Home » Archives by category » News » Politics (Page 2018)

Genre: My Morning Jacket Title: Smokin’ From Shootin’ Happy Saturday!

Continue reading …
Kathleen Parker and John Avlon Want You to Believe They’re ‘Centrists’

Click here to view this media You’ve just got to love the framing they used for this segment from CNN’s Parker/Spitzer earlier this week — Can a centrist movement in the U.S. succeed or is it too ‘mushy’ to hold up? This just smells of more Republican re-branding with some of the so-called Republican “moderates” wanting to distance themselves from the teabirchers that have taken over their party. They may have done well during the mid-term elections just catering to their base, but that’s not going to work so well in 2012. Former Rudy Giuliani staffer John Avlon’s been pushing this nonsense for some time now, but as Karoli pointed out last week , there’s a new group jumping on his bandwagon as well. Kathleen Parker never mentioned the “No Labels” group during the segment, but it may as well have been an infomercial for them by Parker and Avlon. It’s really a shame that Thomas Frank wasn’t allowed to speak more to counter Avlon’s talking points. Kathleen Parker and John Avlon can put all of the “mushy middle”, “we’re a center-right country”, bipartisan spin on this they want. It’s not going to change the fact that they’re both a couple of right wingers. There’s not a lick of difference between their economic policy positions and those of Dick Armey and the Koch brothers. CNN’s off air interview with Frank looked a lot more interesting than listening to Avlon’s claptrap about how voters just really want all the bickering to stop and for our politicians to all just get along, which is doublespeak demanding Democratic capitulation. Q: If we could arrange a private conversation between you and Rep. John Boehner, what would you say to him? FRANK: I was struck by his line about Democrats “snuffing out the America that I grew up in.” It’s a charge that I frequently apply to conservatives, who have so resolutely smashed the middle-class society where I grew up in favor of a nation that is heaven on earth for the very rich—and an endless, losing struggle for working people. It’s also something I often say about market forces generally, which are the most radical and disruptive cultural influences I know of. Conservatives always claim to love the market and to deplore what’s happening in “the culture,” but they never explain how they can hold these two views at the same time. Wouldn’t it be great to have John Boehner himself sort out these things out for us? I’m also always been impressed by his luminous neckties, and I would of course tell him so. Q: What credit do you give the Tea Party for changing American politics at this moment? FRANK: They demonstrated two important things: – That the supposed power of centrism is in fact just a comforting beltway fairytale. That the “median voter” doesn’t really determine things. That politics really is a battle of small, committed groups—and also of money. – That there’s a place in politics for class-based discontent. That conservatives can speak to that emotion just as readily as liberals can. And that if liberals don’t understand this—if they just blow it off on the grounds that working-class people will always vote for Democrats because duh—that they will keep losing, and they will deserve to lose. Q:As you get older, do you find yourself becoming more or less liberal? FRANK: Not speaking strictly for myself here, but what I find people outgrow isn’t liberalism per se, it’s the tendency to treat politics like a branch of aesthetics, where what matters are gestures and what you’re after—the object of politics—is a demonstration of your originality and your surpassing cleverness. When you get older you realize how impotent that approach is, and you also understand the disastrous consequences things like, say, banking deregulation have for people. Full transcript of the clip above below the fold. PARKER: Earlier this year, I used my syndicated column to declare myself a centrist, someone who is politically anti- ideological. And it seems I’m not alone. Political independents, those neither right or left that smack dab in the broad middle, today, constitutes 42 percent of the electorate. Of course, now I’m wondering — can a centrist movement succeed? SPITZER: Tonight’s “Constitution Avenue” guests have different answers to the viability of the political center, Thomas Frank satirically calls it the magic middle. Meanwhile, CNN contributor John Avlon literally wrote a book that what he calls the vital center. Welcome, gentlemen. Let me begin to this by asking, what is the middle? How do you define it? What does it really stand for? JOHN AVLON, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I think the vast of the majority of Americans are non-ideological problem-solvers and they really distrust the absolutism our politics has started to come up with and the polarization of the two parties, the fact that the extremes have effectively hijacked our political debate and increasingly our government. And there’s a commonsense resentment of that approach to politics. SPITZER: All of which sounds wonderful and it’s almost impossible to disagree with that impure concept, but obviously, you think it doesn’t really translate into politics day to day. Why not? THOMAS FRANK, WALL STREET JOURNAL: I live in Washington, D.C., and when you — SPITZER: You can start your argument right there. (CROSSTALK) FRANK: To hell with that place. But, look, in Washington, D.C., centrism means, what John just said, that sounds so noble. You know, I don’t know anybody that wouldn’t sound of that. A practical problem solver, that’s me. PARKER: It is noble. It’s wonderful. (CROSSTALK) FRANK: But that’s not what they mean by that term in Washington, D.C. What they mean by that term in Washington, D.C., is this place — and there is only — by the way, the definition I’m going to give you is only something that is believed in two parts of American life. One is the sort of punditocracy in Washington, D.C., maybe here in New York as well. Present companies clearly — (CROSSTALK) FRANK: And then the others in political science departments of the nation. PARKER: I’m going say something here. Talking about centrism in Washington is irrelevant, OK? Washington, as you say, it’s an industry town. If you’re not one thing or another, centrists are just this mushy middle people who don’t have any thoughts or any ideas. No ideology. Exactly. We don’t have an ideology because we’re anti- ideology. SPITZER: Now, I want to pick up on something that Thomas said before, which I think is exactly right. In fact, the Democratic Party has been very much in that middle and it’s the Republican Party that’s moved to the right. And I want to use one example, which is — the example that’s on the table, is the problem with the mechanics. But I want to talk about the issue that’s on the table today — the tax cut. FRANK: Yes. SPITZER: The Democratic Party is saying give a tax cut to everybody below $250,000. Point to $500,000, nobody would be terribly upset. But 65 percent of the American public believes that. The Republican Party is holding us hostage in opposition. So, answer to Thomas’ point, isn’t the Democratic Party kind of where that center is on that one critical issue? PARKER: John, you absolutely have an answer for this and I want to you say it. AVLON: Good. Here’s the issue. The Republican Party is dominated by the far right. They think tax cuts is theology. It used to be that fiscal conservatism was synonymous to fiscal responsibility. That’s stop the case during the 1990s and 2000, when all of a sudden, it was supply side no matter what. The Democratic Party has an opportunity here if they own that. FRANK: The conservative movement has a motto. I’m not a conservative. You guys know that. I’m pretty liberal but I admire the conservatives in all sort of ways and one of them is they have this great — PARKER: Somehow, I think this is going to be an insult. FRANK: What is a conservative movement about? You remember Howard Phillips (ph), the conservative caucus? SPITZER: Oh, yes. FRANK: He’s saying way back when, in the late ’70s, early ’80s, we organize discontent, OK? There is — that is the attitude that got the mood of the country exactly right this year. AVLON: That is the attitude behind conservative populism and far left populism. And there are people who want politics to simply be a mirror of that. And I think a lot of folks here on the far right who say, you know, as you’ve written in the past, that bipartisanship is the most perfunctory kind of campaign rhetoric, there are people on the far right who believe that, too. To play to their base crowd, the Karl Roves that believe — (CROSSTALK) AVLON: Well, not in the current context. Base politics that helped create the problem as a country. The 2010 election happened because it is — as you know — it’s a low-turnout, high intensity election. And because we’re a center- right country, if Republicans play to the base and got conservative populist outrage, especially in the time of economic downturn, they wouldn’t be able to get across. SPITZER: But here’s where the Democrats got it wrong and I’m with you on this. The Democratic Party by so degrading its ideology, stood for nothing. It was mush. Mush does not win. You need to stand for something. (CROSSTALK) SPITZER: They stood for such a Malcolm of nothing that nobody could stand up and say, I’m supportive because of X. But the Tea Party crafted an ideology, crazy as it may be, people could carry their pitchfork and feel good about it. (CROSSTALK) PARKER: You know what? You talk about people being angry. They are also angry about the pitchforks. They are tired of the partisan bickering. They may not be able to articulate a position on every single issue, which is what you want everyone to do, they want to say all they say is — OK, that’s the left, I’m not that. They see the Sarah Palin brigade on the right, they say, I’m not that. So, that leaves this is broad center where people are looking for a place to land, right? SPITZER: You go first. You’re just inching to get in there. AVLON: Look, we’ve got to plant a flag from the center. We need to stand for something. We need to play offense. That’s been part of the problem, how we’ve allowed extremes to hijack our politics here. But the problem in the whole debate right now is that 93 percent of the American people in a poll by “The Wall Street Journal” and NBC said that they’re tired. I think there’s too much partisan infighting in Washington. And the problem is that the elites — UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That’s true. AVLON: But the elites in Washington seem to think that 93 percent of the Americans are stupid. They seem to think that they don’t really know what they want. And there’s an academic group on the far left that always seems to think that the American people would vote socialist if they only knew how. SPITZER: By the way, John, here’s the thing. I think the Democratic Party if you understood it is in the middle. They just haven’t managed to stand up and speak with enough fervor, excitement and energy to say, having — AVLON: Bill Clinton. SPITZER: Bill Clinton did, but I’m talking about the past couple of years. Having been in that game for a little while, and I did OK for some period of time, you do it with a passion and you say whether it’s Wall Street, whether it’s the environment, whether it’s the middle class, just do it with some energy and some passion. AVLON: I agree. SPITZER: And then people will forgive you having an argument with the other side because they know they’re with you. It’s when you don’t stand for anything other than Bush that they run to people who do. FRANK: Partisanship is one of the most disgusting things when you move to Washington, D.C., and you behold it first had and it’s like you have a Republican kick ball team in the Democrat. AVLON: Right. FRANK: It’s ridiculous and they have fistfights at keggers (ph). It’s idiotic. AVLON: Yes. FRANK: That doesn’t mean that the ideas are bad. And look, the problem is the conservative movement did a very, very good job this time around of expressing itself as a movement of the disenfranchised and reaching out to anger across the board, anti-Washington, anti- partisan anger, and the Democrats are like, but we’re the party of reason. AVLON: — will not do as well. Here’s the thing. We’re a center right country. (CROSSTALK) FRANK: No, no, no. PARKER: Ding, ding, ding, ding. I’m sorry, we do have to wrap up. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right. PARKER: But before we go, let me just say this. Nobody can argue that a debate about centrism is boring. And I was going to ask you, I know you said you want to be aggressively centrist. And I thought for a while that might be an oxymoron. AVLON: No. PARKER: But you have proved that it is not. AVLON: There you go. SPITZER: All right. AVLON: Pulling off from the center. SPITZER: Thomas Frank, John Avlon, thank you for helping me effectively abolish the mushy center. It doesn’t exist anymore. PARKER: Wrong, wrong, Eliot. SPITZER: You can be mushy. I’m not going to be mushy. PARKER: Not going to be mushy. SPITZER: No.

Continue reading …
Ed Schultz Challenges Dem Congresswoman on Bogus Claim

My hat's off to you, Ed. You've restored my faith in the possibility of liberals occasionally seeing the light. Here's an exchange between Schultz and Rep. Donna Edwards of Maryland on Schultz's radio show Thursday — read more

Continue reading …
Sarah Palin Cuts Off Unauthorized CNN Interview

Sarah Palin on Thursday cut off an unauthorized interview with CNN. As his crew was taking footage of the former Alaska governor signing books at an Iowa Walmart, Jim Acosta tried to take advantage of the situation by asking her a few questions (video follows with transcript and commentary): read more

Continue reading …
DeMint and Pence Push for Permanent Extension of Bush Tax Cuts

Click here to view this media Sen. Jim DeMint and Rep. Mike Pence made an appearance on John King’s show with their latest set of demands on extending tax cuts for the rich. So much for Pence’s previous inadvertent admission that they didn’t work. GOP’s DeMint and Pence Tout Permanent-Tax-Cuts-For-All Bill : A pair of prominent Republicans — one from the Senate, the other from the House – on Thursday called for a permanent extension of tax cuts at all income levels, just as a vigorous floor debate was under way about Democratic legislation to extend tax relief for just the middle class. “Sen. Jim DeMint and I are introducing legislation that will ensure that no American, small business owner or family farmer will see a tax increase on Jan. 1, 2011, 2012, 2013 and beyond,” said Indiana Rep. Mike Pence. DeMint and Pence introduced the bill before Thanksgiving, but started promoting it Thursday. They want an up-or-down vote on all the tax cuts at the same time, a permanent end to the estate tax and a fix for the alternative minimum tax. The duo told reporters that uncertainty about future tax rates is stifling economic recovery. “The economy is waiting to roar back in this country,” DeMint of South Carolina said, “and the fact that we have waited this long to even address the issue tells you that the people running this government don’t understand how business works.” Transcript below the fold via CNN . KING: As the White House and congressional leaders negotiate a possible temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts, two leading conservative voices in the Congress are shaking their heads saying that isn’t good enough. Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana have new legislation to indefinitely extend the current tax rates. Yet both also say Washington needs to do a better job balancing its books. So does their math add up? Senator DeMint and Congressman Pence joins us now from Capitol Hill. If you match up the strategy, what you’re leaders are doing in these negotiations with the White House right now with the legislation you gentlemen propose. To you Senator first, is it fair to say you believe at the moment your leaders are being too timid, they should be asking for more? SEN. JIM DEMINT (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: Well I know they needed to negotiate, but what Mike and I want to do is to allow every congressmen and senators an up and down vote on a permanent extension. What we hear from the business community and individuals all over the country is we need some certainty. You can’t plan to grow a business in six to 12 months. Sometimes it’s a five or 10-year process. So to have certainty in what the tax rates will be is much more important than a temporary extension of the current rates. We don’t need a temporary economy and so we don’t need temporary tax rates. KING: And yet, as both of you describe yourselves as fiscal conservatives, Congressman, do you think you have the obligation and to put forward at the same time — the Congressional Budget Office says extending those tax cuts over 10 years would cost about $4 trillion in red ink? Would you put forward offsetting budget cuts and saying look here is what we’ll cut as we cut these taxes as well. REP. MIKE PENCE (R), INDIANA: Well look, there’s no question and Senator DeMint and I are of one mind and have been for many years, we’ve got to put our fiscal house in order with restraint, with budget cuts, with entitlement reform. But job one right now needs to be to get this economy growing again. And I’ve got to tell you the last thing — back home in Indiana the last thing anybody wants to see Washington do in the worst economy in 25 years is raise taxes on anybody. And the House actually just voted today to allow a tax increase on small business owners and family farmers and what Jim and I are advocating I think would be broadly supported by the majority of the American people and that is not a tax increase in four weeks, not a tax increase in one year or two years — let’s begin the pathway back to prosperity by saying that the tax rates are what they are. Let’s permanently extend all the current tax rates and then we can begin to build and rebuild our economy on top of that certainty. KING: Is that an absolute position for both of you? I ask that in the context of this debate we’re now going to have about the president’s commission on deficit reduction and the plan they put forward. Perhaps they can’t get enough votes to force a vote in the Congress. But they have laid out a plan that is eye-opening in some ways. And one of the things they insist that yes, you need to raise the retirement age and do some things in Social Security, get some money out of Medicare, make some cuts across the government, the Pentagon and everything else. But they also insist that in the end they would prefer a flatter tax code, take away some of the loopholes and some of the deductions but also a bit of a tax increase in the end. Is that completely off the table for both of you? DEMINT: Well John I’ll start. I do like the flat rate tax. I would throw all the deductions out the window, if we could have a lower flat tax rate. I don’t think we need to increase taxes. And getting back to your previous point, keeping tax rates the same should not be considered a trillion dollar or more cost to the government. We’re just keeping want the money in the private sector where it’s been earned. So again, both of us want to see us address the debt issue. One of the most important things we could do to address the debt is get the economy going again and a permanent extension of the current tax rates would give our businesses, our individuals, our entrepreneurs more predictability so they could plan to add jobs in the future. PENCE: And John, I really think it’s a really important point to emphasize that — and let me also agree on the flat tax that Jim and I are talking about building some legislation. That would be a true flat tax to be offered in the Congress after the turn of the year. But let me — let me say I really do believe the American people deserve to know the debate that’s going on right now is not even about tax cuts. DEMINT: Yes. PENCE: Nobody — nobody is talking about cutting taxes in Washington. All we’re talking about is whether we’re going to raise taxes on some Americans or whether we’re going to allow Congress and the House and the Senate to have a fair up or down vote on extending all the current tax rates. We’re arguing that that ought to be permanent, but you know let’s let the House and the Senate work their will. Let’s bring the DeMint/Pence bill to the floor and let’s get on with it. And I like our chances. If we can get a vote on the floor, I think we could extend all these tax rates for the American people. KING: Let me try to quickly get through a couple of other issues. I know Congressman Pence you have a vote you need to get to. The military brass, Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen and some others came up to the Senate side today and said they believe the conditions are now in place and they have a detailed study that makes them confident it’s time to repeal don’t ask don’t tell. Senator DeMint, to you first. A good idea? DEMINT: No I don’t think it’s a good idea. As you know gays can serve mountain military now. The studies I’ve seen, the generals I’ve talked to who were free to express their opinions are saying this would be bad for morale, it would be an adjustment that’s not necessary. Let’s allow people to serve unless they want to make an issue of their sexuality. The military says that’s not a good idea. This is not a good idea to come in and make a change like this. Morale is at an all-time high in the military and stretched thin. This is a political move and has nothing to do with the security of our country. We need to take that off the table. KING: You in the same place, Congressman? PENCE: I really am. Number one, there’s no higher priority for the national government than to provide for the common defense. We ought not to use the American military as a backdrop for social experimentation or debating domestic policy issues. The focus ought to be on readiness, it ought to be on recruitment, it ought to be on retention, unite cohesion. I have to tell you, John, what I heard when I was in Afghanistan about a week ago, I was in a mess hall. I sat down completely unscripted conversation with about a dozen different soldiers on the front lines in operation enduring freedom. There were Democrats at the table, Republicans at the table. To my memory every single combat soldier said, go back to Congress and tell them don’t do this. When you look at that pentagon study, there’s a difference between the opinions expressed in that survey by people that are down range in combat versus other people serving in different roles in the military. So I don’t believe the time has come to repeal don’t ask don’t tell. I really believe our soldiers that are at the tip of the spear know that. We ought to put their interests and the interests of our national security first. KING: One last quick one here. Senator DeMint, your conservative PAC sent out an e-mail targeting Democrats who refused to vote to ban earmarks who ewer on the ballot in 2012. Saying this about them, “These senators are nice folks but they’ve ignored the will of the American people and they must be replaced with principled conservatives in 2012.” The email targeted Democrats but as you know a number of Republicans refused to vote to ban earmarks. Let me focus on one of them, Dick Luger is on the ballot in 2012 from Indiana. Would you target him as well? Does he need to be replaced by a principled conservative? DEMINT: I’ve let Dick know I’m going to keep my focus on Democrats, because compared to the Democrats every Republican in the Senate is a conservative. I think you’re going to see a lot of these Republicans who are continuing to stress taking home the bacon, they’re going to have primaries. John Koran our chairman of the Senate committee has warned them to expect the primaries. I’m their least worry right now. I think you’ll see Americans continue to keep the pressure on parochial spending. KING: Senator, you’ve told me in the past you’re not running for president in 2012. What about the guy standing next to you. He’s making moves and he might run for the Republican nomination. What do you think? DEMINT: I think he might make a good president, so we need to keep our eye on him. KING: Congressman Pence, I know you have a vote. We’ll keep our eyes on him. Thank you for your time.

Continue reading …

The unemployment rate jumped to a seasonally adjusted 9.8% in November and only 39,000 seasonally adjusted jobs were added during the month, according to the Employment Situation Report released yesterday by Uncle Sam's Bureau of Labor Statistics. Although she at least recognized the report's negativity, Lucia Mutikani at Reuters seemed bent on downplaying its impact, even finding an “expert” who characterized the BLS's work as an “outlier” in her Friday evening write-up. Nobody's claiming the folks at BLS are perfect, but I cannot recall a time when an establishment press wire service reporter has questioned the Employment Situation Report's underlying validity. Despite its supposed lack of credibility, Ms. Mutikani still used the information provided as an excuse to insert a point about how it should cause Fed chief Ben Bernanke to continue the “money from nothing” enterprise euphemistically referred to as “quantitative easing.” Of special note was Ms. Mutikani's bizarre contention that the seasonal adjustment calculations might be flawed. Unfortunately for her, comparisons of actual results on the ground (i.e., the not seasonally adjusted numbers) to the seasonally adjusted numbers that resulted were consistent with November 2004, the last comparable year. This has not always been the case in the volatile economy of the past 2-1/2 years. Here are the first eight paragraphs from Ms. Mutikani's morose musings (bolds and number tags are mine): read more

Continue reading …
Rachel Maddow on Ronald Reagan’s Failed Trickle-Down Voodoo Economics

Rachel Maddow did an absolutely wonderful job dismantling the Republican talking points that Ronald Reagan’s “Voodoo Economics” or “trickle-down economics” worked, pointing out how the Republicans who keep coming on the air claiming that tax cuts for the rich benefit the “job creators” are full of a bunch of bullpucky. The people who end up primarily benefiting from these tax cuts are the rich, who as Rachel showed in the footage from when Reagan’s tax cuts first passed, spend more on luxury items they don’t even need, while the rest of us get to feel those economic benefits trickling down our heads in the form of something besides water. Now if we just had every pundit making things this clear to the American public instead of allowing the Republicans to come on the air and lie about “job creators” being taxed day… after day… after day… maybe… just maybe we’d have a less misinformed public. Sadly this segment on Rachel’s show isn’t required viewing for every citizen in the United States. Her charts and graphs about what’s happened to the incomes of the rich and the poor sadly are ones that we’re not seeing on any other broadcast as well. Pass this one on to your friends and neighbors. We need to be letting every member of Congress and President Obama know it’s not acceptable to see these tax cuts for the rich allowed to be extended at the expense of bankrupting our country or attempting to balance our budget on the backs of the working class and the poor. Kudos to Rachel for laying out the lies about tax cuts trickling down to the rest of us so plainly. UPDATE: Compare and contrast that to lying hack Pat Buchanan who appeared with “Democratic strategist” Peter Fenn on MSNBC today after the first two votes for a partial extension of the tax cuts failed. Click here to view this media

Continue reading …
The House Finally Passes The Child Nutrition Act

Photo: Ben+Sam Not a moment too soon the House passed The Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act just two days ago after it passed the Senate in August. This is long overdo as far as I’m concerned and just before the holiday season, it puts school nutrition and our kids on the front burner again. That’s not to say that disconcerting compromises didn’t make for a less than perfect bill, but getting

Continue reading …
Will Republican arrogance finally push Democrats to reform the filibuster?

Click here to view this media We’ve been rooting since the election for Senate Democrats to show some spine and reform the filibuster at the start of the coming session — Sen. Jeff Merkley, as we reported then, has been developing a plan that makes so much sense it’s almost certain never to make it through. Moreover, as with the public option and the economic stimulus package, we haven’t exactly been holding our collective breaths waiting for it to happen, given Democrats’ extensive history of evolving spines made of orange Jell-O. Now, however, it seems Republicans have so overplayed their hand in bullying Democrats around that they might actually force the Democrats to grow spines and do the job. Ezra Klein has the details : Mitch McConnell’s threat to filibuster literally everything Democrats want to do until Democrats and Republicans agree to a compromise on the Bush tax cuts can be read as a power play, but it can also be read as a dare: At this point, Republicans are sure that they can abuse the rules as much as they’d like and Democrats won’t dare do a thing about it. McConnell’s blanket filibuster now joins Richard Shelby’s blanket hold as the two most egregious acts of procedural brinkmanship in a Congress that’s been chock-full of rules-based obstruction. If there’s a wild card here, it’s Sen. Jeff Merkley and the other Democrats who’ve been agitating for rules reform for well over a year now. Today, Merkley released his proposal (pdf), and it’s a detailed, thoughtful and supportable package of reforms — even for those who believe in the filibuster. You can read the whole memo here (PDF – 101.98 KB) . As we noted before, the beauty of the Merkley plan is that it preserves the filibuster but makes it so it actually in practice is what it was intended to be: a last resort of a determined minority willing to stake its members’ precious time and resources to make it happen, instead of an easy way to halt any kind of deliberation with a simple check-off, as is the case now. As Ezra notes: This is filibuster reform that even the filibuster’s supporters can love: It focuses the practice on the tradition of debate and discussion that Senate traditionalists consider to be the institution’s indispensable trait. Even so, a few days ago, I would’ve told you it didn’t have a chance, as there’d be no energy to look at the rules again. But McConnell’s announcement of a blanket filibuster that’s meant to stop the Senate from debating legislation rather than ensure that all sides have time to be heard may be just the push the traditionalists needed. Greg Sargent noted that making the change will not require a filibuster-proof majority : Merkley’s office believes such a change to the rules could be accomplished with a simple majority vote in the Senate, and Merkley will be pushing colleagues to join his effort to make such a vote happen at the outset of the new session in January. Sen. Merkley was on Rachel Maddow’s show the other night to explain. Heather has the transcript here.

Continue reading …
Chris Matthews: ‘Right-wing Press Played Up Rangel Censure,’ Left More Compassionate to GOP Wrongdoers

Chris Matthews on Friday made the absurd claim the “compassionate” Left is too soft on Republican wrongdoers, and that by contrast the Right puts it's “heel into the back of the guy's head when he's down.” The “Hardball” host – with a straight face no less – said this to guests Ron Reagan and Politico's Roger Simon with reference to how the “right-wing press played up [Charlie] Rangel's censure” (video follows with transcript and commentary): read more

Continue reading …