“Epic Obstruction And Dishonesty”: Colorado Republican Leadership Kills Civil Unions And 30 Other Bills
Civil unions are dead for this year in Colorado and Republican obstruction is to blame after an unprecedented night of antics on the House floor. The civil unions bill passed out of its final committee yesterday evening and needed to reach a floor vote by midnight. Republicans instead chose to intentionally run out the clock with hour-long debates on noncontroversial legislation about historic license plates and trans-fats in school lunchrooms, with Rep. David Balmer (R) filibustering, “Not a one of you has the courage to vote against chocolate!”
Rep. B.J. Nikkel (R), one of several Republicans who supported civil unions in committee, offered to help Democrats regain control to force a vote. The presiding officer declared a recess as an attempted coup ensued. In this exclusive behind-the-scenes clip from OutFront Colorado, it’s obvious that House Speaker Frank McNulty (R) is seen holding the civil unions bill hostage, refusing to guarantee that he would bring it up to a vote. In fact, he dishonestly rejected the notion that any sort of stalling tactic was underway. Meanwhile, Rep. Mark Waller (R) attempted to play damage control on the floor, evoking uproarious laughter from the press when he claimed, “The Democrats in the State House right now are playing procedural games to have one bill heard over every other bill.”
Ultimately, the House never came out of recess. Not only did the civil unions bill die, but so did 30 other pieces of legislation, including $20 million worth of water projects statewide and a controversial bill that would set a standard for driving while stoned. Upon news the bills were dying, people in the gallery started booing and chanting, “Shame on you! Shame on you!” Watch how McNulty tried to blame the failure on an “impasse,” disingenuously suggesting “it is unfortunate that there will be items that do not receive consideration by the House tonight”: http://youtu.be/Eh6To6PZY6E
But of course, McNulty is fully responsible for that impasse. He tried to pass the buck by blaming Senate Democrats for delaying introduction of the bill, but left out one important detail. Sen. Pat Steadman (D), the bill’s sponsor, explained that he brought the bill up late specifically because the speaker pro tem, Rep. Kevin Priola (R), was considering sponsoring the bill but wanted to wait until after the GOP state convention in mid-April. Priola supports the bill, but never bothered to sign on as the House sponsor, despite the delay at his request.
The Denver Post has called on Gov. John Hickenlooper to call a special session of the legislature so that civil unions can pass. Unfortunately, even in a special session, McNulty could reshuffle committee membership to prevent the bill from advancing to the floor.
There is no way to spin the absurd obstruction that took place last night. Despite ample support for civil unions from Republicans, it was the Republican House leadership that sacrificed 30 other bills to prevent same-sex couples from obtaining legal rights. It’s an historically sad day for Colorado politics.
By: Zack Ford, Think Progress, May 9, 2012
“Rewriting History, Again”: No, Mitt Romney Didn’t Save The Auto Industry
One might think that presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney would be a little more careful on two fronts: thinking about how his comments will come across before he says them, and being sensitive to concerns about him changing his views on things. So what would lead a smiling Romney to take credit for the resurgence of the automobile industry?
Somewhat incredibly, Romney, campaigning recently in auto industry-reliant Ohio, told a Cleveland radio station:
I’ll take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry’s come back. My own view is that the auto companies needed to go through bankruptcy before government help. And frankly, that’s finally what the president did. He finally took them through bankruptcy.
Forget about the auto industry turnaround; Romney’s remarkable statements represent a turnaround in either policy or memory that makes the stunning new success of GM pale in comparison. This is a candidate who, in 2008, penned a New York Times op-ed entitled “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.” And while the headline (which Romney did not write) was a tad provocative, Romney was very clear in the piece in saying that if the auto bailout went ahead, “you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye.”
It’s hard to imagine Romney forgot about that op-ed, which has been resurrected many times in the media. It’s a weakness for Romney in the industrial Midwest. But purporting to be the source of Obama’s strategy (as if the president was taking advice from Romney) is a metaphorical shaking of the Etch A Sketch that requires a bodybuilder to achieve.
A lot of conservatives are unhappy with Romney, and it’s not just because they don’t think he’s conservative enough, it’s because they aren’t confident he means what he says about conservative issues. The man who promised to be more pro gay rights than late Sen. Ted Kennedy has a hard time convincing social conservatives he will be the opposite. The man who once supported abortion rights has a tough task in convincing the GOP base that he feels differently now. It’s one of the reasons primary foe Rick Santorum took so long to endorse Romney, and then did so in a long E-mail to Santorum supporters—an E-mail in which he delivered the most tepid of endorsements to Romney. So attempting to rewrite history for voters in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania doesn’t help with his image.
Romney’s argument in 2008 would look smarter if Obama’s strategy didn’t work. But it did, and even if Romney has a sincere free-market opposition to industry bailouts, he could acknowledge that happy development without endorsing government ownership of private industry. He could say, Gosh, I’m glad things are looking up. But we’re going down a dangerous road if we let the federal government tinker with private companies that way. It undermines the principles of the free market and entrepreneurship, and it exposes the government to private-sector losses if the companies don’t rebound. That’s a less powerful argument to make now that the auto industry is coming back, but at least it’s sincere and consistent.
It’s also possible that this is all about Obama, and the refusal by some of his opponents to give him credit for anything, even if there’s a clear success. Obama gave the order to kill Osama bin Laden, and it worked—the most hated man in America is dead, and not a single Navy SEAL died in the mission. But many Republicans first blasted Obama for not crediting Bush’s work on the effort, and now are mad because Obama is touting the major success as some proof that, well, he’s done some good things in office. No one can credibly argue that it’s bad that bin Laden is dead, so Obama critics—who still can’t seem to accept the fact that he’s actually the president—want to argue that Obama had little to do with it.
That makes Romney’s “I take a lot of credit” comment especially jarring. If it’s “spiking the ball” for Obama to take credit for killing bin Laden, how do we characterize the words of a candidate who takes credit for something he opposed, but which turned out to be successful? The campaign, like most campaigns, will erase some of the past with a symbolic Etch A Sketch. But you can’t Etch A Sketch away history.
By: Susan Milligan, Washington Whispers, U. S. News and World Report, May 9, 2012
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 