It’s time to put on the tuxedos and hand out the crystal martinis. It’s the start of our year-end political awards for 2015. Today Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review hand out their choices for most underrated, most overrated and most honest political figures.
The 2015 Economy: Omnibus Betrayal and the Business Exodus
Respected conservative economist Stephen Moore says our nation’s fiscal health was damaged by two terrible developments in 2015: the Republican “betrayal” on federal spending and the ongoing exodus of American companies that refuse to keep paying the highest business taxes in the industrialized world.
Moore is a senior economic contributor at FreedomWorks and is a distinguished visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation. This past year he also advised multiple presidential candidates on their tax reform plans and was the principle author of the flat tax proposal offered by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.
For Moore, the worst economic development of the year is also the most recent. He is appalled that Republican majorities in the House and Senate allowed the $1.1 trillion omnibus to pass easily.
“It was a betrayal. The Republicans won the House and won the Senate promising voters they would get control of the budget, that they would be fiscally responsible, that they would help balance the budget and that they believed in limited government. We got none of that,” said Moore.
While House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., characterized the omnibus as a compromise that scored wins for Republicans on lifting the crude oil export ban, tightening rules in the visa waiver program and strengthening the military, Moore says there’s no question Democrats won this fight.
“This was a huge, huge win for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and Barack Obama. They got all their social programs, the climate change agenda, the green energy stuff, Planned Parenthood. All of that stuff was funded. They laughed all the way to the bank,” said Moore.
He says Republicans even rubber stamped Obama initiatives they had earlier branded as unconstitutional.
“All the executive actions that he’s taken on immigration, sanctuary cities, on health care on labor issues and I could go down the line, all these things the Republicans have been complaining about quite rightly about Obama being an imperial president and walking all over the Congress, now Congress turns around and funds all that stuff,” said Moore.
“Shame on Republicans who control the purse strings, for agreeing to something that busts our budget at a time when we have an $18.5 trillion national debt,” said Moore, who believes GOP leaders simply tried to avoid a fight near a budget deadline.
“I think they were terrified of a government shutdown so they negotiated very poorly. They told Barack Obama in effect, ‘Please President Obama, don’t shut down the government. We’ll give you anything that you want. You can spend whatever you want. Just don’t shut down the government and make us look bad. Of course, Obama then walked all over them,” said Moore.
Republicans across the board were quick to point out that Ryan had little choice but to cut a bad deal because most of the process had been conducted while former Speaker John Boehner was still in office. Both Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., vow to follow regular order next year and pass 12 separate appropriations bills that will adhere to GOP principle.
Moore, noting that he is a Cubs fan who hopes for a championship year after year, isn’t holding his breath on the vow of upcoming spending discipline.
“I’ve been hearing the same thing for the last 20 years from Republicans. ‘Next year we’re going to get the budget under control. Next year we’re going to go back to regular order. Next year we’re going to balance the budget.’ Excuse me if I’m not to persuaded by that after all these years. If they were going to be so fiscally conscientious, why didn’t they do that this year rather than next year,” said Moore.
However, Moore says all of Washington is responsible for the emerging crisis in our economy of big businesses heading to the exits over high tax rates. Citing Burger King and Pfizer already moving headquarters out of the U.S. and Apple threatening to do the same, Moore says lawmakers have to address the business tax issue.
“We’ve got to do something about this now. This is an urgent problem. The alarms should be going off. We have to cut our corporate tax rate from 35 percent down to 20 or 15 or lower. We’ve got to make the tax system simpler. We’ve got to cut our capital gains and dividend tax on investment and we have to do it to make America more competitive and to create jobs,” said Moore.
He says the impact of inaction is obvious.
“We’re not going to have any Fortune 500 companies left in the United States. They’re going to go to Canada. They’re going to go to China. They’re going to go to India. They’re going to go to Mexico. They’re not going to be in the United States if we have the highest tax rate in the world. It’s that simple,” said Moore.
Moore says this is an issue where Republicans are infinitely superior to Democrats, stating that Obama has proven to be no friend to business and that Hillary Clinton is touting redistribution instead of growth. He believes many of the GOP candidates have good tax plans but will not endorse at this time.
While very unlikely to back Donald Trump, Moore says he does enjoy one aspect of the front-runner’s campaign.
“I don’t agree with Donald Trump on a lot of issues, but I have to say the thing I love about him is that all my liberal friends hate him,” laughed Moore.
Another economic headline from recent days suggests interest rate hikes will be a part of the calculation in 2016. Moore says it matters but not nearly as much as other issues.
“The problem with our economy right now is not our monetary policy. The problem with our economy is the tax system, it’s the regulatory choke hold on our businesses. It’s Obamacare. It’s the fact we don’t have someone in the White House who is pro-business and wants our businesses to succeed,” said Moore.
He’s not optimistic about making much progress in 2016, but Moore believes the right president could steer things in a much better direction in 2017.
“We have to have a pro-America energy policy. We have to have a new tax system that’s competitive. We’ve got to fix our health care system in a way that uses free enterprise. If we do those things in 2017 with a new president, I think this economy could really soar,” said Moore.
“I think we could see enormous growth in the economy because American companies are the best companies in the world today,” he said.
Film Alleges Hollywood Child Sex Abuse, Cover Up
A new, highly acclaimed documentary purports to blow the lid off rampant sex abuse of child actors in Hollywood and the stunning lack of consequences in an industry that consistently gives offenders more work – even if they’ve been convicted.
Titled “An Open Secret,” the film examines accounts of sexual abuse over the past few decades. It features former child stars Todd Bridges and Corey Feldman among many others, but producer Gabe Hoffman says the problem is much deeper than a couple of famous names.
“It continues to be a problem. We have a number of much more contemporary cases. One in particular, “Evan H.,” which was only just a couple of years ago. In “An Open Secret,” we tend to focus on cases where there are actual convictions or lawsuits that were won,” said Hoffman. “This is incredibly documented stuff.”
Hoffman says the investigation into the scourge of sex abuse of children in Hollywood was never meant to spawn a documentary.
“We didn’t set out to make a film. This initially started as a research project with a film company. We looked at the evidence that was gathered and were absolutely compelled to make sure that “An Open Secret” became a film. Just in our possession, we had five to ten times as much credible evidence as you’ll see in “An Open Secret.” The depth and breadth is truly astonishing,” said Hoffman.
But the alleged horrors don’t end there. Hoffman says the second layer of the scandal is that Hollywood continues to provide work for the offenders.
“What is truly amazing is the common sense, simple, good citizen steps that Hollywood studios can take right now to get the pedophiles off sets,” said Hoffman.
“Just like any small business, why can’t a Hollywood studio type in someone’s name and say, ‘Gosh, I don’t want this convicted pedophile in the building, on the set where children might be. Our laws say that kids are protected from convicted offenders. They can’t be within a couple thousand feet of a school, let alone in the building. In Hollywood, it’s okay, as long as they’re not one-on-one,” said Hoffman.
The documentary names many figures in the entertainment industry who have admitted or been convicted of sexual abuse of children. Hoffman shared a few for this interview, including actor Brian Peck.
“He’s ingrained in the Hollywood elite and even after his conviction for child sex abuse, Brian Peck worked as recently as 2013 on the hit TV show “Anger Management,” the one that starred Charlie Sheen,” said Hoffman.
“Victor Salva is the director of the “Jeepers Creepers” franchise, of which there are several. He also filmed “Powder.” In 1989, Victor Salva was convicted of child sexual abuse with a 12-year-old boy, served time and now he’s a major director and hardly anybody talks about him,” said Hoffman.
Even those charged with protecting kids have been part of the problem.
“We had an example in “An Open Secret” where a very prominent member of one of the largest Hollywood unions, who was serving on the committee to protect children, we exposed him as a pedophile,” said Hoffman.
He says there are many more horror stories.
“We don’t even address the huge number of cases that we know of that get settled privately. In “An Open Secret,” we don’t wish to engage in innuendo and we stick with where there are convictions or lawsuits that are won. But as we say in the film, we only show the tip of the iceberg,” said Hoffman.
When seeking to get a response from Hollywood studios to what the film uncovered, Hoffman and his team were met with hostility.
“There’s been a very strong backlash. The largest union in Hollywood threatened to sue us for merely identifying a member who admitted to this. The studios refused to work with us or distribute the film,” said Hoffman.
While focusing on the molestation of kids in the entertainment industry, Hoffman says the film also examines child sexual abuse in general and gives warnings to parents about how their kids could be vulnerable.
“When a child spends a lot more time away from home (where they’re safe), and that could be competitive sports and travel teams – we’ve seen that recently with AAU girls volleyball and a host of others just this year – a child is vulnerable. You have an adult who is in a position of power, and again it could be a coach. It could be a teacher. In this case it’s in the acting world,” said Hoffman.
“So an adult in a position of power over a child, a lot of time away from home, that’s a vulnerability that parents should pay attention to,” he said.
Hoffman says it often takes years for kids to come forward and report the abuse but he says it is vital for multiple reasons. First, he says the victims are often able to recover and cope better by revealing what happened. Second, he says going public with such assaults could encourage others to come forward if they’ve been victims of the same perpetrator.
Communities interested in a screening of “An Open Secret” can go to anopensecretfilm.com or the website for Gathr Films.
Three Martini Lunch 12/22/15
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review enjoy Hillary Clinton’s blatant lie about ISIS videos featuring Donald Trump because it reinforces her image as someone who will whenever it suits her. They also slam Secretary of State John Kerry for telling Iran the tougher new visa waiver rules won’t really apply to Iran. And they wade into the Cruz-Rubio immigration debate and separate fact from fiction.
‘He Fundamentally Misunderstands the Nature of the Threat’
President Obama is coming under fire from a respected terrorism expert after Obama said the public needs to keep in mind that while ISIS can kill Americans, it cannot bring down our nation.
In an interview with NPR’s Steve Inskeep conducted before Obama left for his vacation in Hawaii, Obama said the U.S. needs to remain vigilant to stop ISIS-inspired attacks on our own soil, but he also urged people to take a larger view.
“It’s also important for us to keep things in perspective,” said Obama. “This is not an organization that can destroy the United States. This is not a huge industrial power that can pose great risks to us institutionally or in a systematic way. But they can hurt us and they can hurt our people are our families, so I understand why people are worried,” said Obama, who says the most important thing we can do is not change “who we are.”
Erick Stakelbeck is terrorism analyst for the Christian Broadcasting Network and the author of “ISIS Exposed: Beheadings, Slavery and the Hellish Reality of Radical Islam.” He says Obama’s implication is troubling.
“He fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the threat. He does not understand terrorism, especially of the Islamic variety. He doesn’t get it,” said Stakelbeck. “The Islamic terror threat threat has already changed our way of life. If you don’t believe me, just go to an airport.”
And while Obama may be right that ISIS cannot topple our government, Stakelbeck says it could do a whole lot of damage.
“If ISIS or another Islamic terror group gets their hands on a weapon of mass destruction, which they are working diligently to acquire, they might not be able to take down the whole country, but they can take out New York, Washington, Chicago (or) L.A. That’s not alarmism. That’s not fear tactics. That’s a fact,” said Stakelbeck.
In the same NPR interview, Obama also chided the media for what he suggested was excessive coverage of ISIS in the wake of the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino.
“ISIL combines viciousness with very savvy media operations. As a consequence, if you’ve been watching television for the past month, all you’ve been seeing, all you’ve been hearing about, is these guys with masks or black flags who are potentially coming to get you,” said Obama in the interview.
Stakelbeck the concern among Americans is not from too much reporting but from what Obama’s own subordinates are admitting.
“The FBI director is saying that ISIS has a network of supporters and sympathizers in every state in the union,” said Stakelbeck, noting FBI Director James Comey admitting the government is watching some 1,000 possible threats throughout all 50 states.
“Then you have the House Homeland Security Committee that back in September released a report saying 250 U.S. citizens have left their comfortable homes here, traveled to Iraq and Syria to join ISIS, and dozens of them have already returned. These are government officials saying it. It’s not just cable news saying it,” said Stakelbeck.
One of the great frustrations for Obama and politicians of all stripes is the absence of a strategy to identify individuals or small groups who wish to kill Americans, much like Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik in San Bernardino.
Stakelbeck says winning this fight all starts at knowing who our enemy is.
“Let’s identify the ideology. Terrorism is only a tactic. It is driven by an ideology. It is Islamic jihadist ideology. President Obama refuses to admit or acknowledge that ideology exists,” said Stakelbeck. “But if you name it ans start to battle back against that ideology at least you have a fighting chance.”
Obama and others reluctant to name the enemy as radical Islamists say such rhetoric does more harm than good because it paints all of Islam with the terrorist brush and could alienate the people most likely to help us root out the enemy. Stakelbeck says Obama is way off base.
“It’s intellectually dishonest in my view. He knows when people say radical Islam jihadist, they aren’t talking about all Muslims. Obviously, every Muslim isn’t a terrorist. We know that and he knows that. It’s a straw man when he says it to quiet his critics,” said Stakelbeck.
Moreover, Stakelbeck says there should be no controversy over the terminology among peaceful Muslims.
“If you are truly a moderate, peace-loving Muslim who wants no part of jihad and wants no part of Sharia, you should have no problem at all with the term radical Islam. If that does not apply to you, why would you have a problem with it? If you are a truly moderate Muslim, you should be outraged by what ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda and all the rest are doing,” said Stakelbeck.
He says that’s an especially important point given the rise in sympathy for radical Islam.
“We have to acknowledge there is a significant and growing strain of the Muslim world that, yes, does support ISIS and subscribe to that worldview,” said Stakelbeck, who says the approach to defeating Soviet communism ought to be dusted off for this fight.
“Think back to the Cold War. Think to the Solidarity Movement in Poland, Radio Free Europe, where we had a concerted effort by the U.S. government to battle against communist ideology and prove that it’s bankrupt. We need the same kind of all hands on deck effort today against Islamist ideology, a full-court press to discredit it and neutralize it,” said Stakelbeck, who says discrediting can also take on a military dimension.
“Another thing that would help to discredit is to destroy this mini-caliphate that ISIS has declared in Iraq and Syria. If you do that, you hopefully demoralize the global movement and put a dent in that ideology,” said Stakelbeck.
Beyond properly identifying the threat, Stakelbeck says there are some other dimensions to reducing the threat here at home, starting with knowing who might be whipping up jihadist motivations on American soil.
“Many mosques in the United States have ties to the global Muslim Brotherhood movement and subscribe to that ideology. That’s a dangerous thing. If we have mosques in our country where there’s radical preaching and they’re turning out young jihadis, we should shut those radical mosques down without a doubt, just as France did last month,” said Stakelbeck.
Finally, he would also temporarily pull up the drawbridge to the United States and halt immigration from nations infested with radicals.
“I believe right now we need a timeout on immigration from countries like Yemen, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Iraq. I think that’s just common sense until we can get this thing under some kind of handle,” said Stakelbeck.
Three Martini Lunch 12/21/15
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review welcome the exodus of Sen. Lindsey Graham from the 2016 Republican field. They also rip President Obama for saying that the American people need to remember that while ISIS can kill us, they can never bring down the nation. And as Obama identifies the frustrations driving support for Donald Trump, the president completely misses any responsibility he might have for those frustrations – especially as it relates to the economy.
Law Professor Says Trump Plan ‘Completely Constitutional’
Donald Trump raised his biggest protests yet last week when he proposed a temporary ban on all Muslim immigration until the nation can be assured our system can weed out the ones who pose a threat to national security, and while many condemned the proposal as a violation of various constitutional principles, a prominent conservative law professor says the plan is undoubtedly legal.
Trump issued the plan on December 7, while reading his own proclamation.
“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on,” read Trump. “We have no choice. We have no choice.”
After his campaign initially indicated the plan meant Muslims who are American citizens could not return to the U.S., Trump later said that would be permitted.
His policy drew immediate, fierce criticism from all all political corners and all other GOP presidential candidate rejected it. No lawmakers support either, including prominent border security leaders like Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. Polls show a majority of Republican voters back the plan but a strong majority of all voters reject it. A CBS poll shows 56 percent of Americans opposed and just 38 percent support it.
Arguments against the plan run the gamut, from allegations that it is unconstitutional to have a religious test for who enters the the country or even an infringement on the free exercise of religion. Others say it is counterproductive to treat every Muslim like a suspect and that it’s impossible to tell who is a Muslim if the applicant does not reveal it.
But Temple University School of Law Professor Jan C. Ting says while the merits of the Trump plan ought to be fully debated, there’s no doubt that the Constitution permits it.
“The proposed temporary suspension would be completely legal and completely constitutional, and if that’s the case then it’s reduced to a policy dispute,” said Ting, who served as deputy commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service at the Justice Department in the George H.W. Bush administration.
“There’s a statute that makes clear that the president has the authority to exclude any alien or any class of aliens, any group of aliens. Congress has delegated that power to the president. President Obama or President Trump could do that,” said Ting.
Ting also emphasized that critics who believe prospective immigrants are having their right infringed are forgetting something.
“In this case we’re talking about people outside the United States who want to come into the United States. They’re outside knocking on our door. The Supreme Court has clearly said, ‘You know what? We can use any criteria we want in letting people in or out,'” said Ting.
“The people outside the United States do not have any constitutional right to come into the United States if the government of the United States doesn’t want them too,” said Ting.
In addition to existing statute, Ting says Trump has ample constitutional precedent on his side.
“The Supreme Court has really taken a hands-off position with regard to immigration. As anyone who studied immigration law in law school knows, immigration is different from all other areas of U.S. law. And as the Supreme Court has clearly said, we routinely do things in immigration that would not be permissible if we were dealing with American citizens,” said Ting.
He says the landmark case on immigration came in the late 19th century with respect to the Chinese Exclusion Act, which became law in 1882.
“The Supreme Court unanimously held at the end of the 19th century that the United States could exclude people if it wanted to on the basis of race or ethnicity,” said Ting, noting the decision was never overturned.
“I call it the fountainhead of immigration law. If we can exclude people on the basis of race or ethnicity, and the Supreme Court unanimously says we can, is there any ground on which we can’t exclude people?” asked Ting.
The professor says it is legal for the U.S. to ban immigration to individuals or groups based on secret information, meaning no public reason ever need to be given.
He also says current immigration law openly discriminates in that people from friendly western nations can come to the U.S. without a visa, while people from developing nations must apply for one. He also pointed to the green card lottery, which offers legal entry to the U.S. but bars people from Mexico or the Philippines from winning any spots.
For Ting, the legal debate is simple and says that should narrow the debate to whether it’s a good idea.
“It is a policy dispute and ought to be debated as such and not pretend there is some big legal or constitutional impediment to what is being proposed,” said Ting.
Three Martini Lunch 12/18/15
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review sigh as Congress easily approves the omnibus spending bill. They get a kick out of a top DHS official saying the No Fly List should not be used to ban people from buying guns. They also groan as former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel confirms Obama had no ISIS plan and did not take the threat seriously. And they slam Donald Trump for getting cozy with Vladimir Putin and not seeming at all upset that he kills his political opponents.
Conservatives Unload on Omnibus
The Republican-controlled Congress appears poised to approve a $1.1 trillion omnibus bill to fund the government through the fiscal year that Democrats say is a big with for their agenda and that will pass with a majority of Democratic votes.
The rush to exit Washington before the holidays has also led to likely passage of a nearly $700 billion tax bill that makes expiring tax break provisions permanent and provides certainty to many small business owners. However, the omnibus bill is the legislation getting the attention.
The White House is calling it a Democratic victory and Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee created a list of their policy wins along with the many GOP priorities left on the cutting room floor. Among the most frustrating items for conservatives include full funding for Planned Parenthood, sanctuary cities, the refugee resettlement program, the new Green Climate Fund created at the Paris climate conference and controversial government rules on water, ozone and power plants. In addition, the deal exceeds the caps placed on spending by the 2011 Budget Control Act by about $50 billion.
“How do you sell this back home?” asked Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz. “You see what’s going on in the presidential race, why outsiders are winning the day, and that’s because the constituents across this country feel betrayed.”
“The Republicans control the House and the Senate and yet this bill is very much a Democratic bill,” added Gosar.
Over in the Senate, the conservative reaction is very similar.
“There is a high degree of frustration because what happens in a process like this, where there is no process other than having four leaders from the two houses of Congress going behind closed doors and negotiating a 2,000-page bill,” said Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah.
“Everyone else is left out. That means you’ve got 433 congressmen whose constituents are effectively disenfranchised and 98 senators whose constituents are effectively disenfranchised, having no voice in the process at all,” said Lee.
Lee says that approach led to some very bad provisions in the omnibus that would never be approved on their own.
“A lot of things that are in there shouldn’t be and wouldn’t be if we had an open process. A lot of things that are not in there but should be are left out of it as a result of the fact that it’s just impossible for four people to accurately represent the collective wishes and will of 300 million Americans,” said Lee.
Gosar is especially mad about the energy provisions in the bill. While a decades-old ban on crude oil exports is being lifted, he says much more power is also granted to the government on overseeing the energy industry that will kill coal and dry up fracking. He says we won’t have much oil to export anymore. He’s also furious that the IRS is getting $200 million more from the taxpayers.
Lee says he is most upset about a cybersecurity provision that was inserted with no debate and is actually worse than a bill the Senate rejected earlier in the year. He also slammed the full funding of the Green Climate Fund, which will collect billions in taxpayer dollars for the United Nations to hand out to nations allegedly impacted by climate change.
Lee says Congress is on a vicious cycle that hurts the country and makes cynics of the people.
“This kind of thing perpetuates itself as long as members of Congress continue to vote for bills like this. As long as they continue to pass, I think they will continue to happen this way. It won’t be until members of Congress say, ‘No, I don’t care who’s in charge. I’m not going to vote for a bill like this where I’m completely left out and where my voters in my state have no voice,” said Lee.
Instead of ramming through a 2,000-plus page spending bill with just a couple days notice, Lee wants to slow things down with a six-week continuing resolution so every lawmaker can weigh in on long-term spending.
“Let’s pass something to keep the government funded for six weeks or so and let’s come back and put this bill on the table perhaps as a starting point and then have votes on what that bill’s going to look like at the end of the day,” said Lee.
While very few conservatives are thrilled with the negotiating done by House Speaker Paul Ryan, Gosar says Ryan was also dealt a terrible hand by former Speaker John Boehner.
“There was a lot of manure that was left in the barn to the speaker, but I’m also questioning the resolve in negotiating here,” said Gosar.
Gosar is particularly upset by the number of riders left out of the omnibus, provisions he says are sponsored by members of both parties and passed with majority support but that leadership kicked to the curb.
Lee says it’s part of the political calculating done by leadership.
“They’re counting votes and they’re saying we’re going to have to rely on at least some Democrats to vote for this because we know that some Republicans are not going to like this bill or this process. That leads to a discussion of what can and what can’t pass. Sometimes that’s going to produce a bill like this one that Democrats might end up being a lot happier with. That has some Republicans understandably upset,” said Lee.
One of the frequent arguments used by GOP leaders and their allies in these budget debates is that too many conservatives allow their demand for a perfect bill to stop them from backing a good bill, and the more Republicans reject such measures the more the pot must be sweetened to attract Democrats.
Lee says that argument is baseless.
“That argument carries no water here. That argument doesn’t even apply here. It’s not just that the bill is imperfect. We’re not demanding perfection. We’re not insisting on perfection and nothing else. What we’re saying is let’s at least have some process. When there is no process at all and most members of the House and most members of the Senate are completely excluded from it, you’re going to end up with a bad bill, not just an imperfect bill but a really bad one,” said Lee.
Another line of attack on the conservative position is that the GOP must accept some bad elements of a final deal so long as Democrats control the White House and can gum things up in the Senate like they did earlier this year on separate bills to support veterans and military construction. If they don’t go along, according to the argument, Republicans will get blamed for a shutdown regardless of the facts.
Gosar isn’t buying it.
“That’s what everyone said in 2013 for 2014’s outlook. Guess what happened? Republicans won majorities,” said Gosar, referring to the GOP fight to defund Obamacare two years ago.
The only major difference between Gosar and Lee in response to the omnibus is how to respond. While Lee is pushing a six-week continuing resolution to trigger meaningful debate, Gosar is ready to make the politicians stay in D.C. right now until this is resolved in a responsible way.
“We should be prepared to stay here. We should have looked them in the eye and said, ‘You know what? We didn’t get our job done, so guess what? When you want to walk out with all the riders moved, then prepare all your members and staffs to prepare to stay in Washington, D.C., for Christmas,” said Gosar.
Three Martini Lunch 12/17/15
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are pleased to see the federal government acknowledge that the Chattanooga attacks were terrorism inspired by foreign groups and that those killed and wounded were awarded Purple Hearts. They also cringe as the omnibus spending bill turns out to be a massive giveaway to Democrats. They scold Defense Secretary Ash Carter for using his private email for government business even as the Hillary Clinton scandal was exploding. And they hammer Bill O’Reilly for saying people want to hear people like Trump say they will go after our enemies, not hear pinhead comments from the likes of Rand Paul about whether things are constitutional.