ACTION

Senator John McCain (R, AZ) continues his criticism of fellow Republicans for filibustering confirmation of CIA Director John O. Brennan over the White House’s drone policy.

While interviewing with the Huffington Post, McCain used the term “wackos” to describe Senator Rand Paul (R, KY), Senator Ted Cruz (R, TX) and Representative Justin Amash (R, MI).

“They were elected, nobody believes that there was a corrupt election, anything else…But I also think that when, you know, it’s always the wacko birds on right and left that get the media megaphone,” said McCain.

When pressed for clarification on who the wackos are, McCain responded “Rand Paul, Cruz, Amash, whoever.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/03/08/mccain-calls-paul-cruz-amash-wacko-birds/

It seems like just yesterday that McCain was relishing his role as maverick, while using the megaphone provided him by the media to gain the 2008 GOP presidential nomination.

Some Republicans, led by McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham (R, SC), worry that the filibuster, which focused lots of positive attention on Paul, might end up reflecting poorly on the party.

Might these be the same Republicans who nominated Gerald Ford in 1976, sought to nominate John Connally or George H.W. Bush while opposing Ronald Reagan in 1980, nominated Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney?

Clearly, the most successful nominee in that bunch was the most Conservative: Reagan.  That the GOP continues to cling to the notion that presidential electoral success hinges on nominating the most moderate candidate largely explains their lack of recent success.

To his credit, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, who may prove to fit into the Conservative new blood category, described the filibuster as “completely awesome.”

Meanwhile, in a radio interview with former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, Paul responded to McCain: “You know, I think he’s just on the wrong side of history, and on the wrong side of this argument, really.”

Paul continued by saying he respects both McCain’s military service and his legislative record, but stressed that McCain’s experience does not mean he is always right: “I treat Senator McCain with respect. I don’t think I always get the same in return.”

Americans on both sides of the aisle honor McCain for his service.  However, McCain must realize that it is time to pass the torch of leadership to a new generation of Conservative leaders demonstrably capable of filling his seemingly vacated role as maverick while leading Republicans to electoral victory.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2013/03/08/time-for-old-soldier-mccain-to-fade-away/ 

Some of Senator Rand Paul’s (R, KY) colleagues were left unimpressed by Wednesday’s filibuster.  The day following Paul’s action, Senators John McCain (R, AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R, SC) criticized him, saying Paul was doing a “disservice” to the debate about drones.

When was the last time either McCain or Graham raised concerns over the White House’s use of drones?

“I don’t think what happened yesterday was helpful to the American people…What we saw yesterday is going to give ammunition to those who say the rules of the Senate are being abused,” McCain said.

Since when is proper use of the Senate filibuster abuse?  McCain seems more concerned with getting along with “progressives” in the Senate than preserving the United States Constitution.

Paul was attempting to get the Obama administration to confirm it will not kill non-combatant Americans within the United States.  Graham apparently viewed that as a farcical question.

“I do not believe that question deserves an answer,” Graham stated.

What question would Graham consider worthy of reply?  Do assurances from the DOJ that they will not selectively ignore constitutionally protected rights of American Citizens to judicial due process not qualify?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/mar/7/graham-mccain-blast-paul-filibuster/

Concerns over the administration’s drone program led lawmakers to question Attorney General Eric Holder about legal justification for targeting American Citizens.   Similar concerns prompted Paul to begin his filibuster, demanding answers from the White House.  Paul said he would relent only if the Obama administration stated publically that it will not target Americans on American soil.

The administration apparently believed it could kill Americans it suspected of having terrorist ties without putting them on trial.

Concerns over protection of due process for American Citizens are bipartisan.

“You can hear almost unanimous concern about transparency and wrestling with how to move forward here in a way that protects both our constitutional liberties and our security as a nation,” Senator Christopher A. Coons (D, DE) told Holder.

Under careful examination by Senator Ted Cruz (R, TX), Holder repeatedly stated U.S Citizens on American soil were not “appropriate” targets for executions without due judicial process.  Cruz said that was an insufficient answer.  “You keep saying ‘appropriate.’ My question isn’t about propriety. My question is about whether something is constitutional or not,” said Cruz.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/6/rand-paul-filibusters-brennan-nomination-cia-direc/

McCain and Graham aside, Rand Paul, Christopher Coons and Ted Cruz are on the right side of the debate.

Since McCain and Graham apparently believe it is most important for them to get along with “progressives”, no matter the cost to the Rights of American Citizens at home, their criticism of Paul is out of hand.

Let them face the repercussions in their next election.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/stand-with-rand/

The Federal Reserve plans to keep short-term interest rate near zero until unemployment drops below 6.5 percent and inflation reaches 2.5 percent.  This means given the current equations used to calculate those numbers, Fed interest rates will remain at current lows until mid-2015 or beyond.

The Fed will also continue spending $85 billion a month on bond purchases to keep long-term borrowing costs low and to stimulate the U.S. economy.  They will also spend $45 billion a month on long-term Treasury purchases and continue buying $40 billion a month in mortgage bonds.

Why are such moves deemed necessary by the Federal Reserve?

Why does the U.S. debt ceiling need to be raised every few years?

Why is America stressed about a “fiscal cliff?”

Because the United States of America spends entirely too much money.

To those who remember history, it is self-evident that politicians, elected or not, who subscribe to the “progressive” (read Marxist) philosophy have little to no interest in compromising with their political opposition.  History informs that “progressives” in America are more inclined to attempt eliminating their Conservative political opposition than reaching any compromise.  How else can it be explained why “progressives” continue to cling to their uncompromising position?

The so-called fiscal cliff negotiations going on in Washington DC is a clear example of their motives and tactics.

The “progressives” are intentionally holding to a position untenable to Conservatives in hopes of creating divides within the GOP and causing them to lose credibility by caving on their principle of not raising taxes. 

The best case scenario for “progressives” is for the GOP to stick to their principles and refuse to raise taxes.  Then “progressives” and their co-conspirators within the “mainstream media”, aka the “progressive” Party Pravda, can place the blame for the economic results of sequestration on Conservative Republicans while, solely for their own political aims, temporarily championing members of the GOP who appeared willing to “compromise.”

Trying to negotiate a "grand bargain" simply means Republicans are aiding and abetting “progressive” Democrats in their quest to commit the biggest swindle in American history.

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has a better idea that is good strategy for countering “progressive” actions:

"I think if we go halfway, or we split the difference with him, then both parties have their hands on it.  When we go into recession, it'll be confusing.

I have yet another thought on how we can fix this. Why don't we let the Democrats pass whatever they want?  If they are the party of higher taxes, all the Republicans vote present and let the Democrats raise taxes as high as they want to raise them, let Democrats in the Senate raise taxes, let the president sign it and then make them own the tax increase.  And when the economy stalls, when the economy sputters, when people lose their jobs, they know which party to blame, the party of high taxes.  Let's don't be the party of just almost as high taxes.

In the House, they have to because the Democrats don't have the majority.  In the Senate, I'm happy not to filibuster it, and I will announce tonight on your show that I will work with Harry Reid to let him pass his big old tax hike with a simple majority if that's what Harry Reid wants, because then they will become the party of high taxes and they can own it.”

Conservatives can keep bashing Speaker of the House John Boehner and House leadership, perhaps Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell.  But that does absolutely nothing to advance the Conservative position.  Republicans made their bed a year and a half ago by agreeing to sequestration.

Give “progressive” Democrats what they want and let them own it.  When average everyday Americans who happen to be Democrats or Independents start feeling the economic pain, let “progressives” explain a failure that is covered with their fingerprints and nobody else’s.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/let-progressives-own-the-fiscal-cliff/