You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (395)
PLAYS: (640)
Looks like things are getting ugly in the Florida Republican primary race for U.S. Senate. Charlie Crist accused his opponent Marco Rubio of possibly having his back waxed and charging it to the Republican Party of Florida during this somewhat bizarre exchange on Greta Van Susteren's show that left her obviously a bit stunned.
VAN SUSTEREN: And sort of a punch back which occurred previously is that you have said about your opponent, Mr. Rubio, that he is the greatest fraud perpetrated. So it sounds like you have had a couple of punches back as well. Why do you say that?
CRIST: Because he's trying to pawn himself off as a fiscal conservative. And yet just in reason weeks, two weeks ago it has come out in news accounts he had a Republican Party of Florida credit card that he charged $130 haircut, or maybe it was a back wax -- we are not sure what all he got at that place.
VAN SUSTEREN: Wait a second, stop. A back wax? Wait a second.
CRIST: I don't know what it was, you know?
VAN SUSTEREN: I know, but was there a suggestion it was for a back wax or are you being flip?
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (22)
PLAYS: (47)
Here's your CNN "centrist" folks. Someone repeating every Republican talking point in the book and saying it's unfair to say that the GOP has been obstructing for anything other than principled rather than political reasons. And of course money and the insurance industry never have anything to do with how someone votes in Gergen's world. It's a "side argument".
Gergen's been around advising several administrations and following politics for a lot longer than I have. He knows full well he's full of crap here but that doesn't stop him from towing the line for the health insurance industry and the GOP and pretending their profits are not THE issue with this debate. Just shameful.
COOPER: David, it is interesting, though. This is exactly what then-candidate Obama said he was best at, getting people from divergent points of view to agree on something and actually get things done. It hasn't worked out that way. I mean, what -- what did you think of what he said today? What do you think of his chances moving forward?
GERGEN: Anderson, he inherited a political dynamic in Washington. It was unhealthy. And then by contracting out the writing of the bill to the House and Senate Democrats, and the process that then followed, the Republicans felt very marginalized, not a -- didn't have a seat at the table, especially in the House.
And to come at this last minute with essentially a 2,000-page- plus bill and say, we would like to add a few amendments from Republicans, it's -- that is not going to fly. It is -- I think it helps him with his outreach to the country to show that he is being reasonable. I think it may help him with some moderate Democrats.
But it was -- it was just built in that he wasn't going to get Republicans. The Republicans believe that this is a fundamentally flawed plan. I think he mischaracterized the Republican opposition today. He said -- Basically, he said today, if you vote against my bill, that is because you are voting for the insurance companies.
This is not about insurance companies, from a Republican point of view. It is about -- you know, it is about government intervention, a large cost, and significant question marks about it.
COOPER: Yes.
GERGEN: Democrats believe that we have a moral responsibility to provide coverage. That is a legitimate argument. The insurance argument, I think, is a side argument.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (407)
PLAYS: (3008)
Well here's something you don't see every day. John Thune getting called out on Fox News for lying about the health care bill raising premiums and for mindlessly repeating Republican talking points. That said, this is Fox and the interview wasn't that harsh. Smith started out pretty well and then let him go. Smith of course plays the all-sides-are-equally-bad game, which you would not know from this shortened version that Media Matters posted. By only showing part of the interview, Media Matters gives Smith a bit too much credit for taking Thune.
SMITH: What are we getting accomplished here?
THUNE: Not much that I can tell. I think...
SMITH: Here's what Politicos said today Senator. By the lunch break -- I'm quoting from Politico.com -- by the lunch break it was growing clearer that the pre-summit pessimism on both sides of the political, of the political aisle they mean -- that there was little or no hope of grand partisan compromise was absolutely on target. In fact both sides spent the bulk of the three hours of the session trying to score tactical points rarely veering from their scripts and extending a hand to the other side. I don't know if the people see anything bipartisan about any of this. It just feels like a bunch of politicians getting their talking points in.
THUNE: I think the only way could have been bipartisan and actually meaningful constructive is if they had taken all the previous talking points in the previous bill and set it aside and started over and say okay let's start over...
SMITH: Why do Republicans want to throw this out and start over Senator? Why do they want to do that? Nobody buys that. Everybody sees that as here's how we win. Our side wins if we get you to throw your thing out even though you're the majority. And the majority goes we win if we get you to come along with it. You're not going to come along with them any more than they're going to throw their thing out. It seems silly to talk about it.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (432)
PLAYS: (1399)
The Senate's top Republican told Fox News' Chris Wallace that he wasn't sure if he could stop the Senate from passing health care reform if budget reconciliation was used. Reconciliation circumvents the filibuster and would allow Senate Democrats to pass reform without any support from Republicans.
McConnell is uncertain if enough Democrats oppose the plan to defeat the bill. "There'll be a lot of Democrats who will vote against it," said McConnell. "Whether there will be 11 Democrats who will vote against it is not clear.
During the long, still incomplete march to pass a health reform bill, Democratic moderates – in particular Montana's Baucus and Nebraska's Nelson -- routinely took incoming from liberal bloggers for dragging the bill rightward. The left was especiallycritical of Bayh's take last month on Republican Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts. Bayh told ABC News that voters up there "just don't believe the answers we are currently proposing are solving their problems." He said Democrats would court catastrophe if they ignored the wakeup call. John Amato wrote at CrooksandLiars.com that Bayh was promoting Fox News talking points.
Yes, I am that mean and scary and Bayh just couldn't handle the heat from C&L, baby.
Look, I don't expect all Democratic politicians to vote 100% across the board, but when there is a signature piece of legislation that could help millions of Americans on a vital issue like health care, then I think the few ConservaDems should not help destroy a bill that is so critical to so many lives. Howie Klein has a breakdown of his voting record.
Last week polls showed ConservaDem Evan Bayh with a nearly insurmountable lead over lobbyist Dan Coats for the Indiana Senate seat. And this morning Chris Cillizza broke the news that Bayh had decided not to run for re-election. That must have been kind of sudden since he spent the last 6 years sucking up to every lobbyist on K Street, raised $8,911,690 and has a hefty $13 million in his campaign account. Beloved of Goldman Sachs, Eli Lilly, Allianz and dozens of corporations with anti-working family agendas, Bayh's fundraising looked extremely... Republican. But then, so does his voting record. Since Obama was elected president only Ben Nelson was a less dependable vote for Democrats when they were needed most-- on crucial, substantive roll calls where Democrats either lost or almost lost. The 3 worst scores among Democratic senators for the 111th Congress:
Ben Nelson- 47.76
Evan Bayh- 53.73
Blanche Lincoln- 59.70
Voting almost 48 % of the time against a newly elected Democratic president is beyond being a conservative democrat. it's aiding and abetting the enemy of change. Bayh whined like a teenager whose parents cut off their Internet yesterday when he gave his presser and said he was so tired of the partisanship. He could have done his part and helped President Obama and the Senate put together a good health care bill, but he did not. Politics is a contact sport and he proved he couldn't take it.
Ron Brownstein made a similar point On Andrea Mitchell this morning:
It's hard to see how he justifies this to other Democrats. But look it's more broadly what's happening with the Democratic Party. They've gone from 93-94, it took them 15 years to reestablish unified control of the House and the Senate and the White House as they did in 2009. And here they are, one year into it and the party seems to be in many respects losing its nerve. You have the Bayh thing as the latest in a series of --, Beau Biden, Lisa Madigan in Illinois, a variety of Democratic House members in tough districts walking away.
Look, politics is a contact sport and the Democrats have had the best opportunity they've had in 15 years to advance their agenda, and yet as they take all the flack that comes with that it feels like some of the party is crumbling and losing their nerve. Stunning decision.
Run for the hills you coward. And if your hero is Dick Lugar, why then is he still in Congress and you're not?
The good news is that we are separating the men from the boys. The Democrats have everything, but it's all so icky and hard that a whole bunch of them are just walking away. Good riddance. If they don't have the cojones to stick it out when their country needs them, then they shouldn't be in politics.
I'm glad these guys weren't in charge during the Depression and WWII. We'd all be dirt farming for the Greater Axis Empire today.
There's a reason Blue America PAC targeted Blanche Lincoln over the summer: She's a ConservaDem who is up for reelection and was standing with the health-insurance industry over average working Americans. Our Campaign For Health Care Choice action raised enough money to blanket the state of Arkansas with ads that demanded she vote for change in our health care system. If you can, please continue to donate.
In one key exchange this morning, Obama rebuked pleas from Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) that he moderate his agenda and work with Republicans to ease the current state of economic uncertainty.
Lincoln described a constituent who she said was "extremely frustrated because there was a lack of certainty and predictability from his government for him to be able to run his businesses."
She asked: "Are we willing, as Democrats, not only to reach out to Republicans, but to push back in our own party for people who want extremes, and look for the common ground that's going to get us the success that we need not only for our constituents, but for our country, in this global community, in this global economy?"
Wow, I didn't know trying to fight for the public option and the best possible health care system is considered extreme in her mind. See, we're the bad guys and not the idiots who littered the town-hall meetings flinging racial insults and bizarre conspiracy theories around like they were candy. Rahm uttered his stupid remark behind closed doors, but conservatives are out front with their lunacy. President Obama then calls out Blanche.
From there, Obama turned to a more pointed critique of Lincoln's argument. "If the price of certainty is essentially for us to adopt the exact same proposals that were in place for eight years leading up to the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression -- we don't tinker with health care, let the insurance companies do what they want, we don't put in place any insurance reforms, we don't mess with the banks, let them keep on doing what they're doing now because we don't want to stir up Wall Street -- the result is going to be the same," he said. "I don't know why we would expect a different outcome pursuing the exact same policy that got us into this fix in the first place."
Middle class Americans, Obama said, "are more and more vulnerable, and they have been for the last decade, treading water. And if our response ends up being, you know, because we don't want to -- we don't want to stir things up here, we're just going to do the same thing that was being done before, then I don't know what differentiates us from the other guys. And I don't know why people would say, boy, we really want to make sure that those Democrats are in Washington fighting for us."
It's doubtful that Obama has really learned his lesson about these Senate "moderates". But it's good to see him finally drawing a line.
This is the type of argument from Obama that a lot of Democrats, and not just progressives, have longed to hear. While a united Republican opposition has clearly slowed down his legislative agenda, it has been the conservative Democrats in the Senate who have punctured enormous holes in it.
The White House has largely coddled these four or five Senators, at least in public, in hopes of gradually winning over their support. The White House declined to criticize Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) for holding up health-care reform over a public option --- even while lashing out at former Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean when he said the bill should be stopped because it lacked the public plan.
Duncan Hunter makes a fool of himself on NPR, and although the host didn't point out the flaw in his argument, she just repeated his words back to him as if saying, "Is this guy kidding me?"
Hunter: No, because I think it's bad for the cohesiveness and the unity in the military especially those that are in close combat, close quarters in country right now, it's not the time to do it. I think the military is not civilian and I think the folks that have been in the military in very close situations with each other, there has to be a special bond there and I think that bond is broken.
If you open up the military to transgenders, to hermaphrodites to gays and lesbians.
Host: Transgenders and hermaphrodites?
Yea, that's going to be part of this thing. It's not just gays an lesbians, it's this whole thing.
My GOD, where's Rick "man on dog" Santorum when you need him? Pretty soon the entire military will be banging cats and dogs and soon will be trying to marry their pets.
For conservatives, it's never the time to do anything. And you know just being next to teh Gay will rub off on the next soldier and he may want to just start making out as heavy artillery falls. That could happen, couldn't it? I know James Dobson's BFF Tony Perkins probably thinks so.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (757)
PLAYS: (768)
On Friday, President Barack Obama told House Republicans that he wasn't an impractical idealist and Sen. Lamar Alexander agrees.
"If you were to listen to the debate, and frankly how some of you went after this bill," Obama said while speaking to the House Republican retreat. "You'd think that this thing was some Bolshevik plot."
"I'm not an ideologue. I'm not," the president argued.
Chris Wallace asked Sen. Lamar Alexander Sunday if he agreed that the president isn't an ideologue. "In many ways, no," he said.
Alexander continued, "But I think he doesn't think he's an ideologue but I think he approaches things in a way a professor would in terms of big comprehensive schemes. When, in fact, the way the big complicated country we have works best when we solve problems step-by-step."
Following Alexander on "Fox News Sunday," conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer took exception to the senator's description of the president. "I disagree with my colleagues on interpreting how the president is acting. I think he has not learned. I think he has not changed. I think he remains an ideologue and I don't see a pivot," he said.
John Amato:
I think the fact that President Obama said he's not an ideologue is a big problem for the Democratic Party and his base. He's the leader of the party and if he's not making a case for an ideology then he's actually attacking his own Congress.
Obama clearly is not a progressive ideologue and a reason his approval ratings are down as much is because the base feels they are not being represented. Krauthammer is not being honest on this issue because he's pushing the Roger Aile's agenda of defining the president. If Obama did push HCR like an ideologue, the base would be pumped up and a bill would have been passed by now.
There's a dangerously short memory span in our country. People can barely remember past two or three news cycles. Last year? Not so much. Five years ago? Fuhgeddaboudit. Generational reference? Listen to the wind whistling by. And that makes life frustrating to those of us engaged enough to remember these things. I can't figure out if it's just a collective congenital defect or the byproduct of our media. Maybe it's a "Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?" kind of question. But I do know the media sure isn't helping matters any.
A perfect example is this week with the bobbleheads. Now you would think that after the SOTU and that nice little smackdown by Obama to the Republican congressmembers, that we might have some measure of cognitive reasoning on the part of the press to perhaps ask their Republican guests why deficits are so concerning now, when they were adding to it like madmen in the previous administration. Or why their definition of "bipartisanship" is "do it our way or we'll not work with you". Or why they have threatened to filibuster more legislation than any other congress in the history of the country. But no. With the memories of all past historical actions wiped conveniently off the slate, the bobbleheads approach each issue as if there are two (and only two) equally valid sides to present as "balance." Meanwhile, they continually feed and enable these short memory spans for Americans, who then expect results as quickly as possible, or else.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (685)
PLAYS: (1316)
Boy, wait till the teabaggers get ahold of this guy.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, on Greta Van Susteren's Fox News show yesterday, after his dialogue with President Obama at the House Republican retreat:
Chaffetz: But as I said to the president, I said look, I'm just a freshman here, I didn't create this mess, but I am here to help clean it up. So I don't want to hear about the background here, let's work on moving forward. And so, the rhetoric's good. I just want to make sure that the reality's good. And so, I -- you know, it was a good dialogue, I appreciate him coming. I'm not going to just bite off his hand when he sticks it out. When he has good things to offer, we'll be right there with him. But this transparency in the process is critical, and so -- I thought it was a good step forward today. We'll see if it continues above and beyond just this one event.
...
Van Susteren: Well, it seemed to me that it was a good start to have everybody talking, because it's gotten a little high school here in Washington, where the Republicans are said to be obstructionists, and the Democrats are said to be excluding Republicans. Is there another meeting planned, or is this a sort of like -- you know, if it happens one time, it looks sort of like, you know, it's staged, it's a prop. If you do this routinely, meet with the president, that seems like a huge step forward. Is there another date scheduled?
Chaffetz: There isn't yet. I mean, this is something that really hasn't happened in 12 months -- he came over in February of last year, and we had a nice, small exchange. But, you know, since what's happened with Scott Brown, and some other types of things, hopefully it's moving in the right direction.
I think both sides want that to happen. I went up to him afterward, I shook his hand, I thanked him for being here, and said, 'Look, I'm not just gonna take potshots at you. I'd love to work with you.' And he kind of reciprocated and said he had heard good things, and so I hope, I hope, I'm an optimist!
You can start your countdown for the denunciations from Tea Party types, accusing Chaffetz of being a "RINO."
We wouldn't want anyone to overdo it (and we totally support recovery and sobriety for those who are practicing such). That said, Will Durst has the best of the drinking games:
The first time Barack H. Obama mentions bipartisanship, the last person to pretend to faint has to drink three shots of beer.
This open thread is for the speech (live-stream here) and the Republican "response," which is the main reason we do the drinking game first.
And if you're a totally sober sucker for punishment, there's an opportunity to publicly fact check FOX tonight. You guys deserve a round on the house.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) supported Republican John McCain and attacked then-candidate Obama while speaking at the Republican National Committee. Though he currently caucuses with Democrats in the Senate, Lieberman has repeatedlystated that he views running for re-election in 2012 as an option.
In an interview on Connecticut’s Face The State program this weekend, Lieberman once again said that it was “possible” he could run for re-election as a Republican. Noting that “it would be harder, to be honest, to get the nomination in the Democratic party,” Lieberman said that while he is “most likely” to remain an independent, he could see himself as a Republican:
HOST: Could you see yourself being a Republican or is that…
LIEBERMAN: It’s possible.
HOST:…far-fetched.
LIEBERMAN: Yeah, yeah. No, it’s possible. A good old-fashioned New England moderate Republican.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (544)
PLAYS: (597)
Newt Gingrich seems to think that the Republicans terrible alternative for a health care plan just needed some more publicity but the media didn't want to let the public know it existed. How I wish that were the case. Gingrich is repeating the new meme for the month which is that Democrats need to start over and try to work with Republicans now and they'll actually get some cooperation on the health care bill. Sorry Newt, but anyone who's been following what's going on knows the Republicans have no intention of working with the Democrats to pass anything.
Steve Benen reminds us of just how laughable Gingrich's assertions here are.
Throughout the lengthy debate on health care reform, Republicans refused to negotiate in good faith. Compromises were considered out of the question. Blatantly, demonstrably false claims were the norm. Perhaps worst of all, GOP leaders would embrace specific reform ideas, and when Democrats would agree, those same GOP leaders would reject the same measures they'd already endorsed.
[...]
The Republican plan was nothing short of laughable -- it did nothing for the uninsured, nothing for those with pre-existing conditions, and nothing for those worried about losing coverage when it's needed most. It was an entirely partisan plan, written in secret. The Republican proposal sought to create a system that "works better for people who don't need health care services, and much worse for people who actually are sick or who become sick in the future. It's basically a health un-insurance policy." And as we learned in November, the plan included provisions that "mirror the suggestions put forth by the lobbying entity of the private insurance industry way back in December 2008."
Indeed, the official Republican plan didn't even offer modest provisions that the party used to support. Roll Callreported at the time, "Under the GOP plan, insurance companies would still be allowed to exclude anyone with a pre-existing medical condition from coverage, there would be no national insurance exchange and businesses would not face any mandate to provide insurance nor individuals to buy it. Boehner also left out tax credits to help the poor and middle class buy insurance -- a central pillar of most GOP reform proposals and a key feature of a four-page outline Republican leaders released in June."
John Amato wrote earlier this week about the extensive plugs Fox News gave to Scott Brown's candidacy, and now Media Matters lists the many, many ways they worked for his campaign. Go read the rest:
Fox News didn't simply cheer from the sidelines of this contest. Indeed, the network actively aided Brown's campaign. Fox News repeatedly hosted Brown in the days leading up to the election, and during each appearance, Brown directed viewers to his website to find out "how to help with donating and volunteering." Fox News political analyst Dick Morris took it upon himself to urge viewers to "go to DickMorris.com ... to help elect Brown," because if "we win this fight, then there will never be another victory for Obama." When asked at a rally about "ethical questions" raised by Fox News' advocacy for Brown, chief political correspondent Carl Cameron fled, saying he didn't have time to answer. But he did have the time to autograph "Brown for Senate" campaign materials and pose for pictures with Brown's volunteers, as Think Progress documented.
Fox News also did Brown the favor of repeatedly misrepresenting remarks Coakley made to portray her as incompetent. America's News HQ anchor Gregg Jarrett stated on January 17, "Martha Coakley is out of step when she says things like terrorists are no longer in Afghanistan, or in the debate saying, quote, 'We need to get taxes up.' " Interpreting Coakley's remarks in this way requires a willing suspension of basic verbal reasoning skills; and that was Fox's "straight news" programming. On Fox & Friends, Steve Doocy actually claimed that Coakley "suggested the Taliban [are] gone from Afghanistan," and Michael Scheuerdeclared that Coakley "doesn't seem to mind" that "we are losing there." For his part, Glenn Beck accused Coakley of "religious bigotry" for saying that those who would "deny emergency contraception to a woman who came in who had been raped" probably "shouldn't work in the emergency room."
In case boosting Brown while attacking Coakley wasn't a sufficient strategy, Fox News baselessly fomented fears that Democrats would "cheat" to steal the election. Warning Fox News viewers not to become complacent before Election Day, Beck stated, "[Y]ou can imagine how ugly this thing will get if -- oh God help us all -- if it's too close to call." Beck displayed the ACORN logo and added, "[T]hey have friends in low places." Invoking the Florida recount, Beck asserted that Democrats "were so incompetent they didn't even know how to cheat. But don't worry -- they've gotten good at it now."
Fox even told viewers that they could strengthen their 401(k)s by electing Brown. Echoing CNBC's Jim Cramer, Fox Nation declared that "Brown Win Could Cause Huge Stock Rally." On Election Day, Fox & Friends co-host Gretchen Carlson introduced Fox business contributor Stuart Varney by stating, "Well, you may want to make a call to Massachusetts and get some people out to the polls. Well, that's because our next guest, and a friend, says that your portfolio could look much better if Scott Brown wins Ted Kennedy's vacant Senate seat." As Varney spoke, Fox & Friends displayed an on-screen text reading: "What can Brown do for you? A boost in your 401K may be in the cards." And over on Fox Business, Charles Payne asserted that a Brown win "fertilizes the soil for an incredible longer-term stock market rally."
But after closing up 115 points on January 19 before election results were in, the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 122 points the day after Brown's victory and another 213 points the next day. Baffled by this turn of events, Beck said on his radio show, "I'm not sure why it's coming down" since "it made total sense to me" that the market would "go through the roof" if Brown won.
