Colbert Busch goes for jugular in only debate with Sanford, raises issue of affair

(Rainier Ehrhardt/ Associated Press ) - Former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford leans against a wall as he waits before the 1st Congressional District debate on Monday, April 29, 2013 in Charleston S.C.

 

By Associated Press,

Apr 30, 2013 12:55 PM EDT

CHARLESTON, S.C. — With only eight days to go before a special congressional election, the chief rival to former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford went for the jugular in the candidates’ only debate, homing in on the extramarital affair that nearly destroyed his career and possibly signaling a last-minute change in a strategy that previously avoided attacks.

Until now, Democratic candidate Elizabeth Colbert Busch had refused to bring up Sanford’s personal past. But on Monday, their only joint appearance in the race for the vacant 1st Congressional District in South Carolina, the sister of political satirist Stephen Colbert pounced on the opportunity.

More business news

 

As Sanford stressed his efforts to rein in spending as a three-term holder of the congressional seat and a two-term governor, Colbert Busch reminded him that he once used taxpayer funds to “leave the country for a personal purpose” — referring to the extramarital affair with an Argentine woman he had while governor.

Sanford is trying to rebound from the scandal, which sidelined his political career and forced him to pay the largest ethics fine ever in South Carolina, $70,000.

Although the district leans Republican and Sanford held the congressional seat for three terms in the 1990s, the race is considered close.

With Election Day just a week away, both candidates were to have separate appearances Tuesday, then appear before a Charleston Metro Chamber of Commerce group on the city’s waterfront before attending a forum sponsored by the Goose Creek NAACP. During both appearances, the candidates will address attendees but won’t debate.

Monday’s debate took place before a lively audience, whose members frequently erupted in shouts or applause.

When Colbert Busch first made the remark about Sanford’s affair, the former governor said he didn’t hear it and asked to have it repeated. Ultimately, he didn’t respond.

Later, he was reminded by a questioner that he voted to impeach President Bill Clinton because of his involvement with Monica Lewinsky and asked if he would vote that way again.
“I would reverse the question,” Sanford said. “Do you think President Clinton should be condemned for the rest of his life for a mistake he made in his life?”

In 2009, Sanford, after telling his staff he was out hiking the Appalachian Trail, returned to the state to reveal that he was in Argentina with a woman he later became engaged to after divorcing his wife, Jenny. Before leaving office, Sanford avoided impeachment but was censured by the Legislature over state travel expenses he used for the affair.

On the issues, Colbert Busch, who worked for years for a shipping company, criticized Sanford for voting in Congress against money for dredging the Charleston Harbor shipping channel and building a higher bridge so the Port of Charleston can handle a new generation of larger container ships.

Sanford shot back that if it bothered her so much before, she wouldn’t have written him a “$500 check as I left the Congress to run for governor.” He added “I was against earmarks before being against earmarks was cool.”

Colbert Busch also said that, if elected, she would return 10 percent of her congressional salary to the government.
The candidates differed over issues such as immigration reform, the federal health care overhaul and abortion during the debate sponsored by the Patch news service, the South Carolina Radio Network and Charleston television station WCBD.

Sanford repeatedly tried to tie Colbert Busch to House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and labor unions but she said she would be an independent voice and responsible only to the residents of the district. They also had different takes on the state of affairs.

“We’re at an incredible tipping point as a civilization and I think if we don’t get spending right in Washington, D.C., there will be real consequences,” Sanford warned.

“Here’s the fundamental difference,” Colbert Busch responded. “This is not the end of our time as we know it. The sky is not falling Henny Penny. In fact our best days are ahead of us.”
The debate was their first joint appearance in the campaign that began after then-U.S. Rep. Tim Scott was appointed to the U.S. Senate seat vacated by fellow Republican Jim DeMint.

“I rocked it,” Colbert Busch said following the 75-minute debate before an audience of about 500 at The Citadel, which was telecast on C-SPAN. Sanford said he would let the pundits decide who won.
Sanford and Colbert Busch are vying along with Green Party Candidate Eugene Platt in the May 7 special election in the district.

 

Giuliani: Abrupt Halt to Suspect's Questioning Is ‘Mind-Boggling’

Friday, 26 Apr 2013 11:49 AM

By Kenneth Hanner and Sandy Fitzgerald

       

 

Republican outrage is rising over the decision to read teenage Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev his Miranda rights just as he was beginning to open up about the blast that killed three and injured about 270 people.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said it was “ridiculous” that a judge stopped the questioning while the 19-year-old was talking to FBI agents.

And House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers called the decision to intervene a “God-awful policy.”

Editor's Note: Should ObamaCare Be Repealed? Vote in Urgent National Poll

Lawmakers are demanding to know why Tsarnaev, who has confessed to being involved in the planting of two bombs near the Boston Marathon finish line, was read his Miranda rights in the middle of his interrogation.

“That’s just mind-boggling,” Giuliani said in an interview with Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren.

“This guy is kind of telling you about how he’s coming to New York and do a bombing, a judge walks in and we cut off the questioning?” Giuliani said. “What are we, crazy?”

Tsarnaev had been under interrogation for about 16 hours in his hospital room before a magistrate and representatives from the U.S. Attorney’s Office entered the room and read him his Miranda rights. He then stopped talking, according to sources briefed on the interrogation.

Giuliani, a former federal prosecutor, said rules need to be loosened for law-enforcement officials who are conducting terror probes.

“One of the FBI agents said he thought it would be illegal to keep the guy on the list. Of course, there’d be nothing illegal about it,” said Giuliani, who was mayor of the Big Apple at the time of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

“Some of the explanations that I’m getting make me very nervous that the FBI is erring on the side of caution, when I want them to err on the side of safety.”

Giuliani also criticized the administration of Massachusetts Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick for refusing to release records of welfare payments the Boston terror bombings may have received, saying it was essential information in determining how they financed their activities.

“What possible privacy interest do you have in that?” he asked. “They either got welfare or they didn’t get welfare. And that would also be important to how were they financed.

“I’d like to know how much they were getting in welfare. A trip to Russia for six months is a pretty darn expensive proposition. I’ve wondered, was anybody financing them?”

While federal law-enforcement officials can subpoena the records for their ongoing investigation, Giuliani said the only reason Massachusetts is keeping the records private is to avoid embarrassment.

“I can’t figure out what the heck the privacy interest is, except maybe an embarrassment that by mistake, Massachusetts was giving welfare to potential terrorists,” he said.

Meanwhile, Rogers said he will be demanding answers from Attorney General Eric Holder about the decision to Mirandize the baby-face bomb suspect.

“We can’t have, in a case like this, the judiciary deciding, because it’s on TV and it might look bad for them … that they were going to somehow intercede in this,” the Michigan Republican told MSNBC.

“It’s confusing, it is horrible, [a] God-awful policy, and dangerous to the greater community,” said Rogers. “We have got to get to the bottom of this, and we’ve got to fix it right now.”

He said the Justice Department has “a lot of explaining to do.”

According to the Department of Justice, prosecutors, the federal defender, a court reporter, the U.S. Marshal Service, and the hospital all coordinated in having Tsarnaev read his rights.

Before that happened, the University of Massachusetts sophomore had reportedly told authorities that his brother, Tamerlan, 26, had only recently recruited him to be part of a plot to detonate pressure-cooker bombs at the marathon's finish line and that they planned to go on to detonate more bombs in New York City.

Tamerlan was killed in a police shootout on Friday last week.

Lawmakers have long disagreed over whether to read terrorism suspects their rights after they are captured in the United States. Some prominent Republican lawmakers have called for Tsarnaev to be considered an enemy combatant, but the Obama administration opted to try him in civilian criminal court proceedings instead.

The Supreme Court created a public safety exemption to the Miranda warning almost 30 years ago, meaning suspects can be interrogated if the public could be in danger, but Rogers said he still wants to know why the FBI's interrogation was interrupted.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte of Virginia said he favors asking a suspect questions about who else may have been involved in a terror plot, whether there are future attacks in the works, or if other weapons have been discovered.

Most courts will not admit statements made before suspects are officially made aware of their rights, and if cases are to be tried in a civilian, rather than military court, a suspect must be read the warning.


Editor's Note: Should ObamaCare Be Repealed? Vote in Urgent National Poll
Even some Democrats have questioned the decision. Rep. Adam Schiff of California said, “I would have thought the public safety exception would have allowed more time for the questioning of the suspect prior to the arraignment and/or advising of rights.”

The issue has come up in other cases, including in 2010, when Holder ordered “underwear bomber” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to be read his rights. He eventually was sentenced to life in prison.

Tsarnaev has been moved to a prison hospital at Fort Devens, Mass., the U.S. Marshals Service said Friday. He continues to recover from numerous gunshot wounds. The federal prison where he is housed specializes in inmates who need long-term medical or mental health care, according to the Bureau of Prisons.

City Plan Sets 21 as Legal Age to Buy Tobacco

Victor J. Blue for The New York Times

A store in Bushwick, Brooklyn, that sells cigarettes. The legal age for buying them should be raised to 21, some city leaders say.

By ANEMONA HARTOCOLLIS

Published: April 22, 2013 311 Comments

The age to legally buy cigarettes in New York City would rise to 21 from 18 under a proposal that officials unveiled on Monday, a measure that would give New York the strictest limits of any major American city.

 

 

Jessette Bautista, who began smoking at 17, was surprised by the proposal. “What happened to freedom?” she asked.

Readers’ Comments

"We can send our 18 year children to fight in wars, yet Bloomberg/Quinn want to ban them from smoking cigarettes that are harmful?"

Earl Horton, Harlem,Ny

 

The proposal would make the age for buying cigarettes and other tobacco products the same as for purchasing liquor, but it would not prohibit people under 21 from possessing or even smoking cigarettes.

      

It is the latest effort in a persistent campaign to curb smoking that began soon after Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg took office, with bans on smoking in restaurants and bars that expanded more recently to parks, beaches, plazas and other public places.

      

But this latest proposal, announced by Dr. Thomas A. Farley, the city’s health commissioner, and Christine C. Quinn, the City Council speaker and a mayoral candidate, puts New York squarely into the middle of a debate over the rights and responsibilities of young people, and it drew much skepticism. At 18, New Yorkers are old enough to fight in wars, to drive and to vote, but if the smoking restriction passed they would be prohibited from deciding whether to take the risk of smoking.

      

Ms. Quinn and Dr. Farley defended the proposal, saying that people typically make the transition from experimental smoking to regular smoking around age 20, and that by making cigarettes harder to obtain at a young age the city would make it less likely that people would become lifelong addicts.

       

“With this legislation, we’ll be targeting the age group at which the overwhelming majority of smokers start,” Ms. Quinn said in announcing the legislation at a City Hall news conference.

      

While officials focused on the public health aspect of the age limitation, the announcement was also infused with political overtones. In the past, Mr. Bloomberg had always been on hand, standing in front of television cameras to boldly promote public health initiatives. But on Monday he was nowhere to be seen, allowing Dr. Farley to represent the administration and seemingly ceding the spotlight to Ms. Quinn, who initiated the proposal.

      

By proposing the legislation, Ms. Quinn, a Democrat who polls show is a leading candidate to succeed Mr. Bloomberg, appeared to be positioning herself to follow in his footsteps as a mayor who would make public health a top priority.

      

Mr. Bloomberg, in fact, had opposed a similar measure in 2006, arguing that raising the age to buy cigarettes would actually make smoking more enticing to teenagers. But he now believes differently, a spokeswoman said, because the city’s youth smoking rate has plateaued and recent research has suggested a correlation between a higher smoking age and lower smoking rates.

      

In interviews, many New Yorkers were largely critical of the proposal, viewing it as an attack on the maturity and self-determination of young people.

      

“By 18, people are responsible enough to make their own decisions,” said Erik Malave, 23, a music production student at City College. “Forcing people to make themselves healthy tends not to work.”

      

Mr. Malave, from Yonkers, has been smoking for about three years, and he breaks for a cigarette four or five times a day. He also said that he thought the law would be a waste of time, and that young people would easily acquire cigarettes if they wanted them. “When I turned 18, I bought cigarettes for all my friends who weren’t 18,” he said.

      

Jessette Bautista, 21, began smoking when she was 17 and had no problem getting cigarettes from friends who would buy packs for her. She was surprised to hear about a proposal to change the legal age to purchase cigarettes. “What happened to freedom?” she said.

      

While alcohol may impair a person’s judgment and so warrants a law that requires partakers to be 21 or older, Ms. Bautista said, cigarettes do not alter a person’s state of mind. “Cigarettes will not intoxicate you the same way as alcohol,” she said. “It will not put you under any influence.”

      

Under the proposal, the buyer would not be violating the law, but the seller would be. Fines and other penalties for selling cigarettes to minors would remain as they are now and would be imposed on the sellers, not the buyers or their parents.

      

Asked whether the proposal would infantilize young people, Ms. Quinn said that age 21 “seems to me to track very much with a point we have marked in society” about when people are capable of making decisions about certain potentially risky behaviors like drinking.

      

She said there was “clear data” that 80 percent of smokers started before age 21, adding, “We have an ability to intervene on that and make a difference.”

      

Dr. Farley lamented that after 10 years of decline, the youth smoking rate in the city had stalled at 8.5 percent in 2007, with 20,000 public high school students currently smoking. The rate of smoking among adults has declined from 21.5 percent in 2002 to 14.8 percent in 2011, a 31 percent decrease. In the past, city officials have suggested that public education campaigns have been effective in persuading many young people never to start smoking.

      

The Council is considering a Bloomberg proposal to require retailers to keep tobacco products where customers cannot see them, which the mayor said would shield children from tobacco marketing and keep people from buying cigarettes on impulse.

      

In pushing their latest antismoking initiative, city officials cited a 2010 study in England showing that smoking among 16- to 17-year-olds dropped by 30 percent after the legal age of sale for cigarettes was raised to 18 from 16 in 2007.

      

The New York proposal has to be approved by the Council and signed by the mayor, but its enactment is likely since it is being promoted by Ms. Quinn and is supported by Mr. Bloomberg.

The smoking age is 18 in most of the country, but some states have made it 19. Some counties have also adopted 19, including Nassau and Suffolk on Long Island. Needham, Mass., a suburb of Boston, raised the smoking age to 21 in 2005.

      

California and Texas have been at the forefront of the fight to raise the tobacco sale age to 21, but have been stymied by fears of lost tax revenue. Ms. Quinn argued that health care savings would more than make up for any potential tax revenue losses.

      

New York officials estimated that raising the age to 21 would reduce the smoking rate among 18- to 20-year-olds by 55 percent, and by two-thirds among 14- to 17-year-olds.

Sheelagh McNeill and Julie Turkewitz contributed reporting.Sheelagh McNeill and Julie Turkewitz contributed reporting.

North Korea demands US withdrawal from peninsula before resuming talks

Pyongyang wants withdrawal of all UN sanctions and US pledge not to engage in 'nuclear war practice' with South

 

• Tania Branigan in Beijing
• guardian.co.uk, Thursday 18 April 2013 14.50 EDT

South Korean soldiers take part in a drill in Sejong. Photograph: Kim Jae-Hwan/AFP/Getty Images

North Korea has issued a detailed statement on its terms for dialogue with the United States, after weeks of tensions.

The demands from the North's top military body include the withdrawal of all UN sanctions imposed due to Pyongyang's nuclear and missile tests, and a US pledge not to engage in "nuclear war practice" with the South. It said denuclearisation of the peninsula should begin with the withdrawal of US weapons.

Seoul was swift to dismiss the North's conditions as incomprehensible and illogical. The foreign ministry spokesman Cho Tai-young said: "We again strongly urge North Korea to stop this kind of insistence that we cannot totally understand and go down the path of a wise choice."
The Japanese news agency Kyodo said the prime minister, Shinzo Abe, had called for increased pressure on the North.

Leonid Petrov, an expert on the North at the Australian National University, said of the North's statement: "It's a good sign, they are prepared to negotiate, but they are demanding an exorbitant and impermissibly high price … The game will continue."

Pyongyang has issued threats against Seoul and Washington, withdrawn workers from an industrial complex it runs with the South and appears to have prepared for a possible missile test. It was angered by the tightening of sanctions over its third nuclear test in February and joint US-South Korean military drills.

"Dialogue and war cannot co-exist," the North's national defence commission said in a statement carried by the official news agency KCNA on Thursday. "If the United States and the puppet South have the slightest desire to avoid the sledge-hammer blow of our army and the people … and truly wish dialogue and negotiations, they must make the resolute decision."

It said the UN resolutions imposing sanctions had been "fabricated with unjust reasons". "The denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula can begin with the removal of the nuclear war tools dragged in by the US and it can lead to global nuclear disarmament," it added.

South Korea's president, Park Geun-hye, told foreign diplomats on Wednesday: "We must break the vicious cycle of holding negotiations and providing assistance if [North Korea] makes threats and provocations, and again holding negotiations and providing assistance if there are threats and provocations."

In Washington, John Kerry insisted: "I have no desire as secretary of state and the president has no desire to do the same horse trade, or go down the old road."

Barack Obama earlier sent a similar message, suggesting the North was likely to engage in more "provocative behaviour" and warning: "You don't get to bang … your spoon on the table and somehow you get your way."

But Kerry has said the US is prepared to reach out if the North shows it is serious about meeting previous commitments.

Petrov added: "I would predict the status quo will prevail. North Korea won't be recognised as a nuclear state; the US will continue its joint military drills; periodically, tensions will escalate, probably once or twice a year."

The North Koreans may be able to set a higher price than in the past, he suggested. "It looks like their successful nuclear test [in February] and [rocket] launches changed the rules of the game."

Stephen Guy Hardin: Envelope tests positive for ricin at Washington ma...

Stephen Guy Hardin: Envelope tests positive for ricin at Washington ma...: Envelope tests positive for ricin at Washington mail facility By Mike Brooks and Dana Bash, CNN updated 6:47 PM EDT, Tue April 16, 201...

Obama Budget Opens Rift for Democrats on Social Benefits

Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

President Obama discussed his budget for the 2014 fiscal year in the Rose Garden Wednesday. Members of both parties found provisions not to like in it.

ByJACKIE CAL

WASHINGTON — President Obama’s new budget has opened a debate over what it means to be a progressive Democrat in an age of austerity and defines him as a president willing to take on the two pillars of his party — Medicare and Social Security — created by Democratic presidents.

Graphic

Obama’s Mix of Taxes and Spending

Interactive Graphic

"The president's budget is not a mortal wound. It mediates between the out-of-bounds Ryan budget and the Democrats' center left offer."

Occupy Government, Oakland

 

By his gamble on Wednesday in proposing budgetary concessions to Republicans on Social Security, the 1935 creation of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Medicare, the legacy of President Lyndon B. Johnson, Mr. Obama has provoked angry supporters on his left to ask whether he is a progressive at all.

      

The A.F.L.-C.I.O. president, Richard Trumka, in a blistering statement, called the proposed changes “wrong and indefensible.” An e-mail from Representative Alan Grayson, a liberal from Florida, was headlined “President’s Budget Breaks Promise to Seniors.”

      

But to Mr. Obama, cost-saving changes in the nation’s fastest-growing domestic programs are more progressive than simply allowing the entitlement programs for older Americans to overwhelm the rest of the budget in future years.

      

Even so, he emphasized that his support is contingent on Republicans agreeing to higher taxes from the wealthy and new spending, in areas like infrastructure, to create jobs.

      

The president’s views put him at the head of a small but growing faction of liberals and moderate Democrats who began arguing several years ago that unless the party agrees to changes in the entitlement benefit programs — which are growing unsustainably as baby boomers age and medical prices rise — the programs’ costs will overwhelm all other domestic spending to help the poor, the working class and children.

      

“The math on entitlements is just not sustainable,” said Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, one of the few Democrats to unequivocally endorse Mr. Obama’s budget. “And if you’re not finding ways to reform, where do you squeeze? Well, then you squeeze early-childhood programs, you squeeze Head Start, you squeeze education and veterans.”

      

“There’s nothing progressive about — and no business argument for — a business or any other enterprise to invest less than 5 percent of its revenues on the education of its work force, its infrastructure and its R & D,” Mr. Warner added. “And that’s what we’re doing.”

      

The president’s $3.77 trillion budget, with a mix of deficit reduction through spending cuts and tax increases and new spending to spur the economy, projects a $744 billion deficit for the 2014 fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1. That is down from the $973 billion shortfall projected for this fiscal year, after four years of post-recession deficits exceeding $1 trillion.

      

Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic minority leader, has arranged for House Democrats on Thursday to hear a debate on Mr. Obama’s proposed change in the cost-of-living formula that determines Social Security benefits. The debate will pit the A.F.L.-C.I.O. counsel,

Damon Silvers, who opposes the change in the formula, and Robert Greenstein, executive director of the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, which has long supported changes to entitlement programs as part of a bipartisan deal to protect other federal spending on, for example, antipoverty programs, the nation’s infrastructure and education.

      

It has been evident from his first months in office that the pragmatist in Mr. Obama has made him sympathetic to the thinking of Mr. Greenstein and others. In 2009, Mr. Obama considered proposing the change in the cost-of-living formula for Social Security until Democratic Congressional leaders objected.

      

But now in his fifth budget and the first of his second term, he has decided over some advisers’ objections to make that proposal — and his brand of pragmatic liberalism — official.

      

Under the president’s budget, the government would shift in 2015 from the standard Consumer Price Index — used to compute cost-of-living increases for Social Security and other benefits and to set income-tax brackets — to what is called a “chained C.P.I.” The new formulation would slow the increase in benefits and raise income tax revenues by putting some taxpayers into higher brackets sooner, for total savings of $230 billion over 10 years.

      

While many economists say the new formula is more accurate, opponents say it does not adequately reflect the out-of-pocket health care expenses that burden older Americans. All Social Security beneficiaries would be affected, but Mr. Obama proposes that at age 76 they would get gradual benefit increases to offset the depletion of their private assets or pensions.

      

In the president’s bid to revive bipartisan talks, his budget includes other proposals from his last compromise offer, made in December to Speaker John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, before their private deficit-reduction negotiations collapsed. The president’s budget would save $400 billion from Medicare over a decade, mostly from reductions to hospitals and other health care providers, but also through benefit and premium changes.

      

The budget’s total 10-year savings would replace the $1.2 trillion in indiscriminate across-the-board cuts, known as sequestration, that took effect March 1 after Mr. Obama and Republican leaders failed to agree on alternative deficit-reduction measures.

      

By this budget, Mr. Obama has forced the party’s internal fiscal debate to go public to a degree not seen since President Bill Clinton pushed Democrats toward the political center. Until now, attention has focused on the Republicans’ postelection divisions over defining conservatism.

      

Mr. Clinton’s second-term effort to address the long-term finances of Medicare and Social Security was aborted by his impeachment and then by unexpected budget surpluses that relieved the fiscal pressure to change the programs. Ultimately, Mr. Clinton left office better known for his policy of “Save Social Security First” — that is, save the surpluses to pay the approaching costs of the baby boomers’ retirement rather than use them to cut taxes, as Republicans wanted.

      

Democratic Congressional leaders were muted in their support for the president’s plan and were troubled that Mr. Obama had made his overture to Republicans without any sign that they would compromise in return.

      

Their political concerns seemed to be validated when Representative Greg Walden of Oregon, the head of the House Republicans’ campaign committee, said on CNN that the budget was “a shocking attack on seniors.” His words were interpreted as a signal that in the 2014 midterm elections Republican candidates will again accuse Democrats of trying to cut Medicare and Social Security, even though Congressional Republicans led by Mr. Boehner have demanded Social Security and Medicare cuts throughout budget talks of the past two years.

      

The C.P.I change in particular “was the speaker’s idea,” said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the senior Democrat on the House Budget Committee. “And for them to turn around and attack the president for including their proposal in his budget is so hypocritical.”

      

Mr. Boehner, who was dismissive before the budget’s release, tempered his criticisms afterward. He told reporters that Mr. Obama “does deserve some credit for some incremental entitlement reforms that he has outlined in his budget.”

       

Some Senate Republicans were complimentary, and later Mr. Obama had a dozen of them to dinner at the White House to discuss the budget, immigration and gun controls. He hopes to persuade enough of them to compromise with Senate Democrats on the issues, putting pressure on House Republicans to go along.

Stephen Guy Hardin: Health CareObamacare IncompetenceBy Joe KleinApr...

Stephen Guy Hardin: Health CareObamacare IncompetenceBy Joe KleinApr...: Health Care Obamacare Incompetence By Joe Klein April 02, 2013 1543 Comments   <img src="http://timeswampland...

Stephen Guy Hardin: Vice President Joe Biden Holds Off on Donating ...

Stephen Guy Hardin: Vice President Joe Biden Holds Off on Donating ...: Vice President Joe Biden Holds Off on Donating Salary   By Arlette Saenz Apr 5, 2013 7:40pm Vice Pre...

Stephen Guy Hardin: ...

Stephen Guy Hardin: ...: Commies On Parade by Stephen Guy Hardin AMAZON: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B...

Stephen Guy Hardin: Sweeping anti-abortion bill goes to Kansas gov.By ...

Stephen Guy Hardin: Sweeping anti-abortion bill goes to Kansas gov.By ...: Sweeping anti-abortion bill goes to Kansas gov. By John Hanna, Associated Press 3:12a.m. EDT April 6, 2013 (Photo: John Hanna, AP)...