You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1430)

PLAYS: (2808)

From The Rachel Maddow Show Oct. 29, 2009. Rachel reports that Evan Bayh is now walking back from his comments made on CBS News and has released this statement:

Senator Bayh will support moving forward to a health care debate on the Senate floor, where he will work hard to address his concerns and craft affordable legislation that reduces the deficit and lowers health care costs for Indiana families and small businesses.

Maddow: In other words according to his office's statement today Sen. Bayh is now promising to allow the bill to come to the floor, but would he still like Lieberman filibuster the final vote with Republicans? Would he block a majority vote on the final bill and force his party to get sixty votes to pass health reform instead of fifty? Well, exclusively this afternoon Sen. Bayh told us this.

He told us that his position on health reform is not the same as Sen. Lieberman. Sen. Bayh told us it is extraordinarily unlikely that he would filibuster health reform. He said there is nothing in the bill he is aware of now that would cause him to vote to filibuster and he said that he currently "can't think of a set of circumstances under which he would vote against cloture.

What does this mean? It means that it's been a very big 24 hours for health reform. Sen. Bayh's statement as of 24 hours ago indicated that he had walked through the door that Joe Lieberman had opened--that he was willing to go even further than Joe Lieberman—not only willing to filibuster the final bill on health reform, but to filibuster any debate as well, both of those perceived threats from Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana have been walked way back. Which means that Joe Lieberman stands alone—Joe Lonely.

And round and round we go. Lieberman needs to be stripped of his chairmanship and as I said in my post yesterday, if Joe Lieberman wants to filibuster his own caucus, break out the cot and the diapers Joe.

First Draft: Malaka of the Week: Evan Bayh

The Brad Blog: The Rise of the Tea Bags

Fried Green al-Qaedas: Putting things in perspective

Pruning Shears: It isn't reform unless it gives Goldman an aneurysm

Raw Story: Pentagon officials won't confirm Bush propaganda program has ended

The Washington Independent: Wingnut smackdown: Birther lawsuit dismissed

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1978)

PLAYS: (5338)

Rachel Maddow talks to Glenn Greenwald about Joe Lieberman's threat to filibuster the health care bill if it contains a public option, Evan Bayh quickly following suit and the financial gain being made by both men and their spouses for doing so.

Maddow: Sen. Lieberman has made it very clear that he plans to oppose health reform that includes a public option. He’ll filibuster it in fact which would be historic. What do you think is motivating him?

Greenwald: Well I think you have to look first of all at a Research 2000 Daily KOS poll that was taken last month that shows that a margin of 68 to 21% of Connecticut voters, the people who he’s essentially representing, favor a public option. That’s a 47 point margin which is almost impossible to find on almost any other issue. So when you ask why he’s doing this, it’s clearly not because the people he’s supposed to be representing favor it.

I think clearly what it’s about is primarily that fact that the industry that he’s serving by doing this—by preventing competition with the public option—is an industry from which he receives very substantial benefits. He’s drowning in campaign contributions from the insurance industry, the health care industry, the pharmaceutical industry—more than $2.5 million.

In early 2005 his wife was hired by a large P.R. firm, Hill & Knowlton, in the pharmaceutical division, which at the time was representing the health care giant Glaxo in major legislation before the Senate. And several months later Joe Lieberman was on the floor of the Senate offering legislation that would directly steer huge amounts of incentives to that company in order to develop vaccines.

So I think what you’re seeing here is the kind of legalized corruption, legalized bribery that runs the United States Senate; only in this case it’s particularly sleazy and transparent because Lieberman is ready to gut the major initiative of the Democratic Party.

Continue reading »

Mugsy`s Rap Sheet: Conservative AHIP says Republican health care solution will do nothing to lower costs

Rick Ungar: Senator Evan Bayh - a wolf in sheep's clothing

The Mahablog: Help! They're Stealing My Home!

They gave us a republic: A GOP stall on all Health and Human Services nominees has left the department without a surgeon general during a period of a global flu pandemic, prompting the HHS secretary to call for Senate action.

Consortiumblog: How a torture protest killed a career

HOLY CRAP: Even Jesus' assassins need to eat...Crumb’s Genesis...Conversion anxiety...For goodness sake...Wake Up, America...GOP & Rapture Cult...Cosmic narcissism...Latter Day Liar...Once a molesting priest, now a Moonie...Grandma gambit...Take action...Badass sign

It's nice to hear some people are actually fighting for our interests. I was beginning to wonder if anyone was:

The forces in favor of a public health insurance option roared back Thursday on Capitol Hill after weeks when their cause looked bleak.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) looked closer than ever to including a robust U.S. government-run insurance program in the House bill — saying recent attempts by the health insurance industry to undercut reform prove insurers can’t be trusted.

And in the Senate, a weekly policy lunch turned into a heated debate when liberals went after the Senate Finance Committee bill and made clear they won’t roll over for legislation that doesn’t include a public option.

Reflecting deep divides within the caucus, the Senate luncheon turned tense, with voices elevated and senators venting. “In today’s lunch, it even involved a little performance theater,” Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) said, describing it as an “emotional catharsis.”

In a week when the Senate Finance Committee passed a bill without a public option — raising questions about whether that would prove the public option’s last gasp — progressives in both houses showed they won’t go down without a fight.

And Thursday proved that if President Barack Obama hoped the public option question would fade of its own accord, he probably won’t get that lucky — but will be forced to referee a compromise between liberals and moderates.

But in the House, moderates stand to suffer the most if Pelosi goes ahead with plans to include the most ambitious public option — forcing them into a tough vote that will surely be used by Republican opponents in 2010.

In the House, Pelosi told her rank and file Thursday that the time has come to “freeze the design,” meaning she wants unveil a completed House bill as early as next week.

Pelosi favors a public-option plan supported by liberals that reimburses doctors at rates that are 5 percent higher than Medicare — one of the strongest versions of the public option on the table.

Pelosi used the reports put out this week by the insurance lobby — which said reform would add thousands to family insurance premiums — to show the public needs some defense against the industry.

“Anyone who had any doubts about the need for such an option need only look at the behavior of the health insurance industry this week,” Pelosi said. “If you are going to mandate that people must buy insurance, why would you throw them into the lion’s den of the insurance industry without some leverage with a public option?”

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (95)

PLAYS: (208)

So where do Conserva-Dems retreat when they want to get their Republican "centrist" talking points out there on health care reform? Why Sean Hannity's show of course.

HANNITY: Senator, always good to have you. Thank you for being back with us. Appreciate it.

BAYH: Good to be back with you, Sean.

HANNITY: All right. Let's start a little bit with the House version and the House turmoil that's been unfolding all week here. First, we hear that there's a deal with the Blue Dogs, the more conservative Democrats. They you've got the liberal congressmen rebelling, and you've got turmoil here and you've got a president that really wanted to push this through in two weeks and hadn't read the bill.

As you stand back, what is one to make of this process?

BAYH: Well, to the average American, Washington probably looks a little chaotic, Sean. But the important thing here is that we take our time and get it right. This affects every American. And particularly those 65 percent who currently have insurance. We need to make sure that we try and keep their costs under control going forward.

That's what's bothering most people. And put into place some reforms that make sure they won't lose their insurance. If they lose their job or they've got a health care condition of some kind. So that's number one. Number two, get the deficit down. This has got to be a part of long-term fiscal responsibility. Not making it go up.

And third, we shouldn't hurt the economy in the short run and this has got to be part of a long-term strategy to make America more competitive. So, you know, all these shenanigans and going on, it's regrettably part of the process but matters, Sean, is we have to keep our eye on the ball and at the end of all this deliver a product that's good for America.

Continue reading »

We had great news yesterday as our Blue America ads against Senator Blanche Lincoln pushed her to shift positions and begin to talk about actually supporting a vibrant public option for health-care reform. She was a little fuzzy, but still stated a fundamentally different position than she had before the action.

Greg Sargent broke the story, and TPM weighed in as follows: Amid Pressure From Party Leaders And Reformers, Blanche Lincoln Now Open To A Public Option

The ads are running as we speak, so congratulations to all of you for helping make that possible. We're not done with Blanche, but we are having discussions to plot out our next move. I've been focused on the people involved in crafting the health-care reform legislation and the name Max Baucus comes to mind for me, but that doesn't mean we can't focus on somebody like Evan Bayh.

Howie Klein has more:

So where does that leave the Blue America community? Our first batch of TV spots started running all over Arkansas today. We're talking about putting the second wave on hold now that Lincoln (and Pryor) seem to be moving in the right direction. We'll re-assess in a week. Meanwhile, we're trying to decide what state our next target should be. Pennsylvania, where Republican-Democrat hybrid freak Arlen Specter take even more outrageous bribes from the Medical-Industrial Complex and Big Insurance than Lincoln and who is playing a devious behind the scenes role in trying to water down the effectiveness of a public option at the behest of his patrons?

Or how about Iowa, the home of Chuck Grassley, the Republican tasked by the Insurance Industry with being on the front line of offense against the entire concept of "robustness"in a public option. As ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee-- something he held onto rather than take on that position on the Judiciary Committee for the specific purpose of working with his pal Max Baucus to weaken any reform to the point of making it ineffective-- Grassley makes an excellent target of opportunity. He also has to face a politically well-educated voting base in a blue-trending state in 2010. Or maybe you have another suggestion? Let us know-- and, please, continue donating to the Campaign for Health Care Choice. We can make this work, one crooked senator at a time!

Anyway, we'd love to hear what you have to say. Maybe one of you can come up with an excellent action that we can take. We are all ears.

And don't forget to keep the funds rolling into Blue America's Campaign for Heath Care Choice. We're close to raising 25K and we'll need to reload to continue on.

Blue American’s Alan Grayson has been a maverick -- I mean the real kind -- since he was elected to Congress when nobody said he had a chance to win except of course Blue America. And he is becoming a real leader and not a follower. First, he’s trying to get a bill passed that really does help working-class America:

Howie Klein:

Alan is introducing a bill, the first in (American) history, that guarantees paid vacations. (France guarantees a month of paid vacation per year.)

The bill's provisions, which are expected to meet stiff opposition from Republicans and Blue Dogs poll exceedingly well among average Americans. Nearly 70% of Americans support the idea. This is what Grayson's legislation would accomplish: • Requires one week of paid vacation for employees of companies with at least 100 employees. Three years after passage, the bill extends this requirement to companies with at least 50 employees, and requires two weeks for companies with 100 employees.

• Covers workers after one year on the job. Part-timers must work 25 or more hours a week and 1250 hours per year to be covered.

Read on.

You can be sure that the Blue Dogs and Evan Bayh’s garrison of phonies will do everything they can to block it, but at least Americans are seeing what a good and better Democrat can do.

Now he’s trying to audit the Federal Reserve to see exactly where the 2 trillion dollars that they dished out went.

Jane Hamsher writes:

Last month Charles Grassley tried to push a bill through the Senate which called for the Fed to be audited, but Richard Shelby watered it down before it passed. Now there are 165 cosponsors of Ron Paul's Federal Reserve Transparency Act in the House, but 135 of them are Republicans. (Bernie Sanders stands alone sponsoring the bill in the Senate.)

Alan Grayson is trying to bring Democrats on board: The Federal Reserve has refused multiple inquiries from both the House and the Senate to disclose who is receiving trillions of dollars from the central banking system. The Federal Reserve has redacted the central terms of the no-bid contracts it has issued to Wall Street firms like Blackrock and PIMCO, without disclosure required of the Treasury, and is participating in new and exotic programs like the trillion-dollar TALF to leverage the Treasury’s balance sheet.

Continue reading »

Oy. Are Democrats simply incapable of doing the right thing, of choosing the right policies because they are the right policies, and then standing behind them while they educate the public? No, what they invariably do is to hack away at their own policies in a vain attempt to keep the Republicans from beating them up. Don't let them do it again with health care reform:

WASHINGTON — Alarmed at Republican attacks on President Obama’s health care proposals, Senate Democrats huddled Wednesday with White House officials to formulate a response.

Democrats said they felt an urgent need to devise a “message” to answer Republicans assertions that Mr. Obama’s proposals could lead to “a Washington takeover of health care.”

Senator Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana, said many Democrats felt “unease that we did not have a strategy” to answer the criticism coming from Republican members of Congress and Republican consultants like Frank I. Luntz, an expert on the language of politics.

[...] Senator Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat who is chairman of the Finance Committee and an architect of the emerging legislation, said Democrats would counter such criticism by insisting that consumers would have an unfettered right to pick doctors and insurers.

“You can choose your own doctor,” Mr. Baucus said. “You can choose your own health plan. There’s total choice here. I do not want to say this defensively, but this is not a big government plan.”

Uh, Max? You just did say it defensively. You're acting as if fixing this massive problem is something you should apologize for.

Mr. Baucus said Mr. Axelrod had offered suggestions on how to communicate, using “words that work” and avoiding “words that don’t work.”

Rather than talk about a mandate requiring individuals or employers to buy insurance, Mr. Baucus said, Democrats intend to emphasize the idea of “shared responsibility.”

"Shared responsibility"? I hope that doesn't mean what it sounds like. Because I swear to God, if the best they have to offer is a mandate, I'm done with these people.

Obama should go on TV and tell the real truth:

"Look, the economy is crashing and burning because health care costs are dragging down businesses and, as a result, families, and we've come up with a plan to fix that which won't require you to spend one red cent out of pocket and won't require you to fill out large amounts of paperwork. Our opponents are calling that socialism, government-run healthcare. Well, that's exactly what they said in 1935 when President Franklin Roosevelt created Social Security. That's what they said in 1965 when President Lyndon Johnson created Medicare.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOAD (1166)

PLAY (2719)

On FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace, Convervakrat Evah Bayh joined hard-right fanatic Tom "Dr. No" Coburn and echoed his conservative principles and renewed his opposition to universal health care for America.

It's really sad that a man rumored to be a VP pick is using the tired right wing talking points that the government can't do anything effectively and he had the frakkin' nerve to bring in the Hannity-Beck line calling everything in sight "socialism" to describe Obama's fiscal beliefs. Is he seriously a member of the Democratic Party? He's against any form of nationalism of the banking industry and wins the coveted "C&L Propaganda Spoon" befitting a FOX Talker when he called universal health care socialized medicine.

Bayh: Some action in the crisis was called for, that's in the short run. In the long run though we've got to start unwinding some of these things. We don't want the government in the business of owning our banks. We don't want the government intruding any more than it has to in the private sector so we've got to start reversing some of this once the momentum is in the economy to grow the economy once again to stabilize situations and I do agree with Tom, when it comes to health care we don't want "socialized medicine," but there is an appropriate role for government to expand coverage, to make it more affordable for people who don't have the means and that actually enables to meet the challenges....

Evan Good Bye should be a regular on Hannity's Great America panel. He'd fit in like a glove. Good Bye was very outspoken against President Obama's budget and is setting up a Blue Dog caucus of his own in the Senate. That's just what we need, failed conservative economic principles at a critical time in our history.

Bayh, a leading contender to be Obama’s running mate last year, was one of only two Democrats to vote against the president’s budget. He also has formed a 15-member group of centrist Senate Democrats called the Moderate Dems Working Group.

“I’ve been a fiscal conservative throughout my career. It’s nothing personal to the president, “ Bayh said. "In the short run, I agree with the president. We do need to stimulate the economy. The government needs to step in… In the long run, I think the deficits and the debt are too high. We need to get those under control. So that was the reason for my vote there."

DOWNLOAD (22)

PLAY (61)

From Hardball March 25, 2009. Evan Bayh talking about why it's going to be so hard for President Obama to get his agenda through Congress. It would be nice if Evan Bayh would like to be part of the solution instead of the problem.

MATTHEWS: Can the president succeed in his agenda of big health care reform, universal health coverage, big climate change legislation and a lot more effort on education from K to 12 -- can he do that if he doesn‘t do it through the budget?

BAYH: I think he can. But some of that will be hard and it will vary issue by issue. On the budget and the investments, and you know, real increases in the investment in education, health care, energy independence, I think he can get that. Reforming, you know, 17 percent of the national economy on health care, probably going to need more bipartisan cooperation on that.

And the problem with cap and trade and global warming, Chris, is we can do that, but if you don‘t do it in right kind of way, you run the risk of sending jobs from our country, places like your home state of Pennsylvania or mine of Indiana, to other countries that have lower emissions standards. So the irony would be we‘d lose jobs and not help with global warming.

So you can do that, but you‘ve got to do it in the right way, and you‘re probably going to, you know, need, you know, Democrats from states that are going to be adversely affected if it‘s not done in the right way. So a little less likely on that one, although I think we can still get it done.

MATTHEWS: Well, let‘s imagine, besides being a moderate Democrat representing Indiana in the U.S. Senate, that you are his adviser. How would you advise the president to get through the big things he‘s promised health, education, energy—in time to get them done before his popularity erodes? How would you recommend him do it?

BAYH: You know, Chris, I think at heart, the president is a pragmatist. As you pointed out, he is, you know, advocating for his budget. He‘s staked out an aggressive agenda. But at the end of the day, I think he‘s going to want what works. And he told us today in our caucus that he very graciously came and attended, he said, Look, I‘m going to insist on my core principles. And that is, you know, reforming health care, energy independence and security and making college and education more affordable for middle class families. We‘ve got to do that within the context of being fiscally responsible.

And then he said to us, Chris, he said, Look, I understand this is a cooperative process. You guys aren‘t potted plants. You‘re going to have your own ideas. I respect that. But we got to do it in a way that preserves those core principles.

So in some ways, Chris, I‘d advise him do what he‘s doing. And I, you know, see some groups who seem to think that members of the Congress or the Senate shouldn‘t have ideas or suggest better ways of doing things. The president is wise enough and smart enough to know that it needs to be cooperative. And if he continues in that spirit, I think we can get a whole lot of what he wants done in a way that middle America will embrace and it will work in a practical way.

I don't think middle America is who Bayh is worried about embracing his Conservadems' obstruction.

DOWNLOAD (26)

PLAY (73)

Rachel Maddow explains the emerging dynamic that is sadly happening within the Democrtaic Party. A handful of Democrats are banding together to try and hijack President Obama's agenda. They actually are voting with the minority party Republicans who were voted out of office by the people.

On MSNBC’s Morning Joe last week, Bayh unveiled a centrist group of 15 Democrat senators whom he described as “pragmatists” and “not ideologues” and “not strident partisans.” Three of the 15 are up for election next year -- Bayh himself, Michael Bennet of Colorado, and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. Bayh has a history of sparring with the left in his party. As chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council in 2003, he warned of then-rising presidential campaign of Howard Dean. “The Democratic Party is at risk of being taken over by the far left,” he told DLC members in 2003. “We have an important choice to make: Do we want to vent, or do we want to govern?”

Even the twittering McCaskill is doing her part to align herself very badly.

Three Democrats, Sens. Evan Bayh, Russ Feingold and Claire McCaskill "opposed the bill as wasteful," and those "defections were small but could signal problems for Mr. Reid as he tries to hold his troops together as Congress faces an array of complex bills."

Maddow talked to Jane Hamsher about why the Conserva-dems are bucking their own party and siding with the Republicans. From Firedoglake:

Why is Bayh bucking his party—and, more importantly, his own state’s population—to go to the mat for the banks?

As noted Bayh's campaign contributions may have a lot to do with it.

FDL is working with Campaign for America's Future and US Action to target "conservative" Democrats who are taking lobbying money and blocking President Obama's agenda. I'm sure many more groups will follow. As Rachel said with friends like these...
(h/t John Amato)

DOWNLOAD (23)

PLAY (88)

Rachel Maddow talks to Evan Bayh about the Indiana guardsmen who are suing KBR for exposure to hexavalent chromium in Iraq.

David Neiwert wrote a great piece about Lieberman already, but I wanted to follow up also. Bayh goes on the Rachel Maddow show and defends Lieberman keeping his committee chair. Obama has said that he wants Joe and Reid to work things out and for Joe to remain caucusing with Democrats and Lieberman supporters are using this, but that doesn't mean the Dems have to keep him just where he is. We have to give Harry Reid credit on this one. He told me straight out in Denver that he doesn't like Joe and wants him stripped of his leadership position since he broke a promise and attacked Obama while campaigning for McCain. That's a sin, "my friends."

Lieberman would be doing this country a great favor if he resigned, but he'd never do that so Bayh's first argument is about as lame as can be made, He ran with McCain to try and remain relevant. It was all about power. And then Bayh is worried that Lieberman would be "embittered" if he stays. Well, that's too bad. Senate Democrats must vote down Joe from his positions of power. Lanny Davis hinted that Joe would be bitter after begging Senate Democrats to forgive Lieberman.

My guess, Mr. Bonin, though I can't speak for Senator Lieberman, is that he will still vote on his principles - but if he is treated badly, it is human nature for his loyalties to party-discipline votes, including cloture, would be less.

Hey Lanny, was it was OK for Lieberman to treat Obama badly? If Lieberman has any real values left, you know, "Country First," then he will take the demotion and vote with his beliefs.

Digby weighs in:

I just watched Evan Bayh try to explain to Rachel Maddow why Lieberman needs to keep his chairmanship. Bayh explained that they have no choice because Lieberman is threatening to leave the Senate if he doesn't get his way --- and the Connecticut Governor will then name a Republican who will never vote with them. And if he stays and doesn't get what he wants, he will be "embittered" and then vote against them on close votes out of spite. So in order to do what's necessary for the country they need to give him what he wants.

I guess that's what putting "country first" means.

Bayh was just embarrassing. He's going to have to pop a fistful of Viagra and watch some "24" just to persuade himself that his testes are still descended after that pathetic performance.

They should just get this over with. Watching these people willingly (pretend to) cower like beaten dogs before Holy Joe's threats is just depressing. Just do it already.

And to think Bayh's name was floated around as a possible running mate.

Chris Cillizza says:

Senator Obama is a gifted and eloquent young man who can do great things for our country in the years ahead," said Lieberman. "But eloquence is no substitute for a record -- not in these tough times."

Can Democratic Senators look beyond these comments -- not to mention the fact that Lieberman was a regular presence on the campaign trail with McCain in the closing days of the race?

We'll find out some of the answers next week when the Senate Democratic caucus convenes. At that meeting, a vote is expected on whether Lieberman can retain his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee.

The vote will be a secret ballot and even the most plugged-in Senate operatives acknowledge they have no idea how it might turn out.

DOWNLOAD (33)

PLAY (71)

From Late Edition Oct. 26, 2008. After discussing whether Jon Kyl was comfortable with McCain trying to separate himself from Bush, the conversation between Evan Bayh and Jon Kyl moves here.

Bayh: Well we can all cite our studies but I think the American people understand Wolf that when, the price that John McCain had to pay, and I like John McCain, but the price he had to pay to win his party's nomination was to embrace the Bush policies, back when he was running for the nomination....

Kly: What policies!

Bayh: Back when he was running for the nomination he said he agreed with President Bush on virtually every major issue. That's a direct quote. He voted with him 90% of the time, so (crosstalk). Excuse me that's just a fact. So if you like the way things are. If you think the economy is going well. If you think the policies of President Bush have succeeded you should vote for John McCain. (crosstalk).. we need a change you should support Barack Obama.

Kyl: What policies of the Bush administration created the problem that we're in today? The problem started with the fact that we didn't have enough regulation of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Something Republicans and the Bush administration were pushing for and your Democratic colleagues opposed. That was the beginning of the problem of the housing bubble. George Bush doesn’t run the economy. He didn’t create this problem. His tax rates being lower actually helped for six years to create the second largest economic growth that we’ve had in the history of the country in recent years. So uh...

Bayh: It sounds like you're agreeing that uh, with John McCain when he says that economics and running the economy is not his strong suit. Apparently it wasn't George Bush's strong suit either Jon because according to you the President doesn't have much to do with the economy. So we shouldn't even be talking about taxes and spending and jobs because according to you the chief executive of the country doesn't have much to do with that. We have a different point of view. We think the President should lead on economic policy. You create jobs, foster investment and business expansion. The policies of the last eight years have not done very well.

Kyl: The Bush tax cuts created this growth coming out of a recession. Creating six years of economic growth. Do you want those tax rates which have been responsible for this economic growth and job creation to go back up?

Bayh: Wolf there in lies the fundamental difference. John McCain says he thinks the fundamentals of the economy are sound. That we've made "great progress" these last eight years. My friend Jon Kyl apparently believes that as well. I think we can do better. And I think the American people believe we can do better and that's what Barack Obama stands for.

Blitzer: Alright Sen. Kyl very quickly I'll give you the last word.

Kly: Not by raising taxes. Particularly not in a time of recession. Don't raise taxes on the small businesses because that create 80% of the jobs in the country. Keep taxes where they are.