nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

nixluva wrote:Well they tried to create some variety with the Tea Party, but it's really just a more extreme part of the right wing and to add to the problem they didn't really want to legislate anything that helped the people as they claimed. All we got were a ton of Reproductive Rights stripping legislation and almost defaulting on our financial obligations, which would've been devastating to the world economy and did result in the U.S. being downgraded from AAA status.

The problem with 3rd parties has been the extreme nature of what they propose. We don't need more extremes, what's been missing is more centrists. Obama is not an extreme lefty he's a Centrist and the Republicans moved away from the center just to try and make him seem extreme, which he's not. The Dems haven't become more leftist but the Republicans have indeed become more extremely right wing. They're the ones that have to come back towards the middle and not the fake way Romney is doing with only rhetoric.

There is nothing centrist about a president who claims that he can assassinate a US citizen anywhere in the world, far from any battlefield without a trial or charges. There is nothing centrist about a president who claims he can imprison and American indefinitely without a trial or charges. Those things that you refer to as being "extreme lefty" was the platform he ran on. Now that he is president it suddenly becomes "extreme". I'm not buying it.

That "American" you speak of wasn't killed here in the U.S. sitting on his porch doing nothing. The guy you're speaking of was actively fomenting terrorist attacks against the U.S. and consorting with terrorists in a country that is a haven for terrorists. Now if Al Awlaki came home and helped some terrorists carry out an attack you'd be one of the ones bashing the President for not protecting the American people.

Al-Awlaki was a U.S.-born Islamic militant cleric who became a prominent figure with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the network's most active branch. He was involved in several terror plots in the United States in recent years, using his fluent English and Internet savvy to draw recruits to carry out attacks. President Obama signed an order in early 2010 making him the first American to be placed on the "kill or capture" list.

Al-Awlaki, born in New Mexico to Yemeni parents, was believed to be key in turning Al Qaeda's affiliate in Yemen into what American officials have called the most significant and immediate threat to the United States. The branch, led by a Yemeni militant named Nasser al-Wahishi, plotted several failed attacks on U.S. soil -- the botched Christmas 2009 attempt to blow up an American airliner heading to Detroit and a foiled 2010 attempt to send explosives to Chicago.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/30/us-born-terror-boss-anwar-al-awlaki-killed/#ixzz2AeD9cIXj

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/30/us-born-terror-boss-anwar-al-awlaki-killed/#ixzz2AeCKA2Ff

Yeah I know that some have been all over this but IMO we've suffered enough already with terrorists being able to plot and then carryout attacks on U.S. citizens. This guy was not some innocent American on vacation.

You just don't get it. This goes against everything this country stands for. Habeus Corpus, the right to a fair trial. It sets a precedent which allows future presidents to go after anyone for any reason because there is no burden of proof. Its not about terrorists, its about us and what kind of country this is, what kind if a country we want to be.

This is the kind of thing they did in the soviet union, in dictatorships, police states, the kind of thing we used to be proud of saying what sets us apart from them. People were saying the same thing about the patriot act, that it would be only used to go after terrorists, next thing you know its being used to go after librarians and common criminals. If we do this to ourselves, then the terrorists have won. Im not so afraid of a terrorists that I want to destroy everything this country stands for.

GustavBahler wrote:

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

nixluva wrote:Well they tried to create some variety with the Tea Party, but it's really just a more extreme part of the right wing and to add to the problem they didn't really want to legislate anything that helped the people as they claimed. All we got were a ton of Reproductive Rights stripping legislation and almost defaulting on our financial obligations, which would've been devastating to the world economy and did result in the U.S. being downgraded from AAA status.

The problem with 3rd parties has been the extreme nature of what they propose. We don't need more extremes, what's been missing is more centrists. Obama is not an extreme lefty he's a Centrist and the Republicans moved away from the center just to try and make him seem extreme, which he's not. The Dems haven't become more leftist but the Republicans have indeed become more extremely right wing. They're the ones that have to come back towards the middle and not the fake way Romney is doing with only rhetoric.

There is nothing centrist about a president who claims that he can assassinate a US citizen anywhere in the world, far from any battlefield without a trial or charges. There is nothing centrist about a president who claims he can imprison and American indefinitely without a trial or charges. Those things that you refer to as being "extreme lefty" was the platform he ran on. Now that he is president it suddenly becomes "extreme". I'm not buying it.

That "American" you speak of wasn't killed here in the U.S. sitting on his porch doing nothing. The guy you're speaking of was actively fomenting terrorist attacks against the U.S. and consorting with terrorists in a country that is a haven for terrorists. Now if Al Awlaki came home and helped some terrorists carry out an attack you'd be one of the ones bashing the President for not protecting the American people.

Al-Awlaki was a U.S.-born Islamic militant cleric who became a prominent figure with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the network's most active branch. He was involved in several terror plots in the United States in recent years, using his fluent English and Internet savvy to draw recruits to carry out attacks. President Obama signed an order in early 2010 making him the first American to be placed on the "kill or capture" list.

Al-Awlaki, born in New Mexico to Yemeni parents, was believed to be key in turning Al Qaeda's affiliate in Yemen into what American officials have called the most significant and immediate threat to the United States. The branch, led by a Yemeni militant named Nasser al-Wahishi, plotted several failed attacks on U.S. soil -- the botched Christmas 2009 attempt to blow up an American airliner heading to Detroit and a foiled 2010 attempt to send explosives to Chicago.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/30/us-born-terror-boss-anwar-al-awlaki-killed/#ixzz2AeD9cIXj

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/30/us-born-terror-boss-anwar-al-awlaki-killed/#ixzz2AeCKA2Ff

Yeah I know that some have been all over this but IMO we've suffered enough already with terrorists being able to plot and then carryout attacks on U.S. citizens. This guy was not some innocent American on vacation.

You just don't get it. This goes against everything this country stands for. Habeus Corpus, the right to a fair trial. It sets a precedent which allows future presidents to go after anyone for any reason because there is no burden of proof. Its not about terrorists, its about us and what kind of country this is, what kind if a country we want to be.

This is the kind of thing they did in the soviet union, in dictatorships, police states, the kind of thing we used to be proud of saying what sets us apart from them. People were saying the same thing about the patriot act, that it would be only used to go after terrorists, next thing you know its being used to go after librarians and common criminals. If we do this to ourselves, then the terrorists have won. Im not so afraid of a terrorists that I want to destroy everything this country stands for.

1st of all this isn't really about "everything" we stand for. While I do agree that this is an unprecedented level we're also in unprecedented territory with how hard it is to deal with terrorists. My point is that this guy was a traitor and he was killed actively part of a terrorist organization in Yemen where this terror group is headquartered. He was also part of actual attempts to kill American citizens. He gave up his rights as a U.S. citizen IMO. Do you realize this guy was in league with Osama Bin Laden as he was working with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and in Yemen where he was killed? What do you suggest we do, just let him get a on plane and come back to the U.S. with some of his Al Qaeda buddies? This guy was particularly dangerous due to his intimate knowledge of our ways, being a man who as born here he could easily meld back into society and disappear. If you read up on what this guy has been saying to Muslims over the years you might understand the threat he posed.

I understand fear of government overreach and our civil liberties, but at the same time there are REAL bad guys out there looking to kill Americans on a massive scale. This was a guy that was promoting the idea of creating more terrorists and providing justification for killing innocent people. It's not like he was just some ordinary citizen that mistakenly got put on a kill or capture list. It takes a lot to get on that list and he was asking for it. Just read Anwar Al-Awlaki articles or watch his videos and that's just the tip of the iceberg of this guys involvement in terrorism.

GustavBahler wrote:

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

nixluva wrote:Well they tried to create some variety with the Tea Party, but it's really just a more extreme part of the right wing and to add to the problem they didn't really want to legislate anything that helped the people as they claimed. All we got were a ton of Reproductive Rights stripping legislation and almost defaulting on our financial obligations, which would've been devastating to the world economy and did result in the U.S. being downgraded from AAA status.

The problem with 3rd parties has been the extreme nature of what they propose. We don't need more extremes, what's been missing is more centrists. Obama is not an extreme lefty he's a Centrist and the Republicans moved away from the center just to try and make him seem extreme, which he's not. The Dems haven't become more leftist but the Republicans have indeed become more extremely right wing. They're the ones that have to come back towards the middle and not the fake way Romney is doing with only rhetoric.

There is nothing centrist about a president who claims that he can assassinate a US citizen anywhere in the world, far from any battlefield without a trial or charges. There is nothing centrist about a president who claims he can imprison and American indefinitely without a trial or charges. Those things that you refer to as being "extreme lefty" was the platform he ran on. Now that he is president it suddenly becomes "extreme". I'm not buying it.

That "American" you speak of wasn't killed here in the U.S. sitting on his porch doing nothing. The guy you're speaking of was actively fomenting terrorist attacks against the U.S. and consorting with terrorists in a country that is a haven for terrorists. Now if Al Awlaki came home and helped some terrorists carry out an attack you'd be one of the ones bashing the President for not protecting the American people.

Al-Awlaki was a U.S.-born Islamic militant cleric who became a prominent figure with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the network's most active branch. He was involved in several terror plots in the United States in recent years, using his fluent English and Internet savvy to draw recruits to carry out attacks. President Obama signed an order in early 2010 making him the first American to be placed on the "kill or capture" list.

Al-Awlaki, born in New Mexico to Yemeni parents, was believed to be key in turning Al Qaeda's affiliate in Yemen into what American officials have called the most significant and immediate threat to the United States. The branch, led by a Yemeni militant named Nasser al-Wahishi, plotted several failed attacks on U.S. soil -- the botched Christmas 2009 attempt to blow up an American airliner heading to Detroit and a foiled 2010 attempt to send explosives to Chicago.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/30/us-born-terror-boss-anwar-al-awlaki-killed/#ixzz2AeD9cIXj

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/30/us-born-terror-boss-anwar-al-awlaki-killed/#ixzz2AeCKA2Ff

Yeah I know that some have been all over this but IMO we've suffered enough already with terrorists being able to plot and then carryout attacks on U.S. citizens. This guy was not some innocent American on vacation.

You just don't get it. This goes against everything this country stands for. Habeus Corpus, the right to a fair trial. It sets a precedent which allows future presidents to go after anyone for any reason because there is no burden of proof. Its not about terrorists, its about us and what kind of country this is, what kind if a country we want to be.

This is the kind of thing they did in the soviet union, in dictatorships, police states, the kind of thing we used to be proud of saying what sets us apart from them. People were saying the same thing about the patriot act, that it would be only used to go after terrorists, next thing you know its being used to go after librarians and common criminals. If we do this to ourselves, then the terrorists have won. Im not so afraid of a terrorists that I want to destroy everything this country stands for.

1st of all this isn't really about "everything" we stand for. While I do agree that this is an unprecedented level we're also in unprecedented territory with how hard it is to deal with terrorists. My point is that this guy was a traitor and he was killed actively part of a terrorist organization in Yemen where this terror group is headquartered. He was also part of actual attempts to kill American citizens. He gave up his rights as a U.S. citizen IMO. Do you realize this guy was in league with Osama Bin Laden as he was working with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and in Yemen where he was killed? What do you suggest we do, just let him get a on plane and come back to the U.S. with some of his Al Qaeda buddies? This guy was particularly dangerous due to his intimate knowledge of our ways, being a man who as born here he could easily meld back into society and disappear. If you read up on what this guy has been saying to Muslims over the years you might understand the threat he posed.

I understand fear of government overreach and our civil liberties, but at the same time there are REAL bad guys out there looking to kill Americans on a massive scale. This was a guy that was promoting the idea of creating more terrorists and providing justification for killing innocent people. It's not like he was just some ordinary citizen that mistakenly got put on a kill or capture list. It takes a lot to get on that list and he was asking for it. Just read Anwar Al-Awlaki articles or watch his videos and that's just the tip of the iceberg of this guys involvement in terrorism.

You are once again missing the point. If this stands future administrations will be able to use it to go after any American for any reason because the program operates behind closed doors and there is no accountability. We see the definition of what a terrorist is keeps expanding, you can contribute to a charity now and be accused of supporting terrorists. In the name of fighting terrorism we now have a government that listens in on our calls reads our email, tracks our movements and now can lock us up indefinitely in the US without a trial, or have us put to death if we try to leave the country on one person's say so and nothing else. Its authoritarianism run amok.

If George Bush II had claimed this power, democrats would have been shouting from the rooftops and rightfully so. If a president can do this, there is absolutely nothing he cant do. If you believe that this will only be used to go after terrorists in the future, you have another thing coming.

I think you're really making this into a bigger issue than it is. Call me when someone else gets killed that fits this guys description but even less so and then maybe i'll be convinced but after 9/11 i'm really not going to be too angry if the government takes action to protect us from a guy like Al-Awlaki. His mistake was leaving the U.S. and going to an Al Qaeda home base. That just made it easier for them to take him out. If he was here he would simply be arrested. I'm pretty sure that if he was in Bin Laden's compound the night Seal Team 6 went in, he'd have been killed then too. Gotta watch the company you keep!!!

Al-Awlaki wasn't the only one targeted in that drone strike.

The strike hit a vehicle with other suspected Al Qaeda members inside, in addition to al-Awlaki. According to a U.S. senior official, the other American militant killed in the strike was Samir Khan, the co-editor of an English-language Al Qaeda web magazine called "Inspire."

Khan, in his 20s, was an American of Pakistani heritage from North Carolina. His magazine promoted attacks against U.S. targets, even running articles on how to put together explosives. In one issue, Khan wrote that he had moved to Yemen and joined Al Qaeda's fighters, pledging to "wage jihad for the rest of our lives."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/30/us-born-terror-boss-anwar-al-awlaki-killed/#ixzz2AiHIcbmu

Perhaps you forget that we're actually at War right now!!! These are not peace time decisions. Asymmetrical War is fraught with ethical questions. In President Bush's conventional war hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis were killed. The Drone strikes are far more conservative. Terrorists are forewarned that the U.S. will kill them if they keep up their ways. So anyone actively involved in terror plots or recruiting etc. is on notice. If someone chooses that path they do so knowing they can be killed. I would suggest they not turn terrorist and rather look to move on and live a normal life. I'd rather we didn't have to do drone attacks, but it's better than sending in our sons and daughters to get killed. Do you have any family members in the Military? I do and my Dad and Grandfather were in the military. We were fortunate to get them back.

2. We are still currently at war in Afghanistan. The war against Al-Qaeda has also continued and it's an Asymmetrical war. There are 2 ways at least that we have to confront this. One is direct action against active terrorists and the other is to try to improve the lives of those who might be influenced to join terrorists. It's a very difficult and fine line.

3. It's not true that "nothing is out of bounds" for me. Just that my line of concern about this is not as early as yours. You're extrapolating this policy WAY down the line from where it actually is. What you're doing is making a case for something that Could happen but right now isn't really effecting the average citizen. The small amount of people involved in this case is so small when compared to the actual number of Americans KILLED by terrorists over the years. Less than a handful of U.S. citizens turned traitor, compared to thousands of innocent people killed by terrorists. I don't see a real ethical issue here. You seem to want to have had Anwar Al-Awlaki to be running with a bomb strapped to his chest and an AK47 in hand on the battlefield for us to have permission to take him out.

As for Al-Awlaki's son that was too bad but his father should've shown better judgment than to take him along on Al Qaeda meetings! It was no secret that Al- Awlaki's was on the list! Terrorists love having human shields around them just to dissuade the military from taking them out. Now they know that crap won't work. It's cold but this isn't tiddly winks, it's war. A lot more innocent people died on 9/11. You mess with Bull you get the horns!

misterearl wrote:Sandy Notes

“Gov are you going to eliminate FEMA?” a print pooler shouted, receiving no response.

Wires reporters asked more questions about FEMA that were ignored.

Romney kept coming over near pool to pick up more water. He ignored these questions:

“Gov are you going to see some storm damage?”

“Gov has [New Jersey Gov.] Chris Christie invited you to come survey storm damage?”

“Gov you’ve been asked 14 times, why are you refusing to answer the question?”

Romney won’t answer because he can’t. We saw him pivot to the center, to become the white Barack Obama, in the three debates, as he realized his unpopular policies and his contempt for 47 percent of the country was dooming his presidential bid. He’s got no standing now to talk about how he’d handle this disaster. The heroes of Sandy, so far, are the first responders, the cops and firefighters and emergency technicians, the folks evacuating patients from hospitals and trapped citizens from flooding. These are the people who’ve been demonized by Republicans for the last two years: the public workers who have become the new “welfare queens.” When Obama pushed a jobs bill that would have helped states and cities avoid laying off such workers, GOP Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell derided it as a “bailout,” and Paul Ryan, of course, voted against it. - Salon

say it more succinctly: Romney is a ****tard of a presidential candidate, a ****ing awful guy who stands on no moral ground or ideals.

holfresh wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:OK I'm ambivalent about Anwar Al Alaki, but what about his 16-year-old son, also an American citizen, killed in a drone strike?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/18/us-citizens-drone-strike-deaths

He's a minor not able to make his own decisions legally. Just as I'm a lefty Democrat in favor of not deporting now-adult high-school-educated illegal immigrants — for sake of both compassion and investment — the execution without trial of a minor US citizen makes me uncomfortable. I can get with Libertarians on the way they look at personal liberty and the Constitution. I can get with the Greens because of their environmental and peace stances.

We wage undeclared wars I am uncomfortable with. I don't think they are constitutional, well thought out, and probably unethical. I believe in defense and peace, not intervention and dominance. I'm glad I'm an American and have first-world problems like my Internet not being fast enough during a massive storm.

The same old party thinking — or a 24-hour news cycle hyper-partisan version of it — isn't going to get this country where it needs to be for future success.

To be US Commander in Chief post-9/11 is no cakewalk, I'm sure. I doubt I could do it well. I think Obama deserves another term over Romney but because I'm in NYC, I think I'm going to use my vote to send a different message, hoping that maybe more folks will do that and eventually our politics and government gets more honest and effective.

President Clinton was faced with the same choice you just described...Osama Bin Laden was at a wedding with his family and Clinton chose not to strike with a missile...He didn't want any innocent casualties...A few years later 9/11 happen...What would you have done in hindsight??..

I already said, the Presidency is not for me. I couldn't order a strike knowing innocent civilians would get killed.

holfresh wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

holfresh wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:OK I'm ambivalent about Anwar Al Alaki, but what about his 16-year-old son, also an American citizen, killed in a drone strike?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/18/us-citizens-drone-strike-deaths

He's a minor not able to make his own decisions legally. Just as I'm a lefty Democrat in favor of not deporting now-adult high-school-educated illegal immigrants — for sake of both compassion and investment — the execution without trial of a minor US citizen makes me uncomfortable. I can get with Libertarians on the way they look at personal liberty and the Constitution. I can get with the Greens because of their environmental and peace stances.

We wage undeclared wars I am uncomfortable with. I don't think they are constitutional, well thought out, and probably unethical. I believe in defense and peace, not intervention and dominance. I'm glad I'm an American and have first-world problems like my Internet not being fast enough during a massive storm.

The same old party thinking — or a 24-hour news cycle hyper-partisan version of it — isn't going to get this country where it needs to be for future success.

To be US Commander in Chief post-9/11 is no cakewalk, I'm sure. I doubt I could do it well. I think Obama deserves another term over Romney but because I'm in NYC, I think I'm going to use my vote to send a different message, hoping that maybe more folks will do that and eventually our politics and government gets more honest and effective.

President Clinton was faced with the same choice you just described...Osama Bin Laden was at a wedding with his family and Clinton chose not to strike with a missile...He didn't want any innocent casualties...A few years later 9/11 happen...What would you have done in hindsight??..

I already said, the Presidency is not for me. I couldn't order a strike knowing innocent civilians would get killed.

But you want someone out there making that decision so u don't have to, right??...

I don't know. I mean I want safety for myself and my family and friends, and peace around the world. I'm just not sure this ultimately gets us there. Would you have funded Bin Laden in the war against the Soviet Union, installed the Shah in Iran and sided with Saddam in the Iran-Iraq War with hindsight?

I'd like to think I'm humble about my own political opinions and will readily admit my prejudices and blindspots. I worry about blowback and unintended consequences from our foreign policy. I just don't know how to process the disparity between our stated ideals in this nation and geopolitical realities. Assassinations and terrorism and dictatorships and ignoring the sovereignty of nations is bad unless the US is doing it?

So with my vote, I may do something different because it represents my desire for something different. Because I am safe at home here in NYC, I have that luxury. I'm not trying to be a hypocrite, and I don't begrudge a vote for Obama. Romney I can't get with, but I'm not one of these liberals who can't possibly understand why someone would. Just got into this defending the rationale for a third party vote instead.

nixluva wrote:If A few thousand people think like you and Obama loses to Romney that would be a disaster. That's how the world ends up with a George W. Bush and unfounded wars. You may have an issue with one of Obama's methods to combat terror but in total Obama is what's best for this country and the world. Romeny is like Bush in that he knows nothing about Foreign Policy. Romney has hired almost all of Bush's old Foreign Policy guys. The Neocons are war mongers!!! Obama really isn't.

Also whether you go after these terrorists or not they are continually plotting to attack us. You can't just ignore them. This is why Obama is taking the actions he has. If you hesitate to take them out they slip away and you end up paying big time later on.

If those few thousand are in Ohio or Florida or some other "battleground" state, I guess. I'm in New York. Do you think my vote for the president really has that much power? If I was in Georgia, I wouldn't be in as comfortable of a position, so I feel where you are coming from. I voted for Nader in 2000 in NJ. I don't feel I had anything to do with George W. Bush becoming president. And we shouldn't blame some idealistic schlub either for Bush... I'd much sooner blame Supreme Court and Jeb Bush, or the Gore team for getting whipped? I assume Gore would have done a better job but we'll never know hindsight and time machines don't exist.

I'm more interested in using my vote to preserving ballot access for third parties, as happened when Howie Hawkins got over 50,000 votes for NY governor. Those votes didn't get him elected but they were useful at least in ensuring Green Party ballot access for the next few years, and maybe that will bring us a more honest and principled political dialog and more third party representation someday. I just can't get behind the idea that we are better off only hearing from two big money parties. The Greens may be "left" and the Libertarians may be "right" but I hear a lot more peace talk from them, albeit for differing reasons. Sad that peace is an extreme idea.

I actually tried changing my voter registration to Green from Democrat when I moved this summer. However that checkbox was ignored (conveniently?) and here I remain a Democrat. So I'm aware at the futility of my current political views. But hey... at least I'll be showing up. Many times I go and skip parts of the ballot if anyone if I feel like I'm uninformed or indifferent. I also think voting isn't a once every four year thing and will vote every year, except for school board elections since I don't have kids and not very educated on that world. The Presidency isn't the "be all, end all" of politics. Who I vote for City Council may affect me more on a day-to-day level than who I choose for federal office.

Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, center, and other Republicans raised concerns with an economic report that questions a central tenet of conservative economic theory.

The decision, made in late September against the advice of the agency’s economic team leadership, drew almost no notice at the time. Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, cited the study a week and a half after it was withdrawn in a speech on tax policy at the National Press Club.

But it could actually draw new attention to the report, which questions the premise that lowering the top marginal tax rate stimulates economic growth and job creation.

“This has hues of a banana republic,” Mr. Schumer said. “They didn’t like a report, and instead of rebutting it, they had them take it down.”

Republicans did not say whether they had asked the research service, a nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress, to take the report out of circulation, but they were clear that they protested its tone and findings.

Don Stewart, a spokesman for the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said Mr. McConnell and other senators “raised concerns about the methodology and other flaws.” Mr. Stewart added that people outside of Congress had also criticized the study and that officials at the research service “decided, on their own, to pull the study pending further review.”

Senate Republican aides said they had protested both the tone of the report and its findings. Aides to Mr. McConnell presented a bill of particulars to the research service that included objections to the use of the term “Bush tax cuts” and the report’s reference to “tax cuts for the rich,” which Republicans contended was politically freighted.

They also protested on economic grounds, saying that the author, Thomas L. Hungerford, was looking for a macroeconomic response to tax cuts within the first year of the policy change without sufficiently taking into account the time lag of economic policies. Further, they complained that his analysis had not taken into account other policies affecting growth, such as the Federal Reserve’s decisions on interest rates.

“There were a lot of problems with the report from a real, legitimate economic analysis perspective,” said Antonia Ferrier, a spokeswoman for the Senate Finance Committee’s Republicans. “We relayed them to C.R.S. It was a good discussion. We have a good, constructive relationship with them. Then it was pulled.”

The pressure applied to the research service comes amid a broader Republican effort to raise questions about research and statistics that were once trusted as nonpartisan and apolitical.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics on Friday will release unemployment figures for October, a month after some conservatives denounced its last report as politically tinged to abet President Obama’s re-election. When the bureau suggested its October report might be delayed by Hurricane Sandy, some conservatives immediately suggested politics were at play.

Republicans have also tried to discredit the private Tax Policy Center ever since the research organization declared that Mitt Romney’s proposal to cut tax rates by 20 percent while protecting the middle class and not increasing the deficit was mathematically impossible. For years, conservatives have pressed the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to factor in robust economic growth when it is asked to calculate the cost of tax cuts to the federal budget.

Congressional aides and outside economists said they were not aware of previous efforts to discredit a study from the research service.

“When their math doesn’t add up, Republicans claim that their vague version of economic growth will somehow magically make up the difference. And when that is refuted, they’re left with nothing more to lean on than charges of bias against nonpartisan experts,” said Representative Sander Levin of Michigan, ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee.

Jared Bernstein, a former economist for Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., conceded that “tax cuts for the rich” was “not exactly academic prose,” but he said the analysis did examine policy time lags and controlled for several outside factors, including monetary policy.

“This sounds to me like a complete political hit job and another example of people who don’t like the results and try to use backdoor ways to suppress them,” he said. “I’ve never seen anything like this, and frankly, it makes me worried.”

Janine D’Addario, a spokeswoman for the Congressional Research Service, would not comment on internal deliberations over the decision. She confirmed that the report was no longer in official circulation.

A person with knowledge of the deliberations, who requested anonymity, said the Sept. 28 decision to withdraw the report was made against the advice of the research service’s economics division, and that Mr. Hungerford stood by its findings.

The report received wide notice from media outlets and liberal and conservative policy analysts when it was released on Sept. 14. It examined the historical fluctuations of the top income tax rates and the rates on capital gains since World War II, and concluded that those fluctuations did not appear to affect the nation’s economic growth.

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie,” the report said. “However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

The Congressional Research Service does such reports at the request of lawmakers, and the research is considered private. Although the reports are posted on the service’s Web site, they are available only to members and staff. Their public release is subject to lawmakers’ discretion.

But the Hungerford study was bound to be widely circulated. It emerged in the final months of a presidential campaign in which tax policy has been a central focus. Mr. Romney, the Republican nominee, maintains that any increase in the top tax rates on income and capital gains would slow economic growth and crush the job market’s recovery.

President Obama has promised to allow cuts on the top two income tax rates to expire in January, lifting the rates from 33 and 35 percent, their level during most of George W. Bush’s presidency, to 36 percent and 39.6 percent, where they were during most of the Clinton administration. Mr. Obama maintains the increases would not hurt the economy and are the fairest way to reduce the deficit.

Mr. Hungerford, a specialist in public finance who earned his economics doctorate from the University of Michigan, has contributed at least $5,000 this election cycle to a combination of Mr. Obama’s campaign, the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.