Duncan Hunter Will Try To Undermine Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal With Amend. Opposed By Military

Hunter Will Try To Undermine Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal With Amend. Opposed By Military

By Igor Volsky at 5:02 pm

Rep. Duncan Hunter Jr. (R-CA)

Last month, in a final effort to derail the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) tried to attach an amendment to the stripped-down National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would have required the Service Chiefs to certify that implementation did not compromise military readiness or unit cohesion. The amendment would have likely extended the current certification process — which already includes the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and President Obama — and undermined the intent of the legislation and the wishes of military leadership. Now, AmericaBlog’s Joe Sudbay notes that Rep. Duncan Hunter Jr. (R-CA), who infamously said that the military “isn’t the YMCA” during floor debate, is similarly planning to “introduce legislation next week designed to put the brakes on repeal of the military’s ban on openly gay troops”:

The measure by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) would add the four military service chiefs to the list of those who must sign off on repealing the policy before it can be officially scrapped.
Hunter, an Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran, is concerned that the bill passed in December repealing the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy “excluded the service chiefs from the certification process,” said one congressional aide.

Republicans have long sought to include the Service Chiefs because as a group, the Chiefs are generally less sanguine about repeal than Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen. During their testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in early December, two of the Service Chiefs endorsed the Pentagon Working Group’s recommendation to lift the ban, while two others had mixed reactions. Gen. James Amos, the commandant of the Marine Corps, has warned lawmakers that repeal could endanger the lives of Marines. Regardless of their views, however, all four Chiefs said they trusted Gates to address their concerns before eliminating the policy and warned Republicans that expanding the certification process could undermine the chain of command:

Senator THUNE: Do you believe that the implementing legislation, if in fact this moves forward, should allow for the chiefs, the servicemembers, any of you, to certify? [...]
General CASEY: Senator, as I said to Senator Lieberman, I am very comfortable with my ability to provide input to Secretary Gates and to the Chairman that will be listened to and considered. So you could put it in there, but I don’t think it’s necessary. [...] It might take it up a notch. But believe me, I will make sure that my views are heard. The other thing. If you put that into the law, I think it undercuts the Goldwater-Nichols, that we’ve been trying to put the Chairman as the principal provider of military advice. So that’s something for the committee to consider.
Senator THUNE. Anybody else care to comment on that?
Admiral ROUGHEAD. Sir, I’m very comfortable with the access and the input that we’ve had. In fact, as the report came along I could see the changes that we were recommending. So I have no concerns whatsoever about my advice not being heard.

Watch it around 4:30:



While Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), the staunchest defender of DADT, has made peacewith its bipartisan repeal (the measure passed in the House by a vote of 250 – 175 and 64-31 in the Senate), Hunter isn’t the only Republican who is still clinging to the ban. Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (R) has also promised to reinstate the policy.

UPDATEThe Military Times reports that Hunter's bill has 16 co-sponsors:

As of Friday, 16 lawmakers — all Republicans — had signed onto the bill, which could be introduced early next wee

Pawlenty Doubles Down On Reinstating DADT, Says It Wouldn’t Impact The Military ‘At All’

Pawlenty Doubles Down On Reinstating DADT, Says It Wouldn’t Impact The Military ‘At All’

By Igor Volsky at 12:05 pm

Pawlenty Doubles Down On Reinstating DADT, Says It Wouldn’t Impact The Military ‘At All’

Dave Weigel has this clip of Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) explaining why he supportsreinstating the Don’t Ask, Dont’ Tell policy that a bipartisan group of lawmakers voted to repeal last year:

Q: My question was, how would putting it back into place effect our military?
PAWLENTY: I don’t think it would impact it at all because as I understand it they’re going to slowly roll out the program, so if ends up going back in, I don’t know that it would effect it.

Watch it at 1:41:

Putting the program “back in,” as Pawlenty describes it, would not only heighten the very sense of uncertainty that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman sought to avoid by urging Congress to repeal the law during the lame duck session, but it would also leave the military vulnerable to a court decision that would force sudden repeal. Gates described a court injunction of DADT in October as a “wake-up call” that the law could be struck down immediately without giving the military time to prepare for the change. ” Since Congress passed repeal, Gates has also promised to begin repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell “as quickly but as responsibly as possible” and has said that the Pentagon was approaching the task with the philosophy of, it’s better to end the policy “sooner rather than later.”

It’s also unclear how reinstating the policy would work operationally. Bringing back the policy would require gay servicemembers who come out after repeal is certified to suddenly go back into the closet or face discharge. Straight soldiers would also have to pretend they did not know about the sexual orientation of formerly-out gay members.

UPDATEDADT scholar Nathaniel Frank, author of Unfriendly Fire, writes in:

Re-instating DADT is just not possible--what are you going to do, order two million people to forget who's gay? While an outright ban could be re-instated, it's a horrible idea politically, with large majorities of the country, including Republicans and top military leadership, in favor of open service. Pols need to realize they have nothing to gain by going down that road.

Fed Economist To Greenspan In 2005:

 Discovery Channel's 'Flip That House' Should Cause 'Existential Crisis'

First Posted: 01/14/11 12:33 PM Updated: 01/14/11 12:33 PM

In late 2005, as the housing bubble that would ultimately pop and bring down the economy continued to inflate, Federal Reserve economists briefed the central bank's then chairman, Alan Greenspan, on the state of the economy during a meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee.

Amid an onslaught of data showing a cloudy forecast, one economist raised a point at that Dec. 13 meeting that could have brought home the case that the Fed had let the housing market spin out of control.

"I offer one more piece of evidence that I think almost surely suggests that the end is near in this sector. While channel-surfing the other night, to the annoyance of my otherwise very patient wife, I came across a new television series on the Discovery Channel entitled 'Flip That House,'" economist David Stockton said, prompting a roomful of laughter according to the transcript."As far as I could tell, the gist of the show was that with some spackling, a few strategically placed azaleas and access to a bank, you too could tap into the great real-estate wealth machine. It was enough to put even the most ardent believer in market efficiency into existential crisis. [Laughter]"

The Fed, the home of many of the most ardent believers in market efficiency, did not go through an existential crisis, however, and did little to slow down surging prices or warn consumers that "the end is near." Instead, many consumers continued to purchase homes under the mistaken impression that housing prices would continue to rise.

In those homebuyers' defense, elite economists were saying the same thing. "[I]t is hard to say that the housing market is anything but robust," Roger Ferguson, a Fed governor, said at the same 2005 meeting.

Earlier that year, during its June meeting, the Fed heard evidence that the market could be overvalued by as much as one-fifth, and Stockton's presentation to Greenspan and the FOMC cited evidence other than cable shows that the housing market was overheated.

"[R]eports of cooling in the housing markets seem to me to be more frequent and more widespread than was the case six months ago," Stockton said. "As we noted in yesterday's Board briefing, a variety of indicators of housing activity have turned down in recent months. Household attitudes toward home buying have dropped sharply; builder ratings of new home sales have deteriorated; the index of mortgage applications for home purchase has fallen off; and the inventory of unsold homes has moved up. Taken in isolation, none of these measures has an especially reliable statistical relationship to housing activity. But taken together, they could be indicating that we are at the front edge of some cooling in these markets."

Dean Baker, an economist who had spotted the housing bubble long before the Discovery Channel did, said that the wrong people have lost their jobs as a result of the Fed policy's failure. "It's amazing that it somehow never occurred to him/her that house prices would actually fall," he said in response to the "Flip That House" comment. "They should be fired for not recognizing this possibility and its implication."

Stockton is still at the Federal Reserve, where he serves as the division director for research and statistics. He did not return a request for comment.

HuffPost readers: If you find anything else noteworthy in the newly released transcripts, email ryan@huffingtonpost.com, indicating the month of the meeting.

Be sure to #ff; he's on site RT @mmurraypolitics First RNC chair ballot: Priebus 45, Steele 44, Cino 32, Anuzis 24, Wagner 23

The Cino strength should have Saul and Wagner VERY nervous. How does the 2nd ballot Steele vote split (if at all)?

RNC Chairman Michael Steele falls further behind in second ballot as he seeks re-election;

RNC Chairman Michael Steele falls further behind in third ballot as he seeks re-election;

4th Round: Priebus 58 (+4), Cino 29 (+1), Steele 28 (-5), Wagner 28 (-4), Anuzis 24 (+3) // still nobody dropping out?

In fourth ballot, RNC Chairman Michael Steele falls into third place as he seeks re-election; 4th rd stalemate: priebus up to 58, Steele drops to 28. Wagner had momentum and it stops-big 8-vote drop


Michael Steele drops out of RNC chair race, saying: "It's very clear that the party wants to do something different." - NBC

Steele for Cino RT  Would bring CINO to 57 and the lead if all numbers hold

Steele melts. Media mourns.

Steele's Curtains.

Question: is a Steele endorsement a good thing?

Buh-Bye Mr. Steele.

Take a few minutes today and read this about the miracle of Giffords opening her eyes yesterday

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

January 13, 2011

Press Gaggle by Senator Gillibrand and Representative Wasserman Schultz Aboard Air Force One en route Andrews Air Force Base

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Andrews Air Force Base

12:14 A.M. EST

Q So tell us what it was like in there. You were just standing around a friend of yours and -- just put it in your terms.

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: Okay, well, I’ll go, and then you’ll go -- okay. Well, we were very excited that we were even going to have the chance of getting to visit her hospital room. We didn’t know when we first came whether we had that opportunity. And so when we did have the chance, we were so excited to get to see her. And when we came in the room, the doctor was there, her parents were there, Mark is there, and the Speaker -- Speaker Pelosi and Debbie and I went in.

And we just were so excited, so we were telling her how proud we were of her and how she was inspiring the whole nation with her courage and with her strength. And then Debbie and I started joking about all the things we were going to do after she got better. And we were holding her hand and she was responding to our hand-holding. She was rubbing our hands and gripping our hands so we could -- she could really -- we knew she could hear and understand what we were saying and she moved her leg, and so we knew she was responding. And the more we joked about what we were going to do, she started to open her eyes literally.

And then you have to recognize, her eyes hadn’t opened -- we didn’t know that -- and so she started to struggle. And one of her eyes is covered with a bandage because it was damaged in the gunfire. So her eye is flickering. And Mark sees this and gets extremely excited. And we didn’t -- I didn’t know what that meant. And so he said, Gabby, open your eyes, open your eyes. And he’s really urging her forward. And the doctor is like perking up and everyone is coming around the bed. And she’s struggling and she’s struggling and it’s a good -- we couldn’t figure it out, maybe 30 seconds, where she’s really trying to get her eyes open, like doing this, this, this.

And then she finally opens her eyes and you could she was like desperately trying to focus and it took enormous strength from her. And Mark could just -- can’t believe it. I mean, he’s so happy. And we’re crying because we’re witnessing something that we never imagined would happen in front of us.

And so Mark says, he says -- he said, Gabby, if you can see me, give us the thumbs up, give us the thumbs up. And so we’re waiting and we’re waiting and --

REPRESENTATIVE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: And she didn’t at first.

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: And we just thought, okay -- and you could watch -- when you’re watching her eyes, she’s really trying to focus. Like you could see she hadn’t opened her eyes in days. And then instead of giving the thumbs up, she literally raises her whole arm like this -- like this. It was unbelievable. And then she reaches out and starts grabbing Mark and is touching him and starts to nearly choke him -- she was clearly trying to hug him.

And so like -- she was -- it was such a moment. And we were just in tears of joy watching this and beyond ourselves, honestly. And then Mark said, you know, touch my ring, touch my ring. And she touches his ring and then she grabs his whole watch and wrist. And then the doctor was just so excited. He said, you don’t understand, this is amazing, what’s she’s doing right now, and beyond our greatest hopes.

And so then they decided we had to go because it was a lot -- (laughter) -- of excitement for her and it was -- we just told her how proud we were and how much we loved her and said we’d visit soon.

But, Gabby, you should describe a little about how you felt --

REPRESENTATIVE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: You know what, she keeps -- she’s been calling me Gabby the whole day. (Laughter.)

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: Debbie has to tell you --

REPRESENTATIVE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: That’s the sixth time she’s called me Gabby. (Laughter.)

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: Debbie has to tell you about what she said after because the way she -- the way Debbie phrased it was I thought very amazing.

REPRESENTATIVE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: It was just -- really, it felt like a miracle. It felt like we were watching a miracle. And Kirsten is totally right -- we just both wanted so badly to be there for her as her friends. We wanted to do -- we wanted to be there for Mark and for her parents. And just the strength that you could see just flowing out of her to get -- it was like she was trying to will her eyes open. It was just -- I mean, it felt --

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: Debbie, you should say about -- when you had your children -- that it was like the only experience that’s similar is when you have a child.

REPRESENTATIVE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Exactly. The only way I could describe the feeling that we had, that I had, was other than the birth of my kids, this was the most incredible feeling, to see literally your -- one of your closest friends just struggle to come back to you, to come back to her family, to come back to her friends. I mean, we know how strong Gabby is and you could see all the strength pouring out of her to touch her husband --

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: And to tell us she’s there. Like she was -- it was -- you imagine this when you watch a movie, but it’s like she wanted to tell us, I’m here, I can hear you, I’m with you, and I appreciate everything you’re doing.

REPRESENTATIVE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: We told her -- when Kirsten was talking to her, she said -- because she and her husband had just gone and had pizza with Gabby and Mark, so she said, you know, come on -- come on, Gabby, you got to get going here, we’re going to go out for pizza. The last couple of summers, Gabby and Mark and Mark’s kids have vacationed with my family and I in New Hampshire. And I said, Gabby, we fully expect you to be up and ready to go to come back up to New Hampshire this summer, and that’s when she started to open her eye. And the Speaker was talking to her this whole time. We just kept alternately talking to her.

And literally the doctor said, no, you don’t understand, this is really, really significant progress. He starts pounding out a message on his BlackBerry. Her mother and father are just crying. When we -- when they finally pretty much kicked us out because, you know, obviously --

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: It was a lot of excitement.

REPRESENTATIVE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: A lot of excitement, she had to rest. We told her how much we loved her and we’d be back to see her and whatever she needed us to do, we’d be here for her. And we went out, Dr. Lemole, who is the one that’s been on TV and has been so good about explaining everything, he literally said to us, you know, I’ve discounted -- on TV, I’ve discounted emotion being -- and friendship and family -- really, I’ve sort of discounted that as meaningless out loud. He said, I just witnessed the impact of friendship and what you guys -- he said, you did this here today.

Q That was not the doctor in the room; that was a different one?

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: Different doctor.

Q Different doctor. And what was his name?

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: I don’t know.

REPRESENTATIVE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: I forget.

Q And just real quick, which hand were you holding?

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: I was holding her left hand.

Q And it was you who was holding the hand?

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE WASSERMAN SCHULT: We were alternating holding here hand.

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: I’ll show you what she was doing -- I’ll demonstrate it on your hand. Can you hold this for her?

Q Sure.

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: So this is Gabby’s hand and I’m just holding it like this and her hand -- she kept doing this, she kept going like that, like her thumb was reacting. And then she squeezed, like she totally was present in every way.

Q And then when she lifted up her arm, that was her right arm?

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: The same one. Same arm. She lifted it up like this -- it was like a whole hand thumbs up.

REPRESENTATIVE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: And he was trying to -- he kept telling her, if you can see -- he said, Gabby, if you can see me, give me a thumbs up sign, give me the thumbs up sign. And then she went -- she pulled up her whole arm.

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: Whole hand, like that.

REPRESENTATIVE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Actually, they wanted her to calm down --

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: They’re untying her arm because when she started to move more --

REPRESENTATIVE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: -- involuntary movements --

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: -- they wanted to give her the freedom to move so -- her hand had been secured. They unsecured it so she could move freely, and that’s when she brought the whole arm up to do her thumb up. Because they don’t want her to take the --

REPRESENTATIVE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: The neck tube. She was going back to reach for the breathing tube.

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: Yes, she obviously doesn’t like the breathing tube.

REPRESENTATIVE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Clearly uncomfortable.

Q Could you talk a little bit about the friendship between -- among the three of you and how you got to know each other? We talked on the phone about this the other day a little bit, but I’d be interested in knowing a little bit more from you guys about the bond that you share.

REPRESENTATIVE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: I think I told you the other day, I mean, there’s very few of us --

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: Young women.

REPRESENTATIVE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: -- young women who -- so we naturally gravitate to each other. And Kirsten and I were -- I was assigned as Kirsten’s mentor when she --

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: Before I ran for office in 2006, I called Debbie and she gave me advice about what was it like to have young children and serve in Congress. So Debbie was instrumental in making me feel comfortable before I even ran for office to be able to know that I could be a good mom and a good legislator at the same time.

REPRESENTATIVE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: So literally right from when I was elected, these were my two girlfriends. I mean, I met Gabby before I was elected, Kirsten before she was elected -- or Gabby before she -- both of them before they were elected.

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: Well, you ran Red to Blue.

REPRESENTATIVE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Right.

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: She ran Red to Blue --

REPRESENTATIVE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: The year they were elected, right.

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: So that’s how we -- so were entwined in many ways. But Gabby and I were on Armed Services together as freshmen members after we won in 2006. And what I admired about her so much is the way she brought something different to our committee. I always complimented Speaker Pelosi because one way she transformed Congress was she put five women on the Armed Services Committee all at one year. And our nature of our questions were always different.

And one thing Gabby always focused on was the well-being of the troops and their families. And she would talk about how she’d be talking about the troops with the doctor at the military base where she represents, and he would always say, I’m concerned about sending these men and women back into harm’s way when they’re not mentally or physically ready. And so I’d often bring up her stories as evidence that women in Congress matter because we have a different perspective.

And then I always wanted to get our husbands together because a lot of -- some of the women don’t have their husbands in D.C., and so -- and as you know, Gabby’s husband is an astronaut so he travels all the time. So we always talk about, we got to double date, double date, double date. So we started to do these double dates and her husband is one of the most charming men in the world. He’s not only brilliant and fascinating and an astronaut, but he’s a nice person and they love each other so clearly.

And what they seem to enjoy most about each other as a couple is how interesting each other -- each of the other one is. And so they take their New Years and they go to the renaissance weekend and they were telling me all about their New Years and the different speakers. And both of them were like finishing each other’s sentences.

REPRESENTATIVE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: The best way to describe them --

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: Clearly in love.

REPRESENTATIVE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: -- they’re really in a perpetual state of newly-wed. I mean, they really are. Steve and I -- my husband Steve and I met Gabby and Mark because Gabby and I were both chosen for this legislative fellowship, the same one that Trey Grayson was in; we were all in the same fellowship together. And so we were a part of this couple-year fellowship and we travelled around to different places and spent a lot of time together.

And then Gabby ran for Congress -- she was a state senator, she ran for Congress. I was the head of the Red to Blue program, so we got to know -- I travelled to Tucson that cycle. Mark’s last shuttle launch, our family went with Mark and Gabby’s family to see the launch. We were able to be there the night before with the family when the shuttle is all lit up at night. And we’ve had them in New Hampshire for the last couple summers.

And then as far as social time -- we don’t get a lot of social time -- but like I said, we gravitate to each other so Gabby is one of the girlfriends that I spend time with after -- I mean, we really miss Kirsten because she’s on the other side of the --

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: -- I had planned and we had lunch, a ladies lunch at the Senate dining room.

REPRESENTATIVE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: She had us all over.

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: Gabby, Debbie, and Stephanie -- it was the four of us.

REPRESENTATIVE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Yes, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Kirsten, Gabby and I all had lunch --

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: I just wanted them, I missed them so much -- I was like, you have to come have lunch with me.

REPRESENTATIVE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: It was great.

Q Moving back to the hospital room just a little bit, once the eyes were open, was she smiling? Can you describe her --

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: No, she has a tube in her mouth. No, she can’t move her face.

REPRESENTATIVE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: No expression. No expression. She just --

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: She couldn’t because of the equipment. Even if she tried -- I mean, she kept pursing her lips and I felt like she was trying to talk, but she has the breathing apparatus in her mouth so she can’t really --

REPRESENTATIVE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: But you could see -- you could clearly see the determination in her face that she was struggling to get her eyes open because she was responding to our voices. It was like she wanted us to know that she knew we were -- that we were there. It was --

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: It was raw courage. It was raw strength. It was so beautiful and so moving. And, I mean, as I said, we were in tears. We couldn’t believe our eyes how courageous she was and how much she wanted to talk to us, that she wanted to -- she wanted us to know that she was with us a hundred percent and understood everything we were saying and appreciated it.

Q Can you talk a little bit about what you were told kind of going into the hospital, what you were expecting?

REPRESENTATIVE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: They didn’t really tell us a whole lot. They didn’t warn us about anything. I mean, I had spoken to Mark on the phone and he kind of gave me an idea a couple days ago of what she looked like -- I mean, where there was a big scar and what bandages there were and things like that. So I wasn’t so -- actually she looked --

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: She looked beautiful.

REPRESENTATIVE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: She did look beautiful.

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: Absolutely beautiful.

REPRESENTATIVE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: And she looked not anything like you would imagine someone with a gunshot wound to the head would look. She looked angelic, I have to tell you. It was stunning. I mean, she -- the strength that she has is -- we were already aware of, but it clearly -- I mean, it just resonates all the way through her.

Q Describe the room a little bit for us.

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: Well, if you ever have a chance to talk to her mother, you can understand where Gabby gets it from, because her mother was just sparkling with pride and her own level of determination and will.

REPRESENTATIVE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: I mean, we’re bordering on violating her privacy now by describing -- I don’t want to get into what she looked like or, you know, the --

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: Between her mother and Mark, there’s no doubt -- both Debbie and I know Gabby has the courage and strength it will take to recover from this. We know her spirit is indomitable. We know she’s got the kind of conviction that it would take someone to recover from this kind of incident. But when I finally met her mother, I knew where it came from because her mother says, of course she’s getting better, of course she’s going to be walking soon.

And when I talked to Mark two days ago -- both Debbie and I have been sharing this story -- he said, Gabby is going to be walking. I told the doctor that Gabby would be walking on two weeks.

REPRESENTATIVE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: A couple, two weeks. He said the same thing to both of us.

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: And so when Mark told to both Debbie and I the story, we said --

REPRESENTATIVE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Separately, and we didn’t even know that we both had talked to him.

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: So you can understand the world she’s in. There’s the people who are around who believe in her, who know of her strength, and we just feel so lucky that we could have been a small part of this -- of the hope that I think the whole nation has for her future.

REPRESENTATIVE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: She’s totally enveloped by the love of her family, of her friends, of her constituents, and now the whole nation. And I think it’s absolutely clear that all that energy has been felt by her.

Q Thank you. We really appreciate it.

Q What was the name of the pizza place where you were joking about going back to?

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: We went to --

REPRESENTATIVE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Matchbox.

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: It was Matchbox.

Q The Matchbox on the Hill or --

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: On H Street. (Laughter.) They have really good pizza.

Q What’s her favorite pizza?

SENATOR GILLIBRAND: I don’t know, but then -- the funny thing about the dinner was we were supposed to go to a more conservative, fancy restaurant and when I saw it on the schedule, I said, no, I’m not in the mood. So I called Gabby and I say, where do you want to go? And I talked to her scheduler and I gave her four options of restaurants I knew were good. They picked Matchbox and they had been there the night before, so they really like it. (Laughter.) And they had had pizza the night before so -- it’s Mark’s favorite. It’s his favorite restaurant.

Q Thank you both very much.

END
12:31 A.M. EST

Majority Leader Eric Cantor Floor Statement On The Tragedy In Tucson, Arizona

Speaker Boehner’s Remarks on Resolution Condemning the Attack in Tucson, AZ

Posted by Don Seymour on January 12, 2011

Speaker Boehner delivered the following remarks on the House floor today during consideration of a resolution condemning the tragic shooting in Tucson, AZ and honoring the victims:

Reince For RNC Chairman - Jan 14,2011 Reince RNC Chairman

ReinceForRNCChair | December 05, 2010 |

Reince Priebus, Chairman of the Wisconsin Republican Party, is running for RNC Chairman.

What does the Bible have to say about climate change?

December 22, 2010

By Erin Chapman, Lauren Feeney, Sal Gentile, and Win Rosenfeld

With the collapse of last year’s international climate talks in Copenhagen and the resurgence of the Republican Party here in the United States, many observers have begun to doubt whether the world will ever be able to agree on a framework to fight global climate change. Believing that progress is possible, they say, may take a leap of faith.

And that’s exactly what some religious groups are offering.

With the holidays around the corner, The Climate Desk Podcast decided to take a closer look at the emerging environmental movement among faith-based communities in the United States, and the considerable disagreement among some denominations, especially evangelicals and born-again Christians, about what the Bible teaches us when it comes to climate change and the environment.

Flashback: Bachmann Called for "Armed and Dangerous" Citzenry on Climate Bill

— By Kate Sheppard

| Mon Jan. 10, 2011 9:01 AM PST

In the wake of the tragic shootings in Tucson on Saturday, there has been a lot of talk about the influence of heated—and at times, violent—political rhetoric, which has seemingly escalated in recent years. Sarah Palin has gotten plenty of attention for her midterms target map (replete with bulls-eyes) of congressional districts, Arizona's Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, who was critically injured in the shooting. But it's worth noting some of the other examples of extreme rhetoric—notably Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann calling on constituents to get "armed and dangerous" over the climate bill.

Here's Bachmann in a 2009 radio interview, talking about the cap and trade bill that was under debate in the House at that time:

I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us 'having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,' and the people—we the people—are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States.

Now, it's important to note that the alleged shooter, Jared Loughner, certainly appears to be suffering from mental illness and that his political ideology, if he even has one, is not really clear at this point. (See Mother Jones' exclusive interview with one of his close friends for more.) He—or any other twisted individual—could have well committed a heinous act like this without elected officials fanning the flames. But it's also certainly true that statements like Bachmann's haven't really helped create a positive discourse in this country on key policy issues—in this case, climate change.

It's not just Republicans though (though I would certainly note that we've seen much more of this the right in recent years). Remember West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin's campaign ad that featured him gunning down—literally—the cap and trade bill? Ken Ward has a thoughtful post on the need to back off the violent rhetoric on coal issues in particular, highlighting the Manchin ad.

Given that it's well known that there are paranoid, dangerous, and fragile individuals among us, the insinuation that violence against the government is a meritorious pursuit is irresponsible. There are serious debates to be had about policy, but those don't involve guns.

Murkowski joins Udall in leading bipartisan seating at State of the Union

By Daniel Strauss - 01/14/11 04:14 PM ET

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaksa) has joined Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) in spearheading Udall's effort to have bipartisan seating at the State of the Union, Murkowski's office announced Friday. 

In a letter to members of Congress today Murkowski and Udall propose Republicans and Democrats sit together during the State of the Union address. Currently, the tradition is for Democrats and Republicans to sit only with members of their party during the presidential address. The proposal comes after an earlier one by Udall where the Democrat and Republican leadership would sit together during the presidential address.

So far, 21 senators and nine members of Congress of both parties have endorsed the proposal. 

In the letter, dated Friday, Murkowski and Udall write that sitting together would cultivate bipartisanship.

"On the night of the State of the Union address, House and Senate members from both parties outhgt to cross the aislie and sit together," the senators write. "As the nation watches, Democrats and Republicans should reflect the interspersed character of America itself. Perhaps by sitting with each other for one night, we will begin to rekindle that common spark that brought us here from 50 different states and widely diverging backgrounds to serve the public good."

Udall's proposal comes a week after the Arizona shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) which claimed the lives of six and hospitalized 13. Since the shooting both Republicans and Democrats have made made gestures of bipartisanship and an interest in cooling down agressive or violent rhretoric which some have argued contributed to the shooting. Udall's letter and Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio)'s decision to reschedule a vote to repeal the Obama Administration's healthcare reform legislation. 

Twenty-one senators and nine members of the house have signed the letter as of Friday afternoon and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has suggested he is open to the idea. Senate signers are as follows: Sen. Begich (D-Alaska), Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif), Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Sen. Kristen Gilibrand (D-N.Y.), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), and Udall for the Democrats and Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alska, and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Alaska) for the Republicans. In the House, all nine signers are Democrats. They are Bishop, Carney, Cohen, Matheson, Michaud, Pingree, Richardson, Ross, and Shuler. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), who caucuses with the Democrats, has also signed the letter. 

No Republican members of the House have signed the letter as of Friday afternoon. 

The State of the Union is January 25th.

A Kinder, Gentler Congress?

Tucson may have forced a temporary cease-fire on Capitol Hill, but don't expect a lasting détente.

By Suzy Khimm | Fri Jan. 14, 2011 3:00 AM PST

---

After the Tucson tragedy and President Obama's call to "sharpen our instincts for empathy" in the face of a fractious national political discourse, will Congress become a more civil place? Here's a small case study.
As lawmakers gathered on Wednesday to honor Tucson's victims and pray for the recovery of their colleague, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) vowed in an interview with Mother Jones that the Republican Party would resume—as aggressively as ever—their effort to repeal health care reform next week. But he stumbled over his own words when he began to invoke his party's signature critique of the Obama administration—its "job-killing" agenda. "Imposing this health care regime on our businesses and our families is going to—I don't want use the word 'kill'—is going to stifle, it's going to hinder, it’s going to stop businesses from creating jobs," he said. That is: kill, but not "kill."

In the wake of Tucson, lawmakers are surely going to think twice about what they say and how they say it, says Tevi Troy, a senior fellow at Hudson Institute and former Bush administration official who opposes health care reform. "Elected officials will be more careful going forward—they will read over prepared remarks and speeches make sure there aren't inappropriate metaphors or demonization," he said.
Perhaps—but for how long?
On Capitol Hill this week, Republicans and Democrats remarked on the new tone. "To the credit of both parties, we have come together to deal with this tragedy in a very unified way...bipartisan concern, bipartisan sympathy, and bipartisan resolve," freshman Rep. Chuck Fleischmann (R-Tenn.) said. Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) was optimistic that the new era of congressional civility would last. "This is a 9/11 moment in the life of members of Congress—this is going to change the way we do business," he said. "We're going to be, on both sides of the aisle, more respectable. We're going to be very careful about how we say things, because words matter."
Earlier this week, Rep. Chellie Pingeree (D-Maine) called [1] on House Republicans to change the name of their health care repeal bill—dubbed the "Repeal the Job Killing Health Care Law Act"—to avoid using the word "killing" so soon after the Arizona shooting. "It doesn't have the most pleasant connotations to us this week—why not say something else?" Pingeree said, explaining that the shooting offered members of Congress an opportunity "to be more civil to each other." So far, though, she's gotten no takers on the Republican side when it come to changing the name of the repeal legislation.
Other Democrats have called for far more sweeping restrictions [2] on political speech, invoking everything from the now-defunct Fairness Doctrine—which used to require talk-radio stations to broadcast opposing points of view—to a bill to crack down on threatening imagery against lawmakers and judges. But many Republicans have pushed back against the calls to dial down incendiary rhetoric as a liberal attack on free speech meant to target conservatives for political gain. "The hallmark of our country has been the vigorous and vibrant debate—I don't expect that slow down," Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) said. "I don't want that slow down." Though Chaffetz decried "the politics of personal destruction," he denied that the status quo in Washington was symptomatic of a larger problem: "No, we've had a vigorous debate over issues—I think that's healthy for the country."
Likewise, some Democrats are equally skeptical that the tone of national politics—or the substantive agenda of Congress—will change after Arizona. "If history serves as any prologue, it will be back to the usual with no discernable—let alone substantive—change in policy or practice," said Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.). "I held some faint hope after 32 students were massacred at Virginia Tech that we might do something. But no." He noted that Congress failed to enact meaningful gun-control laws after the 2007 tragedy.
Moran says he hardly saw Wednesday's outpouring of sympathy on the House floor as a sign of hope. "All the self-righteous condolences that are going on on the floor as we speak—" he said. "The more anxious people are to express their sadness, the less likely they are to do anything to prevent it from recurring."