DOWNLOADS: (199)

PLAYS: (1793)

Embed

President George W. Bush’s former chief strategist Matthew Dowd on Sunday lashed out at Congress for moving so quickly to fund air traffic controllers because lawmakers were personally "about to get delayed at the airports," while they couldn't pass background checks to protect children from mass shootings.

During a panel discussion on ABC's This Week, Democratic political strategist Donna Brazile noted that Congress had rushed through a bill to avert air traffic controller furloughs caused by automatic budget cuts in the so-called sequester, but ignored the pain the cuts were causing less-wealthy Americans.

"This sequester will have real impact on real people in real time, not just members of Congress, but people that work for the park service, medical research as the NIH begin to make those cuts, it's impacting Meals on Wheels, kids who are in kindergarten," Brazile explained. "So I really do think that Congress needs to take a second look at this."

Former Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, however, called the air traffic controller bill "a real victory for fiscal conservatism" because Congress moved funds around, instead of undoing any budget cuts.

"Doesn't that mean the politically weakest are going to bear the biggest burden?" ABC host George Stephanopolous wondered.

"Not necessarily," Gingrich insisted. "It may mean the most corrupt are going to bear the biggest burden. It may mean the dumbest are going to bear the biggest burden. When you look at a $4 trillion government, you can find lots of really stupid things to quit paying for."

But Dowd found it "amazing" that the bitterly partisan Congress could only find a way to work together when they personally faced the possibility of spending some additional time on the tarmac.

"The only way they're bipartisan is to do something for themselves," he quipped. "It's amazing the speed at which they did that. We have this horrible shooting where all these children die in Connecticut, we can't pass gun control legislation. But oh by the way, you're about to get delayed at the airport through some small budget cuts -- which I still don't understand why we make policy the way we make policy. Everybody knows there's a fiscal crisis in this country, everybody knows we don't have the revenue to meet the expenses in this country, somebody has to bear pain, but we act in Washington like nobody has to bear any pain. So as soon as anybody bears any pain, we're going to take it back from them."

"I think many members of Congress have bought into a myth that doesn't exist anymore," he added. "I think most of what's gong on in gun control is there's not this huge vehement group of people saying I'm going to defeat you if you vote for background checks, I'm going to defeat you if you vote for high-capacity magazines... What there is, though, is a group of folks in Washington that are scared of their shadow on this issue, both some Democrats and a lot of Republicans."

"The myth doesn't exist anymore, but they're afraid to go launch themselves through it and do something about it."

DOWNLOADS: (119)

PLAYS: (842)

Embed

Abyssinian Baptist Church Pastor Calvin Butts on Sunday called on the U.S. Supreme Court to legalize same sex marriage because it was part of "the freedom God has given you."

"It's something that we don't believe in, in terms of what we have learned from the Bible," Butts told ABC's George Stephanopolous. "But in terms of men and women having their rights as citizens and human beings, we certainly affirm that."

"You should have every right as a citizen of this nation and every right as a human being to enjoy the freedom that God has given you. The choice is yours. And I should not stand in the way of you making that choice."

Butts added that even though his religion did not teach that "marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is God's divine imperative," it would be wrong for him to oppose marriage equality for all Americans.

"And I think that the Supreme Court should not stand in the way of that," the pastor explained. "I have to support that in a civil society because, otherwise, I would not be a good citizen of our great nation and a participant of this great experiment in democracy."

"However, I choose to believe the book upon which I build my life."

DOWNLOADS: (141)

PLAYS: (643)

Embed

Conservative columnist George Will on Sunday suggested that women shouldn't complain about the difficulties of juggling a family and a career because "no one can have it all."

During a panel discussion on ABC News, host George Stephanopolous noted that Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg had started a national conversation with her new book, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead, which argues that more women need to pursue their ambition to be leaders.

"Just look at one the reaction to Sheryl Sandberg's book has done," Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) observed. "It is so hard for women to wear our ambition on our sleeve, to pursue our dreams, to believe that we can reach the top on any profession and that we should always shoot for the stars."

The Florida Democrat added: "And what Sheryl Sandberg has done for little girls -- my two daughters and little girls across America -- is written a book, a manifesto, that says it is okay to ambitious to, it's okay to want to have it all, that balance is important, but there is nothing wrong with trying have a full professional life and be a leader and succeed as a woman and also having a full family life. You don't have to choose. It can be both."

Will, however, used to an column in The Atlantic by Ann Marie Slaughter to push back against the notion that women should expect to be successful in their careers while raising a family.

"And when Ann Marie Slaughter causes a huge national uproar with an article in, I guess, The Atlantic that says women can't have it all after all, I've got news for her, no one can have it all," he quipped.

DOWNLOADS: (4849)

PLAYS: (1367)

Embed

World Net Daily columnist and former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum on Sunday insisted that Americans were entitled to armor-piercing bullets because they are "a right in our country."

The Pennsylvania Republican told an ABC News panel that conservatives "should stick to our guns" and oppose President Barack Obama's efforts to curb gun violence in the wake of the slaughter of 20 children in Newtown, Connecticut.

"Having a gun and gun ownership is part of how people can feel safer," Santorum explained. "And in my opinion, when you look at the disingenuousness of the [Obama] administration when they met with the NRA, and [Vice President] Joe Biden did. And the NRA brought up the fact that prosecutions for gun crimes and prosecutions for people who lie on their registration forms or gun forms are down under this administration. The vice president responded, 'We don't have time to devote to see whether people fill out a form right!'"

Current TV host Jennifer Granholm pointed out that there had been fewer enforcements because the National Rifle Association (NRA) had pushed Republicans to oppose any effort to confirm a head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

"This is not about taking peoples guns away, this is about a narrow set of proposals that will enable us to help enforce the existing gun laws," Granholm explained. "The ban on assault weapons and a ban on high capacity magazines and even a ban on armor-piercing bullets are overwhelmingly supported by the citizenry. Fifty percent of men, 59 percent of women support an assault weapons ban. Same number for a ban on high capacity magazines."

"What about the president's argument that if it can stop even one of these horrific shootings, it's worth a try?" host George Stephanopolous asked Santorum.

"Well, how many people are you going to deny guns who are going to protect themselves?" the former Pennsylvania senator replied.

"Senator, what about the magazines?" ABC correspondent Cokie Roberts wondered. "Why have a magazine that can riddle a 6 year old into shreds?"

"Here's what I would say about that: 50 years ago, you could go on a catalog and buy a gun," Santorum opined. "There were no restrictions on gun ownership, there were no restrictions on magazines, there were no restrictions on anything and we had a lot less violence in society than we do today. The idea of pointing to the gun instead of pointing to society -- and not one thing the president did dealt with Hollywood and gun violence and video games and all the glorification of violence."

"Armor-piercing bullets, why do you need that?" Granholm interrupted.

"Why do you need to protect Hollywood?" Santorum shot back.

"You're deflecting," Granholm observed. "Deer don't wear armor. Why do you need an armor-piercing bullet?"

"But criminals could," Santorum quipped.

"And police officers certainly do," Granholm noted.

"Having the ability to defend yourself is something that is a right in our country," Santorum asserted.