It's hard to win the battle of words when media outlets insist on calling conservative Democrats "moderate" and "centrist." When polls show that the vast majority of voters in both parties support raising taxes on the rich, insisting on protecting the revenue stream of millionaires and billionaires is hardly a "moderate" position. Just sayin', Josh Marshall:

Moderate Senate Democrats are signaling strong resistance to tax increases in the President's deficit-reduction plan, and the early disapproval within his own party will no doubt give Republicans on the deficit super committee plenty of cover to block any and all revenue-raising aspects of Obama's plan.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) told reporters Monday night that he's put off by all the talk about increasing taxes when he believes the primary and only goal of the deficit super committee should be finding cuts to hack away at the deficit.

"Tax increases have to come second to cutting," he said. "I was just home over the weekend and that's what [my constituents] we're all talking about."

Which constituents, Ben? Oh, you mean your largest donors, like Big Pharma and the finance industry! Bless your heart!

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), who represents a state whose economy is dependent on energy production, last week said the offset for Obama's new spending plans, which includes the elimination of oil and gas subsidies, "was not going to fly."

"Terrible," Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) told Politico last week when asked about the president's ideas for how to pay for the $450 billion price tag. "We shouldn't increase taxes on ordinary income. ... There are other ways to get there."

Clearly trying to withhold her opposition -- at least for the day, Landrieu ducked into an elevator when reporters tried to stop her Monday night to ask her opinion about the President's speech.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), a co-chair of the deficit super committee, gave an oblique response when asked Monday night about her response to the President's speech and how it would affect the super committee's work, noting that she hopes the panel can take a "fair and balanced" approach.

"Fair and balanced." Hmm. Where have I heard that one before? Oh yeah, it's wingnut foreplay - i.e. the sweet nothings they whisper in your ear right before they stick it to you!

It sounds like Ben Nelson is feeling the heat, because he was so adamantly opposed to the idea of a public option under any circumstances. Not that we want a trigger, but it's heartening to see our pressure is having an effect. Don't stop!

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) has long opposed a public health insurance option. In May, he expressed concern that “the public plan would be too attractive and would hurt the private insurance plans.” A Nelson spokesman even suggested that the senator would be “building a coalition opposed to the public plan.” And this past week, Nelson said health care reform “implodes” if a public option is included.

But this morning on CNN, Nelson moderated his stance ever-so-slightly. He indicated to host John King that he would support a so-called “trigger” (which would establish a public plan after a certain period of time if the private market fails to control costs):

Well I think he [Obama] has to say that if there’s going to be a public option, it has to be subject to a trigger. In other words, if somehow the private market doesn’t respond the way that it’s supposed to, then it would trigger a public option or a government-run option. But only as a fail-safe backstop to the process.

When I say trigger, out here in Nebraska and the midwest, I don’t mean a hair-trigger. I mean a true trigger — one that would only apply if there isn’t the kind of competition in the business that we believe there would be.

Howard Dean has previously said the trigger is a "terrible idea," saying insurance companies "will just change their behavior until the trigger runs out and go back to how they were."

Satirical group "Billionaires for Wealthcare" mingle with conservative protesters at a recent town hall rally.

Via Greg Sargent, the news that the right wing "wealthcare" group Americans for Prosperity is kicking into high gear to get Ben Nelson to stymie healthcare reform:

The calls, which were confirmed to me by AFP’s spokesperson, are being conducted by live operators reading from a script. But the effect is the same as a robocall; recipients receive the calls whether they want to or not.

“Senator Ben Nelson is playing an important role in this debate,” the call says, according to a script provided to me by AFP after I was tipped off to the call. “Would you be willing to call Senator Ben Nelson and tell him to vote for the filibuster and kill the health care bill?”

If the caller responds affirmatively, the operator recites a number for one of Nelson’s district offices. “Please tell Senator Ben Nelson to vote for the Filibuster and kill the health care bill,” the call continues. “Can I confirm that you will make this call within the hour?”

Nelson has refused to rule out joining GOP filibusters on major legislation, though he’s also suggested he probably won’t filibuster on health care. The call is a sign that anti-reform forces still view Nelson, who has refused to back a public option, as a potential ally with Republicans in the quest to “kill” reform.

in an email alert from Dobson's Gang: "Focus on the Family Action Chairman James C. Dobson, Ph.D., said today that he has been assured by U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson that the Nebraska Democrat has changed his position on the need for a marriage-protection amendment to the U.S. Constitution and that he will support up-or-down votes on all but one of President Bush's embattled judicial nominees."

Nelson, in a recent phone call with Dobson and another Focus Action staff member, pointed to last month's federal court decision voiding Nebraska's Defense of Marriage Amendment as the reason behind his change in position -- a statement he reiterated in a subsequent letter to Dobson. Prior to the May 12 ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Joseph F. Bataillon, Nelson had asserted that state-level protections for marriage were sufficient. Clearly, that is not the case.

I have to go to the doctor right now, but chew on that for a minute.

DOWNLOADS: (766)

PLAYS: (1597)

Embed

Glenn Beck invited on professional liar and smear artist Michael Goldfarb -- whose skill at distorting and misleading and obfuscating we have some personal experience with -- to promote Beck's latest ginned-up-out-of-nothing "scandal", namely, the claim that the White House threatened Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska with yanking Offut Air Force Base if he didn't play ball on the health-care reform bill.

Well, as Media Matters observes, this story has in fact been denied by all the parties involved, including Sen. Nelson's office:

His spokesman quickly dismissed a report by conservative columnist Michelle Malkin that Nelson was even being threatened with “closure of an air force base,” presumably Offutt Air Force Base, which is south of Omaha and home of U.S. Strategic Command. Malkin also said Nelson has been promised a “bribe bigger than Sen. Landrieu's.”

That's a reference to Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, a Democrat and one of the last holdouts on the vote to begin the health care debate. The legislation includes a provision to increase Louisiana's Medicaid funds that Landrieu says is worth $300 million.

Nelson spokesman Jake Thompson said both of Malkin's claims about Nelson are false.

“The rumor is not true,” Thompson said. “This misinformation is coming from inside-the-Beltway partisans who only want to derail health care reform.”

White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer likewise chimed in:

Proving that they will leave no stone unturned in their efforts to undermine health reform, some blogs opposing reform are now trafficking an absurd rumor that Nebraska's Offutt Air Force Base is being threatened over Senator Ben Nelson's vote on the Senate reform bill.

To be perfectly clear: these rumors are completely baseless and false.

These denials, of course, were a matter of public record well before Beck went on the air. Not that dishonest hacks like Beck and Goldfarb would have informed the public of their existence.

Indeed, you'll see that Goldfarb has to start out retracting one of the key elements of his original reportage -- that it was Rahm Emanuel who had made the call. As you can see, he has to explain that this was false, though he does not use that word.

Ultimately, his only source for this story is an anonymous, unidentified "Senate staffer".

But wingnuts are never content to just call an unconfirmed rumor an unconfirmed rumor (unless it's one that makes wingnuts look bad). So of course the shrinking contingent of wingnuts in the Senate, led by moral paragon Sen. John Ensign, R-C Street, is demanding an investigation.

Now Goldfarb is using that fact to continue defending his disappearing "scandal", illustrating just how deeply these guys are breathing their own exhaust:

They protest a little too much. I do not know this story is "absolutely false." To the contrary, I'm confident it's true. Twenty senators are now calling for an investigation, and each is presumably pretty well sourced in the Senate. If the charges are "absolutely false," maybe the White House will encourage Senate Democrats to call this Republican bluff. I won't hold my breath.

And we won't hold our breath waiting for a correction when Goldfarb is eventually proven wrong once again.

Meanwhile, Sen. Nelson is calling it "yellow journalism at its worst." Sounds about right.