Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review scrap the usual martini format and simply share their reactions and insights following Monday’s horrific bombings at the finish line of the Boston Marathon.
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are pleased to see the mainstream media have been cajoled into finally covering the Kermit Gosnell murder trial. They also shake their heads as Venezuelans waste the opportunity to turn away from socialism amid allegations of voting irregularities. And they enjoy the story of a self-professed Obama campaign consultant that no one else from the campaign remembers.
The Capitol Steps offer a double feature as they dread the arrival of the federal income tax deadline and welcome Francis as the new pope. Our guest is Capitol Steps Co-Founder and star Elaina Newport.
The much-awaited Senate immigration reform bill is expected to be introduced next week and a Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee says Democratic leaders are preparing to get it passed as quickly as possible.
According to Utah Sen. Mike Lee, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy scheduled only one hearing on the plan before Democrats on the panel presumably send the package to the Senate floor for consideration. He says the fast-track approach is eerily reminiscent of the Democratic approach to health care legislation early in the Obama administration.
“A few years ago, there was an infamous moment when then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi told congressmen with regard to the Obamacare bill, ‘You’ve got to pass this bill so you can find out what’s in it.’ We’ve learned that bad things happen when we pass huge pieces of legislation,” said Lee. “This immigration proposal, which no one has seen, has been estimated by some to be perhaps a 1,500 page bill. We haven’t seen it and yet a hearing is being planned to occur within a week or so after it’s introduced. I think that’s a bit of a problem. I think we need a lot of hearings. I think we need a lot of time to review it.”
Lee says reading and understanding a bill this long is a painstaking process and should never be rushed.
“Fifteen hundred pages of legislation is a lot. This does not read like a fast-paced novel. This does not read even like a slow-paced, long novel like ‘The Grapes of Wrath’. This has all kinds of spillover ramifications that need to be evaluated carefully,” he said.
Reports from earlier in the week suggested that the Gang of Eight will seek to block any amendments that would fundamentally alter the main tenets of the forthcoming bill. Lee is cautiously heartened by promises that will not be the case.
“I’ve been told that Chairman Leahy is promising an open amendment process, at least within committee. I hope and expect and will demand that when it hits the floor there will also be an open amendment process as well,” said Lee.
Lee didn’t speculate as to why Senate Democrats want to move the bill so quickly and with limited scrutiny, but he does believe that a mammoth immigration reform bill is a mistake in principle. He contends individual bills addressing individual aspects of our policies would be much more effective.
“We’ve got all kinds of things that need to be done with immigration reform. Those things could be done more effectively, more efficiently, more quickly and they’d be virtually certain to pass if we did this on a step-by-step basis,” said Lee. “There are certain things we need to do. We need to secure the border. We need to modernize and update our legal immigration system and we need a visa entry and exit system that will allow us to track those who are here on visas, when and where they enter and when and where they leave.
“When those things are in place, it’ll be a lot easier for us to figure out ways to deal with the 11 million people currently illegal in the United States. But if we try to do it all in one fell swoop and front-end load what to do with the 11 million, it’s going to stall the process politically. It’s also going to create huge logistical hurdles, which I think we should avoid through a step-by-step process,” said Lee.
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are greatly enjoying the public buffoonery of Progress KY and how the haters of Mitch McConnell are being exposed for the radicals they are. They also scourge the media for ignoring the grizzly murders of newborn babies by abortionist Kermit Gosnell – and their lame excuses for not covering it. And they have some fun with the news that the guy who stole President Obama’s teleprompter will spend seven years in prison.
The U.S. Senate voted Thursday to proceed on bipartisan legislation to expand background checks on gun purchases, but Utah Sen. Mike Lee says lawmakers basically agreed to take up a bill that hasn’t been written and obviously hasn’t been read.
Most Democrats and 16 Republicans combined to vote 68-31 to proceed with debate on the gun bill. Sixty were needed. Senator Lee was joined by Ted Cruz of Texas and Rand Paul of Kentucky in unsuccessfully pursuing a filibuster of the bill until lawmakers had a chance to read the proposed legislation and gather constituent feedback.
The filibuster was seen as a long shot from the start but its fate was sealed after Republican Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey and Democratic West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin announced their deal on expanding background checks to sales at gun shows and over the internet. Senate leaders are expected to use the compromise in place of the Democratic version that passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Lee says he has no idea what he thinks of the Toomey-Manchin bill because there’s nothing to consider.
“One of the frustrating things about this is that people are talking about the Toomey-Manchin bill. It doesn’t exist yet. We still haven’t seen language on it,” said Lee. “That was part of what was so frustrating to me about this vote today is that we were voting on cloture on the motion to proceed to the legislation. We know that a critical part of that legislation, perhaps the heart of that legislation itself, will be the Toomey-Manchin language. And yet, no such language exists. We don’t have it. We don’t know what it says. We know a certain outline of the bill, but we don’t have any details.
“That’s terribly frustrating. Frankly, I think it’s irresponsible to vote on legislation like that when you know that that’s going to be the centerpiece of it but you don’t know what that language says,” said Lee.
Even though the filibuster attempt fell short, Lee says it was the right thing to do and still accomplished something important.
“It was a good strategy. It was also something that brought us an outcome we wanted, which was to extend the debate beyond where it would otherwise have been. Had we not done that, we would have very quickly brought up legislation and perhaps passed something far too quickly before the American people had a chance adequately to review what it was they were going to be stuck with,” said Lee, who says invoking the 60-vote threshold to proceed bought an additional 30 hours to review some of the gun control proposals. He says the close scrutiny will continue every step of the way.
“We’ll now proceed to the legislation and we’ll still have a number of other votes. This is by no means over yet. I think the more time that goes by, the more the American people are realizing that the bulk of what this legislation does is to make law-abiding citizens less free while doing little or nothing to deter gun violence,” he said.
As mentioned, Lee cannot render an opinion on the Toomey-Manchin language since the bill hasn’t been written. However, he says the background check language in the original bill was not acceptable to him.
“The universal background check language introduced by Sen. (Chuck) Schumer that moved through the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I sit, would require universal background checks. It has certain record-keeping requirements in connection with that. It also has provisions giving rule-making authority to the attorney general of the United States,” said Lee. “That rule-making authority could be interpreted by an attorney general, either the current one or a future one if it were to become law, that could result in a de facto registration system. Even people who say that they’re fine with the universal background check system are rarely, if ever, comfortable with the idea of a universal gun registration system – which I think this provision would lead to.
“You know Americans are just not really comfortable with the federal government keeping track of, keeping a database full of records of very personal details, ranging from what they eat for breakfast, where they go to church and how often, what books they read from the library or in this case what guns they own. They’re just not comfortable with that. It shouldn’t be keeping track of that information,” said Lee.
Lee is also concerned that by agreeing to open debate on this bill, far more controversial items could get added, including limits on magazine capacity and possibly an ban on many types of firearms. Those amendments could be added by simple majority votes, but Lee says there are plenty of procedural tools at his disposal, including another 60-vote threshold to end debate.
“That 60-vote threshold makes sure that we have broad bipartisan consensus and that prevents us from getting into a posture in which we have a back room-negotiated deal that’s foisted upon the American people without any real debate, discussion or bipartisan consensus,” said Lee.
On Thursday’s motion to proceed, Democrats Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Mark Begich of Alaska, voted in opposition. The 16 Republicans voting to move forward were Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker of Tennessee, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson of Georgia, John McCain and Jeff Flake of Arizona, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Susan Collins of Maine, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, John Hoeven of North Dakota, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Dean Heller of Nevada, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Roger Wicker of Mississippi and Toomey.
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review see a possible benefit for Virginia conservatives as more ethical questions arise about Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe’s as head of a green car firm. They also debate whether pro-gun conservatives should be upset with Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey for possibly saving Senate gun legislation with a compromise on background checks. And they discuss the possible political comeback of disgraced former Rep. Anthony Weiner, who is reportedly considering a run for mayor of New York City.
Louisiana Rep Bill Cassidy is launching a 2014 campaign against Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu, saying the three-term lawmaker is a reliable vote for the Obama agenda and provided critical votes that led to record deficits and Obamacare.
Cassidy is a longtime physician, known for teaching medical students at LSU and establishing public-private partnerships to inoculate tens of thousands of poor children. He also co-founded a venture to make sure the working uninsured receive free medical an dental care. He was elected to the Louisiana State Senate in 2006 and the U.S. House of Representatives in 2008. Cassidy says he is seeking higher office next year because the Democratically-controlled Senate is thwarting progress in Washington.
“Over the last four or five years, House Republicans have been able to put the brakes on some of the most harmful parts of the Obama agenda, at least after we took the majority,” said Cassidy. “It is a Democratic Senate which actually continues to aid and abet the advancement of the Obama agenda, which I just think is the wrong direction for our country to go in.
“Senator Landrieu supports the president 97 percent of the time. If I think it’s important to fix Congress so that Congress can put a check on the president and then actually advance a positive agenda that takes us in a better direction, well then if I’m positioned to win that seat then I feel like it’s my responsibility to go for it,” said Cassidy.
Cassidy plans to link Landrieu to Obama every chance he can. In fact, Cassidy declares in his announcement video that he is running against Landrieu and Obama. He says that connection is vital for people to understand.
“That is the transparency that the voter needs to know. If folks think, ‘Oh my gosh, we have a moderate Democrat who’s out there fighting for us,’ they may say one thing. If point the headlights, if you will, on the truth, which is that she supports the president 97 percent of the time, and that the policies that the president has pursued are not the direction that most people in Louisiana want our country to go, then it’s important that that truth be brought out to the Louisiana voter,” said Cassidy.
Cassidy already starts at a much healthier place than most candidates taking on an incumbent. According to a recent Harper Polling survey, Landrieu leads Cassidy 46-41 percent even though 56 percent of Louisiana voters don’t yet know enough about Cassidy to have an opinion of him. Landrieu’s problem is that she has a 42 percent disapproval rating. Cassidy says something important can be interpreted from those numbers.
“It isn’t so much that Louisiana is leaving Senator Landrieu. It is that Senator Landrieu has left Louisiana in the sense that 60 percent of the people voted for Gov. Romney. She supports the president 97 percent of the time,” he said. “Senator Landrieu, as she has become more liberal, has grown out of step with the average Louisiana voter. That’s why we hope to bring Louisiana values back to Washington.”
Louisiana largely trends Republican. Republican presidential candidates have won the state comfortably in the past four cycles, Gov. Bobby Jindal has twice won convincingly and Sen. David Vitter easily won re-election in 2010. So why does Landrieu keep winning and who is voting for her but not the other statewide Democratic candidates?
“There are actually Republicans that vote for Sen. Landrieu, in part because they think she’s a conservative. That’s been an image she’s been able to project. But, again, when you look at the voting record, just to repeat once more, she supports the president’s agenda 97 percent of the time. Once folks become acquainted with that, they may say we like her personally but we just think our country should go in a different direction,” said Cassidy.
Cassidy says his main objectives in the months to come are to make sure people know where Mary Landrieu stands on the issues and convince them that he has better ideas on the key issues.
“I have 19 months to connect with the voters of Louisiana to show that our policies are a better set of policies. I think folks like that more if you do it as much as possible in smaller meetings as opposed to just TV commercials. We’re working on those smaller meetings,” said Cassidy.
And what are the big issues for Cassidy? In his announcement video, he vowed to pursue balanced budgets, protect Second Amendment rights and champion pro-life values. He also spelled out how those positions differ greatly from Sen. Landrieu’s record. But for Dr. Cassidy, dealing with Obamacare is at the very top of the agenda because it effects to many areas of life.
“Right now the voter in Louisiana is concerned about the economy, as are voters across the nation. They recognize that small businesswoman may make a decision not to hire that fiftieth employee because once she does, she has to pay a penalty of $40,000 to comply with Obamacare,” said Cassidy. “Or the voter may realize that because of Obamacare, they’re losing their full-time job and they’re being moved to a part-time job. All those are issues that are keeping folks from economic advancement, from having a better future for their family.”
” I am running on the positive agenda of replacing Obamacare. Unfortunately, Senator Landrieu was the deciding vote on that. So both the economy and health care, and quite frankly personal freedom are all wrapped up in that one issue. That’ll be prominent,” said Cassidy.
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Daniel Foster of National Review are pleased to see Mitch McConnell turning the Mother Jones bugging story into a political win. They also groan as Americans still trust President Obama much more than Republicans on the economy. And they wonder why sequestration is killing the Blue Angels shows across the country but there’s still enough money for a star-studded concert at the White House.
There has been no acceptable explanation for not rescuing Americans under siege in Benghazi and nothing less than a special House committee investigation will satisfy the retired U.S. Army general who played a key role in organizing a letter signed by more than 700 special operations veterans in demanding the formation of the special committee.
Retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin served in the Army’s special forces and in the Army Rangers. He is now executive vice president at the Family Research Council. He says the lack of action during the Benghazi crisis and the lack of answers since have been bothering him for months.
“I’ve been working this since not long after the events on the eleventh of September. That said, the U.S. Congress has been sort of ignoring all of our efforts to try and get some full accounting on this thing,” said Boykin. “I just simply reached out to some people that I knew had a deep passion for this, that would in fact bring a different dimension to it and that’s the retired special operations guys that spent a good portion of their professional careers preparing for and executing these kinds of operations. They’ve risked their lives for this. They’ve seen people that have sacrificed their lives to save other Americans and I knew these people would come on quickly and would come on with deep passion.”
Boykin says he and his colleagues directed the letter towards the House of Representatives rather than the U.S. Senate because there are already 70 House co-sponsors for a resolution calling for the creation of the same select committee to probe what went wrong before, during and after the Benghazi attacks. He is very cautiously optimistic that House leaders will approve the committee but he cautions the reaction over the next day or so will be critical in determining whether this will happen.
The general agrees with Special Operations Speaks Co-Founder Larry Bailey, who told us earlier in the week that to this point, House leaders have been somewhat complicit in allowing key questions on Benghazi to go unanswered.
“If you look at the fact that the commander of the Africa Command, Gen. Carter Ham, has never been brought in to testify, if you look at the fact that there are at least 32 survivors of this incident and none of them have ever been brought in and questioned, if you look at the fact that one of those 32 is still in Walter Reed and a member of Congress has visited him twice but he’s never been asked to come across town and appear before a committee or subcommittee, this is inexcusable and it reeks of a cover-up of some kind,” said Boykin,
House leaders have been reluctant to approve the special panel for a couple of reasons. First, they don’t want to allocate unbudgeted funds to pay for a new committee during a time of sequestration. Second, multiple House committees are planning to release findings on Benghazi at some future date. That’s not good enough for Boykin.
“Everybody needs to understand thee structure of our U.S. Congress, these independent and separate committees, frequently don’t play well together. Each of them has their own agenda and I’m not being critical by saying that. They have their own agenda,” he said. “What we’re insisting on is that there be some specific answers as to why there was no military rescue effort launched. We all came out of a community where that was one of or in some cases it was our primary mission – to go and rescue Americans or at least to recover their bodies and bring them home. The current structure will not facilitate a bipartisan commission that will ask the kind of questions that need to be asked.”
So what would a rejection of a special committee indicate to Boykin and his special operations brethren?
“What it tells me is that, first of all, they’re not showing leadership. Second, they’re not taking their oaths seriously, and, thirdly, that this thing runs very, very deep and there is something there that is being hidden from the American people,” he said.
While Boykin and his fellow veterans are demanding answers to many questions, he believes some mysteries of Benghazi are being pieced together – like what really spawned the violence on September 11. Boykin says there is ample evidence that the late Amb. Chris Stevens had been helping supply Libyan rebels with weapons and he was now engaged in covertly shipping arms to the rebels in Syria. Boykin says regardless of his personal opposition to such an idea, shipping arms would be legal provided it was done the right way.
“That’s not our issue. Our issue is why was there no rescue attempt? Why was there no attempt to recover the bodies before they fell into the hands of the Libyans? We find that perplexing and inexcusable that we don’t have those answers,” said Boykin.
Boykin personally suspects that President Obama was simply focused on other things and didn’t honor his responsibilities. He also believes that ordering others to stand down may have been an attempt to keep the weapons program a secret. He also asserts that then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was woefully ill-informed about regular military procedure when he contended that no military resources would be sent in unless there was a crystal clear understanding of what was happening on the ground.
For Boykin, this search for answers ends up at the same place he began – the demand to know why Americans were not rescued from harm’s way.
“We spent our professional careers doing this kind of thin. We find this to be the breach of a fundamental American value,” said Boykin.
