So the Wisconsin Senate has ordered the arrest of the Senate Democrats: Senate Republicans Thursday ordered the arrest of their 14 Democratic colleagues, who fled the state two weeks ago to avoid a vote on Gov. Scott Walker’s controversial budget repair bill. It’s unclear whether the resolution to force the senators back to the Capitol is constitutional. The state Constitution p rohibits the arrest of legislators while in session unless they’re suspected of committing felonies, treason or breach of the peace. Democrats say the Republicans have overreached, and have consulted an attorney for an opinion on whether the GOP actions are legal. “The Republicans have gone around the bend,” said Sen. Chris Larson, D-Milwaukee. “They’ve just increased their bullying tactics and are producing an even greater divide in our state.” James Troupis, a private attorney hired by Fitzgerald, contended Thursday that the move is legal. He cited a portion of the state Constitution that provides that each house “may compel the attendance of absent members.” But Wisconsin police are saying they won’t and can’t enforce this. I am so used to authoritarian cops who don’t give a damn about anyone else’s rights that I’m deeply impressed by the Wisconsin cops who are refusing to allow themselves to be used against the governor’s political opponents. Let’s hear it for Jim Palmer! Wow. Let’s hear it for the Wisconsin Professional Police Association. Today the organization slammed Senate Republicans after they ordered the detention of 14 Democratic Senators staying in Illinois “with or without force.” Here’s the statement by these defenders of civil liberties and democracy: Politics aside, encouraging the forcible detention of duly elected lawmakers because they won’t allow you to dictate with a free hand is an unreasonable abuse of police power,” said WPPA Executive Director Jim Palmer. “Due to the fact that Wisconsin officers lack any jurisdiction across state lines, does Senator Fitzgerald intend to establish a ‘lawmaker border patrol? The thought of using law enforcement officers to exercise force in order to achieve a political objective is insanely wrong and Wisconsin sorely needs reasonable solutions and not potentially dangerous political theatrics.
Continue reading …MSNBC's Martin Bashir has only been on the job for a few days, but the newly-minted anchor is already letting his liberal flag fly. On his eponymous program today, Bashir was dumbfounded as to why Congress is reluctant to hike taxes on the rich and end tax deductions for oil companies. “Why won't Congress simply do what the people want?” lamented Bashir, interviewing Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the independent socialist lawmaker who caucuses with Democrats. Bashir cherry-picked the findings of one poll to imply that Sanders's left-wing economic views – which include a single-payer health care system – enjoy national support, yet the former ABC anchor failed to identify the self-described socialist senator's political leanings. While it is true the NBC-Wall Street Journal poll found that a vast majority of Americans support ending tax deductions for oil companies and still more support a surtax on people earning more than $1 million per year, the poll found popular support for several other issues that Bashir neglected to mention: 56 percent of Americans believe the Social Security retirement age should be raised, 62 percent support means-testing for Medicare, and 51 percent support nixing funding for the Obama health care overhaul, just to name a few. In case his adulation for Sanders was in doubt, a bubbly Bashir concluded the interview on a sycophantic note: “Senator Bernie Sanders, as ever provocative and insightful, thank you very much for joining us.” Given that the majority of Americans don't even support the Obama health care overhaul, let alone a national single-payer system, Bashir's choice of Sanders as the bellwether of popular sentiment is bizarre at best and irresponsible at worst. For an archive of Bashir's bias — including his smears of Sheriff Joe Arpaio and biased treatment of a small Catholic town in Florida — click here . And to find out which Florida town Bashir referred to as the “Catholic Jonestown” and “Catholic Iran,” click here . A transcript of the relevant portions of the segment can be found below: MSNBC Martin Bashir March 3, 2011 3:32 p.m. EST MARTIN BASHIR: What you just said almost mirrors our new NBC-Wall Street Journal poll. When asked about the best way to reduce the deficit, a full 80 percent of Americans favor a surtax on those earning more than $1 million. 78 percent said eliminate earmarks. 76 percent want to eliminate defense projects the Pentagon says it doesn't need, sorry the Pentagon says it doesn't need. And 74 percent said it's time to end subsidies for oil and gas companies. Why won't Congress simply do what the people want? Sen. BERNIE SANDERS (I-Vt.) : Well what can I tell you? This senator believes absolutely – and I saw that poll – the most significant point you made, the highest percentage is people saying “look, the rich are getting richer.” Why are you going to cut programs that the middle class and working families need. Ask these families to start paying their fair share. The effective tax rate today of the wealthiest people in this country is lower than it's ever been in recorded history in our country. So that's the obvious solution. So you ask me why? Well you know the answer to that. Who do you think controls the Republican Party? Big money controls the Republican Party. This is where their campaign contributions come from. So if I have anything to say about it, I'm going to do everything I can to see the Democratic caucus come forward and say “yeah, we do need to make some cuts.” I think there are programs that could be cut, but bottom line is not to ask the wealthiest people in the country to pay their fair share after they received huge amounts of tax breaks is insane. What the Republicans are saying is way outside of what the average American believes. –Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.
Continue reading …Yesterday the National Healthy Start Association, which assists communities with high incidences of infant mortality, announced Rep. Raúl Grijalva will receive its 2011 Congressional Leadership Award. In acknowledging being singled out– along with Jim Clyburn (D-SC) and John Yarmuth (D-KY)– Grijalva explained that he’s “deeply touched by this honor, which recognizes only what I believe is my duty to Southern Arizona. Reducing infant mortality is the furthest thing from a partisan issue, and I’ve been proud to support Healthy Start’s mission since coming to Congress. I look forward to receiving this award in person and will continue to do all I can to raise awareness of Healthy Start’s successful and necessary work.” Raúl represents a chunk of southern Arizona that includes Pima, Pinal, Yuma, Maricopa and Santa Cruz counties. And, as co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, he is also our congressman and the congressman for all working families in America who don’t have what it takes to hire lobbyists and bribe congressman. We’re very proud to welcome him back here to Crooks and Liars today for another Blue America live session. The chat starts at 4pm (ET– 1pm, here on the West Coast). Watch the video above that Grijalva asked me to post. It isn’t about him. Its about the fight he’s helping to lead to preserve our country for the middle class rather than just let conservatives take over and turn back the clock to a time when it was a country run by the rich for the rich, a time we’re precariously close to again. “We understand we have issues to deal with in terms of the budget, but they should not be on the backs of working people. We should not rob them of their fundamental right to bargain collectively and be able to make their lives in the workplace and their homes better… Congress,” he told me Tuesday afternoon after the vote on Boehner and Ryan’s budget resolution, “is taking away money for agencies like this [job training], and I don’t understand the logic. How is this country going to get out of the economic situation we are in if we don’t have people prepared?” In joining most progressives to oppose the resolution this week, Grijalva pointed out that “reducing our national debt shouldn’t be about inflicting the most pain on the biggest number of people for no good reason. This is an ideological bill that slashes government programs Republicans don’t like– there’s nothing thoughtful or considered about how they did the job. Southern Arizona, and the entire country, will be hurting badly if this bill becomes law, and voters should understand what’s being done in their name before this goes any further.” This is the kind of analysis we get from so few Democrats. Fortunately one who “gets it” is joining us today for a free-ranging discussion at 11am (Crooks and Liars); please come by. And if you’d like to help make sure Grijalva is reelected in 2012… you can do it here .
Continue reading …We're headed toward seven years since Dan Rather disgraced himself by running a story based on phony Texas Air National Guard documents to ruin George W. Bush on behalf of that “war hero” John Kerry. Despite the liberal media's acknowledgment that Rather misled the public, he has relentlessly presented himself as a pillar of truth and probity. Rather spoke on Tuesday night at the Newseum in Washington, DC to questions from Nick (Father of George) Clooney. Katy Adams and Nikki Schwab of the Washington Examiner's Yeas & Nays column reported Rather thinks he's the teller of uncomfortable truths, and the people objecting to phony documents are somehow the falsifiers and fantasists: Clooney did take on the elephant in the room, though — Rather’s resignation from CBS News in 2005 for using bogus documents in a story about former President George W. Bush’s National Guard service. “We reported a story that was true, that was an uncomfortable truth for a lot of people,” Rather said. “As a result to that I was asked to leave the anchor chair, and eventually CBS News.” While the Examiner offered credit to Clooney, it should be noted that Clooney and the folks who run the Newseum are undercutting their own reputations for media ethics and credibility by honoring Rather with this kind of invitation. Every institution that invites Rather to speak as if he were a TV legend instead of an older, whiter version of Jayson Blair brings discredit on themselves. The Examiner gossips were asking him who he watches on TV (a tricky question full of potential for dissing colleagues), but he wouldn't do that. He even refrained from whacking Fox News: “Well my answer is not one that will please you,” he said. “I like almost everybody on TV. I think the quality of the work, particularly the on-air talent, is quite good,” he said. He even paid a compliment to the Fox News Channel. “Give Fox News credit, which a lot of people don’t want to do for various reasons, that they program quite well in the prime time period and they reap the benefits of that.” Do you like Fox News? “I like them all.” Also: Fishbowl DC reported Rather said at the same event that news is a “crude art form.” It's especially crude as he and Mary Mapes fashioned it.
Continue reading …Amr Moussa is very popular with Egyptians and is ready to stand. The problem is, he’s part of a discredited past After years in the political wilderness heading up the glorified talking shop known as the Arab League, Amr Moussa is back on the national scene in Egypt. Following weeks of public speculation and private deliberation, the popular and charismatic one-time foreign minister has announced his intention to run for Egypt’s recently vacated top job. “I am ready to nominate myself for the presidency. I see this as a duty and a responsibility,” he told the independent Egyptian daily al-Masry al-Youm . Long slated as a possible replacement for Hosni Mubarak by opposition figures seeking a bridge to democracy, Moussa’s candidacy seems to chime with the public mood. A recent poll revealed that almost half of Egyptians support the idea of him becoming Egypt’s next president. Although the vast majority of Egyptians aspire to transparency and good governance, the instability of recent weeks has created a certain amount of anxiety and apprehension, leading many to cite their immediate priorities as being “political stability” and “security for the masses”. And as my wife argued in a debate in which I expressed my doubts about Moussa’s credentials, the Arab League chief and former foreign minister could well be the best candidate to engineer a stable transition to democracy. Although he is a member of the old guard, Moussa somehow kept himself immune to the rampant corruption and rot which surrounded him, and his decade at the Arab League has kept him at a safe distance from one of the most unpopular governments in Egypt’s recent history, the so-called “businessmen’s cabinet” of ousted prime minister Ahmed Nazif .. During his decade-long tenure as foreign minister (1991-2001), Moussa was indisputably the most popular politician in Egypt and he was even described by Time magazine as “perhaps the most adored public servant in the Arab world”. And in a country where public servants act like masters and are generally despised, being popular is a rare commodity indeed. So rare, in fact, that many Egyptians strongly believe Amr Moussa was “kicked upstairs” to the Arab League by Mubarak who was envious of and feared his popularity. On a personal level, Moussa exudes charisma and gravitas, as I experienced on the one occasion I was in the same room as him, and has both the refinement of the polished career diplomat and a natural “common touch” – two hugely important ingredients for success, according to Rudyard Kipling . As foreign minister, he was admired for his dexterous management of Egypt’s international relations, particularly with the Arab world, and his perceived straight talking on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Despite his obvious strengths, I cannot help but conclude that Moussa’s weaknesses are far more troubling. Although he never personally indulged in the excesses of the former regime, he has been and remains a Mubarak loyalist. While opposition figures have risked life and limb, or at least their reputations and security, to push for reform, Moussa has never openly criticised the old regime nor was he involved in any meaningful manner in the revolution. During the 18 days it took to topple Mubarak, Moussa sounded more like Catherine Ashton expressing the EU’s dithering position when he urged all sides “to show restraint”, rather than a possible people’s choice as their future leader. Moussa as president could well provide the stable bridge to democracy that his supporters desire, and he has reassuringly suggested that he would only serve a single term: “The coming president of Egypt, whoever he is, must, in my opinion, stay for one term only … to lead the process of reform and put the country on the road to stability.” Nevertheless, there is the chance, though he is not popular with the army, that his popularity with the people and loyalty to the past would be used by the military to provide a democratic facade without real democracy. Personally, I would back Amr Moussa as transitional president if the presidency was stripped of its power and transformed into a ceremonial position to provide Egypt with a unifying figure during its democratic transformation and a recognisable face to the outside world. But Moussa himself is opposed to Egypt becoming a full parliamentary democracy, at least for the time being. Well, if not Amr Moussa, then who? Other names doing the rounds include former IAEA chief Mohamed Elbardei and the head of the al-Ghad party Ayman Nour . Though neither are popular candidates according to the poll cited above, Elbaradei has the advantage of being a non-partisan figure around whom the opposition have rallied, especially prior to the revolution, while Nour is young and has the credibility of having been at the forefront of Egypt’s struggle for democracy which landed him in jail for having dared to run against Mubarak in the 2005 elections. On the downside, after decades walking the corridors of international diplomacy, Elbardei is something of a “Johnny-come-lately”, while many Egyptians fear that Nour and his liberal party will continue the neoliberal economic policies that have aggravated inequalities in Egypt. Who will become Egypt’s next president will, hopefully, be for all Egyptians to decide later this year. But with the range of established political figures being so uninspiring and in the spirit of the fundamental change awakened by the revolution, the conditions for running should be so eased that the young leaders of the revolution and even unknown citizens with well thought out platforms can run and perhaps become the next president. Some view the absence of clear presidential candidates as a problem which, at some levels, it is. But if Egyptians choose someone to lead them who is not part of the political class, then they may just create a true “government of the people, by the people, for the people” – and perhaps even reinvent democracy itself . Egypt Arab and Middle East protests Middle East Protest Khaled Diab guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Click here to view this media This was quite the wild exchange on Fox News yesterday morning. Anthony Weiner makes the argument that Clarence Thomas should recuse himself from all court decisions that are related to the new health-care law since his wife made over $700K from groups that oppose it, and Thomas himself has stated that he agrees with those groups, basically indicating that he’s already ruled before the evidence has been presented. Weiner’s argument is that when money is involved it taints that Justice. That’s a very good point — one that Fox talkers would be shouting from the rooftops if the subject were a “liberal” justice. Megyn Kelly, however, argues that since Ginny’s a lobbyist, that’s not grounds for Clarence to have to withdraw from cases. Weiner doesn’t let her off the hook, so she resorts to the BillO Interruption technique to cut him off when he told her that Justice Kagan has recused herself on almost half of her cases on the Supreme Court to teach her how that could work. Kelly wasn’t happy. KELLY: just, just, let, let… WEINER: First, let me respond to your points. KELLY: No, I’m responding to you, sir. You mentioned Justice Kagan and I’m pointing out that she was the Solicitor general. WEINER: No, you made a mistake. You made a mistake KELLY: Let me tell you sir, let me tell you…You know you’re throwing everything at me so I can’t offer any … WEINER: No, I get an opportunity so let me respond to your question. KELLY: What don’t you just do a soliloquy? OK, you just take it away. WEINER: OK, this is the way interviews work. You ask the question and I get to answer. KELLY: Oh, thank you. WEINER: When you put your commentaries at the end they better be factually correct and in this case they aren’t — KELLY: Was she or was she not the Solicitor General of the US? WEINER: That’s not the part I’m taking exception to. KELLY: I covered that. WEINER: No, you said she had to — yeah, I’m not sure what really goes on at Fox that’s actually coverage, but we’ll get to — that’s another conversation. KELLY: OK, OK. It continued on from there. I almost felt bad for her in a way because Megyn had to turn to the “Clarence and Ginny believe in liberty defense. Nah, not at all. Way to go Anthony! [H/t emailer Ron]
Continue reading …Click here to view this media This was quite the wild exchange on Fox News yesterday morning. Anthony Weiner makes the argument that Clarence Thomas should recuse himself from all court decisions that are related to the new health-care law since his wife made over $700K from groups that oppose it, and Thomas himself has stated that he agrees with those groups, basically indicating that he’s already ruled before the evidence has been presented. Weiner’s argument is that when money is involved it taints that Justice. That’s a very good point — one that Fox talkers would be shouting from the rooftops if the subject were a “liberal” justice. Megyn Kelly, however, argues that since Ginny’s a lobbyist, that’s not grounds for Clarence to have to withdraw from cases. Weiner doesn’t let her off the hook, so she resorts to the BillO Interruption technique to cut him off when he told her that Justice Kagan has recused herself on almost half of her cases on the Supreme Court to teach her how that could work. Kelly wasn’t happy. KELLY: just, just, let, let… WEINER: First, let me respond to your points. KELLY: No, I’m responding to you, sir. You mentioned Justice Kagan and I’m pointing out that she was the Solicitor general. WEINER: No, you made a mistake. You made a mistake KELLY: Let me tell you sir, let me tell you…You know you’re throwing everything at me so I can’t offer any … WEINER: No, I get an opportunity so let me respond to your question. KELLY: What don’t you just do a soliloquy? OK, you just take it away. WEINER: OK, this is the way interviews work. You ask the question and I get to answer. KELLY: Oh, thank you. WEINER: When you put your commentaries at the end they better be factually correct and in this case they aren’t — KELLY: Was she or was she not the Solicitor General of the US? WEINER: That’s not the part I’m taking exception to. KELLY: I covered that. WEINER: No, you said she had to — yeah, I’m not sure what really goes on at Fox that’s actually coverage, but we’ll get to — that’s another conversation. KELLY: OK, OK. It continued on from there. I almost felt bad for her in a way because Megyn had to turn to the “Clarence and Ginny believe in liberty defense. Nah, not at all. Way to go Anthony! [H/t emailer Ron]
Continue reading …Click here to view this media This was quite the wild exchange on Fox News yesterday morning. Anthony Weiner makes the argument that Clarence Thomas should recuse himself from all court decisions that are related to the new health-care law since his wife made over $700K from groups that oppose it, and Thomas himself has stated that he agrees with those groups, basically indicating that he’s already ruled before the evidence has been presented. Weiner’s argument is that when money is involved it taints that Justice. That’s a very good point — one that Fox talkers would be shouting from the rooftops if the subject were a “liberal” justice. Megyn Kelly, however, argues that since Ginny’s a lobbyist, that’s not grounds for Clarence to have to withdraw from cases. Weiner doesn’t let her off the hook, so she resorts to the BillO Interruption technique to cut him off when he told her that Justice Kagan has recused herself on almost half of her cases on the Supreme Court to teach her how that could work. Kelly wasn’t happy. KELLY: just, just, let, let… WEINER: First, let me respond to your points. KELLY: No, I’m responding to you, sir. You mentioned Justice Kagan and I’m pointing out that she was the Solicitor general. WEINER: No, you made a mistake. You made a mistake KELLY: Let me tell you sir, let me tell you…You know you’re throwing everything at me so I can’t offer any … WEINER: No, I get an opportunity so let me respond to your question. KELLY: What don’t you just do a soliloquy? OK, you just take it away. WEINER: OK, this is the way interviews work. You ask the question and I get to answer. KELLY: Oh, thank you. WEINER: When you put your commentaries at the end they better be factually correct and in this case they aren’t — KELLY: Was she or was she not the Solicitor General of the US? WEINER: That’s not the part I’m taking exception to. KELLY: I covered that. WEINER: No, you said she had to — yeah, I’m not sure what really goes on at Fox that’s actually coverage, but we’ll get to — that’s another conversation. KELLY: OK, OK. It continued on from there. I almost felt bad for her in a way because Megyn had to turn to the “Clarence and Ginny believe in liberty defense. Nah, not at all. Way to go Anthony! [H/t emailer Ron]
Continue reading …Click here to view this media This was quite the wild exchange on Fox News yesterday morning. Anthony Weiner makes the argument that Clarence Thomas should recuse himself from all court decisions that are related to the new health-care law since his wife made over $700K from groups that oppose it, and Thomas himself has stated that he agrees with those groups, basically indicating that he’s already ruled before the evidence has been presented. Weiner’s argument is that when money is involved it taints that Justice. That’s a very good point — one that Fox talkers would be shouting from the rooftops if the subject were a “liberal” justice. Megyn Kelly, however, argues that since Ginny’s a lobbyist, that’s not grounds for Clarence to have to withdraw from cases. Weiner doesn’t let her off the hook, so she resorts to the BillO Interruption technique to cut him off when he told her that Justice Kagan has recused herself on almost half of her cases on the Supreme Court to teach her how that could work. Kelly wasn’t happy. KELLY: just, just, let, let… WEINER: First, let me respond to your points. KELLY: No, I’m responding to you, sir. You mentioned Justice Kagan and I’m pointing out that she was the Solicitor general. WEINER: No, you made a mistake. You made a mistake KELLY: Let me tell you sir, let me tell you…You know you’re throwing everything at me so I can’t offer any … WEINER: No, I get an opportunity so let me respond to your question. KELLY: What don’t you just do a soliloquy? OK, you just take it away. WEINER: OK, this is the way interviews work. You ask the question and I get to answer. KELLY: Oh, thank you. WEINER: When you put your commentaries at the end they better be factually correct and in this case they aren’t — KELLY: Was she or was she not the Solicitor General of the US? WEINER: That’s not the part I’m taking exception to. KELLY: I covered that. WEINER: No, you said she had to — yeah, I’m not sure what really goes on at Fox that’s actually coverage, but we’ll get to — that’s another conversation. KELLY: OK, OK. It continued on from there. I almost felt bad for her in a way because Megyn had to turn to the “Clarence and Ginny believe in liberty defense. Nah, not at all. Way to go Anthony! [H/t emailer Ron]
Continue reading …Click here to view this media This was quite the wild exchange on Fox News yesterday morning. Anthony Weiner makes the argument that Clarence Thomas should recuse himself from all court decisions that are related to the new health-care law since his wife made over $700K from groups that oppose it, and Thomas himself has stated that he agrees with those groups, basically indicating that he’s already ruled before the evidence has been presented. Weiner’s argument is that when money is involved it taints that Justice. That’s a very good point — one that Fox talkers would be shouting from the rooftops if the subject were a “liberal” justice. Megyn Kelly, however, argues that since Ginny’s a lobbyist, that’s not grounds for Clarence to have to withdraw from cases. Weiner doesn’t let her off the hook, so she resorts to the BillO Interruption technique to cut him off when he told her that Justice Kagan has recused herself on almost half of her cases on the Supreme Court to teach her how that could work. Kelly wasn’t happy. KELLY: just, just, let, let… WEINER: First, let me respond to your points. KELLY: No, I’m responding to you, sir. You mentioned Justice Kagan and I’m pointing out that she was the Solicitor general. WEINER: No, you made a mistake. You made a mistake KELLY: Let me tell you sir, let me tell you…You know you’re throwing everything at me so I can’t offer any … WEINER: No, I get an opportunity so let me respond to your question. KELLY: What don’t you just do a soliloquy? OK, you just take it away. WEINER: OK, this is the way interviews work. You ask the question and I get to answer. KELLY: Oh, thank you. WEINER: When you put your commentaries at the end they better be factually correct and in this case they aren’t — KELLY: Was she or was she not the Solicitor General of the US? WEINER: That’s not the part I’m taking exception to. KELLY: I covered that. WEINER: No, you said she had to — yeah, I’m not sure what really goes on at Fox that’s actually coverage, but we’ll get to — that’s another conversation. KELLY: OK, OK. It continued on from there. I almost felt bad for her in a way because Megyn had to turn to the “Clarence and Ginny believe in liberty defense. Nah, not at all. Way to go Anthony! [H/t emailer Ron]
Continue reading …