What a fun idea for a Saturday afternoon! Nothing like a Sharron Angle special to stoke up the fires of homophobia and phony righteousness. Also? She's inspired a treasure hunt.

Here's how it goes. Sharron Angle said in an interview that she would return any campaign contributions from corporate PACs that supported gay rights. That's an invitation too juicy to turn down. Via Greg Sargent:

Angle laid out this position in a candidate questionnaire that she filled out for the Washington-based Government is not God PAC.

In question 35A of the questionnaire, Angle was asked:

Would you refuse PAC money from those who are fundamentally opposed to your views on social issues?

Angle checked the Yes box. The questionnaire then asked:

In reference to question 35A, Intel Corporation supports "equal rights for gays" and offers benefits to "partners" of homosexual employees. Would you refuse funds from this corporate PAC?

Angle again checked the Yes box.

Ok, here's the deal. Angle's FEC listing of donor PACs is here. Let's just look at one -- the Alamo PAC. Why lookee there at all those corporate donors to that PAC. That's a very big long list of corporate donors. Of course, when corporations donate to PACs like Alamo PAC and Alamo PAC then passes along a donation to Angle, there's no single company to hang the contribution on. But I'm willing to bet one of those companies supports gay rights.

We could also look at the Tea Party Express, and its corporate donors, because Angle received a boatload of donations from them.

The hunt is on. Let's find those contributions and get that refund machine started!

DOWNLOADS: (855)

PLAYS: (2474)

Embed

I'm always impressed by the sheer brass of Republicans who will go on TV and flatly lie about things that are easily substantiated. Like when Sarah Palin went before the cameras and asserted the Troopergate report had exonerated her when in fact it had done just the opposite. Or Lou Dobbs pretending he hadn't defended his leprosy coverage.

That takes a special level of psychopathy. Very impressive.

Then there's Sue Lowden, she of chickens for health care fame. As Greg Sargent reports, she recently went on another Nevada TV show and tried to claim she didn't actually phrase her thoughts on chicken-bartering for health care as the host had quoted her saying -- even though it was something the tapes clearly show her saying:

Lowden got into a testy exchange over chickens-for-checkups with Nevada journalist Jon Ralston at yesterday's GOP Senate primary debate ...

Lowden rebukes her host, insisting that he go out and see for themselves that people are bartering for health care. But the best part comes towards the end.

Ralston directly confronts Lowden with her own words, and she denies ever saying them.

Ralston points out that Lowden talked about how people used to barter chickens for checkups in the old days, and he quotes her saying: "I'm not backing down from that system."

"No, I never said `from that system,'" Lowden shot back. "I never said, `from that system.'"

Well, just so you can see for yourselves, we've included the original video from her April 19 TV appearance. As you can see, this is precisely what she said:

I’m telling you that this works. You know, before we all started having health care, in the olden days our grandparents, they would bring a chicken to the doctor, they would say I’ll paint your house. I mean, that’s the old days of what people would do to get health care with your doctors. Doctors are very sympathetic people. I’m not backing down from that system.

I also rather enjoyed Lowden suggesting to Ralston: "Where have you been? You need to get in my RV or some other means of transportation and visit the folks here."

Oh, does she mean the RV she obtained through an illegal donation?

Here it is:

I dunno about you, but having once been a rural working-class stiff myself, I can tell you what kind of message a big luxury bus like this sends. And it isn't "I'm one of you folks."

Sure hope Lowden wins that GOP primary, don't you?

DOWNLOADS: (852)

PLAYS: (3080)

Embed

Steve Benen draws our attention to a speech given by Sarah Palin last Friday in Kentucky to an evangelical women's group called Women of Joy, one in which she appears to deny the existence of church-state separation:

I beg you, Women of Joy, to bring light and be involved, loving America and praying for her. Really, it is our solemn duty. Praying for true spiritual awakening to overcome deterioration. That is where God wants us to be. Lest anyone try to convince you that God should be separated from the state, our Founding Fathers, they were believers. And George Washington, he saw faith in God as basic to life.

As Greg Sargent observes, this is historical nonsense; many of the Founders were practicing Deists who ardently believed in separating religion from the conduct of secular politics:

There was a time when this sort of thing would provoke widespread media mockery and perhaps even be seen as a potential disqualifier for the presidency.

Ah, but we live in an age where a cable-TV network is doing the presidential qualifying for us.

What was perhaps most noteworthy -- and disturbing -- about Palin's speech, though, was how she publicly called out and thanked the "Prayer Warriors" who were out there on her side:

Palin: Given the chaos these days, just kind of standing up and speaking out for common sense has kind of become a full-time job. And it's keeping me pretty busy. And some days are kind of crazy. And my faith, my family -- they are what keep me grounded, keep me going.

Prayer Warriors all across the country -- and I know some of you are here tonight -- your prayer shield allows me and others to go forth. You give out strength, providing a prayer shield. That is the only way to put one foot in front of the other, and get through some of these days with joy.

I don't know how any politician could, or would want to do this, without knowing that there were prayer warriors out there, holding you up and seeking strength and wisdom for you. ... I am so appreciative of their efforts.

Thanks largely to the reportage of Max Blumenthal, we've known for some time that Palin was religiously affiliated with the "Prayer Warriors," but this is perhaps her first open public acknowledgment of it.

Who are the "Prayer Warriors"? Funny you should ask that: Bill Berkowitz explored that question for AlterNet:

Imagine a religious movement that makes geographic maps of where demons reside and claims among its adherents the Republican Party's most recent vice presidential nominee and whose leaders have presided over prayer sessions (one aimed at putting the kibosh on health-care reform) with a host of leading GOP figures.

It's a movement whose followers played a significant role in the battle over Proposition 8, California's anti-same-sex marriage initiative, and Uganda's infamous proposed Anti-Homosexuality Law, more commonly associated with the Family, a religious network of elites drawn from the ranks of business and government throughout the world. But the movement we're imagining encompasses the humble and the elite alike, supporting a network of "prayer warriors” in all 50 states, within the ranks of the U.S. military, and at the far reaches of the globe -- all guided by an entire genre of books, texts, videos and other media.

Imagine that, and you've just dreamed up the New Apostolic Reformation, the largest religious movement you've never heard of.

Continue reading »

Looks like Howard Fineman was right last night on KO when he said Dennis would switch his vote because Dennis Kucinich held a presser this morning and said even though it's not the bill he wanted, he'll vote for HCR.

Greg Sargent:

In a big get for House Dems, Dennis Kucinich just made it official: He’s voting for the Senate bill, making him the first member to go on record fliping his vote from No to Yes.

“In the past week it’s become clear that the vote on the final bill will be very close,” Kucinich, who voted No last time because of the lack of the public option, said at a presser moments ago. He acknowleged that he’d be voting “not on the bill as I would like to see it, but as it is.”

“However, after careful discussions with President Obama, Speaker Pelosi” and others, Kucinich said, “I’ve decided to cast a vote in favor of the legislation.”

Kucinich’s stance was being closely watched by both sides, partly as a test of President Obama’s ability to corral the support of reluctant Dems. Obama wooed him directly with a lift on Air Force One and gave a big health care speech in his district earlier this week.

Kucinich is one of around 10 former No votes who have been aggressively wooed by Dem leaders to flip to Yes. His decision means that Nancy Pelosi’s margin for error is every so slightly bigger: Dem leaders can now afford to lose one Yes vote.

More soon.

Update: Kucinich revealed he’d met four times with President Obama, mostly going over his objections, but said he’d been persuaded in part because at one recent meeting he recognized how difficult Obama’s challenge is.

Nancy Pelosi inches one vote closer to hitting the magic number that the HOUSE needs to pass HCR.

Greg Sargent reports:

Senator Bernie Sanders, in a brief interview in the Capitol just now, confirmed to me that he’s willing to commit to introducing an amendment that would add the public option to the Senate bill’s reconciliation fix.

This is important, because as far fetched as this seems, if this amendment is introduced, a vote on it would be very hard for the Senate Dem leadership to block. The only thing that could stop it from happening, according to Senate expert Robert Dove, is for the parliamentarian to rule that it’s not germane to the Senate bill somehow — something that seems unlikely...read on

As Adam Green is launching another initiative for the PCCC, we know the House doesn't trust the Senate at all, but the process seems to finally be winding down.

Ryan Grim reports that the public option is still viable, but he says it's a matter of will and not votes.

The public option faces its last stand. With more than 40 senators publicly willing to vote for a health care reform reconciliation package that includes the option, the opportunity to reinsert it into the final bill has never been greater, though the battle is nearly over without having been fought.

--

That balance of power gives House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) extraordinary leverage of a historical nature. Pelosi, however, has yet to concede in negotiations that it is the obligation of the House to go first. And the deal that is being reached is driven largely by the White House. But both the Senate and the White House need Pelosi. And the House, of course, has already passed a health care bill with a public option.

If the House does move first, the Senate would essentially face an up-or-down vote on whatever Pelosi sends over. Durbin was asked by HuffPost if he would whip a reconciliation package from the House that included a public option. An analysis of past statements and positions taken by members of the Democratic caucus indicates that there could plausibly be 53 votes for a public option and perhaps several more.

Durbin, in response to the question, said at first that it was hypothetical, but then answered, "I think there will come a time when we reach agreement on what the reconciliation package includes, with the understanding that any changes in the House or Senate could slow down or stop the process."

So whatever comes from the House, that's what you will whip?

"That's basically it," he said. "I hope that what comes from the House is what we agree on going into this debate."

--

UPDATE: The news that the Senate parliamentarian told Senate Republicans that the bill must become law before any amendments can be made through reconciliation alters the equation if true. The House, however, could still pass the Senate bill into law and then send the Senate a reconciliation fix with a public option. The Senate could torpedo that legislation without concern that no reform package at all would get passed, giving the Senate added leverage. The underlying dynamic, however, remains unchanged: In the next few days, as the White House and congressional leaders meet to hash out the way forward, the votes appear to exist to include a public option. It's only a matter of will.

It appears that Dick Durbin is not going to risk the entire bill because of the public option.

Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) acknowledged Wednesday that liberals may be asked to oppose any amendment, including one creating a public option, to ensure a smooth ride for the bill. “We have to tell people, ‘You just have to swallow hard’ and say that putting an amendment on this is either going to stop it or slow it down, and we just can’t let it happen,” Durbin, who supports a public option, told reporters. “We have to move this forward. We know the Republicans are likely to offer a lot of amendments, and some of them may be appealing to Democrats, but we have to urge them to stick with the bill.”

The PCCC is running a campaign against Durbin at this time and asking members of the Senate to not turn their back on it.

DOWNLOADS: (1569)

PLAYS: (5007)

Embed

Gosh. Looks like we won't have Lou Dobbs to kick around anymore. Except, of course, for when he lands that fat Fox Business Channel gig.

In the meantime, some congratulations are in order -- and, as Greg Sargent suggests, the left blogosphere in general deserves a great deal of credit in finally forcing one of the nation's leading hatemongers -- and disinformation specialists -- out the door.

That's especially the case with Media Matters, which really led the way. (MM has great retrospective of their own.) And the campaigns that organized to compel his ouster at CNN -- including Basta Dobbs, Drop Dobbs, and America's Voice -- should take a bow as well.

While we wait for the right-wing violins to cue their usual "Mean Liberals Went On a Witch Hunt" number, we should also take special note of what this means: It means that liberal activism to force our media to act responsibly works.

I know that a lot of time it feels like we're just shouting into the wind. It's that feeling of utter helplessness that ordinary citizens always get when they pit themselves against the power of big money and big corporations. Sure, we can document all the media misbehavior we like, but it's becoming so voluminous and steady now that it's hard to keep up, and it's even harder to spark outrage over it.

But eventually, if we keep pounding and pounding and working, it works.

The biggest job of all lies ahead, of course: Confronting Fox News, whose daily deluge of disinformation and fearmongering is so immense now that it makes Dobbs' contributions shrink to insignificance.

But it's true: Yes, we can do this. And we must.

I'm always happy to see the progressives step up and demand what they want - you know, instead of falling into the fetal position. Greg Sargent from The Plumline:

At a private meeting at the White House yesterday, top House liberals urged President Obama to more aggressively throw his weight into a public campaign on behalf of the public option, a leading House progressive said in an interview.

Dem Rep. Raul Grijalva, the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, says that this point was made “emphatically” to the president in the meeting yesterday with House liberals, and that his help was urgently needed in bringing centrist Dems on board.

“We need the full engagement of everybody in this discussion — that includes the White House,” Grijalva said in characterizing the message that was delivered to the president. Grijalva described the meeting in an interview with Democracy Now.

Dems have largely refrained from making such a blunt case publicly, not wanting to appear critical of the president. But Grijalva appears to have no qualms about making it.

“We really do feel that engagement from the leader of this nation is vital if we’re going to end up with anything that approaches a robust public option,” Grijalva said.

Strong stuff. I’ve asked Grijalva’s office what the president’s response was, and will update you if I learn more.

Nearly two weeks later, the right's smear of 12-year-old Graeme Frost and his family is long over, but the problems for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ken.) remain. His office was, as we now know, directly involved in pushing the attacks on the Frosts, but just as importantly, McConnell appears to have been caught lying about it.

By now, we've all heard the play-by-play. Right-wing activists went after the Frost family, and McConnell's spokesperson contacted political reporters, urging them to pick up on the story. Later, after learning that the conservative hatchet men were wrong, an embarrassed McConnell aide backpedaled and discouraged his media contacts from pursuing the bogus story.

The aide, Don Stewart, told the Louisville Courier-Journal that he briefed his boss on all of this last Thursday. As it turns out, that's the problem.

Mitch McConnell can't have it both ways. He can't luxuriate in a reputation for personal caution and political control, yet claim he knew nothing about the role his office tried to play in sliming a Baltimore boy and his family when they came forward in support of the SCHIP health care expansion.

Mr. Stewart told The Courier-Journal he explained all that to his boss on Thursday. So Sen. McConnell was deliberately untruthful the next day, when he told WHAS-TV's Mark Hebert, "There was no involvement whatsoever." The senator will object to any suggestion of lying, but what else is it when you knowingly misrepresent facts?

It's clear what Mitch McConnell knew and when he knew it. It's clear he deceived the public when he answered Mr. Hebert as he did about the e-mail sent by his press agent.

Mr. McConnell is so used to Washington-style gamesmanship and inside-the-beltway rules that he has forgotten what constituents back in Kentucky want: the simple truth.

Greg Sargent wonders what the media's interest would be if this had happened to a Dem.

I received a bunch of emails asking if I could get a copy of Rahm Emanual's speech to the Brookings Institute from last week, so here goes...

Download | play Download | play

Greg Sargent supplies the transcript

...it's a broad indictment of the Bush administration that argues that all-pervasive partisanship, not incompetence, is the common thread linking all of the administration's manifold failings. Take a look....read on...

Booman takes Joe Klein up on his challenge and plays him like a fool....

Mr. Klein, I acknowledge that you made those remarks while discussing your misgivings and doubts. But, when you conclude that the war is the right decision then you are not an opponent of the war. And, therefore, your post today is dishonest and you are a liar... read on

Greg Sargent has a great round up and response to Klein, the "Heroic Pundit."