Straight Talk, Senator Clinton? We just can’t get a straight answer.

She has issues about issues.

By Mike Duncan

Senator Hillary Clinton has been running for president pretty much since she was first elected to the Senate. But after all of that time, after all of the trips, press conferences, debates, and ads, what do Michiganders really know about Clinton’s plans?

On issue after issue, she has avoided taking strong positions, has contradicted herself, or has simply refused to answer any questions. Despite the almost constant news coverage, the only thing any of us really know for sure about Senator Clinton’s plans is that she wants to live in the White House again.
That’s not good enough. It’s not enough to be ambitious. It’s not enough to want to be president. The people deserve presidential candidates who want to be elected for a reason. We deserve candidates who take principled stands on important policy questions — yes, even the controversial ones. We deserve a president who has a vision for our future.

Senator Clinton may have many policy plans — but if she does, she hasn’t been eager to talk about them. So we’re left to guess: Did she or did she not have a plan to reform the Alternative Minimum Tax, which was set to hit 23 million Americans with unexpected tax increases this year? First, she said she had a plan. Then she said she’d defer to the chairman of the House tax-writing committee. Then, when he announced a plan that would raise taxes by a record-breaking $1.3 trillion, Clinton refused to give a straight answer whether she supported his plan or what she would do next.

That’s not the first time she has tried to have it both ways when it comes to the economy. How would Senator Clinton help Michiganders who need assistance? Just last week, she said that she wanted to “put money in people’s hands.” That sounds all well and good, except that one of the centerpieces of her campaign is taking money out of people’s hands. Not only did she vote in the Senate for the largest tax increase in history, but she has actually said on the campaign trail that she’s “going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” The people of Michigan don’t need the government to take more of their money. They need a strong economy, so they can earn and keep more money for their families.

How about health care? Senator Clinton tried this once before in 1993, with a plan to have the government take over our health care system, with accountants and bureaucrats in Washington making decisions about care instead of patients and doctors. Her new plan isn’t quite identical, but the guiding philosophies behind it are the same: more government, higher taxes, and less choice. Her plan will increase the power bureaucrats exercise over the health-care system, instead of doctors and patients. And though Senator Clinton insists the plan would create “no new bureaucracy,” it manages to spend $110 billion per year just to start. That’s a lot of money, and Senator Clinton admits that she will raise taxes in order to pay for it, but even by her own calculations, that would only cover part of the cost. Where will the rest come from? She won’t say.

On national-security issues, Senator Clinton seems more interested in appealing to left-wing activists than in offering serious answers to issues that directly affect our nation’s safety and security. It wasn’t long ago that she was telling audiences she opposed setting a deadline for troop withdrawal from Iraq. Now, she not only supports a deadline, but she says she always did. In spring of 2006, Clinton said that she would “of course” support funding for the troops. But less than three weeks later, she joined only 13 other senators to vote against funding our troops. Three weeks was all it took to change her mind.

That’s just a start. Senator Clinton won’t give a straight answer on whether or not she has a plan to reform Social Security — or even whether she believes the impending bankruptcy of our national retirement system is a ‘crisis.’ She has gone back and forth on whether she does or doesn’t support giving driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. Clinton tells us she is the most experienced candidate, but refuses to release millions upon millions of pages of documents from her tenure in the White House to back up her claims.

A presidential election is not just about telling the American people what they want to hear. It’s about trust and leadership. If Senator Clinton won’t level with Michiganders — or any voters — about what she would do in the White House, if she doesn’t want to take positions on the hard issues now, how can we trust her to lead our nation?

— Mike Duncan is chairman of the Republican National Committee.

You can read the article here

Advertisements

Santorum: McCain Presidency Very Dangerous

Newsmax staff 

Former Senator and leading conservative Rick Santorum says a John McCain presidency would be “very, very dangerous for Republicans.”

Santorum — who was defeated in 2006 after two terms as a U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania — was sharply critical of fellow Republican McCain in an interview that aired last week on syndicated talk radio host Mark Levin’s show.

Responding to Levin’s observation that McCain is trying to recast himself as more conservative now that he is seeking the GOP presidential nomination, Santorum said:

“It’s amazing to hear what John McCain is trying to convince the voters he is all about. The bottom line is, I served 12 years with him, six years in the Senate as one of the leaders of the Senate, trying to put together the conservative agenda, and almost at every turn, on domestic policy, John McCain was not only against us, but leading the charge on the other side.”

Santorum cited the campaign finance reform bill sponsored by McCain, the McCain-Feingold Act, which limits campaign contributions and has been called by some an “incumbent protection act.”

Santorum called the act “an affront to personal freedom and liberty in this country, and what we’ve seen as a result of this misguided attempt to placate the New York Times and to help his stature within that community … is that special interests have absolutely taken over the political process, and individual candidates, unless you’re a billionaire, and parties have very little voice in the process.

“It’s a shame, but he was obviously out front on that.”

The former Senator also criticized McCain for voting against the Bush Tax cuts — he was one of only two Republicans to do so.

“The reduction in [tax] rates and lowering the rates on capital gains and dividends … did so much to get this economy up and going. [But] we would have had a much bigger tax cut if it were not for John McCain.”

Santorum pointed to McCain’s opposition to conservative positions on drug re-importation, federally funded embryonic stem cell research, immigration, the questioning of terror detainees and other issues, and said he has a “big fear” of a McCain presidency.

He asserted it would create a “huge rift” in the Republican Party, and told Levin’s listeners:

“I think he’s been solid in the war on terror … but on domestic policy, he’s very, very dangerous for Republicans.

“There’s nothing worse than having a Democratic Congress and a Republican president who would act like a Democrat in matters that are important to conservatives.”

Santorum also claimed that McCain was a leader of Senate moderates that often stopped Republicans from pushing strong pro-life legislation.

Santorum said he had not decided which candidate he will vote for in the upcoming GOP primary, but ruled out voting for McCain.

By: Newmax Staff

Santorum expressed the same sentiment back in March, saying he would support whoever wins the Republican nomination for president in 2008, with the exception of John McCain.

As Newsmax reported at the time, Santorum said in an interview: “I don’t agree with him on hardly any issues. I don’t think he has the temperament and leadership ability to move the country in the right direction.”

Now here’s a bad sign; Hillary Busing in Supporters to New Hampshire

(Now we know why she won)

Hillary Clinton is having so much trouble drawing large crowds of New Hampshire voters to her rallies that she’s been busing in supporters from out of state.

That’s what NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell reported on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Monday.

Mitchell said she was surprised to find at a recent Hillary Clinton rally in New Hampshire many attendees who were from Long Island and Upstate New York.

NBC Washington bureau chief, Tim Russert, also appeared on the show and offered more confirming details.

Russert said he was attending a Clinton rally at Nashua High School this weekend and was tipped off by the school’s maintenance man to check out the license plates in the parking lot. Russert said he was stunned to find the school’s lot filled with cars bearing Massachusetts plates.

Word from New Hampshire is that Hillary is simply not drawing strong grass-roots supports and has to rely on union activists from outside New Hampshire to fill out the crowds at her events.

Following Obama’s win in the Iowa caucuses, he now holds a double-digit lead in several New Hampshire polls, and it’s becoming clear that Hillary can’t compete with Obama’s charismatic appeal when it comes to attracting crowds at campaign events.

The New Hampshire primary is set for Tuesday, Jan. 8.

Now back to Iowa for a second:

Regarding Hillary’s slogan (for this week anyway – she can’t seem to get that right either) “Change”, looking at this photo from the Iowa Caucus – I see a scary flashback from 1990’s and making me cringe with the prospect of a “Clinton third term”… talk about a flop; Why oh why would you want the world to see Bill on one side of you, and Madeline Albreight on the other?

Another reason why the GOP needs to take back New Jersey: NJ To Become First State In 42 Years To Abolish Death Penalty

Why, oh why, oh why, do I as a taxpayer WHO YOU REPRESENT, Governor, have to pay as part of my taxes, room and board for convicted felons worthy of death? Why, Governor Corzine?

Scroll to the bottom, to see who exactly Governor Corzine and his NJ Democratic lawmakers want to keep paying room and board, instead of giving them exactly what they were sentanced: DEATH.

Contact Corzine and your local leader and let them know what we think of them. Click the following links to find how to contact them:

Senate

Democratic Office

Republican Office (scroll to the bottom right)

Assembly:

Democratic office (Click your rep’s name and send an email)

Republican Office

TRENTON, N.J. — New Jersey on Monday will become the first state in four decades to abolish the death penalty under a bill to be signed by Gov. Jon S. Corzine, a move being hailed across the world as a historic victory against capital punishment. Corzine is set to sign the bill at 10 a.m. at a Statehouse ceremony. As he does so, Rome will put golden light on the Colosseum in support. Once the arena for deadly gladiator combat and executions, the Colosseum is now a symbol of the fight against the death penalty.

“We have seized the moment and are poised to join the ranks of other states and countries that view the death penalty as discriminatory, immoral and barbaric,” said state Assemblyman Wilfredo Caraballo, D-Essex.

The bill, approved last week by the state’s Assembly and Senate, will replace the death sentence with life in prison without parole. A special state commission found in January that the death penalty was a more expensive sentence than life in prison, hasn’t deterred murder and risks killing an innocent person. “The state is taking a painful but necessary step,” said Corzine, a Democrat. The measure would spare eight men on the state’s death row, including Jesse Timmendequas, the sex offender convicted of murdering 7-year-old Megan Kanka in 1994. That murder sparked Megan’s Law in New Jersey and around the nation, which requires law enforcement agencies to notify the public about convicted sex offenders living in their communities. “I will never forget how I’ve been abused by a state and a governor that was supposed to protect the innocent and enforce the laws,” said Marilyn Flax, whose husband Irving was abducted and murdered in 1989 by death row inmate John Martini Sr. The bill passed the Legislature largely along party lines, with controlling Democrats supporting the abolition and minority Republicans opposed. “It’s simply a specious argument to say that, somehow, after six millennia of recorded history, the punishment no longer fits the crime,” said Assemblyman Joseph Malone, R-Burlington. Republicans had sought to retain the death penalty for those who murder law enforcement officials, rape and murder children, and terrorists, but Democrats rejected that. “A thorough examination of the state’s death penalty system has revealed it for what it truly is — a colossal public policy failure that wastes taxpayers’ dollars and diverts valuable resources from proven crime prevention measures,” said Larry Cox, executive director of Amnesty International USA. Although New Jersey reinstated the death penalty in 1982, six years after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed states to resume executions, it hasn’t executed anyone since 1963. The last states to eliminate the death penalty were Iowa and West Virginia in 1965, according to the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. Under New Jersey’s measure, the eight men on death row have 60 days to decide whether to drop appeals and accept life in prison without parole. Those who don’t drop appeals retain their death sentence, but New Jersey has been barred from executing anyone under a 2004 court ruling that deemed invalid the state’s lethal injection procedures. The nation has executed 1,099 people since the U.S. Supreme Court reauthorized the death penalty in 1976. In 1999, 98 people were executed, the most since 1976; last year 53 people were executed, the lowest since 1996. Other states have considered abolishing the death penalty recently, but none has advanced as far as New Jersey. According to the Washington-based Death Penalty Information Center, 37 states have the death penalty. Bills to abolish the death penalty were recently approved by a Colorado House committee, the Montana Senate and the New Mexico House. But none of those bills has advanced. The nation’s last execution was Sept. 25 in Texas. Since then, executions have been delayed pending a U.S. Supreme Court decision on whether execution through lethal injection violates the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment. In Rome, the Sant’Egidio Community, a lay Roman Catholic organization at the forefront of an international anti-death penalty movement, said New Jersey’s decision is a “crucial passage” for a worldwide moratorium on capital punishment. Since 1999, the first century monument Colosseum has been bathed in golden light every time a death sentence is commuted or a country abolishes capital punishment.

So… who are the wonderful inmates worthy for our state leaders to decide it’s worth us taxpayers paying “room and board” to keep alive?

The eight inmates on New Jersey’s death row, including the county in which they were convicted, their crime and the date they arrived on death row:

_ Marko Bey, Monmouth, Dec. 15, 1983, returned Sept. 13, 1990. Convicted of the murders of Cheryl Alston and Carol D. Peniston in April 1983. Death sentences were reversed on appeal, but was resentenced to death in the Peniston case and that sentence was upheld by the state Supreme Court.

_ John Martini, Bergen, Dec. 12, 1990. Convicted of murdering Fair Lawn businessman Irving Flax on Jan. 23, 1989; also has admitted to two murders in Arizona and faces a murder trial in Pennsylvania.

_ Nathaniel Harvey, Middlesex, Oct. 17, 1986, returned Dec. 16, 1994. Convicted of the 1985 bludgeoning murder of Irene Schnaps in Plainsboro. Won a new trial; was convicted and sentenced again in 1994.

_ David Cooper, Monmouth, May 17, 1995. Convicted of kidnapping 6-year-old Latasha Goodman in Asbury Park, raping and strangling her July 18, 1993.

_ Ambrose Harris, Mercer, July 1, 1994. Convicted of murdering 22-year-old Kristin Huggins, an artist from Lower Makefield, Pa., on Dec. 17, 1992.

_ Sean Padraic Kenney, Gloucester, formerly known as Richard Feaster, March 27, 1996. Convicted of the October 1993 shotgun slaying of Keith Donaghy, a Gloucester County gas station attendant.

_ Jesse Timmendequas, Mercer, June 20, 1997. Convicted of the murder of 7-year-old Megan Kanka of Hamilton, July 1994. Crime led to passage of Megan’s Law, requiring certain released sex offenders to register with police.

_ Brian P. Wakefield, Absecon, March 4, 2004. Pleaded guilty to the Jan. 18, 2001, slayings of Richard Hazard, 70, and Shirley Hazard, 65, in Pleasantville.

Poll: Clinton’s lead vanishes in New Hampshire

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Democrat Hillary Clinton has lost her once-comfortable lead over rival Barack Obama in the crucial primary state of New Hampshire, according to a poll released Friday.

In the new poll conducted by the Concord Monitor, Obama surpasses the New York senator by 1 percentage point: 32 percent to 31 percent. Meanwhile, John Edwards comes in a distant third with 15 percent support among likely Democratic voters, while Bill Richardson is fourth with 7 percent.

Speaking to reporters in Iowa Friday, Clinton commented on several recent polls both in Iowa and New Hampshire that show she is tied with Obama.

“I guess I’ve been in enough campaigns over a lot of years to know that there is no predictability and there certainly is no inevitability,” she said. “You have to get out and work for every single vote. That’s what I have always done. I don’t know any other way to do it.”

Meanwhile, at a separate event in Iowa, Obama commented on his rise in the polls, saying, “people are receptive to this message of change.”

“I am confident in my ability to lead this country,” he said. “And increasingly we are doing well. Not just here in Iowa but across the country.”

Obama’s chances of success in the Granite State will likely hinge on how many independents show up at the polls. Unlike many states, New Hampshire allows unaffiliated voters to vote in either the Republican primary or the Democratic primary — an allowance that often can give a boost to candidates who are viewed as outside their party establishment.

Of independent voters who are likely to vote in the Democratic primary, the poll shows Obama has a wide lead over Clinton, 40 percent to 23 percent. Meanwhile Clinton holds the lead over Obama when it comes to registered Democrats in the state, 36 percent to 27 percent.

The poll also shows Obama is making inroads with women in the Granite State. The Illinois senator now edges out Clinton in that demographic, 34 percent to 32 percent.

The poll carries a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Aaah HILLARY THE LIAR… let’s take a trip down memory lane, shall we??

Great read by National Journal’s Stuart Taylor.

Here’s a sample of what’s in the article: But her statements were contradicted by evidence

This person wants to be President?

(Text highlights are my own)

Hillary Rodham Clinton is supposed to be smart. But how smart is it for a woman with such a bad reputation for truthfulness and veracity to put those character traits at the center of the campaign?

The irony of her potshots at Barack Obama‘s character has hardly gone unnoticed. Nor has the idiocy of her December 2 press release breathlessly revealing that “in kindergarten, Senator Obama wrote an essay titled ‘I Want to Become President.’ ” (Emphasis added.) This, the Clinton release explained, gives the lie to Obama’s claim that he is “not running to fulfill some long-held plans” to become president. Hillary was not, it appears, joking.

At a campaign stop the same day, Clinton added: “I have been, for months, on the receiving end of rather consistent attacks. Well, now the fun part starts.” Indeed.

I will not excavate Clinton’s own kindergarten confessions. Nor will I compare the honesty quotient of her campaign-trail spin with the dreadful drivel dutifully uttered by Obama and other candidates to pander to their fevered primary electorates.

Instead, let’s take a trip down memory lane — from the tawdriness of the 1992 presidential campaign through the mendacity of the ensuing years — to revisit a sampling of why so many of us came to think that Hillary’s first instinct when in an embarrassing spot is to lie.

Gennifer and Monica. Former lounge singer Gennifer Flowers surfaced in early 1992 with claims — corroborated by tapes of phone calls — that she had had a long affair with then-Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, who had arranged a state job for her. Bill Clinton told the media, falsely, that the woman’s “story is untrue.”

Although well aware of her husband’s philandering history, Hillary backed his squishy denials, famously asserting on “60 Minutes” that she was not “some little woman standing by her man like Tammy Wynette.” More deceptively, she suggested to ABC’s Sam Donaldson that Bill’s contacts with Flowers were just an example of how he loved to “help people who are in trouble” and “listen to their problems.”

“Hillary’s words uncannily foreshadowed her insistence six years later to … a White House aide that Bill had ‘ministered’ to [Monica] Lewinsky because she was a troubled young woman,” Sally Bedell Smith writes in her fine new book about the Clintons, For Love of Politics. Hillary has continued to insist that she believed what she said about Lewinsky. But friends and former aides have told Smith and others that she knew her husband was lying all along.

Travelgate. The first Clinton scandal after Bill became president started in May 1993, when Chief of Staff Mack McLarty fired the seven employees in the White House office that arranges travel for the press corps. The White House cited gross financial mismanagement. (The charge was never substantiated.) The sudden firings created a media uproar, especially when the dismissed employees were quickly replaced by friends and relatives of the Clintons.

(…what?? I DEMAND an investigation.  Oops – I forgot. that’s only if its GOP administrations; sorry. I forgot our Democratic congress likes to ignore the Clinton Mafia family shenannigans) 

Hillary later told the General Accounting Office, in a document prepared by her attorney, that she had no role in the decision to fire the employees, did not know the “origin of the decision,” and “did not direct that any action be taken by anyone” other than keeping her informed.

But her statements were contradicted by evidence, including a long-concealed memo to McLarty and a written chronology prepared by White House aide David Watkins that came to light years later. Hillary, Watkins wrote, had said that “we need those people out and we need our people in” and had made it clear that “there would be hell to pay” unless she got “immediate action.” Another aide wrote that Hillary intimate Susan Thomases had said, “Hillary wants these people fired.”

While saying that no provable crime had been committed, Robert Ray, who had succeeded Kenneth Starr as independent counsel, reported in October 2000 that Hillary’s statements had been “factually false” and that there was “overwhelming evidence that she in fact did have a role in the decision to fire the employees.”

Cattle futures. The New York Times revealed in March 1994 that in 1978, just before her husband became governor, Hillary had made a $100,000 profit on a $1,000 investment in highly speculative cattle-futures contracts in only nine months. Hillary’s first explanation (through aides) of this extraordinary windfall was that she had made the investment after “reading The Wall Street Journal” and placed all the trades herself after seeking advice from “numerous people.” It was so preposterous that she soon had to abandon it. Eventually, she had to admit that longtime Clinton friend James Blair had executed 30 of her 32 trades directly with an Arkansas broker.

In an April 1994 press conference, Hillary denied knowing of “any favorable treatment” by Blair. But the astronomical odds against any financial novice making a 10,000 percent profit without the game being rigged led many to believe that Blair, the outside counsel to Arkansas-based poultry giant Tyson Foods, must have put only profitable trades in Hillary’s account and absorbed her losses. The heavily regulated Tyson needed friends in high places, and Bill Clinton helped it pass a 1983 state law raising weight limits on chicken trucks.

Removal of Vince Foster documents. During the same press conference, Hillary was asked why her then-chief of staff, Maggie Williams, had been involved in removing documents from the office of Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster after his suicide. Foster had been a partner of Hillary’s at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Ark. “I don’t know that she did remove any documents,” Hillary said. But it was reported three months later that Hillary had instructed Williams to remove the Foster documents to the White House residence. Then they were turned over to Clinton attorney Bob Barnett.

Castle Grande. In the summer of 1995, the Resolution Trust Corp. reported that Hillary had been one of 11 Rose Law Firm lawyers who had done work in the mid-1980s on an Arkansas real estate development, widely known as Castle Grande, promoted by James McDougal and Seth Ward. McDougal headed a troubled thrift, Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan, and had given Hillary legal business as a favor to Bill. McDougal and his wife, Susan, were the Clintons’ partners in their Whitewater real estate investment. Ward was father-in-law to Webb Hubbell, another former Rose Law Firm partner, who was briefly Clinton’s associate attorney general in 1993. Later, Hubbell went to prison for fraud, as did James McDougal.

Castle Grande was a sewer of sham transactions, some used to funnel cash into Madison Guaranty. Castle Grande’s ultimate collapse contributed to that of the thrift, which cost taxpayers millions. Hillary told federal investigators that she knew nothing about Castle Grande. When it turned out that more than 30 of her 60 hours of legal work for Madison Guaranty involved Castle Grande, she said she had known the project under a different name. A 1996 Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. report said that she had drafted documents that Castle Grande used to “deceive federal bank examiners.”

Prosecutors later came to believe that Hillary had padded her bills; she “wasn’t guilty of [knowingly] facilitating nefarious transactions — she was guilty of doing less work than she took credit for,” Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr. explain in their 2007 biography, Her Way. Hillary herself never took refuge in this explanation.

Billing records. Hillary’s billing records for Castle Grande were in a 116-page, 5-inch-thick computer printout that came to light under mysterious circumstances on January 4, 1996 — 19 months after Starr’s investigators had subpoenaed it and amid prosecutorial pressure on Clinton aides who had been strikingly forgetful. For most of that time, Hillary claimed that the billing records had vanished. But a longtime Hillary assistant named Carolyn Huber later admitted coming across the printout in August 1995 on a table in a storage area next to Hillary’s office; Huber said she had put it into a box in her own office, without realizing for five more months that these were the subpoenaed billing records.

This implausible tale, on top of other deceptions, prompted New York Times columnist William Safire to write on January 8, 1996, that “our first lady … is a congenital liar.”

The next day, the White House press secretary said that the president wanted to punch Safire in the nose for insulting his wife. Five days later, the president invited Monica Lewinsky to the Oval Office for what turned out to be one of their 10 oral-sex sessions. Two years and 13 days after that, Hillary was on the “Today” show suggesting that her husband’s Lewinsky affair was a lie concocted by “this vast right-wing conspiracy.”

And now she is citing Barack Obama’s supposed kindergarten “essay” as evidence of dishonesty. Astonishing.

— Stuart Taylor Jr. is a senior writer and columnist for National Journal magazine, where “Opening Argument” appears. His e-mail address is staylor@nationaljournal.com.

Senate Democrats Backtrack on War Funding

From CQ Politics – Josh Rogan

Senate Democrats moved closer Tuesday toward acceding to the Bush administration’s demands on war funding.

With a growing number of lawmakers deciding that legislation providing some money to the troops could not be put off until next year, the Senate Democratic leadership discussed different approaches to preserving some of the many restrictions on the war funding that House Democrats passed.

Aides said the Senate could hold a series of votes this month, each with progressively less restrictive language on the administration’s ability to conduct the war.

The options that Senate leaders were considering included omitting withdrawal dates or designating funds only for Afghanistan.

However, with the Senate’s legislative calendar already full for the remainder of the year, a consensus appeared to be growing that a prolonged fight over Iraq policy with President Bush probably would have to wait until next spring.

Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin , D-Ill., said that Senate votes on Iraq War funding probably would not come until next week.

Durbin acknowledged that Democrats probably had no choice but to abandon many, if not all, of the restrictions they hoped to place on funding for the wars.

“We’re dealing with the reality that the White House has given us very stark choices,” Durbin said. “We’re still determined to change this policy in Iraq, but we’re trying to do it in the context of the latest White House positions.”

Meanwhile, Senate Republicans, increasingly confident that the Democrats will fold and provide war funding with weak or no restrictions, showed little appetite to negotiate.

Read the entire article RIGHT HERE