CALIFORNIA YANKEE

Gomez responds to Markey's despicable negative attack ad

Yesterday we took the very Liberal Democrat Congressman Ed "Mudslinging" Markey to task for his despicable ad that features Republican Gabriel Gomez's face directly next to Osama Bin Laden's.

Republican Gabriel Gomez, a former Naval Aviator and Navy SEAL, responded directly to Markey's negative attack ad this morning on Fox and Friends. Gomez called Markey's use of Osama Bin Laden a disgrace, not only to his service, but also to his former teammates and the intelligence of the Massachusetts voters:

ALISYN CAMEROTA: Meanwhile, one of the things that he's done in the campaign is to have a negative ad about you in which you are, I believe, pictured along side Osama bin Laden. Do you have any response to that?

GABRIEL GOMEZ: Yeah. I mean, a career politician like Ed Markey comes swinging out of the gate with his first ad, it's a negative, despicable ad which puts me next to Osama bin Laden which is an absolute disgrace, not only to my service but also to my former teammates and more importantly to the intelligence of the Massachusetts voters. I think people are tired of these despicable, untruthful ads, and I can't think of anything more dishonorable than what he just did.

TUCKER CARLSON: Now you were at, as we said a minute ago in your intro, at the Boston Marathon shortly before those explosives devices went off. Did you hear it? Did you know what it was when you heard it? What was your initial reaction to it?

GOMEZ: I did. I was about a block and a half away. I'd just seen my wife and four young kids before I crossed the finish line. Shortly thereafter, I heard the first explosion and I saw the smoke coming up. I knew right away what happened, just with some experience before in the service. Obviously my first reaction was trying to figure out where my kids and wife were. It took about 25 minutes because of the cell coverage. But I knew right away, and I saw the first responders responding right away, I saw the police officers getting on the horn, getting the emergency vehicles there. I mean, from going from the worst in Boston, I literally saw the best in Boston immediately right after.

You can watch the video of Gomez's response here.

We are not the only ones objecting to Markey' mudslinging. Medal of Honor recipient Thomas Hudner calls Congressman Ed Markey’s Osama Bin Laden ad "dishonorable," and said it should be taken down "immediately":

"I was shocked to see that the first advertisement from Congressman Ed Markey’s campaign is a negative attack on Gabriel Gomez that places a picture of him next to the terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden.” said Hudner. “This dishonorable political attack is beneath the dignity of the office for which Congressman Ed Markey is running for and he should immediately take down this outrageous ad.

Gabriel Gomez is a former Navy Pilot and Navy SEAL and fought like so many other brave men and women to defend this country against threats from abroad. As a Veteran, he deserves better than to be juxtaposed with a terrorist for Congressman Markey’s political gain."

Markey's Osama Bin Laden attack ad, entitled 'Meet Gabriel Gomez: Just Another Republican," can be seen here.

Like we said yesterday, there is no other reason why the Markey campaign would take such a negative tone right out the box unless they were fearful of losing.

Senate passes Obama's fiscal cliff tax increases in dead of night

In a move all too reminiscent of the passage of the ever unpopular ObamaCare, last night the Senate voted 89 to 8 to approve the so-called "American Taxpayer Relief Act" (H.R. 8, as amended). The deal was negotiated by Vice President Joseph Biden and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell.

You can read the 157 page bill below.

Mat 12564

It is very unlikely that any Senator actually read the 157 page bill before they voted on it. It's like former Speaker Pelosi said of the Democrats' ObamaCare bill, "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill increases tax revenue by $620 billion while reducing spending by only $15 billion. That's right a 41:1 ratio of tax increases to spending cuts. When Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush increased taxes in return for spending the ratios were 3:1 and 2:1 respectively.  We should remember that while those tax increases happened, the promised spending cuts did not.

That history makes me question the wisdom of Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's effort to "prevent very real financial pain" by agreeing to tax increases in exchange for another spending cuts to be named later:

“As I said, this shouldn’t be the model for how to do things around here. But I think we can say we’ve done some good for the country. We’ve taken care of the revenue side of this debate. Now it’s time to get serious about reducing Washington’s out-of-control spending. That’s a debate the American people want. It’s the debate we’ll have next. And it’s a debate Republicans are ready for.”

The bill raises income tax rates for those taxpayers with incomes more than $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for couples from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. These higher income taxpayers will also pay higher rates on investment income, with rates on dividends and capital gains rising from 15 percent to 20 percent. Add the 3.8 percent ObamaCare surcharge on investment income -- another tax that takes effect in January, and the top rate on investment income would rise to 23.8 percent for those high-income households.

The bill also raises taxes on couples earning more than $250,000 a year and single people earning more than $200,000 by limiting personal exemptions and itemized deductions.

Estates taxes will also be increased, with the top rate raised to 40 percent, with the first $5 million in value exempted for individual estates and $10 million for family estates.

The bill also delays the automatic $1.2 trillion draconian sequester spending cuts for sixty days. The sequester cuts, evenly split between defense and certain domestic discretionary spending, were scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2013. The $24 billion cost of the sequester delay is allegedly made up with a mix of spending cuts and new revenues from rules changes on converting traditional individual retirement accounts into Roth IRAs.

Worse, the bill actually increases the deficit by including:

• A permanent fix for the alternative minimum tax.
• A five-year extension of tax credits for college tuition and the working poor, which were enacted as part of Obama’s failed 2009 stimulus.
• A one-year extension for unemployment benefits, affecting two million people.
• The long-term unemployed could count on receiving emergency benefits for another year, at a cost of about $30 billion.

The eight Senators who voted against this tax increase included five Republicans and three Democrats:

• Bennett D-CO
• Carper D-DE
• Grassley R-IA
• Harkin D-IA
• Lee R-UT
• Paul R-KY
• Rubio R-FL
• Shelby R-AL.

That leaves a lot of Senators who violated their pledge not to raise taxes.

Now the question is, will the House also approve the American Taxpayer Relief Act?

 

Democrats have no one to blame now

Senator Franken was sworn in yesterday giving the Democrats 60 seats in the Senate and total control over the federal government.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee marked the event with the release of a new video "60"

No Checks. No Balances. No debate. No excuses. The Democrats own everything and have no one to blame now.

Chuck Schumer on 'torture:' 'do what you have to do'

As the Democrat-controlled Senate conducts sanctimonious hearings on enhanced interrogation methods, several Senate Democrat leaders, including Conference Vice Chairman Charles Schumer, announced support for delaying any prosecutions of Bush administration interrogation methods until after the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence finishes investigating the issue.

This is a good time to recall what Schumer said abut torture at a June 8, 2004 Judiciary Committee hearing:

And I'd like to interject a note of balance here. There are times when we all get in high dudgeon. We ought to be reasonable about this. I think there are probably very few people in this room or in America who would say that torture should never, ever be used, particularly if thousands of lives are at stake. Take the hypothetical: If we knew that there was a nuclear bomb hidden in an American city and we believed that some kind of torture, fairly severe maybe, would give us a chance of finding that bomb before it went off, my guess is most Americans and most senators, maybe all, would say, ‘Do what you have to do.’So it's easy to sit back in the armchair and say that torture can never be used. But when you're in the foxhole, it's a very different deal.

Is it not peculiar that despite all the hullabaloo the Democrats now raise about the enhanced interrogation methods, there is no record of any ranking Congressional Democrat objecting to the interrogation techniques when the Congress critters were briefed about the methods?

Governor Crist announces senate bid

It’s now official. Florida's Republican Governor Charlie Crist is running for the Senate:

Crist's announcement sets up a primary challenge with former state House Speaker Marco Rubio in Republican primary for the Senate seat being vacated by retiring Republican Senator Mel Martinez. The primary will be important in the debate over the future of the Republican Party.

Crist angered many Republicans by supporting President Obama's stimulus boondoggle. A position which caused Tony Fabrizio, the Republican pollster who tabulates CPAC's annual straw poll results, to call Crist "Barack Obama's favorite Republican."

The latest Quinnipiac University polling found Crist leading Rubio 54 percent to 8 percent.

I am shocked that Senator John Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, endorsed Governor Crist shortly after the announcement.

Rubio welcomed Crist to the primary battle with the following video:

Let the debate begin. As Rubio told Politico, "if we’re offering the same thing as the Democrats, but with different packaging, what’s the point in having a Republican Party?

Specter's 30 pieces of silver

According to the Associated Press, Specter's decision to switch rather than fight came cheap. All it took was for President Obama to promise to campaign for Specter in next year's Pennsylvania Democratic
primary.

Of course, Gibbs denied any promises were made to get Specter to get him to become a Democrat. But then Gibbs denied President Obama bowed to King Abdullah.

There are unconfirmed rumors about that Specter was promised the chairmanship of the Appropriations Committee.

Specter switching parties

Several sources, including the Associated Press, Poltiico and Washington Post, are now reporting Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania will switch parties.

Specter made the following statement posted on PoliticsPA:

Statement by Senator Arlen Specter

I have been a Republican since 1966. I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am. I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.

Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.

When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.

Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.

I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary.

I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.

I deeply regret that I will be disappointing many friends and supporters. I can understand their disappointment. I am also disappointed that so many in the Party I have worked for for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate. It is very painful on both sides. I thank specially Senators McConnell and Cornyn for their forbearance.

I am not making this decision because there are no important and interesting opportunities outside the Senate. I take on this complicated run for re-election because I am deeply concerned about the future of our country and I believe I have a significant contribution to make on many of the key issues of the day, especially medical research. NIH funding has saved or lengthened thousands of lives, including mine, and much more needs to be done. And my seniority is very important to continue to bring important projects vital to Pennsylvania’s economy.

I am taking this action now because there are fewer than thirteen months to the 2010 Pennsylvania Primary and there is much to be done in preparation for that election. Upon request, I will return campaign contributions contributed during this cycle.

While each member of the Senate caucuses with his Party, what each of us hopes to accomplish is distinct from his party affiliation. The American people do not care which Party solves the problems confronting our nation. And no Senator, no matter how loyal he is to his Party, should or would put party loyalty above his duty to the state and nation.

My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.

Whatever my party affiliation, I will continue to be guided by President Kennedy’s statement that sometimes Party asks too much. When it does, I will continue my independent voting and follow my conscience on what I think is best for Pennsylvania and America.

Give Specter credit for realizing he would lose the primary fight with former congressman Pat Toomey. Can Specter win as a Democrat?

Obama: still saying one thing while doing the opposite

There President Obama goes yet again -- saying one thing while doing the opposite.

After prodding by the White House, Congressional Democrats near a budget deal so Obama can have his spend too much, tax too much, borrow too much budget in place within his first 100 days.

President Obama's budget includes a $1.75 trillion deficit so he can spend nearly $4 trillion in fiscal year 2010. The Congressional Budget Office predicts will Obama's budget result in deficits of $9.3 trillion over ten years -- $2.3 trillion more than the deficit estimated by the White House. And then, in this week's Obama propaganda video, he has the audacity to call for fiscal discipline. Is he serious?

"We cannot sustain deficits that mortgage our children’s future, nor tolerate wasteful inefficiency."

Too bad Obama doesn't practice what he preaches.

Obama climate change agenda hits Senate speed bumps

From a Senate GOP source:

Yesterday, senators voted on seven motions to instruct conferees on the budget resolution (S. Con. Res. 13). Though the motions are non-binding, two that were approved are worth noting: 

• The Senate agreed to a motion from Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE) to instruct conferees include language prohibiting the use of reconciliation for climate change legislation (this is now the second time a majority of the Senate has voted this way).

• The Senate also agreed to a motion from Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) to require that future energy legislation not increase the cost of domestic energy production or increase energy costs for families.

Senate Republicans suggest way for Obama to save $80 million

Republican Senators Mitch McConnell, Jon Kyl, Lamar Alexander and John Thune have a suggestion for President Obama to help him meet his pathetic goal of cutting a meager $100 million from Obama's and the Democrats' spend too much, tax too much and borrow too much budget:

Keep the terrorist detention center at Guantanamo Bay open, so that American cities don't have to play host to terrorists. That will save the $80 million budgeted for the closure - 80% of Obama's goal.

Once again I ask, where will Obama put the terrorists?