panel? Do you think the Democrats are negotiating in bad faith, given their support for the Nelson amendment in the house? Senator Foster: Personally, I've been very happy with negotiations thus far. Senator Wells and the House Majority Leader have shown they want to get to work on this issue. Social Security reform is something absolutely necessary to the continuing success of our nation and we need to address this issue in a way that will be effective. I can tell you now that the proposal you referenced, will not be effective. It won't pass the Senate, and I don't think the President will sign it, nor should he. This cannot be a partisan, ram-it-through issue. It needs to bipartisan, it needs to have consensus. That's what the Vice President is trying to do, and I'm happy to see Democrats taking part in that. Congresswoman Reiber: Now I'd just like to address what Congressman Wolff said here. It's not just the upper class that's going to be hit with these increases. Middle class Americans who face a high cost of living are going to face new taxes solely based on where they live. Is it fair that for living in New York City or San Francisco, people are going to get hiked with new taxes because people who live where the cost of living is lower arbitrarily deemed them rich and that was that? Of course it isn't, and the amendment was a severe lapse in judgment I think on the part of the House and those members who voted for it, including the Majority Leader. I can't comment on the will to compromise, but I don't see how taxing the middle class is going to help anything right now. Lars Johansen: Governor Kowalchuck, I'm going to give you the last word on this issue. Do you think this amendment will blow apart the bipartisan negotiations? Governor Kowalchuck: I doubt it'll destroy negotiations. These kind of amendments pop up all the time. I think when the time comes for a vote on a bipartisan bill things will go well and hopefully we'll have social security reform. Lars Johansen: Before we go we've just got time for one quick fire round. Do the panel prefer a winter holiday in the mountains or a summer holiday by the beach? Governor Kowalchuck: Winter in the mountains since I spend all year near the beach. Congressman Wolff: I prefer a winter holiday in a warm ski lodge. After a day on the slopes, a night in a hot tub with a good book is a great way to relax. Congresswoman Reiber: Summer by the beach. Senator Foster: Both, if I can afford it. Lars Johansen: Alright, that's all we have time for. Thank you to our panel, and thank you all for watching. Good night. *music plays out* |
|
|
|
|
26 March 2010, 00:26
Post
#36
|
|
|
National. Champions. Group: Administrators Posts: 559 Joined: 11-November 08, 19:26 From: Alexandria Member No.: 116 Gender: Male Office: President |
Aired daytime
Live With (IMG:http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/3584/rockefellerlogo.gif) JACKSON P. ROCKEFELLER (IMG:http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/1505/1720jfk20jr21.jpg) Live from Toledo, Ohio CONGRESS PASSES RECOVERY LEGISLATION [AGAIN] Democrats take command of the President's recovery legislation The President signs Dem-amended bill despite opposition from Vice President Pooty ROCKEFELLER: Years ago, President Pizzuto introduced his 'Grow Our Economy Act', a bill that would cut taxes for corporations and small businesses while very slightly increasing the federal minimum wage. Passing the House last session, the bill failed to gain traction in the U.S. Senate until this session. Bolstered by a filibuster-proof majority, the Senate passed the bill, but not before Minority Leader Addie Jackson successfully amended it with heavy provisions from the Help Americans Recover Act, the recovery bill most recently vetoed by President Pizzuto. While the amended version of the bill has received wide-bipartisan support in Congress, Vice President Pooty came out against the Senate-amended bill. QUOTE (Office of the Vice President) The Vice President would also like to clarify that he supports passing the version of the Grow our Economy Act that passed the House last session and not the current, amended, Senate version. ROCKEFELLER: However, President Pizzuto signed the Senate-amended bill despite Vice President Pooty's stated opposition to it. KEFER: This is a fractured White House. I don't often give much credit to Jack Pizzuto, but his signature of the amended Grow Our Economy Act is a good move both politically and for the country's economy. NARE: While the President didn't comment except for his veto, Vice President Pooty came out hard against the Help Americans Recover Act and extensively praised the President's veto of it. With Senator Addie Jackson adding many of the Help Americans Recover provisions into the Grow Our Economy Act, it seems the Vice President was unshakably opposed to all efforts. KEFER: The Vice President has proven that he's the extreme partisan in the White House. Before becoming President, Jack Pizzuto was creditted as a bipartisan Governor. We've all seen that his Presidency lacking that. Perhaps its Washington, but its becoming clear that perhaps the Vice President has been the partisan-devil sitting on the President's shoulder. ROCKEFELLER: Are you claiming the Vice President is that ridiculously partisan? I've worked with Jeff Pooty and while I may not agree with him on everything, he has occasionally worked with me in a bipartisan manner. NARE: It may not be partisanship, but it is politics. The Vice President came out hard against the Help Americans Recover Act and then against those provisions added to the President's bill by Senate Democrats. It's clear he did not like the Help Americans Recover bill or its provisions. ROCKEFELLER: But, the President's recovery bill was unlikely to pass without the bipartisan amendments from the Help Americans Recover bill. KEFER: And the Vice President clearly was a-okay with his way or the highway. And his way would have meant that neither the Help Americans Recover and the Grow Our Economy Act would have passed. That's not very helpful to the American people. ROCKEFELLER: I, for one, am encouraged by the President's signature on the bipartisan Grow Our Economy Act. Granted, this will not turn around the economy today, but it is a step in the right direction. For an otherwise lackluster time in Washington, I think this was good for the Pizzuto Presidency. There will be Republicans and Democrats unhappy with some of the provisions signed into law. But, after nearly six years of calling on President Pizzuto to sign recovery legislation, this is a good day. And, I must thank Senator Addie Jackson for leading the effort to make this bipartisan legislation. It was Senator Jackson, my successor in the Democratic caucus, along with Speaker Jennifer Dixon, who made sure this legislation passed Congress and was delivered to the President. Good work, guys. SCOTUS NOMINEE TAKES HEAT ON HILL Democrats charge Pizzuto Nominee as an extremist, unfit to serve Republicans bask in Senate super-majority QUOTE (Breaking News Report) "And with his nomination of Justice William Graham of the Dixie Supreme Court to the U.S. Supreme Court, President Jack Pizzuto has nominated someone with a personal history, featuring a higher age at 68 and no federal judicial experience, that is distinctive from prior high court nominees. Justice Graham is a conservative, and an unapologetic one. He is an originalist and a textualist from the Clarence Thomas school, not the Samuel Alito or John Roberts school. He was on the conservative wing of the already-conservative Appalachia and Dixie supreme courts, and before that, was elected as a Republican to the North Carolina Supreme Court. He's respected intellectually and the ABA has already found him well qualified for the opening. Still, there is little question that without a filibuster-proof majority, there is likely little chance that President Pizzuto would have nominated him for the Supreme Court." ROCKEFELLER: William Graham, the President's nominee for Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, has had a controversial ride through the confirmation process in the Senate. Democrats are portraying him as an extremist while Republicans aren't saying too much except that he's qualified. However, I would question that, while the nominee had judicial experience, does that make him a good choice for the nation's highest court? Let's look at what is being said in the U.S. Senate.... QUOTE (Office of the Senate Judiciary Chairman Buford Justice) Senator Justice who serves as the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary and Regulatory Commitee has been the staunchest defender of the Supreme Court nominee, Judge William Graham. Judge Graham has served on the Appalachia and Dixie Supreme Courts as well as in North Carolina prior to regionalization. The Senate Democrats who are opposed to him on partisan grounds, are trying to paint the long serving regional Supreme Court Judge as inexperienced - Senator Justice reminded them that some of the best jurists of our time, such as Chief Justice William Rehnquist had not had any experience before being appointed, let alone the years on the bench that Judge Graham has served. Senator Justice is asking the Senate Democrats not to play the part of an embittered minority that wants to play politics with our court, but to come on board and support a well qualified nominee who is more than up to the job. QUOTE (Senator Samuel Wells) Judge Graham's testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary and Regulatory Committee has helped me come to understand that Mr. Graham's judicial philosophies and beliefs are not in line with that which we all seek in a Supreme Court Justice.
ROCKEFELLER: The U.S. is quite divided over this nominee and, in the end, this looks to be one of the most controversial Supreme Court nominations in history. AGE CONCERNS RAISED ON SCOTUS NOMINEE At 68, Graham is the oldest Supreme Court nominee in history ROCKEFELLER: Surpassing Justice Horace Lurton, appointed at the age of 65 by President Taft, Judge William Graham is the oldest nominee for the nation's highest court in history. At the ripe age of 68, Judge Graham is no spring chicken and I contend that age, while it cannot be the top consideration, it is a factor to consider, especially because Justice Lurton died a mere four years after his appointment to the court. However, when asked during hearings about how he could convince the Senate and Americans that his age is not an issue, this is how the nominee responded.... QUOTE (Judge William Graham) I'm not. It's such a clearly asinine concern that it shouldn't be addressed any more than someone who had concerns based on the color tie I'm wearing today. ROCKEFELLER: In a Senate confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court, labeling a question or concern as "asinine" is not very smart and show's a ridiculous lack of tact. That's not exactly a reason to shoot the nominee down, but it raising concerns about his judicial temperament. Is this how he'll act on the nation's highest court? That's not an attitude I would vote to confirm, personally. GOP SENATORS ABSENT FOR SCOTUS HEARINGS While Democrats grilled the President's nominee, Republicans failed to show ROCKEFELLER: While the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary were out in force, the only Republican to show up was the Committee Chairman, Senator Justice. I can tell you that a hearing for a Supreme Court nomination is likely the most important and high profile function in the U.S. Senate, so where were Republican Senators Calhoon and Khula? Making the entire caucus look bad at such a high-profile event, I know Majority Leader Foster can't be too happy right now. Worse, this makes the entire Senate Republican Caucus look over-dependent on their supermajority and, take it from the guy who led a filibuster-proof caucus for years himself, that is not a smart thing to do because it will come back to bite you in the butt. ROCKEFELLER ROUNDTABLE ON SCOTUS NOMINEE with Senate Minority Leader Addie Jackson ROCKEFELLER: Welcome Addie. It's good to see you. Please give me your take on the President's nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge William Graham. JACKSON: I don't have any doubt that Dixie Justice William Graham has a long and storied professional judicial history with decades of service to the legal community- in that sense alone I'm sure that he would be able to effectively use case law in order to support and decisions made on the Supreme Court, should he be confirmed. That said, there are concerns held by Senate Democrats and some Senate Republicans that the underlying ideological philosophies of Justice Graham are enough to give elected officials, and the American people at large, some pause when it comes to actually deciding whether or not to support Justice Graham, it looks like. Like it or not, these ideals and political viewpoints do have a role to play in the decisions reached by the Court. Any Justice of William Graham's caliber- and I mean that positively and in terms of strictly his legal experience- could find the proper case law to make an argument. However, the individual Justice's stance on a right to privacy, for instance, could make a large different. Look at the nominee's answers in committee of questions of abortion, which in Roe v. Wade was left to the pregnant woman and her physician, particularly in the early term, or questions of privacy, which in Lawrence v. Texas was more or less used to protect consensual adults in their own homes- both questions in which Justice Graham was more than vocal in supporting a state interest to curtain these rights of privacy. Something like that will guide the nominee's decision making, should he be confirmed, and it's something that worries a lot of folks on Capitol Hill. ROCKEFELLER: The Democrats have came out swinging against Judge Graham early on. Wasn't this a bit unfair bit begin with? No benefit of the doubt? JACKSON: It was clear that the White House was depending on the Senate to ram this nomination through- adding to the theory which I support that the nominee was too controversial. There were no major presidential announcements about this nomination, and it came after an election in which Republicans captured a supermajority of the seats in the Senate despite being left open for quite a long time. Even the national news has suggested quite clearly that the nomination is controversial- they said quote 'Still, there is little question that without a filibuster-proof majority, there is likely little chance that President Pizzuto would have nominated him for the Supreme Court.' Again, I don't doubt the intellectual capacity or purely judicial qualifications of Dixie Justice Graham. But you can't ignore the philosophy behind those judicial qualifications, and it's that- for the reasons I suggested earlier- that make the Justice extremely controversial. Why else would we be repeatedly told in the Senate that we shouldn't be voting on philosophies but solely on qualifications? It's accepted that a Supreme Court nominee is the chance of a President to leave a lasting legacy, and between the answers the nominee gave in committee as well as the circumstances surrounding the nomination that we really should be looking into this closely. I can tell you that it's not like the Democratic Party sat down right away and decided to oppose the nominee the day after the nomination was announced- it was only after the real truth came out. ROCKEFELLER: The Senate Judiciary hearings were very bare bones with Chairman Justice being the only Republican to show up, and the Senate floor debate hasn't been much better. Are the Republicans depending on its filibuster-proof majority too much? JACKSON: I hate to say it, because it sort of demolishes the image of bipartisanship that I and a few others were working towards, but yes, I feel that the filibuster-proof majority is the major tool in this nomination. As I mentioned earlier, we need to just look at the facts. This nomination wasn't made until after the Republicans had more or less a proven supermajority that could force cloture on the nomination. There were no major announcements regarding the initial nomination and no justificiation- making it appear, whether this was the case or not, that the White House was punting the nominations over to the Republicans in the Senate and telling them to just go for it. And lastly, the main points that HAVE come up in the sparse debate in both the Judiciary Committee and the Senate have been practically instructions from the Republican Party- particularly from Senator Justice- that we are there to confirm the nominee based solely on judicial qualifications. Nevermind that neither I nor any other member of the Democratic caucus were contacted, even out of formality, as to Dixie Justice Graham's qualifications before the hearings or debate began. Are the Republicans actually depending on their super-majority? I don't know. But it sure as heck looks like it as we move forward on this. And that is just another reason why we in the Senate should take a close look on this, think for a moment, and then decide where to go. ROCKEFELLER: This has become a controversial nomination. Would the President would have nominated Judge Graham without the Republicans being filibuster-proof? JACKSON: I think so- and the national news sources seem to agree with that. After all, this nomination came only after elections which saw the Republicans capture a super-majority in the Senate. And already we're seeing Republicans come out en masse to force cloture after saying we're not supposed to talk about what the Judge thinks. I guess we'll have to wait and see just how forceful that super-majority is going to be in this case. ROCKEFELLER: Thank you, Senator, for your time. And, on a note of bipartisan outreach, I did invite Senate Majority Leader Archie Foster to participate in this roundtable. Unfortunately, his office did not respond to the invitation. ROCKEFELLER'S FINAL WORD ROCKEFELLER: This nomination process, not just the nominee, raises some major concerns. President Pizzuto issued this nomination almost a year after Justice Stevens left the bench. In fact, there was an election in between! Beyond the lateness which has characterized this Administration from its start, the President offered no justification for the nomination or any indication of who William Graham actually is -- he merely submitted the nomination to the U.S. Senate, a highly irregular action by the White House compared to the last few decades. In the hearing, I also noticed that Judiciary Chairman Buford Justice had to ask what Justice Graham's credentials were because the President failed to qualify his choice to the Senate or the public. As for politics, I watched on the main floor debate as the Republicans caucus repeatedly stated that it was not the Senate's place was not to question the rationale behind the nominee, just that the Senate must confirm Judge Graham based solely on qualifications. While Judge Graham has served on the regional bench, you must also consider his judicial temperament which, in my opinion, is not very good nor is his record. Frankly, there are better options that the President could have and should have chosen for our nation's highest court. |
|
|
|
|
26 March 2010, 00:27
Post
#37
|
|
|
National. Champions. Group: Administrators Posts: 559 Joined: 11-November 08, 19:26 From: Alexandria Member No.: 116 Gender: Male Office: President |
Aired primetime
(IMG:http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Media/Pix/pictures/2008/04/30/DavidDimbleby460.jpg) Lars Johansen: Welcome to Question Time. Tonight we're broadcasting from the flag room of the historic statehouse in downtown Denver, Colorado. With me on the panel tonight are, for the Democrats, Senator Kevin Santos Carter and Congresswoman Barkait Topol, and for the Republicans Senator Joan Calhoon. Lars Johansen: And tonight, we're going to be doing something a little different. We have our first non-partisan commentator on the panel. Please welcome under the microscope B.B. Barnabas Perry! After serving in Congress as house BELI chair and acting Speaker of the House, Mr Perry decided to quit politics and travel. He writes a travel blog for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer online and is also an online political contributor to the Detroit Free Press, where he used to be political editor. Lars Johansen: So I'd like to go to our first questioner of the night. Cheryl Reid please. A woman in her mid-30s stands when called and addresses the panel. Cheryl Reid: My question is a fairly simple one to start - is Mr. Graham the right person to be Associate Justice for the Supreme Court? Lars Johansen: Senator Santos-Carter? Senator Santos-Carter: No, I believe he's the wrong person and I think that President Pizzuto could have picked a number of better nominees, even conservative ones. Senator Calhoon: I disagree with Senator Santos-Carter, not surprisingly. I believe Judge Graham has demonstrated that he is competent, experienced and offers a perspective on the Constitution as a regional Supreme Court justice that our current Supreme Court lacks now that each member is entirely trained from the federal bench. President Pizzuto has given us a qualified nominee, and I believe we should confirm Justice Graham soon to fill this vacancy rather than devolve this into a political battle that would be an unnecessary distraction for the Senate. Lars Johansen: How do you see this from an outsiders perspective Mr Perry? Mr Perry: Well it's the sort of nomination which is clearly that of a second term president, Lars. The President is clearly not holding back on any political capital, which for Republicans is likely a very welcome sign from a man they've considered overly populist for so long. Congresswoman Topol: There are ways to be conservative without taking the stance that the Supreme Court has been fundamentally wrong for decades. You shouldn't just ignore years of precedent in order to follow a rather extreme and narrow notion of the law. That's the problem I have with Justice Graham. He doesn't care what the Courts have said in the past, or the logic they've applied. In a common law system, you can't just decide you alone are right and all your predecessors were wrong Senator Calhoon: One could say the same thing about any justice who has offered what some would call a dogmatic view of the Constitution, be it from the left or right. And yet justices like Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia were confirmed by huge margins with almost no opposition the two are actually best friends, despite their huge differences in matters of the Constitution. Again, the Supreme Court must be more than a political football to play with. The Senate should judge nominees on their qualifications, not make each nomination a battlefield for ideological crusades, whether from the left or the right. Senator Santos-Carter: I totally agree with the Representative. As for Senator Calhoon's points, first of all, there are a number of regional judges that the president could have submitted, like a myriad of justices on the Southwest Supreme Court. As for ideology is concerned, there is a difference between meaningful and thought out jurisprudence and radical ones. Clearly, Justice Graham is out of touch with modern jurisprudence and modern America. Senator Calhoon: I at least give my friend's colleagues some credit for keeping the "Robert Bork's America" style rhetoric out of the halls of Congress and in newspapers instead. But the bottom line is that President Pizzuto nominated an objectively qualified judge to serve on the high court. He deserves an up or down vote, not a political witch trial, which is what some of my Democratic colleagues have attempted to stage over this confirmation hearing. I don't believe that serves the Supreme Court or the Senate well, and carries on with a dangerous precedent of making Supreme Court nominations a political circus rather than the carrying out of a solemn Senatorial duty. Congresswoman Topol: Senator Calhoon's point about ideological crusades is exactly right. That's why Graham is a poor choice. His stated positions on central matters of constitutional importance - privacy, for instance - are ideological in nature, and not based on American legal precedent. Justices are supposed to be impartial umpires. Mr Perry: I think you'd be hard pressed to find a tradition of complete impartiality in our supreme court, Congressman. Senator Calhoon: This might come as news to an ACLU attorney, Congresswoman. Congresswoman Topol: No, but it's an ideal we should strive for on the highest bench. ACLU attorneys serve a completely different purpose than Supreme Court Justices, and the Senator knows it. Mr Perry: *surprised look* Senator Calhoon: Some eventually become Supreme Court Justices, like Justice Ginsburg for one. But Justice Ginsburg was just as qualified as Judge Graham is, and I certainly believe he will be just as valuable a member of the high court as she has been for many years. Lars Johansen: At this point I'd like to call upon the audience member who asked the question. Ms. Reid, what are your thoughts on this? Cheryl Reid: It's a bit disappointing, honestly. The President was elected, twice, by saying he wouldn't be just another partisan. Yet he nominates another justice in his own ideology, not in what's best for the Court or the country. If our elected officials want to see why voters are disallusioned, this is why - when it comes time to make do on the most important promises of the campaign, our leaders back out of them. Lars Johansen: Alright. With that, I'd like to call our next questioner please. Jack Rodwell. Jack Rodwell Should the federal government pay for the West to incarcerate illegal immigrants, and if they don't, should the West still enforce the law? Lars Johansen: Mr Perry? Mr Perry: this is a bit of a problem brewing for the administration, isn't it, Lars? It's not as though either side is going to want to foot the bill, but I think in the end people won't expect the West to have to bear the full brunt of it. The federal government has overspent for so long that people are taken aback when it won't pay for a specific expense. Lars Johansen: Senator Santos-Carter? Senator Santos-Carter: Well this situation is exactly the reason why we need Comprehensive Immigration Reform. Rounding up undocumented immigrants is not going to solve our immmigration problems and will continue costing the government, whether it is the West or the federal government, millions upon millions. The only way we can effectively solve this is to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill with a guest worker program backed by strong human rights protections. Congresswoman Topol: It seems like common sense for the Federal government to foot the bill for management of a Federal issue. The point is that the West is a victim of its geography rather than its own policy, and they shouldn't have their own regional plans nixed because they need to cover for a national problem. So either the West should get compensated for doing the Feds' job, or it shouldn't be charged with upholding Federal immigration law. Senator Calhoon: I would just say the best situation for all parties involved would be an agreement that ensures that as many undocumented persons who are incarcerated for committing felonies can be returned to their home country, so all sides can save money in the long term and the West's prisons aren't as stressed this is a challenging situation, but we won't be able to resolve it regardless of who pays for their incarceration until we settle on how to get these felons out of our prisons and ideally off of our country's streets entirely. Lars Johansen: Are you calling for deportation of all undocumented workers, Senator Calhoon? Senator Calhoon: I would say any undocumented person convicted of a felony should be returned to their home country as soon as possible. Our jails are crowded enough as it is, and we must act to keep them more secure. The question of what to do with the other millions of undocumented workers here in this country is a serious challenge that I believe is best handled by enforcing laws on the books while also getting tougher on employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers, rather than working towards more unrealistic measures like immediate mass deportations. Congresswoman Topol: That seems slightly more reasonable than where I thought you were heading, Senator. There's a difference between being a criminal who happens to be an immigrant and being an immigrant who happens to be a criminal. Deporting felons who are also undocumented seems like a reasonable measure, though it might actually be quite costly to go through the paperwork. Either way, this isn't a problem that can be solved overnight or on a dime. And it certainly shouldn't be the West that bears the full burden. Senator Calhoon: I think a little extra paperwork is a better problem to have than prison riots or increased drug trafficking in jails, which are very real risks of overcrowding and housing of illegal immigrant felons, especially drug offenders. Congresswoman Topol: I'll agree with that, but I think we can all agree it's a major national issue, not a small regional one. Senator Calhoon: Of course. Mr Perry: But does that mean the region can't or shouldn't be involved in paying the bill? It is a bit unreasonable to expect the federal government to try to foot the entire bill, wouldn't you agree, Congresswoman? Congresswoman Topol: The people in the West pay Federal taxes, so it's not like they'd get away scot-free... Mr Perry: To a degree. Though I'd be interested in hearing from my co-panelists: Does the West have zero culpability in illegal immigration? Congresswoman Topol: It probably has a measure, but immigration control should be something ultimately controlled by the Feds. Senator Santos-Carter: The West to a certain degree, does. Overall, however, it's a national issue. Perhaps there is some way for both sides to split the cost. I would hope, however, that it is catching undocumented felons and not a blanket roundup of undocumented workers Lars Johansen: Next question please, from Edward B. Worthingtonsworth. Edward Worthingtonsworth: I'm white, I'm a male, I own a small business, and I'm against PIQUE. I don't think that my money should go towards grants worth millions of dollars that were meant explicitly for homosexuals just because they're homosexuals. And even with the new provisions, I'm against the bill. Is Congress willing to suggest that I haven't been through any challenges in life because I'm white? I dare say that's just preposterous! I'd like an explanation. Why is PIQUE good for America and how isn't it favoring one group over another? Lars Johansen: Senator Santos Carter, you were an author of the PIQUE Act. How do you respond to those criticisms? Senator Santos-Carter: Well, I'd first like to say that many people have been through challenges. However, the bill is to help another historically discriminated against minority. There are a number of programs to help racial minority and women entrepreneurs. This would establish one for gay and lesbian entrepreneuers similarly. It's nothing radical. It's just a continuation of programs to help minorities as we have continually since the civil rights movement. Mr Perry: I'm surprised, Senator, that more people haven't been offended by the implication that they need federal help to succeed in business. That their minority status makes them inferior in the corporate world. Congresswoman Topol: I don't think it's offensive to recognize the reality that not everybody starts on level footing. America is not a perfect place, and some people start out behind the eight-ball for reasons beyond their control. Putting people in the position where they have the maximum opportunity for success is a worthy goal. Now, I do think it's important to note that PIQUE was voted down, so this is all an academic discussion. Senator Santos-Carter: I agree with Congresswoman Topol. This bill was about giving equal opportunity rather than taking away from anything. Mr Perry: but I think what concerns people is the implication that these opportunities need to be so blatantly afforded to certain americans based on their sexual orientation. Lars Johansen: Senator Calhoon? Senator Calhoon: As Congresswoman Topol said, this bill being voted down makes this an academic discussion. But given that so many LGBT Americans have reached strong levels of economic stability, I'm not convinced that a history of disrcimination alone justifies this grant program living in the gay quarter of Chicago as I do for good parts of the year, I can tell you that opportunities exist in the gay community to come together and form new and successful businesses without federal grant money. Why reinvent the wheel with programs we may not need in the middle of a deficit? Senator Santos-Carter: Well professor, I'd again say that this is a similar program to those that help racial minorities and women. I don't think many people are against those programs. As for the arguments raised by by senate colleague, unfortunately the image of the wealthy gay man preceeds the reality for the majority of LGBT individuals, who are working and middle class. Furthermore, the program would have been quit small. Regardless, however, this is a bit of an academic debate. It's time to move forward to make sure we grant economic opportunity to all Americans. Lars Johansen: Thank you Senator. Next question please. Fred Garvin please. Fred Garvin: Thank you, Lars. This question is for Senator Calhoon. I'd like to ask about the defending freedom for our workers act. I believed President Pizzuto when he claimed that he would stand up for unions, and I was sorely disappointed when he vetoed that bill over the repeal of Taft Hartley, which the rank and file Republicans in the Senate, including yourself, backed the Republican leadership in conference committee also didn't oppose this portion of the bill, which is how a bill with Taft-Hartley repeal in it got to the President's desk, given that the repeal of Taft-Hartley has such widespread support in the Republican-dominated Senate, would you support a measure to override the President's veto and end Taft-Hartley once and for all? Senator Calhoon: I respect the President deeply, but I was disappointed with his decision to veto the bill. I certainly understand where he was coming from with his decision, and I believe that Taft-Hartley's repeal was just one issue he had with the bill's final product. I certainly hope the matter of Taft-Hartley will be revisited again, and I still support its repeal. Perhaps it would be better to consider it as a stand alone item rather than a rider to a Presidential bill which also included card check, which the President had concerns with. Congresswoman Topol: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Taft-Hartley repeal the only difference between the President's initial proposal and the one he vetoed? Senator Calhoon: I don't believe an override is the right way to pursue Taft-Hartley's repeal at this juncture. But that doesn't mean it can't be revisited, and resolved successfully. I believe there were other additions to the bill such as card check that were likely a bridge too far for the administration, and many American union members, may I add. Lars Johansen: Senator Santos-Carter, your response on this? Senator Santos-Carter: I would support an override of the President's veto, especially since he, himself, believes that protecting the American worker is a major priority. However, it looks like such a vote would fail as I have in the past, I will work with Senator Calhoon and members of both sides of the aisle in pushing for a repeal of Taft-Hartley and guaranteeing the right of American workers to organize. Congresswoman Topol: From the record I'm seeing, the only amendment to the original proposal was Taft-Hartley repeal, and that passed in the Republican-controlled Senate. If it doesn't get vetoed, we're not looking at partisan politics, as the Republicans liked the bill. We're looking at the ego of a man who uses the royal we in his veto statements. Senator Calhoon: The card check provisions of the bill were added by the House during the previous session of Congress, Congresswoman. Lars Johansen: With that, I think that we have time for one lightening round question. As loyal viewers may know, this is where we ask direct, light-hearted questions on topics outside of the realms of politics. This week's question is simple: Pirates or Ninjas? Congresswoman Topol: Pirates have more fun. Senator Calhoon: Ninjas. Much more polite around the ladies. Mr Perry: I saw a pirate movie last week. It was rated AARRRRRRGH. Senator Santos-Carter: Pirates. Everyone that has seen pirates of the Caribbean would agree. Lars Johansen: Alright, I'd like to thank our panel, Senator Santos-Carter and Senator Calhoon, Congressman Topov and Mr Perry. Good *music plays out* |
|
|
|
|
29 March 2010, 22:47
Post
#38
|
|
|
National. Champions. Group: Administrators Posts: 559 Joined: 11-November 08, 19:26 From: Alexandria Member No.: 116 Gender: Male Office: President |
Aired daytime (not primetime. Although respect for the confi
Alec Keynes Good Evening everyone, and welcome to the first episode of Talk Politics here on CNN. I'm Alex Keynes and I'll be your host. It is no secret that we live in some of the most exciting and interesting political times that this great nation has ever seen. This week we will be talking with some of those headline makers as they discuss what they are doing and how their work is shaping the lives of Americans, just like you at home. We're going to take a quick break, and when we come back, I'll have my first guest with me, Speaker of the House Jennifer Dixon. So, stay tuned! Commercials Play Alec Keynes: Welcome back everyone, I'm joined by House Speaker, Jennifer Dixon of Massachusetts. Madame Speaker, thank you for joining me here in New York tonight. Speaker Jennifer Dixon: It's a pleasure to be here. Keynes: Madame Speaker, last year the American people voted your party in as a majority in the house, while voting in an overwhelming Republican majority in the senate, which some would call a political anomaly. Many have attributed this success at the polls to your "American Deal," which you promised to pass once your party got the majority. Now tell me, how will this deal affect the American people? Dixon: The American Deal has been fashioned to improve lives of everyday Americans in a variety of ways. The American Science Act which will be brought up in committee soon opens the door to more disease research to save lives. We already passed the Earthquake Assistance Act which finally helps send money to the people of California who have been ignored by the Republicans since 2016. We also passed the American Voting Rights Act to make the VRA permanent. Just these bills alone make the lives of countless Americans better, well, if the Senate bothers to take any of them up that is. That ball is in Senator Foster's court. Keynes: What are the current plans with this package of legislation? There are some in Washington who say that the Democrats have seemingly forgotten the American Deal, that you've become sidetracked, etc. What do you say to that? Where does this go from here? Dixon: The remaining pieces of the Deal will be brought up as promised there is no doubt about that. Off the top of my head we still have the American Science Act, the American Child First Package, the American Dream Tax Reform Act, and the American Energy & Environment Act left to come and the Children First package will be hitting the floor very soon, possibly today. Keynes: Madame Speaker, President Pizzuto seems to be a polarizing figure. The "People's President" is loved by the GOP but typically greeted with less enthusiasm by members of your caucus. Why is that? Surely someone as close to the center on political issues as he is perceived to be would be expected to be greeted with less, for lack of a better work, animosity from the opposing party than is typical of American politics, right? Dixon: The President has positioned himself as a middle of the road politician for his entire career but given the person he nominated for the Supreme Court I don't think any true moderate would suggest such a fringe extremist for that job, or how he's vetoed working class relief bills, it's no surprise that our side of the aisle isn't very high on him. In the limited number of years he has left in office he's free to show his true colors more because he doesn't have to be reelected again. I'm just thankful that the American people chose us to keep a firm grip on the House or who knows what agenda he would be trying to shove through. Keynes: You mentioned Mr. Graham, the Supreme Court nominee, what is your initial reaction to him. I know the House has no jurisdiction over nominees, but explain to me what's going on with the Senate Democrats regarding this nomination if you wouldn't mind. Dixon: As a former Judiciary Chair in the Senate I am appalled by the nomination. His opinions of the issues and his stances don't belong on the highest court in this land. This is not a moderate pick. This is not a centrist pick which all Americans can find a little agreement with here or there. He appeases the fringe right wing, and if they didn't have a filibuster proof majority you can bet your bottom dollar that he would not be the nominee. I know the Senate Democrats feel along the same lines as I do. He's being rammed through because they have the numbers to do it. That's the nature of politics but I am not looking forward to the day that the only person the President hand picked for the court makes the difference in taking away the right to choose or attacking other civil rights. Keynes: So, his nomination is purely political? Dixon: I think this nomination is the clearest window we have to the real ideology of this President. He waited and waited until his party had these kinds of numbers in the Senate to push for the guy he wanted. He let the seat sit there for years until the time was ripe. Politically for his agenda and his ideology, it’s very shrewd on his part. The ones who will pay the price for this extremist judge will be the American people when his judicial opinions turn the clock back on civil rights. Keynes: It's getting to be budget season again in Congress. This will be the first time you've gone through the process as Speaker of the House. What do you expect from this President? After all, he has pledged to balance the budget, surely that means more cuts. What are your thoughts on this? Dixon: Well I expected honestly a lot more than we've gotten. We were left out of the early process, then we were invited to the White House for talks. Those talks actually were the Democrats in one room and the Republicans in another with the President and much later the Treasury Secretary popping in and out randomly. We never got to sit down together and talk the issues and find middle ground. We never got to find a consensus. We got a vague promise basically of, 'thanks for stopping by and giving us your ideas which we may or may not use, see ya later.’ Now I want the American people to rest assured, we will not have a government shutdown if I can do anything about it. But the President needs to be more forthcoming with us and the public about his budget. He needs to meet us half way so we can find a budget that we may not all like but we can stomach. I fear what he thinks is he can dump a budget on us which slashes things like education, the environment, worker protections and the like, while protecting sacred cows for the other side, and we'll either dance to his tune or he'll demonize us as obstructing his budget. Everyone wants to get this nation back on track but we have to do it the smart way and I'd prefer to do it together. Keynes: What would your stipulations for a budget that you and House Democrats will be able to "stomach?" Dixon: I'm not going to draw any lines in the sand because the negotiations need to be fluid, and certainly there are things we need to pay for on the defense side, homeland security issues, but we also have to keep protecting the environment so we'll have to see how much he wants to cut the EPA, how much he wants to cut education and overall Interior projects, how much he wants to cut overall. He campaigned on a 5% cut, I believe, across the board; which sounds great on the campaign trail but will have serious issues for this country if enacted. We have to look at all the ramifications and find some middle ground wherever possible, and then you're going to have both sides clashing on the big ticket items that we support. Keynes: What would you say to someone who argues that American families are having to make these tough cuts across the nation, so therefore the federal government should as well? Dixon: Government does need to get smarter when it comes to its spending, and one of the biggest issues which we brought up in our talks was the idea of fraud reduction. If we can find a way to monitor and cut out that fat from our national budget we'd be saving a ton of money every year. Keynes: Alright Speaker Dixon, final topic for tonight. You have been labeled as the "Imperial Speaker" during your tenure with the gavel in the House. Newsmax magazine attached your face to a portrait of a European monarch with the following quote, "...As presiding officer I will decide when recognized motions and amendments are recognized. Whether its five minutes from now, or five hours." Do you care to counter these allegations? Dixon: First I'd like to say that if they were going to photoshop me, they could have at least used Marie Antoinette *grin*, but seriously this has been going on all session. All motions and amendments which are proper have to be recognized, that is, brought to a vote within the debate time, normally 72 hours. The fact was while I was checking on the validity of a situation I said that quote because if it took five minutes or five hours to make sure it was proper that was what it was going to take. It would not be ignored or shoved under the rug like the last Speaker did from time to time. Some in the minority want what they want, when they want it, and how they want it. Sorry to tell them that we were chosen to lead the chamber, not them. I have treated every member of the House, Democrat, Republican, and Independent with respect and proper decorum, something they have not all been willing to reciprocate, but that won't stop me from doing the job my constituents and my caucus chose me to do, and do to the best of my ability. Keynes: So let me get this straight.... You are not an evil tyrant bent on America's destruction? *laugh* Dixon: *laugh* Far from it. I love this country and you know, everyone in Congress, all sides, loves it. We all want what is best for it. A lot of times we're going to disagree with what that is, but we should all be behaving ourselves, we should all be respectful, polite, and understanding of a mistake here or there instead of jumping on every little thing so we can score cheap points. I think thats what the folks at home would like anyways. Keynes: Well, thank you Madame Speaker for joining me here tonight. I wish you all the best. Folks, we're going to take a quick break and when we come back, I'll have Sen. Buford Justice of Texas here with me tonight. We hope you at home will stay with us! Music plays out as camera pans across the studio, Alec and Speaker Dixon can be seen casually chatting. Commercials Play Alec Keynes: Welcome back ladies and gentlemen, we've just heard from Speaker of the House, Jennifer Dixon. Joining me here now we have Chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, Buford T. Justice of Texas. Thank you for joining us here in New York, Senator. Buford Justice:That's ok, any time. Keynes: Senator, your committee just wrapped up hearings on President Pizzuto's supreme court nominee, William Graham. What was your overall reaction to the nominee, his testimony, and the committee's response to him? Justice: I was very pleased to see that President Pizzuto had nominated such a well qualified Judge for the position. He's served for years on a Supreme Court already and so has experience on the bench at a high level, and I can see no personal or ethical issues which would make him an unsuitable candidate either. Unfortunately there are however, Democratic naysayers who are going to vote against confirming the Judge because they are studying his judicial philosophy, rather than his qualifications which is what the Constitution requires us to look at. Keynes: There are those that would argue that since a Supreme Court justice is a lifetime appointee, that their philosophy should matter when being confirmed. But you don't think so? Justice: In the Senate, we are charged with confirming or not confirming the President's nominees; it is not our role to project our views onto the Supreme Court. That's why even liberal wingnuts like Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed the Senate with massive majorities - that vote was 96-3 if I remember correctly. Keynes: Speaker of the House Dixon, who was on here just before you, said that President Pizzuto was showing his true colors conservative colors, with this nomination, and was only doing this to appease right-wing fringe groups. What do you have to say to her statements? Justice: She is mistaken in her mind. Why would the President have to appease so called "fringe groups" when he can't run for re-election again? No, he was securing his legacy by nominating a well qualified and competent jurist who will serve the country well on the Supreme Court for hopefully many years to come. Keynes: As you know, the President convened budget talks at the White House recently. Senator, as Congress' "sheriff" on fiscal responsibility, what do you expect from the Administration as they get ready to reveal their budget to the public? Justice: Well, as someone outside those talks, it's hard to say what they have boiled up in the budget cauldron this time. But it will no doubt amount to constitutional witchcraft again though. I do however hope that the President has stuck to his guns, as any good Republican should, and balanced the budget - and perhaps even been a little more ambitious with a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. As usual I will be making my amendments so that the budget fits in line with our Founding Document and does not contain unconstitutional social spending such as education, healthcare, public housing - you know, the usual things. Keynes: He says he can balance the budget by the time he leaves office, do you buy it? Justice: Anybody can balance the budget if they cut enough spending. I could make a budget with a couple of trillion dollars as a surplus if I wanted. Keynes: This past week, the country lost one of your colleagues, Sen. Sarmento and another Washington insider, Sec. of Homeland Security, Elizabeth Warren due, in large part, to the large scale blackouts along the east coast. Sec. of the Interior Schurz called for the construction of a 'smart grid.' to prevent such events from happening again. What are your thoughts on this? Should Congress enact these measures? Justice: Indeed, it has been a sad week in Washington and I am sorry to have friends and such hard working public servants. On the smart grid issue, I think that the Secretary should write the Governors responsible for the Eastern Seaboard and suggest that they should enact such measures. I will however oppose any attempt to do this at a federal level - simply because it is unconstitutional and would be an illegal act of government. Keynes: Senator, one final topic for tonight... What are the chances we will see President Justice in 2024? Justice: *laughs* Well I think I'm happy serving the people of the Heartland right now, and I doubt I'd be that effective as a campaigner in swing states. I'd have to select Hunter Rose as my VP to balance the ticket. So slim. Keynes: *laughs* Well, I thank you for taking the time to fly up here tonight. Ladies and gentlemen, that was Sen. Buford Justice of the Heartlands. We're going to take a few minutes for some words from our sponsors and when we come back, we have our round table. Commercials Alec Keynes: Welcome back folks. With me tonight for our roundtable discussion I have Senator Kevin Santos-Carter of New York, former Presidential candidate, former Senator, and current Congressman from Colorado, Hunter Rose, and former Representative from Indiana and current law professor at the University of Louisville, Evan McCloud. Thank you for joining me tonight guys. (IMG:http://i344.photobucket.com/albums/p360/comer1234/KevinSantos-Carter.jpg) (IMG:http://i344.photobucket.com/albums/p360/comer1234/HunterRose.jpg) (IMG:http://i344.photobucket.com/albums/p360/comer1234/EvanMcCloud.jpg) Hunter Rose: Thank you for having me. Kevin Santos-Carter:Thank you as well. Keynes: Alright, let's get down to business. As we speak, the Senate is voting on the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee, Judge William Graham, what are your reactions to this Judge from Dixie? Rose: I think his confirmation would be a terrible thing for the Court and for the country. He may have the judicial experience under his belt, as the Republicans have been so quick to point out, but his philosophy is so radically out of touch with both precedent and the American people that I'm frankly shocked that the President would nominate him. Evan McCloud: As a former member of the House Judiciary committee, I have to concur. It's one thing to think that corporations deserve protection, it's a completely different thing to say that they should enjoy the same rights as people, as he said in his testimony. I guarantee you that President Pizzuto wouldn't have nominated this guy without the number of Republicans he has in the Senate. Santos-Carter: I agree with with the Congressmen. President Pizzuto could have picked much better nominees, even ones without federal bench experience. Unfortunately, Judge Graham seems eager to put his ideology over modern jurisprudence and modern American society. Keynes: Speaker Dixon, earlier tonight suggested that his nomination was purely political. However, Sen. Justice says that it's merely a nomination of a highly qualified man and should pass the senate nearly unanimously. Which do you tend to side with more? Rose: This is politics, Alec. All policy decisions made by politicians are inherently political. Anyone who tells you different is selling something. McCloud: I think honestly, Like Congressman Rose said, if the President were as interested in the best wishes of the American people, then there were much more moderate and less controversial choices he could have made. As such, I tend to think that he was trying to appease some of the more conservative wings of his party who were a bit unsettled by his centrist campaigning he did this year. After all, he still needs their support to push through his agenda Santos-Carter: I don't think either is really right. I don't think the nomination was purely political, but certainly it was highly politically motivated. At the same time, Senator Justice is flat out wrong. Again, there were many equally, if not more, qualified men that could have been nominated. Yet, the president chose Judge Graham instead of these other individuals. Keynes: This is for Sen. Santos-Carter especially, but what were some things that stuck out to you from Judge Graham's testimony before the Senate Judiciary and Regulatory Committe Santos-Carter:There were a number of things, but mainly his views on such topics as the right to privacy, due process, and equal protection. All of these things are fundamental protections in our constitution, yet Judge Graham seems to want to narrowly interpret such clauses in his own ideology that would take us back to 1821 instead of being grounded in 2021. McCloud: Right, there were certainly things that I, as a current law professor, can agree with such as his views on the 2nd amendment etc. But the simple fact that he wants government to mind its own business with guns, but doesn't think it should keep its nose out of the bedroom of consenting adults...that's scary, and makes me think that he has a bit of political agenda of his own. Rose: I think what really struck me was the utter hypocrisy of his belief that certain minorities of whom his party takes a dim view, such as gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered -- are not afforded the full protections of the 14th Amendment, but that corporations definitely are. How anyone but the most extreme of right-wing ideologues could defend such a view is quite beyond my ken. McCloud: Exactly, that is what leads me to believe that he is more politically motivated than any judge we've seen in a long time. Keynes: We have two former Presidential candidates here with us. What kind of justice would each of you have nominated? What kind of Supreme Court Justice does America need right now? Rose: I think that what America needs right now is another William O. Douglas, Louis Brandeis, or William J. Brennan, a full-throated defender of the civil rights and liberties to which all Americans are entitled by right of birth. Keynes:Sen. Santos-Carter? Santos-Carter: I would have nominated a justice who would be able to judge the merits of the case in a fair an impartial manner, who knows the meaning of equal protection and due process, and whose fundamental concern is for the Constitution and its role in modern American society. I hold to high esteem former justices like Earl Warren and Thurgood Marshall. Keynes: Gentlemen, real quickly here we're going to touch on the power outages which recently affected the East Coast. Sec. Schurz of the Interior Department recently suggested that it was time to start construction of a new "Smart Grid." What should Congress' place in this dialogue be? McCloud: Hopefully we will see this begin a national dialogue on energy, which is long overdue in my opinion Rose: Well, obviously, I would think that Congress would take the leading role, since it is Congress' job to pass laws and appropriate funds for such a project. Speaking personally, I look forward to the debate on the matter. Santos-Carter: I agree. A smarter, more efficient energy grid is long overdue and Congress should help start the process. I know some people will complain about costs, but in the long run a smarter, efficient energy grid will save us money as well as help make sure such things don't happen again. McCloud: I also tend to think that this will allow us to start a serious discussion about green and alternative forms of energy. After all, we've all known for a long time that America's dependence on oil is unsustainable, perhaps this will be a mechanism to push for that. Keynes: Gentlemen, do you think the support will be there for the GOP to push this through? Rose: I think that there may be support from some of the more reasonable members of the Republican caucus. Others, of course, will be opposed to anything that will mean spending money. But I have high hopes that such a program, if well-constructed, would pass Congress with bipartisan support. Santos-Carter: I think there is. I work with members on both sides of the aisles on a number of issues, and I am confident I can work with colleagues across the aisle in passing legislation to start a smart grid Keynes: Alright, thank you all for joining me here tonight. This has been our round table. Stick around for a few words from our sponsors and when we come back, we'll have "The List." Rose:Thank you, Alec. Santos-Carter: Thank you. McCloud: It was a pleasure to be here. Camera fades to black as the four men are seen chatting together and laughing. Alec Keynes: And now it comes time for the closing segment of our program. "The List." Each week we will count down a certain list, and this week is "where are they now." That's right. Just a few short years ago these four people were taking the political world by storm. Many predicted greatness for them. Some, predicted the White House and the Oval Office were in each of these men's near future. Now, join me as we find out what's become of them since they left the halls of government. Senate Democratic Leader Jackson Rockefeller (D-OH) After a decade of service in Washington, Jackson Rockefeller retired from the U.S. Senate last year. Known for his years of steady leadership and bipartisan outreach, his career was marked with numerous triumphs, including defense and education reform, ending the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy, pulling the nation back from the brink of a full government shutdown, holding the United Nations accountable for ethical violations and saving the U.S. auto industry from total collapse. In 2021, Rockefeller founded the Rockefeller Foundation for Public Policy & Global Studies where the former Senate Majority Leader presses lawmakers on domestic and foreign policy. The 2016 Presidential Nominee also hosts the "Live with Rockefeller" show on CNN from his home state, Ohio, where he mixes in-depth news coverage with personal commentary based on his extensive knowledge and experience in the nation's capital. Klaus Guderian (R-AK) Klaus Guderian was a House Representative back in 2011 who was a foreign policy wonk. He was a proponent of tight border security, immigration reform, and an improved military who tried to run for the Republican nomination for the Presidency in 2012. However, a cancer diagnosis forced him to drop his bid early. He made a comeback back in 2014 when then Northwest Governor Jason Harris appointed him to the Senate. In the Senate he focused heavily on border control and security. Later that year, he was defeated in a special election to hold the seat. Guderian went back to his business in Alaska until he was called up again to run for NW Lt. Gov in 2018. He didn't win, but he did serve as GOP Leg Leader for a moment until he had to resign because his wife died. Now he is mainly a military historian who writes books, gives lectures, and doesn't intend to get back into politics again. Gov. Bryan McLaggen (D-KY) Coming onto the political scene just 10 years ago, Bryan McLaggen was the local college educator selected to fill a vacancy in the U.S. Senate. Through his appointment and election in 2012 to remain in the Senate, McLaggen became a forceful advocate for labor and education in the nation's capital. After his four year tenure, he ran for the position of Appalachia Governor, easily defeating the opposition. After being sworn in to office in 2015, McLaggen went on to be the longest serving Appalachia Governor, dramatically reshaping the region. He created the largest surplus in his region history, passed three balanced budgets, cut middle class taxes, reformed Appalachia's education system, put more Appalachians back to work and made healthcare more accessible and affordable for all Appalachians. After announcing he would not seek the appointment to Governor after megaregionalization in 2020, McLaggen joined the Democratic ticket with Lincoln Winters as his party's nominee for Vice President. Winning the popular vote along with Winters but not the election, McLaggen joined the Rockefeller Foundation as Vice Chairman and returning to lecturing at local colleges. While not currently in office, McLaggen remains involved in public service and is continued to be named as a potential candidate in the future on the regional, federal or even national level once again. Gov. Davis Jefferson (R-MO) Davis Jefferson retired from public life after leaving the Heartland Governor's Mansion in 2020. He takes on the occasional speaking engagement at College Republican and similar meetings in the new region of Jefferson and local Republican fundraisers. He enjoys the freedom to spend more time with his wife, Mary, and children. His oldest daughter, Ellen, is in her final semesters at the University of Missouri–St. Louis. She will graduate with a degree in Political Science in the fall of 2021. His son, Davis, Jr., followed in his father's footsteps by earning a wrestling scholarship and Iowa State University. He is expected to be a major contender in his weight class at the next NCAA tournament. He is studying for a degree in Marketing. His youngest daughter, Chloe, attends St. Charles High School and recently obtained her learner's driver's license. Davis persistently warns his neighbors to stay off the sidewalks, much to the chagrin of his daughter. She plans to attend the University of Missouri when she finishes high school--a day she is sure will never actually arrive. The former Governor of the Heartland has no current plans to return to politics. Camera fades to black and fades back in to reveal Keynes sitting behind his desk. Alec Keynes: Well that's all the time we have for this week. We hope you'll join us again same time, same place right here on CNN as we "Talk Politics." Thank you, goodnight, and Godspeed. |
|
|
|
|
04 April 2010, 23:26
Post
#39
|
|
|
National. Champions. Group: Administrators Posts: 559 Joined: 11-November 08, 19:26 From: Alexandria Member No.: 116 Gender: Male Office: President |
Aired daytime
Live With (IMG:http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/3584/rockefellerlogo.gif) JACKSON P. ROCKEFELLER (IMG:http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/1505/1720jfk20jr21.jpg) Live from Toledo, Ohio GOP SHUNS 'PRIVATE CITIZEN' INVOLVEMENT IN GOV'T Republican Congressional Leaders Foster & Reiber reject Rockefeller offer for bipartisan healthcare talks because he's no longer in government ROCKEFELLER: So, last week I sent an invitation to leaders, on both sides of the aisle, in Congress to join me for a summit in Toledo to talk about healthcare reform. In response, Republican leaders Archie Foster and Samantha Reiber rejected my invitation because policy, and I quote, "should be made in Congress by elected members of the Senate and the House of Representatives" and not by private citizens, like you and I. Keep in mind, my opinion is skewed in this situation as I am party to it. But, like any citizen, my opinion matters. So, here are the press statements both Mr. Foster and Ms. Reiber released regarding my invitation on the healthcare summit. Senate Majority Leader Foster says policy decisions "SHOULD BE MADE IN CONGRESS BY ELECTED MEMBERS OF THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES" QUOTE (Senate Majority Leader Foster's Office) "I have received, and respectfully declined an invitation to a health care summit hosted by Former Democratic Senator Jack Rockefeller's organization, the Rockefeller Foundation. I've done this for a number of reasons, first and foremost because the CHOICE Act is not dead, and is still good policy that we intend on passing. Secondly, I don't think such important decision-making and policy creation processes should be made at a left-wing think tank, they should be made in Congress by elected members of the Senate and the House of Representatives. I appreciate the effort Mr. Rockefeller put towards passing CHOICE last session, and hopes he supports it's ultimate passage. However if he wishes to start legislating again, I suggest that he run for Senate again. And lastly, the Democrats proved last session that they cannot control the liberal wing of their party. These Senators have no interest in bipartisanship nor any desire for consensus, and I do not believe returning to the table with them on a major health care reform program would be fruitful." House Minority Leader Reiber says "HEALTHCARE POLICY MUST BE WORKED OUT IN CONGRESS AND AMONG MEMBERS OF CONGRESS" QUOTE (House Minority Leader Reiber's Office) "Healthcare policy must be worked out in Congress by members of Congress and among members of Congress," the Minority Leader said. "Not under a former Senator who is no longer a member of this body and is not making an ultimate decision on healthcare policy. I opened my door weeks ago to the Democrats on any policy they'd like to work out with us, and that door remains open." ROCKEFELLER: Now, it is true that I do not vote on legislation any longer. It is true that I will not make any direct decisions on national healthcare policy today, but this invitation is for members of Congress to get out of Washington and get together, bipartisanly, to discuss healthcare policy. Isn't that exactly what Ms. Reiber asked for even in her press statement? It is. It's a shame these folks are hiding behind their elected titles instead of seizing this opportunity to make real reform a possibility. Let's turn to our analysts for some feedback... KEFER: The Republican excuses are absurd. Private citizens, including former members of Congress and former White House officials, are involved in policymaking all the time. Look at every former President since Herbert Hoover. Look at former Vice Presidents Al Gore and Dick Cheney, former Speaker Newt Gingrich, and former Senators George Mitchell and Bob Dole, who actually had a policy institute dedicated to bringing bipartisanship back to politics. And that's only a more modern list, too. NARE: In the Republican's defense, the Rockefeller Foundation is not the normal place for them to do business. KEFER: But, isn't that the point? Get them out of Washington. Bring them together in Ohio, in the heartland, to get healthcare reform back on track. It's not like this is anything new to Jackson Rockefeller, who has done this a few times before. ROCKEFELLER: Putting aside the specific swipes at me, my concern is the message being sent out by the Pizzuto Administration and Republicans in Congress that private citizens, not just former members of Congress, are being excluded from the policymaking process in Washington, altogether. KEFER: If Jackson Rockefeller can't get an audience with folks in Washington, who can? It's a very bad message, especially for conservatives who value the constitutional process, to claim private citizens should sit down and shut up and let the good old boys in Washington take care of everything, and that's scary because they have little room to talk about successful policy making. NARE: I don't think it was a smart way to decline the invitation. But, again, what incentive do Republicans get for attending a summit held by the the former Senate Democratic leader and DNC Presidential nominee? KEFER: But what harm is there in attending bipartisan talks? And, these talks might have helped the President pass a majority of what's in his CHOICE legislation. At the very least, attending bipartisan talks would have made the Republicans seem, well, bipartisan even if they ended up forcing CHOICE down the Senate's throat. Now, the Republicans seem petty in their refusal to even attend and completely reactionary in their sudden push for the passage of CHOICE again. ROCKEFELLER: And that's what bipartisan negotiating is -- an open conversation about what can feasibly be accomplished by working together. And, as we realized during both of the President's failed attempts to pass CHOICE, even his own party is not solidly behind the bill probably because CHOICE is expensive and some of its policy does not sit well with conservatives. NARE: You'll never get full agreement on comprehensive legislation, like CHOICE. ROCKEFELLER: Right, which is why bipartisan talks are always helpful. The President knows he needs to build a bipartisan coalition in order to pass CHOICE, but he's never done the work to accomplish that. KEFER: And Republicans in Congress are not helping him with their recent attacks. NARE: While the excuses coming from Republicans against this healthcare summit are not smart, there are reasons for them. To their credit, CHOICE is merely waiting for Senate passage. KEFER: And they waited until they received invitations to a bipartisan summit to push CHOICE? There's no coincidence there. They got the invitation and went 'crap, we want CHOICE not bipartisan compromise!' NARE: And many of them do want CHOICE, not compromise. KEFER: But compromise was good enough for Republicans last session. They started CHOICE off with closed-door, Republican-only talks on CHOICE. Why? Because Republicans controlled the Senate, but CHOICE still failed. NARE: The compromises on CHOICE last session failed too. KEFER: They only compromised because the Democrats controlled the Senate. Now that the Senate is back in Republican hands, they're refusing to compromise again. Do you see the pattern? When it control, Republicans refuse to work bipartisanly on healthcare reform. When out of power, the Republican open the door to compromise. Guess who accepted bipartisan talks, even when in power? Democrats, specifically Mr. Rockefeller. ROCKEFELLER: Well, it's my belief that bipartisan talks can never hurt and can only build mutual trust, better relationship and, in the end, make Washing less less polarized and provide Americans with the opportunity to receive the benefits of successful policy making. NARE: And those are good ideas, but this is Washington. It's a city built by politics. I'm not saying we shouldn't expect better, but we should also be realistic. HEALTHCARE SUMMIT OPENS IN TOLEDO Democrats focused on reforms for affordable, accessible care as Republicans boycott summit ROCKEFELLER: The healthcare summit is merely a stage for officials to get out of Washington and come together to discuss possible options for reform, as well as the ways and means to make it happen. I am here with Speaker Jennifer Dixon to talk about the summit. So, let's welcome an old friend of mine, Speaker Dixon. Live with Rockefeller Jennifer Dixon SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE (IMG:http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee197/ThomasUSG/kirsten-gillibrand.jpg) ROCKEFELLER: We've got a serious issue with rising healthcare costs in America. That's why I offered to host a healthcare summit and, I assume, also why you, Madam Speaker, agreed to attend. My goal is simply to foster debate with policymakers that will make healthcare more affordable and accessible for more Americans. That said, I'd like to know what is your goal is this summit? Are you coming with a set plan or specifics for what you hope to accomplish? SPEAKER DIXON: What I really want to accomplish is to sit down with all viewpoints and come to a consensus on issues we can all support. Earlier this session we passed a health care proposal from the House and I know the Senate will ignore it because they’re circling the wagons around the CHOICE bill which not only Democrats opposed but even some Republicans. That’s the thing they don’t like people to hear. They claim CHOICE is bipartisanly supported but its demise was also bi-partisan. That says to me that while CHOICE had some good aspects to it, that its time to go back to the drawing board with everyone sitting down together. The fact that the Republicans have said, almost in uniformity, that the Toledo invitation is unacceptable because it comes from a private citizen just screams of such an egotistical view I can’t believe any elected official let alone someone who wants to get re-elected would say it.. I’m sure that their constituents are pleased to know that their ideas and proposals don’t matter to their Congressman because they’re not a member of the Congressional brain trust. Or maybe they just don’t like Democratic private citizens. If you’d switched parties after you left office they might have shown up. ROCKEFELLER: The most notable occurrence of this summit, so far, is the refusal of Republican leaders to attend. Frankly, their reasoning that a private citizen, such as myself, cannot be involved in the legislative process is utterly ridiculous and quite offensive to all private Americans, as well as being a seriously bad excuse when you look at the involvement of former Presidents and other former elected officials as well as ordinary Americans, all private citizens, in the past. To me, their refusal was shocking. Perhaps it is political. Perhaps its about keeping a check on their own power. Perhaps its just an excuse to avoid bipartisan meetings on healthcare. Whatever it is, I don't know. What I do know is that the lack of Republican participation, especially from the Senate, complicates the success of any result from this summit. Be that as it may, you still feel this summit is worth your time? SPEAKER DIXON: Absolutely. I’ve never seen an issue which is too dangerous for anyone not to talk about. But again. this whole bipartisanship issue has been completely mischaracterized in their attempt to run for cover. Unfortunately Republicans, some of whom have cried for months that my side doesn’t want to talk to them, now ignore this forum and this chance to talk because its not on their turf or in their comfort zone. They want to ignore a so called partisan think tank but they feel very comfortable talking in the White House or, my favorite, their own offices. Something tells me that if we were dealing with President Rockefeller or President Winters and the Pizzuto Institute offered its services they’d be jumping at the chance and telling everyone how we should be listening to the voice of private citizens. ROCKEFELLER: *chuckles* That's a valid thought, but one we may never know. From my own personal experience, the lack of one party's involvement does not mean its a futile effort, but it certainly makes it more difficult and complicated. Is there still a chance that any policy ideas worked out during this summit could result in legislative action? SPEAKER DIXON: Speaking for the House, we have considered a broad range of bills of various issues all session and certainly if we can find a piece of legislation which encompasses a solid move forward for Americans it will definitely be considered. We can’t speak for the Senate of course but I would hope that they would not be so partisan as to ignore good legislation when they see it or give it a fair up or down. I don’t think my majority or theirs were picked by Americans to stay in separate rooms and never talk face to face…not that that’s ever happened recently or anything. *grin* ROCKEFELLER: After the announcement of this healthcare summit hit Washington, Republican Congressional Leaders and the White House have begun touting the President's CHOICE bill again -- the one that never ceases to fail. Now, there are portions of CHOICE that I think might help the country and there are portions that I do not like -- I've personally made that clear for years now. Yet, despite this being the President's only major initiative for years, it failed to pass Congress; despite its early failure to pass Congress due to closed-door partisan meetings and ignoring minority concerns; despite the bipartisan attempt where the President failed to utter a word of support until after it failed, again; despite objections raised by the President's own party members in Congress -- yet despite all of that, it seems Republican leaders and the White House are intent on forcing CHOICE down the nation's throat yet again, and this time without bipartisan input. This does not paint a pretty picture for the Republicans in Congress or the President. And obviously, I have my concerns and I've laid them out there for years, both in private and in public. So, since CHOICE passed the House last session, the Republicans can try to force this bill through the U.S. Senate-- what are your thoughts on that seeing that the now Democrat-controlled House, under your leadership, would be cut out of the legislative process altogether? SPEAKER DIXON: Again, I don’t think this is what Americans are looking for out of Washington. I also find it slightly…I hate to say amusing but CHOICE has been dead and buried for over a year. Now that suddenly we get this summit invitation, all of a sudden it’s ‘let’s push CHOICE and it’s so great.’ Why wasn’t it great four..eight..twelve months ago? Are they afraid that something better might get brought to light and it’d be better than the President’s bill? Are they afraid to sit down in Toledo and possibly give an inkling that they don’t think his bill is 100% the best possible reform we can get? I understand protecting your administration but politics should not come before the best possible package for Americans. As you said, CHOICE has some good points in it, and it may surprise some to hear me say that. But I think it has room for improvement. Unfortunately when they circle the wagons or bring up the drawbridge or however you want to say it, we’re not going to get that dialogue because they have made the choice, no pun intended, of trying to force a failed bill for a failed legacy for this administration instead of sitting down and finding something that will benefit more people in a more comprehensive way. ROCKEFELLER: Now, House Minority Leader Reiber has accused you of not supporting bipartisan talks on healthcare policy earlier this session while now agreeing to attend this healthcare summit. Is this true? If so, what's changed? SPEAKER DIXON: The American people need to understand this talking/not talking process. Let me begin by saying point blank, did I myself call up Leader Reiber to discuss issues? No I didn't. I can't speak for former Majority Leader Kennedy but I don't think he did either. However, and this is important, they didn't come knocking on our door either. So to portray this as us slamming the door in their face is ridiculous. Several months ago they sent us a letter saying that we could come visit and talk with them in their offices anytime we wanted. I responded and suggested we use the Rules Committee because it has all the leadership on it plus two trusted members and the Rules Committee can affect real change that we could work together on. This suggestion was mocked and later its been twisted as me only wanting to meet in the Rules, which is more than disingenuous. It seems that because I'm not beating down the door to talk to them that I, and the majority are the bad guys in this. I know this is a much longer answer than you were expecting but it goes to the heart of this whole mess. It has been a pattern with this Republican minority that when they don't get what they want, when they want it, and how they want it, they act like my four year old niece who refuses to eat her french fries if you don't cut them the way she wants. The Minority Whip said it in a nutshell and I applaud his honesty, when he said: footage rolls QUOTE (House Minority Whip Wallace's Office) If the Speaker wants to continue to try turning water into wine about bipartisanship, she can do that. I just hope she remembers that our doors are always open, and we're ready to chat if she wishes. If it's about healthcare, and if the talking is done in the Capitol or in the House office building or at the White House, then I'm all ears. If it isn't, then forget it. ROCKEFELLER: That's a powerful statement, one that Republicans - at least the House Minority Leadership - seems to be saying, but doing little about. SPEAKER DIXON: If the talking is done where they want, and when they want then they will talk to us till the cows come home. If it's not on their terms, they cross their arms and claim we're the ones who don't want a dialogue. I think all Americans need to see this behavior for what it is. I'm coming to the summit and I hope they will change their minds and will attend after all, but if they don't, it needs to be remembered on election day that they put their party and their ego above what can be done to make life better for this nation. ROCKEFELLER: Do you think the sudden Republican push for CHOICE is in response to this healthcare summit or is it a mere coincidence? SPEAKER DIXON: There are no coincidences in politics. Like I said earlier, CHOICE was embalmed thanks to a bipartisan effort in the Senate last term and as soon as the summit is mentioned suddenly they want it back on life support. I don't think anyone watching at home needs help to connect those dots. ROCKEFELLER: The House has passed a healthcare reform bill earlier this session and many would say its has a more liberal tilt, since it included a public health insurance option. Do you think passing one reform bill earlier this session precludes you from working bipartisanly, making compromises for reform passage or considering options that may not have been in bills the House has previously passed? SPEAKER DIXON: Absolutely not. Now I'm proud of our effort to pass healthcare reform and yes, some would say it was a liberally tilted bill but that doesn't equal a bad bill or plan no matter how the Republicans want to spin that. Just because we passed that bill, it's certainly not law and I sincerely doubt the Senate would ever bring it up, so even though we passed it, we can examine more ideas and more legislation until we find something that we can all support and I don't mean calling a token democrat supporting it as bipartisan. ROCKEFELLER: There's much controversy and political contention over a public health insurance option. In the House, especially with the Democratic Majority, is a public option a make it or break it provision? SPEAKER DIXON: Speaking with perfect honesty, I think many of us, myself included, favor that approach because we think its part of the best overall solution. Is it a deal breaker, I wouldn't say that, though I can only speak for myself on that. I'm confidant that if we can put together a bill which takes the best of our bill, and the best of CHOICE, and the best of some things we all overlooked the first time that when faced with that the entire congress can say, 'well, that's not 100% of what I wanted but it's pretty darn good.' That's what a compromise is. It's not stacking the deck or arm twisting your own members to force an agenda piece. ROCKEFELLER: Let's cap this off with one big question on this topic -- when it comes to healthcare reform, what is one thing that is entirely necessary for it to truly make the system more affordable and insure more Americans? SPEAKER DIXON: I think there are several areas we can look to make improvements for the folks back home but if I had to pick one area for us to make sure we address I think that we need to do our absolute best to make certain that the quality of care for Americans isn't destroyed by us trying to fix things. If we can all do that, keep the quality and expand the access and the insurance coverage and all the rest, we'll have earned our paychecks from America. ROCKEFELLER: Thank you for your time, Madam Speaker. ROCKEFELLER'S FINAL WORD ROCKEFELLER: I get the political implications of Republicans attending this healthcare summit. They're worried they'd have to make compromises on CHOICE and that those compromises would either screw up the bill or stall its passage. But, for a bill that's already failed to pass twice, I see little harm in traveling to Toledo to talk about healthcare reform. And these attacks against private citizens are ridiculous and they must stop. If you don't want to attend a summit, then politely decline. But, do not attack the right of every American to be involved in the process that is our government, not yours alone. In the end, I think it's time to put the American people ahead of politics and the sooner that these people in Washington learn that, the better life will be for our entire country. Never forget -- We sent these people to Washington and we can send you home, too. And that's all there is for today. Thanks for tuning in! |
|
|
|
|
14 April 2010, 00:02
Post
#40
|
|
|
National. Champions. Group: Administrators Posts: 559 Joined: 11-November 08, 19:26 From: Alexandria Member No.: 116 Gender: Male Office: President |
(IMG:http://s252.photobucket.com/albums/hh7/OliverHPerry/CHESTERQT.jpg)
CHESTER!: HELLO, and welcome to Question Time with with Lars Johanson. As you can see Lars is gone today; he's enjoying a well-deserved two week vacation. I'm CHESTER! Perry, Senator from Virginia, and Lars has asked me to serve as guest host this evening. Tonight we are broadcasting with the Wolfpack of North Carolina State University, here in beautiful Raleigh, North Carolina. Scattered cheers from enthusiastic NCSU students; laughter from panel and audience. CHESTER!: Tonight we have a very distinguished panel of guests... on my right is Congressman Aaron Waters, first term Democrat from Missouri. Congressman Waters: Good evening, Senator. CHESTER!: Next we have America's Senior Senator, Ken MacLeod of Montana. Senator MacLeod: Howdy CHESTER!: On my left we have Republican Congressman Edward Wyatt of Texas. Congressman Wyatt: Good to be here, Senator Perry. CHESTER!: And last but not least, we're together again... my DAC committee companion and a fellow panelist from my first QT appearance, Senate minority Leader Addie Jackson. Senator Jackson: *nods* A pleasure, Chester. As always. CHESTER!: And now that we're all acquainted, let's go to our first audience question. From Minnesota we have Tomas ØGLÆND. A sturdy man of Minnesotan descent approaches the microphone. Tomas ØGLÆND: Hi, I'm, uh, Tomas. I was one of the many who had family affected by the recent blackout. And I wanted to ask the panelists, what is the government doing to ensure that something like this doesn't happen again? CHESTER!: Since I happen to know what he's been up to on this issue, I'll steer this first question to Congressman Waters. Congressman Waters: Thank you Senator, and thank you Thomas for your question. The blackout once again highlighted that the fact that the electrical infrastructure in this country is failing. And its costing both the consumer and the government billions of dollars in lost efficiency. And more than that, it also poses a security threat to the United States. Security experts agree, its a liability. From the moment the blackouts occurred, I have been working on a solution to the problem. When Senator Perry announced that he was collaborating on solutions, I went and offered him my assistance. In consultation with him, Secretary Schurz and President Pizzuto, we produced the ENERGY Act. ENERGY, which stands for Ending the National Energy of Yesterday Act, will invest over $100 billion into a matching fund program to support private investment into smart grid technology. It will completely overhaul the electrical grid in the United States into a smart grid system. Additionally, we also invest into renewable energy and hybrid vehicle technology. Needless to say, it will significantly overhaul energy in this country. CHESTER!: Well good, I happen to remember it the same way! A few scattered chuckles. CHESTER!: Senator MacLeod, are you in favor of an omnibus piece of legislation in response to the blackout? Senator MacLeod: I've read the ENERGY Act. It does a lot of things, few of which, sadly, I could support. Some of them - as Congressman Waters has in fact said - completely unrelated to the issue at hand. It's an enormous corporate welfare bill, and it would heavily distort the operations of the market. And more than that, it's something we can't afford. We're already running a federal budget deficit in the hundreds of billions, it's been a century since we consistently balanced the federal budget. There is nothing more important right now than getting our national finances under control, and we're thinking about spending over a hundred billion dollars on something the federal government shouldn't be involved with at all? No, Chester, I'm not in favor of it. What we in the Congress should be asking is not " how should the federal government dictate the way in which private corporations deliver a product to their customers?" It's "should we be involved here at all?" That's the question we should be asking. And we can find that answer very easily by reading the Constitution. The answer is no. CHESTER!: Senator Jackson? Your response to the ENERGY Act? Senator Jackson: Thank you, Chester. You know, this is something that couldn't be more timely- coming right out of the little discussion that you, I, the Secretary, and Senator Sorenson have been having in committee about our national infrastructure. Certainly... in the Senate DAC committee. A CHESTER!nod. Senator Jackson: Unlike my colleague from Montana, the United States does have a compelling interest to act here- it's something that the private companies should have done by now. That they haven't means there needs to be some incentives, some actions taken to help update our energy system. I like the bill as it is- there could be a few changes on the edges to improve it somewhat, but I think of any energy solution considered by this Congress so far, including one that almost got filibusters out of existence, this is the best. CHESTER!: Since we seem to be going around the table, I'll open this up to Congressman Wyatt as well. Congressman Wyatt: I must agree and disagree with the Senator from Montana. I disagree with him that this isn't an issue for the federal government. Our energy grid needs to be revitalized and replaced, it is old and failing. However, I must also agree with him that this seems to be leaning a bit on the side of corporate welfare. Tax credits, grants to states...for alternative energies, not replacing the energy grid, when we are deep in debt. CHESTER!: Do you see the bill passing the house? Congressman Wyatt: Well, I think that largely depends on the Democrats in the House. They are the majority, they control the docket, and they have consistantly shown and reiterated that they dominate at voting. If the Democrats are onboard with passing this bipartisan bill, then I see it happening. CHESTER!: Fair enough. Senator Jackson, the GOP majority hasn't been as dominate in the Senate at times... do you see this passing in the Sen-- Senator MacLeod: To Congressman Wyatt A bit on the side of corporate welfare? To say that this is "leaning a bit on the side of corporate welfare" is like saying that Dick Cheney was "kind of" in favor of military adventurism. You're writing a check to private corporations to be paid by our children, with compounded interest. It is incredibly irresponsible! Senator Jackson begins to speak. Congressman Waters: If I may, Senator? Senator Jackson holds up his hand and nods. Senator Jackson: Well, Chester, to get to your original point, barring a few votes on behalf of those that don't like it, like my colleague here and perhaps his ethanol-subsidy-happy friends, I think this could work. Though you'd have to get the Majority Leader to bring it up first. Which is hard enough. Senator Jackson looks back to Congressman Waters. CHESTER!: Go ahead, Congressman. Congressman Waters: With all due respect to Senator MacLeod, it is all related. When you implement a smart grid, you have to do more than just put up electrical lines. You also have to look for alternative fuel sources, like the solar, wind and natural gas that ENERGY promotes. You have to utilize technology that fits into the system, like plug-in hybrid vehicles. You have to do more than just change the grid, you have to connect everything else into it. For the smart grid to be as efficient as it possible could be – and therefore saving both the government and the consumer as much as possible – you need all these other aspects. We recognized that, and that’s why we wrote in these provisions. As to the cost topic: the bill includes significant cost offsets to make the bill as revenue neutral as possible. I know the cost offsets that are currently in the bill, which include significant savings in the drawdown of operations in Afghanistan, make the bill very close to revenue neutral if not completely revenue neutral. The President and Secretary Schruz can attest to our commitment to making this this bill is revenue neutral. Senator MacLeod: The problem with having the government do that is the same as any time the government tries to pick winners and losers. Congressman Waters: This isn’t government interfering in the market, as there is no mandate that companies actually must implement smart grid technology, this is just government promoting this technology. Congressman Wyatt: But I fail to understand why we need all these tax credits for solar and wind energies, and all these extra add-ons that have nothing to do with replacing the national energy grid. Sure, these are good things, but when we are counting every penny, it makes no sense to go further than we must. Senator Jackson: To Senator MacLeod. Are you saying that an updated energy grid is a loser, Senator? Senator MacLeod: The government does not have the capacity to make the correct decision as to how electrical power should be generated, because the government does not hold itself to the same constrains as private enterprise. Congressman Waters: Congressman Wyatt, it is just like I said: this is about more then just the infrastructure. For the smart grid to operate to the best of its ability, to be as clean as possible, and to be as efficient as possible, it must be coupled with other technologies, including alternative energies like wind, solar, and natural gas. A CHESTER!nod in agreement. CHESTER!: --and advanced coal technologies Congressman Waters: --and they also include plug-in hybirds, which experts will attest to working perfectly and incredibly efficently in a smart grid system. Congressman Wyatt: If you want to boost energy production here in the United States, the best way we can do that is by opening us up to more oil production here in the United States. Senator MacLeod: To Congressman Waters.You may think that ethanol or solar or wind are great ideas. Maybe they are. But the problem with government deciding how we should generate power is that we are not subject to market forces. Private companies don't have the luxury of raising taxes or printing money to finance unprofitable or unwise ventures. CHESTER!: That will have to be the end of our conversation on ENERGY, gentleman. It's time to move on. Our next question-- Senator Jackson waves his hand as to brush away the change in topics. CHESTER!: --Senator Jackson? Is there something quick you need to add? Senator Jackson: Nothing that we haven't heard... or wont hear on the Senate floor I'm sure. CHESTER!: Fair enough. In that case our next question is from Joe Sickspack. Mr. Sickspack? Joe Sickspack steps forward wearing a "TEXAS IS JUSTICE COUNTRY SHIRT". Joe Sickspack: Now CHESTER!, I think the people who rape children deserve worse than death, but since death is the best we can give 'em I guess we have to make due. What does the panel think about frying child-rapers and the fact that with this new guy on the court, it might just be possible. CHESTER!: I believe Mr. Sickspack is referring to the new law in Jefferson relating to capital punishment for sexual abuse of minors. Senator MacLeod, you voted in favor of the recent Court nominee... your thoughts on this issue? Senator MacLeod: I think that Kennedy v. Louisiana was a very poor decision. I think that, like much of the Supreme Court's capital punishment jurisprudence, it was politically motivated. And I think that expanded what was already a poor precedent - Coker v. Georgia was also wrongly decided. I am very much in favor of the proposed Jefferson law; the only change I would suggest would be to make any rape a capital offense. I think it a fitting punishment, and certainly not prohibited by any reasonable reading of the 8th amendment. CHESTER!: Senator Jackson, you led the charge against the President's nominee. Well, my colleague's decision to weigh in on the constitutionality of- whether we like it or not- is accepted law of the land shows just how charged this issue is. No matter what our views are of the Court, the fact is that Kennedy v. Louisiana was very clear on capital punishment in rape cases. I can't say I understand what goes on in the mind of those that would sexually assault children- I don't think many here can- but to give them an "easy out" of their crimes through putting them to death is something that the Supreme Court has said is clearly wrong. I don't expect this new law to last long. Applause. CHESTER!: The law in question is in your megaregion, Congressman Wyatt. How do you respond both to the law and to the current complexion of the Court? Congressman Wyatt: Well, first of all, I supported Graham's nomination and was happy to see the Senate confirmed him based on his experience and knowledge of the law. In regards to the law, I think that if we can win this fight in the courts, I say 'hell yes, go for it'. These heinous, sick criminals who do unthinkable acts to children do not deserve to live and breathe for a life sentence on the taxpayer's dime. They deserve capital punishment, and I am completely behind the decision to pass this bill and fight for it in the courts should it be necessary. CHESTER!: Do you share this conviction, Congressman Waters? This is your megaregion as well. Congressman Waters: No, I don't. Whether or not Kennedy v. Louisiana was politically motivated or not - and I couldn't comment on the nature of the decisions of the Supreme Court - it is clear: there are distinctions between homicides and non-homicidal crimes, including child rape. The law is clear: this is unconstitutional. Senator Jackson holds his hand up. Congressman Waters: Do I think people that rape children are hienous people? Yes, of course. Do I think they should be punished severely, yes I do. But the law is clear: the death penalty is unconstitutional in this case. Senator Jackson: I'll add that when various states petitioned the court, many of the more conservative justices agreed that they should not rehear the case. So it must not have been THAT politically motivated. The Kennedy v. Louisiana case, that is. Congressman Wyatt: If there is anything I've learned in Washington in near decade of on and off service there, its that there is a lot of fluidity to it. People retire, new people are elected or appointed to replace them, and laws change. If we never changed our laws, women would still be unable to vote and slavery would still be legal - but I'm certain nobody here would argue for either of those things. CHESTER!: That swings both ways, Congressman. Senator MacLeod: The reason Justice Scalia opposed rehearing was precisely because he disagreed with the basis of the majority's opinion - specifically, the national consensus test. Senator Jackson: Fact remains. He opposed rehearing. That said, I don't think anyone here is questioning the heinousness of sexually assaulting a minor. Senator MacLeod: The Justice Department supported rehearing because Congress had added child rape to the list of crimes punishable by death under the UCMJ in 2006 and that fact, which had not previously been brought up, had bearing on the Court's basis for their decision. Senator Jackson: And, if used in very limited and well-defined situations, the death penalty isn't a bad thing. We do need to be careful at just how much of a blanket we provide. Senator MacLeod: Justice Scalia rightly recognized that the test they were using was idiotic. But the important point is this, gentlemen: the Constitution does not draw a line of distinction between homicides and nonhomicides in term of capital punishment vis a vis the 8th amendment. There is nothing in the Constitution that even /hints/ that a child rapist has the right not to be executed for his crime. The issue of what offenses should be subject to capital punishment is one rightly in the purview of the legislatures, not the courts. CHESTER!: And with that we move on. Our next question comes from John Ryder of Napervile, IL. Mr. Ryder? Mr. John Ryder: Evening gentleman. I'm a supporter of universal healthcare and President' Pizzuto's healthcare reform, CHOICE. As someone who works two part-time jobs, its really hard for me to get access to healthcare that I can afford. Do you think that we will ever get some sort of healthcare reform passed in the next two years and what do you think of these so-called "think-tanks" coming up and trying to inject their opinion in the healthcare reform debate? CHESTER!: Senator Jackson, we'll begin with you Senator Jackson: To answer the gentleman's first question, yes, I do believe that we'll see reform passed and soon, I hope. In fact, I encourage everyone here to write to Senate Majority Leader Foster, who's sitting on CHOICE, to bring the bill up for at the least a productive debate. That said, the idea that think tanks are involved in our system is something that is generally accepted. This latest move by the Rockefeller FOundation isn't one designed to guide policy but rather to facilitate a national dialogue between Democrats and Republicans on the best way to enact the needed heatlhcare reform. Instead we have Republicans- up to the White House- saying that we must pass CHOICE, written by the President, because it's a good bill, and bipartisan conferences are apparently a waste. But I hope that we can get moving on this. And soon. CHESTER!: I think your last comment gets to the heart of the issue, Senator. With the rhetoric against CHOICE so strong, is there hope of a consensus over that legislation? Because it's popular with the American people but not with the Democratic Party as of yet -- Senator Jackson: Ah. Unbiased comments from the host. Senators Jackson and Perry laugh. CHESTER!: Just telling it like I see it, Senator. Senator Jackson: But I think that people need to get serious about sitting down with the current Senate leadership to work on this- hammer out something that works. From what I've heard from certain members of the majority, that is not only not happening, but there's talk that it will NOT happen at all. I hope that's wrong. I'd love to talk to someone about CHOICE. And I think there's a good chance that we could make it work. CHESTER!: Sure, and I think we'll address that in our scheduled DAC proceedings. Shifting gears a bit – what about the attack on CHOICE from the right? Many assume you would be a nay vote on the legislation, Senator MacLeod. Senator MacLeod: Well, I'm reminded of the old saying about what happens when you make an assumption, but that would happen to be correct in this case. We've come to the same fundamental problem that we discussed when we spoke about energy a few minutes ago. We need to come back to first principles here. We need seriously consider what the proper role of the federal government is in these United States because one of the problems when the federal government creates a national program in a particular area then that's the program for all three hundred million Americans. One of the great advantages in a federal republic like ours is that the different governments - the different local governments and the different regional governments are able to consider these issues, consider the particular circumstances that they have to deal with, and to act accordingly...or not to act, if it is best. When you enact something like a federal healthcare policy, you obliterate all of that. There are a lot of problems with healthcare in the United States. But more government interventionism certainly isn't the answer. CHESTER!: What about the role of think tanks? I'll open that to any of the panelists. Congressman Wyatt: We should not be delegating the important task of health care reform to partisan lobbyist think tanks, period. Senator Jackson: As I said, Chester... I think it's trying to be a facilitator. Not trying to create policy. Congressman Waters: First, if I may, I want to say that I feel it is very important that we work towards a low cost healthcare option for every American. too many tragedies are written because people don't have health insurance. We have to find the best way to make that happen. As for the role of think tanks: i think they play an important role int he policy making. Congressman Wyatt: America elects Congress and the President to perform that task, and former Senator Rockefeller was not elected to do that. His caucus, actually, is now the superminority following his departure. Congressman Waters: Many of them are staffed with some of the brighest minds in the nation. Senator MacLeod: Well, think tanks can often play an important role in formulating policy in the United States. The CATO Institute has done a lot to demonstrate the problems with government planning in any area, and in particular the ways in which federal involvement in healthcare has caused a lot of the problems we're talking about. Congressman Waters: And if they happen to want to encourage a dialogue, I see nothing wrong with that. Congressman Wyatt: If Former Senator Rockefeller wants to be involved in health care reform, like his last failed compromise, I advise he apply with the Federal Elections Commission as soon as possible. Senator MacLeod: As for our former colleague, Mr. Rockefeller, I may not agree with the conclusions he or his group may come to, but I'm always interested as to what he and his group may have to say. Senator Jackson smiles and nods. CHESTER!: Alright... besides some smaller bipartisan reforms Senator Jackson, myself, and others have passed through the DAC committee, little seems to have the chance of moving in healthcare reform besides CHOICE. In a word, panelists... what's better this session? CHOICE or nothing? Congressman Wyatt? Congressman Wyatt: I support the passage of CHOICE. While I oppose a national takeover of health care, CHOICE is a bill which would cover nearly thirty million Americans through PRIVATE insurance while – CHESTER!: Wait, wait, Congressman! One word: CHOICE or nothing? What's a better outcome to the current Congressional session? Congressman Wyatt: CHOICE. Senator MacLeod: Nothing. Senator Jackson looks like his thinking. CHESTER!: Congressman Waters? Awkward silence as both Congressman Waters and Senator Jackson are thinking. Congressman Waters: Well, I'd have to say something and therefore... CHOICE. Senator Jackson: Gotta promise that my words won't show up in GOP press releases. CHOICE, if we can work together on it. Senator MacLeod: That's the old politician's fallacy: "we must do something, this is something, therefore we must do this.” Murmurs audible in the audience. Congressman Waters: Now, now: I really mean it. Senator MacLeod: Doing nothing is almost invariably an option, and often a good one. Congressman Waters: Something must be done, especially in this recession, to help provide people with health care. CHESTER! holds up his hand. CHESTER!: Now as we are running toward the last stretch of our show, one more question. Mr. Stewart McFansypantsingtonshire, go ahead with your question. Mr. Stewart McFransypantsingtonshire: Is it hypocritical that Senator Justice, the self-proclaimed king of fiscal responsibility, brought the Senate to a halt with a filibuster to protect ethanol subsidies for his region? CHESTER!: Anyone with a reaction on that question? Senator MacLeod: You know, Senator Justice is a great friend of mine. He is a fine senator, a tremendous advocate for the state of Texas and for his region -- Congressman Wyatt: It absolutely isn't hypocritical. As a former Texas Senator, I had to stand up for my constituents as well. Ethanol subsidies are incredibly important to the Heartland - they provide hundreds of thousands of jobs and pump billions into the regional economy. Washington trying to end those subsidies would undoubtedly put the Heartland back into economic trouble - during a recession, no less. Senator Jackson laughs. Senator MacLeod: --obviously I don't support subsidies for ethanol. Or for anything else. Congressman Waters: I think ethanol is very important to this country. I know many detractors could go on and on about its faults, but whats important is it continues development. The more we develop ethanol, the better chance we have of finding something that works. Senator Jackson: The issue for me is that Congressman Wyatt is the same person who was against wind and solar power- programs that would benefit the Heartland just as much, if nor more than corn ethanol. CHESTER!: I think that's the difficulty for me as well, Senator Jackson. Senator Jackson: At least wind and solar have proven themselves as USEFUL technologies. CHESTER!: Corn has shown to be one of the worst mass-produced sources of ethanol. Senator MacLeod: It's not the job of the federal government to employ people, period. Senator Jackson: You're right, Chester. Congressman Waters: I happen to agree with congressman Wyatt, it is incredibly important for the Heartlands. Over the last decade, it has consistently lagged behind the rest of the country in growth and our farms have been severely crippled. Congressman Wyatt: When we were in recession at the top of the last decade, Washington tried to bail out the auto companies. When our fields were dry and barren, Washington took years to act - largely ignoring us. And now, when we are finally starting to recover - recession hits again - and now, Washington wants to eliminate one of the only things keeping our farmers afloat. I commend Senator Justice for his bold leadership for the Heartland. Senator MacLeod: Operating a jobs program in one particular part of the country is not a legitimate exercise of federal power. Congressman Waters: To end the subsidies now would be disastrous! Senator Jackson: If Congressman Wyatt were truly concerned, he'd be willing to put up my Farm Insurance bill in the House. As it is, this is about pork, pure and simple. Most of the time elected representatives are at least discreet about it. It happens, whether we like it or not. Congressman Wyatt: Senator, I'd be willing to contact your office and get a copy of this bill. If it is a good bill, then I'd be more than happy to sponsor it for you in the House. Senator Jackson: You could ask Chester for it too. He seems to like it. Senator MacLeod: If there's an industry, whatever it is, that cannot survive by federal subsidy - which is to say, by the federal government putting its hands into the pockets of the 99% of the American people who are not employed in that industry then that industry does not deserve to survive. Propping up an otherwise un-viable part of the private sector by government fiat is irrational and immoral. Congressman Waters: We have to do more to support our farmers. I have been working on legislation that would increase farm subsidies and protections for our family farms. They are often the hardest hit in rough times, and its important we do every thing we can to keep them afloat. Senator Jackson: I know that Senator Justice will just shrug this off like no big deal- but I think the big problem is to threaten to stop all business in front of the Senate to protect what is pork? This isn't supporting our farmers. We have subsidies for that. Senator MacLeod: --and where would we be as a country if whale oil industry, or blacksmiths, or independent hatters, had been kept alive by government subsidy? Senator Jackson: This is to protect a single industry that science has shown again and again can't produce what they claim. Congressman Waters: But the important part is that we don't know what continual development of ethanol will produce. Senator MacLeod: If we had thought the way we do now in the 19th century, there'd be a bustling buggy industry, kept alive by government planners. Panelists begin talking over one another: Congressman Waters: Look at what has been invented or perfected in the past on accident. The same could happen with ethanol-- Congressman Wyatt: We all know that most of Washington wants to eliminate these subsidies so they can just shaft our farmers and get their ethanol from Brazil -- Congressman Waters: We could find the fuel that runs American tomorrow -- Congressman Wyatt: In fact, that's what seven out of eight members in the House STEE Committee just voted to do - put thousands of American farmers out of work in favor of foreign ethanol -- Senator Jackson: Ethanol from Brazil that at least puts out more energy than it sucks in... Senator MacLeod: Well, if that doesn't summarize everything that is wrong with this city, I don't know what does... "We should spend billions of dollars on something because it might turn out to be worthwhile after all!" Senator Jackson: See, Chester, the problem is we've devolved into a discussion of subsidies and all alternative energy. CHESTER!: It's true, Addie. The merits of ethanol aside, how do each of you respond to Senator Justice's filibuster, albeit a short one. Was it a noble stand or mere obstructionism? Senator Jackson: That's not what Senator Justice was going on about. It was ethanol from CORN. Obstructionism. And ridiculous. Senator MacLeod: Let's be very clear about what we are discussing. What we are discussing is using government to force ALL of us to support collectively what we would not choose to support individually, and that is wrong. Congressman Waters: Many do support it, Senator. Congressman Wyatt: He stood up for his constituents. I am thankful for his stand, despite how short lived it was. CHESTER!: Well, I'm being told we've gone on much too long at this point. It's time for the lightening round. Again, the panel begins to talk over one another: Senator MacLeod: Then they should support it with their own funds, Congressman-- CHESTER!: Thank you. Congressman Wyatt: I just wish more people in Washington stood up for their Constituents like the Senator Just-- CHESTER!: Thank you, gentleman! Senator MacLeod: --and not put their hands into other peoples' pockets. CHESTER!: Time to move on. Senator Jackson: "Their constituents," or "the Heartlands"? CHESTER!: --and that'll be the end, Mr. Jackson! We'll have to finish the debate outside after the show. Congressman Waters: The Heartland is a wonderful region, let me tell you! You all should come visit. CHESTER!: The lightening round today has two quick questions for us all to answer to help the American people get to know their legislators a bit more... First is this: It's the year 3000. You have an opportunity to eat one more meal before everyone is put on an Orwellian fare of straight nutrient gruel. What meal do you make your last good one? We'll go right around the room. Congressman Waters? Congressman Waters: A big bowl of my grandma's pinto beans and corn bread. I almost lived on that as a kid. Senator Jackson: I'd go with a nice big steak and a glass of dry red wine. Holds hands out to show how big. Big! Senator MacLeod: An enormous hamburger, with onions. And apple pie for dessert. Congressman Wyatt: Some Chicken-Fried steak and cornbread, with a nice tall glass of cold iced tea. CHESTER!: For myself, it'd be my mother's chicken stew and some fresh vegetables from the farm with some lemonade. CHESTER!: Our final question... two free tickets. Any event. Any arena. What or who do you see? ...and mind you, we'll suspend the rules on accepting gifts in Congress! Laughter. CHESTER!: If we could also suspend reality, I'd go back in time to see Miles Davis. Otherwise, for me it'd have to be tickets to game even of the World Series... Congressman Waters? Congressman Waters: I'd have to say the World Cup final (hopefully with the U.S. making it that far) at the Olympic Stadium in Germany. I've always wanted to go to the World Cup. Senator Jackson: 50-yard line seats. Superbowl. Broncos and 49ers. I won't say who should win. I have an election coming up! One member of the audience yells out FORTY-NINERS! General laughter ensues. CHESTER!: Senator MacLeod? Senator MacLeod: The Capitol Steps. Congressman Waters: Ah yes, they are incredibly funny. Well worth the price of admission. CHESTER!: ...and Congressman Wyatt? Congressman Wyatt: Longhorns Football. Always the Longhorns. CHESTER!: And that's all the time we have for today! I want to thank the panel for their insight and all of you at home for putting up with me in Lars' absence! Senator Jackson: Thank you, Chester. See you on the floor tomorrow. Congressman Waters: Thank you, Senator Perry. I enjoyed it. CHESTER!: On behalf of our guests, good night! |
|
|
|
|
| Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 08 September 2010 - 10:06 |
