Bill Clinton

TPMDC Morning Roundup

Eric Kleefeld | September 22, 2009, 9:00AM

Bill Clinton: Some Right-Wingers Don't Want Black President -- But Would Be Opposing Obama If He Were White, Too
Appearing last night on Larry King Live, former President Bill Clinton weighed in on the question of whether racism has motivated opposition to President Obama, saying that Democrats ultimately have to win the health care debate on the merits. "I believe that some of the right-wing extremists which oppose President Obama are also racially prejudiced and would prefer not to have an African-American president," said Clinton. "But I don't believe that all the people who oppose him on health care - and all the conservatives - are racists. And I believe if he were white, every single person who opposes him now, would be opposing him then."

Obama's Day Ahead: Diplomacy
President Obama will deliver remarks at 9:15 a.m. ET, at U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's Climate Change Summit. He will meet at 10:30 a.m. ET with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and at 11 a.m. ET with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. He will then hold a trilateral meeting at 11:30 a.m. ET with Netanyahu and Abbas. At 1:15 p.m. ET, he will attend a lunch with Sub-Saharan African heads of state, and at 3:30 p.m. ET he will meet with President Hu of China AT 5:15 p.m. ET, he will speak at the Clinton Global Initiative, and at 7 p.m. ET he will attend Secretary General Ban's Climate Change Summit Dinner.

Read more »

James Inhofe

Inhofe: Obama Not On The Side Of Terrorists--Or Our Troops.

Brian Beutler | June 5, 2009, 2:50PM

Liz Cheney's basic line about President Obama's historic speech yesterday is that she's "troubled" that Obama thinks he can stop terrorism with "hand-holding."

Pretty harsh, right? Well, she's got nothing, though, on Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK). He called the speech, "un-American," adding, "I just don't know whose side he's on."

Curious which 'sides' Inhofe might have had in mind, I asked his communications director, Jared Young, to complete the picture a bit. According to Young, Inhofe was saying he's "kind of confused about why the President's going on foreign soil and in some cases echoing talking points from al Qaeda about Guantanamo Bay."

So is he saying he think's the President's on the side of terrorists?

"No, no, he's not saying that, no. He just certainly doesn't seem to be on the side of our men and women in uniform."

Well, I guess that clears that up.

Cap-and-Trade

Inhofe: Tell Environmentalists What I Told Barbara Boxer--'Get over it. Get a life.'

Brian Beutler | June 5, 2009, 11:21AM

Republicans tend to object whenever Democrats insist on calling the GOP "the party of 'no'," but then someone like Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) will go and say something like this and suddenly we're reminded that their grounds for objection are pretty thin.

The EPA has threatened to regulate this through the Clean Air Act. That isn't going to work in my opinion because we can stall that until we get a new president--that shouldn't be a problem. ... But while the House will pass a bill ... in the Senate, they're not going to be able to pass it.

Inhofe was speaking at the Heartland Institute's Third International Conference on Climate Change, where he was a welcomed guest. In that comfortable environment, he let loose a little. "As I've told Barbara Boxer, 'Get over it. Get a Life. You've lost. We've won," Inhofe said to laughter and applause.

Read more »

James Inhofe

Inhofe Attacks Obama's "Un-American" Speech -- "I Just Don't Know Whose Side He's On"

Eric Kleefeld | June 5, 2009, 10:03AM

Mark down Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) as one of the more outspoken critics of President Obama's speech yesterday in Egypt -- in fact, he told The Oklahoman the speech was "un-American" for calling the Iraq conflict a "war of choice."

Inhofe also blasted Obama for implying that torture had taken place at Guantanamo Bay: "There has never been a documented case of torture at Guantanamo."

"I just don't know whose side he's on," Inhofe added.

(Via Think Progress)

James Inhofe

David Hamilton Reported Out Of Judiciary Committee On Party Line Vote

Brian Beutler | June 4, 2009, 12:44PM

With all the news about President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, it's easy to forget that Obama nominated a different judge to a different court before well before Sonia Sotomayor became a household name.

Obama nominated David Hamilton to serve on the Seventh Circuit court of appeals back in March, and, thanks to a number of Republican delays, he has only today been reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on a party-line 12-7 vote.

Now Hamilton will be exposed to a bright new world of procedural measures meant to obstruct his confirmation. Back in April, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) said he would filibuster Hamilton once the committee advanced the nomination. "I had to come to the floor to speak so that the American people, who are very concerned about this nomination, will know that I and my Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee are taking interest and are not just going to let this nomination sail through," Inhofe said on the Senate floor. "In fact I will filibuster David Hamilton."

That's the same James Inhofe who once called judicial filibusters 'unconstitutional.'

(Incidentally, Hamilton is the brother-in-law of Dawn Johnsen--another Obama nominee who's struggling to get confirmed by the Senate.)

James Inhofe

Inhofe Wants to Make Sure Sotomayor Is "Without Undue Influence" From Her Race And Gender

Eric Kleefeld | May 26, 2009, 5:27PM

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) released this statement today on the Sotomayor nomination, reminding us all that he voted against her confirmation to the appeals court in 1998 -- and apparently questioning whether she can make rulings independent of her race and gender:

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) made the following statement regarding President Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Inhofe was one of 29 U.S. Senators that voted against Sotomayor's nomination to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in 1998.

"Without doubt, Judge Sotomayor's personal life story is truly inspiring. I congratulate her on being nominated. As the U.S. Senate begins the confirmation process, I look forward to looking closer at her recent rulings and her judicial philosophy.

"Of primary concern to me is whether or not Judge Sotomayor follows the proper role of judges and refrains from legislating from the bench. Some of her recent comments on this matter have given me cause for great concern. In the months ahead, it will be important for those of us in the U.S. Senate to weigh her qualifications and character as well as her ability to rule fairly without undue influence from her own personal race, gender, or political preferences."

As Dana Goldstein points out, this does raise the question of whether Inhofe thinks the seven white men on the court are immune from any similar questions.

Sonia Sotomayor

One Time Sotomayor Opponents Also Opposed Filibustering Judicial Nominees

Brian Beutler | May 26, 2009, 11:49AM

Earlier today, Eric Kleefeld reported that several still-serving Republicans had cast votes more than 10 years ago on Sotomayor's nomination to the appellate court. In 1998, 23 Republicans voted for confirmation. Eight of them (including now-Democrat Arlen Specter) still serve in the Senate today. At the same time, 29 Republicans voted against her, 11 of whom are still in office.

Among those 11 are several who, in addition to opposing Sotomayor also are on record opposing the idea that judicial nominations should be filibustered.

"Since the founding of the Republic, we have understood that there was a two-thirds supermajority for ratification and advice and consent on treaties and a majority vote for judges," said Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), in a floor speech on May 23, 2005. "That is what we have done. That is what we have always done. But there was a conscious decision on behalf of the leadership, unfortunately, of the Democratic Party in the last Congress to systematically filibuster some of the best nominees ever submitted to the Senate. It has been very painful." Sessions is now the Judiciary Committee's ranking member.

And there's more.

Read more »

Arlen Specter

Inhofe: Specter Switch Is 'Evidence' America Is Rebelling Against 'Far-Left Agenda'

Brian Beutler | May 4, 2009, 10:11AM

Amid a par-for-the-course Sunday screed against the idea of repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) veered haphazardly into delusional territory:

There is no evidence more visible that the American people are already rebelling against the far-left agenda than Senator Arlen Specter switching parties to become a Democrat [sic]. He did this for one reason, and that is his advisers told him he couldn't retain his Senate seat as a Republican. In other words, the same people who supported Senator Specter six years ago have soundly rejected him today.

Ah yes. Additionally, the Democratic sweeps of 2006 and 2008 are clear signs that the country doesn't want gays serving in the military. And this public opinion poll showing that a clear majority of Americans favor repealing DADT is a strong warning to Democrats that they repeal the policy at their peril. Of course, some Republican leaders claim that Americans are fleeing "far-left" corners of the country for fear of forced unionization (a trend that caused Specter to become a Democrat by magic), so by that standard, Inhofe's remarks are borderline reasonable.