In a statement, Kirsten Hughes, chairman of MassGOP, said that it’s “disgusting” that [Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA)] would “rub elbows” with [Eliot] Spitzer, who resigned in 2008 amid a prostitution scandal.
“You are judged by the company you keep and it’s disgusting for Congressman Markey to rub elbows with a man best known for his solicitation of prostitutes,” said Kirsten Hughes, MassGOP Chairman.“Instead of lining his campaign coffers with donations from the disgraced Eliot Spitzer, Markey should immediately cancel the fundraiser and denounce Spitzer’s abhorrent and unacceptable behavior. Anything short of a public condemnation and cancellation would send the wrong message to women everywhere.”
Okay then, how about “rubbing elbows” with the “disgusting” John Ensign? And the “abhorrent” Mark Sanford? Wasn’t their behavior unacceptable? And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
All of those Republicans claimed they stood for “family values” (Spitzer didn’t). All of them are hypocrites. Did they “keep company” with other Republicans? Call me crazy, but I’m guessing they did.
A senior House Democrat on Monday alleged that Republicans want the short-term debt increase in order to kill the economic recovery and blame President Obama for high unemployment.
Edward Markey (D-Mass.):
“The Boehner approach really intends to have another debate next year that is just as big and that’s their point. A big debate this year puts a cloud over the markets and the economic environment, and another debate next year will do the same thing to our economic recovery… So it’s a very cynical, regain-the-majority strategy that puts the entire economy at risk.”
He went on to say the showdown over the size of the debt limit increase will be “because of their plan to not end [the crisis] now, but to have it end sometime before the next election to basically make it very difficult to have an effective economic recovery.”
King has apparently forgotten why the nation is on the brink of default in the first place: Republican hostage-taking. During President Bush’s tenure, GOP leaders voted to raise the debt ceiling 19 times — by a total of $4 trillion — without demanding draconian cuts to the social safety net in return, and 130 current House and Senate Republicans have voted to raise the debt ceiling under Bush. In fact, the entire debate right now ignores the fact that Bush’s policies added over three times the amount of debt than have Obama’s policies.
The chart reflecting those policies and their costs is here.
And again, via Think Progress (forgive the inclusion of Trump’s most recent cry for attention, but he parrots the same irresponsible GOP talking points):
Excellent point by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) on Face the Nation today. Who ever could have predicted that terrorists would have crashed planes into American skyscrapersHurricane Katrina would have caused so much damage nuclear reactors would be vulnerable to earthquakes and tsunamis?
Markey correctly points out that the largest barrier to new nuclear power isn’t environmental protesters but investors skeptical of investing in an increasingly expensive technology that isn’t even necessary to solve global warming.
Of course, the always forward-thinking GOP (and some Democrats, too, including the president) continue to support nuclear energy. Hopefully, their positions will evolve (I hold out very little hope for Republicans; I have more faith in our side).
I am more than happy to be one of his outlets. Here’s today’s outrage, starting with a press release sent by Hugh, by Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Chairman of the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee, in part:
Markey Analysis Shows Coast Guard Allowed BP, Spill Response Officials to Excessively Use Dispersants
Rep. Edward J. Markey [...] today released a letter sent to National Incident Commander Thad Allen and documents revealing that the U.S. Coast Guard, tasked with limiting BP’s use of toxic dispersants during the Gulf oil spill disaster, repeatedly allowed the oil company to use excessive amounts of the chemical on the surface of the ocean.
These exemptions were granted on a daily basis despite a prior federal directive that the company cease that tactic to combat the spill except in “rare” circumstances. [...]
In many cases, these applications appeared to be rubber stamped by the Coast Guard, including pre-approvals for weeks’ worth of unlimited use, as well as retroactive approvals for surface applications of dispersants for which BP failed to obtain prior permission. These actions by the Coast Guard appear to have largely undercut a directive it co-signed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that said that dispersant chemicals be used on the ocean’s surface only in “rare cases,” and only with advance approval. [...]
“BP carpet bombed the ocean with these chemicals, and the Coast Guard allowed them to do it,” said Rep. Markey. Rep. Markey has authored numerous oversight letters to EPA, the Coast Guard and the FDA related to dispersant use, and has additionally introduced H.R. 5608, legislation that would require more extensive testing of these chemicals before they are used. “After we discovered how toxic these chemicals really are, they had no business being spread across the Gulf in this manner.” [...]
The analysis also found that the amounts of surface dispersants used that were reported by BP to Congress and the amounts reported to have been used that were contained in BP’s requests for approval by the Coast Guard also vary widely, bringing into question whether BP was being truthful about the total amount used, and whether the Coast Guard was conducting rigorous monitoring and oversight over the company’s use of the chemical. [...]
“Either BP was lying to Congress or to the Coast Guard about how much dispersants they were shooting onto the ocean,” said Rep. Markey. “These huge discrepancies also raise the question of whether the Coast Guard made sufficient efforts to verify the information BP provided in support of its requests, and whether it exercised appropriate oversight surrounding the use of these toxic chemicals.” *
Now here is CNN’s Anderson Cooper asking whether the oil disaster was overblown by the President, public officials, scientists, even himself. Those on BP’s payroll “make a number of valid points”, he says.
You just keep on believing that, Anderson:
Hugh Kaufman, via e-mail:
So Anderson Cooper uses Rush Limbaugh’s expert LSU Professor to sing the praises of dispersants (LSU is on the BP payroll, being paid millions of dollars.).
And they put that BS video on top of the page with this morning’s story about Congressman Markey’s Sub-Committee documenting the Coast Guard as a BP sock-puppet for overuse of toxic dispersants.
Shame on LSU, shame on Rush Limbaugh, shame on CNN, shame on Anderson Cooper!
The entire letter can be seen here. For all my posts about the dangers of dispersants, please go here, including this one from a few minutes ago.
It’s somewhat reassuring to see members of Congress jumping all over this. I say somewhat, because real reassurance will come with real answers and real solutions.
Here is an excerpt from the Nadler/Oberstar letter:
“There are several hazardous substances present in the oil and in the chemical dispersants that are supposed to break up the oil, forming a ‘toxic soup.’ The dispersant that BP has chosen to use, Corexit, is considered one of the most toxic. Last week, several cleanup workers were taken to the hospital complaining of nausea, shortness of breath and other respiratory ailments,” said Oberstar. “It is the federal government’s responsibility to enforce public health and safety laws. Unfortunately, at the World Trade Center following the 9/11 terrorist attack, OSHA rules were not enforced, and thousands of emergency responders, area workers and residents are now sick and receiving treatment. This must not happen to those living and working in the Gulf Coast area.”
There have been so many concerns, so many questions, and yet there seems to be a reluctance to respond. I’m not sure what to make of that, but at least some of these should be answered sooner than later. What’s the hold up?
It may be nothing (according to Hugh Kaufman, a senior policy analyst at the EPA’s office of solid waste and emergency response, that’s doubtful) , but even the appearance of reticence or a lack of transparency isn’t exactly the best way to go these days… or any days.
Lt. Col Barry Wingard is the lawyer for Gitmo detainee Fayiz Al-Kandari. For their ongoing story + related topics, please click on the link below: Kuwaiti Citizen Detained at Guantanamo since 2002
You can read the complete story here or on Wikipedia.
Subscribe to The Political Carnival Newsfeed via Wikio
The Political Carnival is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com.
Photographs on The Political Carnival site (please read):
Photographs from other sources sometimes appear on TPC for humorous or illustrative purposes. As it is not our intention to use these images in any inappropriate manner or to infringe upon any rights held by others, anyone holding legal rights in the use of these images who wishes to have them taken down please contact us immediately requesting such removal, with which we will comply promptly.
TPC RSS Posts Feed
TPC Comments Feed
