April 23, 2013 - Mitch McConnell accuses the Obama administration of “hiding the ball” from the “traveling public” on FAA furloughs.

He claims that the FAA Administrator didn’t mention the furloughs in his testimony before Senate Committees last week.

From the Statement of FAA Administrator Michael Huerta to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, April 16, 2013

I want to emphasize that as we undergo the difficult process of implementing the deep cuts required by the sequester, we refuse to sacrifice safety—even if this means less efficient operations.

In addition to contract towers, large facilities will also be affected. To reach the figure we need to cut from our payroll—which is our largest operating cost—we have to furlough 47,000 of our employees for up to 11 days between now and September.

The furloughs will reduce controller work hours at all airports with towers, but also at radar facilities across the country. Again, safety is our number one concern. We will only allow the amount of air traffic that we can handle safely to take off and land. This means travelers should expect delays. Today we are meeting with air carriers to go over specific operational impacts related to the furloughs facility by facility.

From the Statement of FAA Administrator Michael Huerta to the Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, April 18, 2013:

The cuts required by the sequester have forced us to slash contract expenses and furlough 47,000 of our employees. With employees working fewer hours, we will have less efficient air traffic operations and less time for safety inspectors to certify new aircraft for the market.

Is Mitch McConnell spending so much time trying to score political points that he isn’t paying attention to what is actually being said in these hearings, or is he lying to the American people by accusing the Obama administration of “hiding the ball?”

That seems like a fair question.


March 7, 2013 - While expressing his opposition to the Assault Weapons Ban, Senator John Cornyn says that mental illness is the common element in all of the recent shooting rampages. He says he wants to keep weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill.

On June 4, 2008, Senator Cornyn released this statement:

As more and more of troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are being diagnosed with mental health conditions like post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression, many others are not reporting their symptoms because of stigmas or worries about the impact such a diagnosis will have on their military careers. As a result, many of our men and women in uniform are not receiving the vital care they need to overcome these conditions.

If Senator Cornyn is really worried about weapons in the hands of the mentally ill, and says that many veterans may have mental illnesses that aren’t reported, why would he offer an amendment to the Assault Weapons Ban to exempt veterans?

Which is more likely, that Cornyn doesn’t believe that many veterans have unreported mental illnesses or that he doesn’t mind allowing the mentally ill to have weapons?


February 26, 2013 - On MSNBC’s Morning Joe, GA Congressman Jack Kingston urged the Senate to take up the sequester bill that the House  passed in December…even though it no longer exists.

Jack Kingston has been in Congress since 1993, he should understand the basics of lawmaking by now, shouldn’t he?

For instance: When a new Congress begins, bills from the last Congress don’t carry over.

There is no longer a bill for the Senate to “take up.” Asking the Senate to “take up” a nonexistent bill is idiotic. Pass something in this Congress, then complain about the Senate.


January 7, 2013 - On PBS News Hour, Ted Cruz tells Judy Woodruff that proposed gun control legislation is unconstitutional. He has also made this charge on several other shows.

It’s not unconstitutional and he knows it. He’s lying.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, Scalia’s opinion clearly states that an assault weapons ban would be constitutional:

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

You might think it would be possible that Ted Cruz didn’t know about the opinion in D.C. v Heller.

It is not possible.

Ted Cruz was the Council of Record for an Amicus Brief filed in the Heller case by Texas and other states.

In this brief Cruz argues:

Amici States likewise have a strong interest in maintaining the many state laws prohibiting felons in possession, restricting machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, and the like.

It continues:

striking down the District of Columbia’s categorical ban on all operative firearms would pose no threat to these reasonable regulations.

Ted Cruz also refers to these limitations on the type of firearms that citizens can possess as “reasonable regulations” during an interview with Melissa Block on NPR’s All Things Considered, March 14, 2008.

Obviously Ted Cruz has a deep understanding of the issues in this case. He has previously argued, in court, that bans on “assault weapons” are “reasonable regulations.”

When Ted Cruz calls these restrictions unconstitutional now, he is lying, and he is doing it intentionally.


July 11, 2007 - Senator Lindsey Graham expresses his “deepest respect” and admiration for Senator Chuck Hagel. He hopes that Hagel “continues in public service for a very long time” because of his knowledge and wisdom.

Senator Graham is the most vocal opponent of President Obama’s nomination of Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense.


December 31, 2012 - Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) goes to the floor of the Senate to respond to President Obama’s remarks to middle class Americans.

He says he thinks Obama’s remarks may have cost the President votes. “Not my vote,” Corker says, “I’m not that way.” He obviously thinks some members of his party are “that way.”

Corker goes on to say that if revenues are going to be used to offset the sequester cuts, “count me out!”


Rand Paul doesn’t know what his state’s biggest industry is.

December 5, 2012 - During a radio interview with WMAL, Senator Rand Paul made several disparaging remarks about Ashley Judd. One of these remarks revealed something I think is more important than the Senator’s anti-Judd views: Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) doesn’t know what Kentucky’s biggest industry is.

He says:

She hates our biggest industry, which is coal, so I say, good luck bringing the ‘I hate coal’ message to Kentucky.

Coal is not Kentucky’s biggest industry. It’s not even in the top 10.

Shouldn’t a Senator be embarrassed to make a mistake like this? And shouldn’t someone besides me be reporting it?

Data from


May 10, 2012 - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid admits that those Senators who wanted to change the Senate’s filibuster rule were correct.

Let’s make sure he remembers this after the Democrats keep control of the Senate.


September 24, 2012 - Newt Gingrich, while campaigning for Todd Akin in Missouri, says that saying something stupid doesn’t disqualify a person from holding office.

He gives advice on how to avoid a 47% moment: “Always assume you’re being taped.”

He also tells the crowd that his wife, Callista, still makes fun of him for his comments about a lunar colony.

Full Video: