DOWNLOADS: (675)

PLAYS: (3006)

Embed

Tom Delay thinks Jim Bunning is "brave." (But then, this is the same man who said, "By the way, there's no one denied health care in America. There are 47 million people who don't have health insurance, but no American is denied health care in America.")

Like most Republicans, he thinks you should be desperate enough to take any job you can get, even if it doesn't begin to meet your family's basic needs - especially the dignity-free, low-wage, low-security jobs so beloved of top Republican donors:

Appearing on CNN's "State of the Union," the Texas Republican said that Bunning's fiscal responsibility was commendable, even if his shenanigans (refusing to allow unemployment benefits to be considered by unanimous consent) nearly brought the Senate to a halt.

"Nothing would have happened if the Democrats had just paid for [the benefits]," Delay said. "People would have gotten their unemployment compensation. I think Bunning was brave in standing up there and taking it on by himself."

Asked whether it was bad strategy to make a budget stand on a $10 billion extension of unemployment (as opposed to, say, the Bush's $720 billion prescription drug package), Delay insisted that if the PR had been done right, Bunning would have been applauded. Helping the unemployed with federal assistance, he said, was unsound policy.

"You know," Delay said, "there is an argument to be made that these extensions, the unemployment benefits keeps people from going and finding jobs. In fact there are some studies that have been done that show people stay on unemployment compensation and they don't look for a job until two or three weeks before they know the benefits are going to run out.

Host Candy Crowley: Congressman, that's a hard sell, isn't it?

Delay: it's the truth.

DOWNLOADS: (1727)

PLAYS: (5187)

Embed

I went to the Arlen Specter/Joe Sestak Q&A panel today at Netroots Nation that was led by our own Susie Madrak. Specter answered questions about why we should trust him since he switched parties and he made his case. He's a skilled politician and did a pretty good job trying to defend his lefty creds. We didn't act like the Beckerwocky teabaggers do and he was treated with dignity, even if most of the audience supports Joe.

When he was questioned about Chuck Grassley's ""We should not have a government program that determines if you're going to pull the plug on grandma" he adamantly said Grassley was wrong and he said he would speak to him later today. I yelled out "call him now!" and several other audience members also yelled the same thing. I waved my phone and said, "You can use my cell phone!" He said he would call him right away.

I followed him to the back of the arena and a bunch of us surrounded him as he made good on his promise. He tried to reach Grassley, but got no answer. As he was leaving, I was able to ask Specter if President Obama should kick Grassley out of the negotiating position he has for spreading egregious statements and falsehoods about health care.

Specter said that we shouldn't kick Grassley out of the Finance committee because senators are wrong at times, but he promised to stay after Grassley. I think Obama should have Baucus kick him out of the negotiating process because he's violated his duty by spreading lies about a health care bill he's trying to legislate over.

UPDATE:

John Amato: Senator, one more quick question. I'm John Amato of CrooksandLiars. Does Senator Grassley's irresponsible statements and the fact that he's on the committee that's negotiating for this health care bill, doesn't that disqualify him, in other words, shouldn't Obama say, why should I even have him at the table if he's going to make such outrageous statements?

Specter: Does it disqualify him, no. When he made that statement, it's wrong. If you disqualified every Senator who is wrong about something, there wouldn't be any Senators.OK?..

Well, now Specter and Grassley are involved in a Twitter war:

Well, Grassley never picked up. So Specter tweeted all about it.

And Grassley is not pleased.

And in a narrow sense, Grassley's right. He didn't use the term "death boards" or "death panels." He said "There is some fear because in the House bill, there is counseling for end-of-life. And from that standpoint, you have every right to fear.... We should not have a government program that determines if you're going to pull the plug on grandma."

But in the broader sense, Specter's got Grassley pegged.

Citizen journalism rocks! We proved that once again.

DOWNLOADS: (1041)

PLAYS: (2383)

Embed

Think Progress has more:

Earlier this week, New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote about how “the dignity code” has been “completely obliterated” in Washington, DC. Discussing the concept on MSNBC today, Brooks recalled how he “sat next to a Republican senator once at dinner and he had his hand on my inner thigh the whole time”:

BROOKS: You know, all three of us spend a lot of time covering politicians and I don’t know about you guys, but in my view, they’re all emotional freaks of one sort or another. They’re guaranteed to invade your personal space, touch you. I sat next to a Republican senator once at dinner and he had his hand on my inner thigh the whole time. I was like, ehh, get me out of here.

This is one of those bizarre moments that pop up on your teevee, and the fact that it's being delivered by a true wanker like David Brooks takes it up a few notches on the creepy scale. I understand a pundit's disdain for some of the people they cover, but Brooks really shows some underlying hostility issues here. Perhaps a little TMI, David...

I know Bill Kristol just loves the word "serious" whenever he talks about foreign policy so I wonder if he'll back up the Speaker on this one?

Pelosi: "I think what the President did in that regard was beneath the dignity of the office of the president and unworthy of our representation at that observance in Israel. And I would hope that any serious person would disassociate himself from the President's remarks who aspires to leadership in our country."

This Thursday is " The World Can't Wait" (to end the Bush Regime) Day. Find a protest rally in your area and go.

Last Left before Hooterville : This AA member is not buying Foley's "but I'm in rehab" excuse, then again, Foley's "best instincts" told him to diss Colbert and Katherine Harris. How could he then be such an "idiot of epic proportions " when it comes to instant messaging?

Pandagon : Don't tell them the CIA trained Bin Laden

Pinko Feminist Hellcat: Rights, Access, and Dignity

Liberal Avenger : Rightblogistan Meltdown?

Off the Beaten Path, "walked into a bar joke" edition: The princess, a doctor, a pirate, a Quaker, and a librarian. Guest round up by Blue Gal

Greenwald: At some point, even the most obsequious members of Congress are going to be moved by their own personal dignity into taking a real stand. Speaking of which, the Pat Roberts-loving Wichita Eagle editorialized yesterday as follows:

What's bothering many, though, is that Roberts seems prepared to write the Bush team a series of blank checks to conduct the war on terror, even to the point of ignoring policy mistakes and possible violations of law.

That's not oversight -- it's looking the other way.

There sure is a lot of public infighting in the previously dissent-free Republican family over this scandal, and that infighting only seems to be getting worse...read on

Jeralyn has the latest on this breaking topic...

Regardless if they did do time or not ( hopefully they "do"), they're finished and most likely the GOP will suffer a great fall in 2006. How can Bush's White House survive this scandal? Didn't he run on the " I'll bring dignity back to the White House" cliche?

via The Nation: ..."During an August 1998 episode of the show, Turner reminded Hannity that were it not for the graciousness of the white man, "black people would still be swinging on trees in Africa," according to Daryle Jenkins, co-founder of the New Jersey-based antiracism group One People's Project. Instead of rebuking Turner or cutting him off, Hannity continued to welcome his calls....

Jenkins told me that while he and a group of antiracism activists demonstrated against a July 17, 2003, National Alliance meeting in Elmwood Park, New Jersey, which Turner attended, he encountered Turner and asked him about his relationship with Hannity. Turner claimed that he and Hannity would talk by phone and even recounted that Hannity had once invited him and his son on to the set of Hannity and Colmes. "In my view," says Jenkins, "I think Hannity has helped Turner out quite a bit. I'm willing to bet most of the conversations they had consisted of them talking shop." ...read on

Sean... are you embarrassed by your active participation in the life of a racist, Neo-Natzi, judge hating animal? Can you look into the camera and tell all of America you now denounce your association with this man that you yourself allowed to grow and flourish for years on end? Would you care to explain why this relationship even existed knowing the type of man Hal Turner is in the first place? Aren't you the least bit ashamed? Do you have any moral dignity at all? Isn't this the type of behavior that personifies the Republican Party? (Just testing my Hannity interview skills.)

",0] ); D(["ce"]); D(["ms","5eda"] ); //-->

from Andrew Sullivan

CNN finds a clear victory for Kerry in their insta-poll, 53 - 39. CBS gives it to Kerry as well: 39 - 25, with 36 calling it a tie. In ABCNews' poll, you get a 42-41 tie, but the poll is slanted toward Republicans, giving Kerry an edge. Critically, independents went for Kerry 42 - 35 percent. If these numbers hold, and the impression solidifies that Kerry won all three debates, Bush's troubles just got a lot worse.

Andrew Sullivan on the gay issue:

And Sully says: I keep getting emails asserting that Kerry's mentioning of Mary Cheney is somehow offensive or gratuitous or a "low blow". Huh? Mary Cheney is out of the closet and a member, with her partner, of the vice-president's family. That's a public fact. No one's privacy is being invaded by mentioning this. When Kerry cites Bush's wife or daughters, no one says it's a "low blow." The double standards are entirely a function of people's lingering prejudice against gay people. And by mentioning it, Kerry showed something important. This issue is not an abstract one. It's a concrete, human and real one. It affects many families, and Bush has decided to use this cynically as a divisive weapon in an election campaign. He deserves to be held to account for this - and how much more effective than showing a real person whose relationship and dignity he has attacked and minimized? Does this makes Bush's base uncomfortable? Well, good. It's about time they were made uncomfortable in their acquiescence to discrimination. Does it make Bush uncomfortable? Even better. His decision to bar gay couples from having any protections for their relationships in the constitution is not just a direct attack on the family member of the vice-president. It's an attack on all families with gay members - and on the family as an institution. That's a central issue in this campaign, a key indictment of Bush's record and more than relevant to any debate. For four years, this president has tried to make gay people invisible, to avoid any mention of us, to pretend we don't exist. Well, we do. Right in front of him.