DOWNLOADS: (637)

PLAYS: (1070)

Embed

Fox News has been running with the "Obama offered a job to Sestak not to run against Specter" scam endlessly on cable and while there was a serious press conference going on about the catastrophic BP oil spill, Major Garrett had to toe the Roger Ailes line and was the only reporter at the sixty-three-minute press conference to even mention it.

It's the last question of the presser.

Q Two issues. Some in your government have said the federal government’s boot is on the neck of BP. Are you comfortable with that imagery, sir? Is your boot on the neck of BP? And can you understand, sir, why some in the Gulf who feel besieged by this oil spill consider that a meaningless, possibly ludicrous, metaphor?

Secondarily, can you tell the American public, sir, what your White House did or did not offer Congressman Sestak to not enter the Democratic senatorial primary? And how will you meet your levels of expressed transparency and ethics to convey that answer to satisfy what appear to be bipartisan calls for greater disclosure about that matter? Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: There will be an official response shortly on the Sestak issue, which I hope will answer your questions.

Garrett is a good little doggie making sure Ailes gets his bone. Why Obama would engage at all is ridiculous because now more reporters will want to be in on the con. His first question was just nasty and makes no sense in the larger discussion of the pil spill, but that was just the set up for his "con."

Jonathan Chait writes:

I'll keep saying this: A job offer is not a quid pro quo to get somebody out of a race. It is getting somebody out of a race. Accepting one job means you cannot run for another. It happens all the time -- the White House appointed John McHugh Army Secretary in part to get him out of New York's 23rd Congressional District. It offered Judd Gregg a cabinet slot in order to get him out of the Senate. This is completely routine, neither illegal no immoral nor especially unusual. Can't we wait to appoint a special prosecutor until there's at least some possibility of underlying illegal behavior?

Digby and Jamison Fosier have been writing a lot about this flim flam reporting and engaging in any fashion is like playing Three Card Monte against a bunch of pros.

...is a confidence game in which the victim, or mark, is tricked into betting a sum of money, on the assumption that they can find the money card among three face-down playing cards.

In its full form, Three-card Monte is an example of a classic short con in which a shill pretends to conspire with the mark to cheat the dealer, while in fact conspiring with the dealer to cheat the mark.

FOX News or some right wing propaganda outlet is the confidence man. The media are the shills and Democrats are the marks. It's very simple. The scam can't be beat so the White House should just walk away.

Digby explains:

But here's the thing. None of that will do any good. There is no winning with these noise machine pseudo-scandals. They have an alternate media structure that is designed to stoke scandal fever and the way they keep the mainstream media on the hook is with "smell tests" and demands that the person address the claims, apologize or make amends, none of which will be deemed adequate and all of which necessitate another round of investigations, demands etc. With every impossible requirement that isn't met, the press will become more convinced that the person must be hiding something, is too hot to handle and will eventually agree that he has to step down or quit the race because "the scandal" is devouring him.

Later an article or a book will be written explaining that there was never anything to the charges, that the whole thing turned into a feeding frenzy but that the real problem is that the politician didn't get "out front" or establish a "war room" or otherwise magically change this dynamic and it will be deemed his fault for failing to be a stronger, better politician. Some pols survive this, notably Bill Clinton. But it takes a willingness to recognize that they are not going to leave you alone, give yourself up to it and greet each day with the knowledge that this is going to dominate until it either passes or kills you.

The right wing scandal machine creates political viruses that mutate and take on a life of their own. There's no antidote once you've caught it --- you either have a good immune system and a will to survive or you don't.

Update: read this piece by Foser from 2006 on the same theme.

Fosier does and outstanding job of listing all the Democratic politicians that have been smeared to the high heavens by the right wing bunko brigade which was aided by the MSM. The Villagers act like the shills and become part of the con, playing the straight man who make believe they are part of the card game to draw the sucker in to be taken for all he's got. It's a long piece, but well worth the read.

What the bunko brigade count on is that the rest of the unwitting and witting accomplices (media) that will join in the party because they feel left out of the "Three-Way" confidence game. It happens every time as history shows. President Obama should keep his money in his pocket and move along.

Sen. Bill Frist discusses Arlen Specter and the "Nuclear Option," to filibustering.

Sen. Joe Lieberman counters the charges that Frist makes, stating his case for the Dems and criticizes the Republicans for blocking many more of President Clinton's nominees.

Video

Updated version.

The Battle Begins between Dobson and Specter!

James Dobson attacks Arlen Specter for his words about judicial court nominees and begins to apply the pressure from the Christian right on President Bush. Also when Stephanapoulos questioned a hate remark he made, Dobson replied:

"Do you think you ought to lecture me on what a Christian is all about?"

Video

Arlen Specter responds to Dobson's charges on Face the Nation, also explaining his moderate stances on stem cell research.

Video

Don't know if you've seen this yet. It's an anonymous letter from a Hill staffer to Josh Marshall and it pretty much confirms our worst suspicions: They're "relieved" that they don't have to deliver on health care reform.

A wave election hit us in 2008 where we not only had overwhelming majorities of 59 seats in the Senate (once Republicans finally got around to letting us seat Franken) and 257 seats in the House (returning us to the same power level as when we ruled the House with inpugnity in 1992-3) but, most importantly, a President who was explicitly elected on an agenda of "change." It was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to wrench the wheel away from the abyss and really deliver on our promises. It was disheartening when it seemed that Reid was allowing McConnell's disingenuous narrative of "it's always taken 60 votes to get anything done" to take hold, but we were later even saved from that when Specter switched. But it seems we've spent the entire year moving our own goalposts farther away. Things have gotten so bad that in roaming the halls today it feels exactly as if we lost the Majority last night.

The worst is that I can't help but feel like the main emotion people in the caucus are feeling is relief at this turn of events. Now they have a ready excuse for not getting anything done. While I always thought we had the better ideas but the weaker messaging, it feels like somewhere along the line Members internalized a belief that we actually have weaker ideas. They're afraid to actually implement them and face the judgment of the voters. That's the scariest dynamic and what makes me think this will all come crashing down around us in November.

I believe President Clinton provided some crucial insight when he said, "people would rather be with someone who is strong and wrong than weak and right." It's not that people are uninterested in who's right or wrong, it's that people will only follow leaders who seem to actually believe in what they are doing. Democrats have missed this essential fact.

The stimulus bill in the spring showed us what was coming. In the face of a historic economic crisis, Democrats negotiated against themselves at the outset and subsequently yielded to absurd demands from self-described "moderates" to trim the package to a clearly inadequate level. No one made any rational argument about why a lower level was better. It would have been trivial to write "claw-back" provisions if the stimulus turned out to be too much or we could have done a rescission this year to give these moderates their victory, but none of this was on the table. We essentially looked like we didn't know what the right answer was so we just kinda went for what we could get. This formula was repeated in spades in both the Climate and Health Care debacles.

This is my life and I simply can't answer the fundamental question: "what do Democrats stand for?" Voters don't know, and we can't make the case, so they're reacting exactly as you'd expect (just as they did in 1994, 2000, and 2004). We either find the voice to answer that question and exercise the strongest majority and voter mandate we've had since Watergate, or we suffer a bloodbath in November. History shows we're likely to choose the latter.

Although I realize this is far too long to publish, if you do decide to use any of it, please keep my anonymity. Just in case I'm wrong and there is more good to do yet.

So we've had a new letter being sent to the White House by 30 U.S. Senators saying that they want a public option. And Specter and Difi signed on to it. No, really.

Taking a page from the strong House Progressive Block pushing a robust public option, Roll Call reports that thirty Senate Dems have written to Harry Reid, demanding a public option...This is a key development as the negotiations between Reid, Baucus, Dodd and the White House to merge the Senate HELP and Finance bills begin.

Moving parts and trial balloons are flying all over the place. We are speculating at this point because we aren't at the negotiating table, but the newest one is to include a public option in the Senate bill, but allow states to opt out if they don't like it.

Paul Krugman kind of likes the idea.

So the new idea seems to be a public option offered at a national level, but with states having the right to opt out — that is, make it not available to their own residents. At first blush, that sounds good.

It’s true that the states most likely to opt out will probably be small states that really need the competition. But many states, with probably a majority of the population, would opt in. And if the public option works well, there will soon be pressure on politicians in the others to do the same.

Howard Dean also thinks it's a good idea. Dean: If I Were A Senator I'd Vote For Opt-Out Public Option

In a brief telephone interview, Dean stressed repeatedly that his preference remained, far and away, a national public option that was available to anyone -- regardless of state -- from the day of its conception. But in a wholly political context, he acknowledged, adding the opt-out option to the bill might be the best and only way to get something through the Senate.

"I would like to see that come out of the Senate because it is a real public plan," he said of the opt-out compromise. "Then they can negotiate it [with the House] in conference committee... And if this passes I won't say it is not reform because it is reform."

"If this is what it takes to get 60 votes I say go for it," said Dean

I'm still digesting this, but the fact that the public option is still being talked about in such an intense way suggests that all our (blogosphere, activists, liberals in Congress, etc..) efforts have been really helping and I feel more positive than I did before. It's just a feeling at this point, of course...

I've been talking to Digby and other activists about the problem Obama faces because his plan won't hit the streets for anther 3-4 years and America wouldn't see any tangible evidence that the health care reform had a positive affect on their lives. It is a big problem because a lot of people can't afford to wait the necessary time it would take to implement a massive project like health reform.

Digby remembers something Howard Dean said and this makes a ton of sense.

Dean has been talking about this problem too, and his solution is even better:

To address that problem, Dean said Democrats need to do something that will have tangible results by next summer. His proposal: opening up Medicare to people over the age of 50 so that a "certain mass" of people will already have benefited from health reform by the elections. "You need to have people sign up for this program by July 2010," Dean said.

I've heard this before but it never seems to go anywhere. I'd be first in line to sign up for that plan. Even if it is eventually phased out, it would be worth doing right now. The people my age -- and they are a huge group -- are in real trouble with the current economic mess. They've lost their retirement nest eggs, their property values are in the dirt and their health care costs are insane. This would be very, very helpful.

This is a great idea.

Can they get much crazier than this? Yes they can! Every day brings another new high on the wacky scale, as rightwingers continue to sound the alarm about our new National Socialist president:

Parents across the country are rebelling against plans by President Barack Obama to speak directly to their children through the classrooms of the nation's public schools without their presence, participation and approval.

The plans announced by Obama also have been cited as raising the specter of the Civilian National Security Force, to which he's referred several times since his election campaign began, but never fully explained.

"He's recruiting his civilian army. His 'Hitler' youth brigade," wrote one participant in a forum at Free Republic.

"I am not going to compare President Obama to Hitler. We'll leave that to others and you can form your own opinions about them and their analogies. … However, we can learn a lot from the spread of propaganda in Europe that led to Hitler's power. A key ingredient in that spread of propaganda was through the youth," wrote a blogger at the AmericanElephant.com blog, where the subject of the day was a national "Keep-Your-Child-at-Home-Day."

"Totalitarian regimes around the world have sought to spread their propaganda and entrench their power by brainwashing the children. I guess it's easier to indoctrinate a six-year-old instead of fighting a 26-year-old or being challenged by a 46-year-old in the voting booth," the blogger wrote.

At issue was an announcement that Obama plans to deliver a message directly to students via the Internet into public school classrooms across the nation on Sept. 8.

According to announcement posted on ServiceWire.org, Obama will address students "about the importance of persisting and succeeding in school" at 1 p.m. Eastern at the WhiteHouse.gov website.

See, that right there? That proves it! Because if children actually pay attention, learn to read and write and apply critical thinking skills, they're actually a lot less likely to read fine publications like World Nut Daily - except when they're mining them for comedy gold like this.

The announcement said the federal Department of Education "is encouraging educators, students and parents to use this opportunity to help students get focused and begin the school year strong."

The government also is publicizing a list of suggestions for students and teachers to do in preparation for the speech, including studying Barack Obama's writings and presidency.

Obama had announced the speech during a child reporter's visiting the White House.

During the interview, Obama said, "On September 8, when young people around the country are … will have just started or are about to go back to school, I'm going to be making a big speech to young people all across the country…"

But opposition is assembling quickly, similar to the concerns expressed on the AmericanElephant blog:

"Now the former community organizer and current president of the United States is making an unprecedented speech to the school children of our nation. I'd like to believe his motives were pure and politics didn't play into this. But viewing this administration's track record doesn’t afford such benefit of the doubt.

"When the president browbeats property owners who want to protect their legal rights… when the president admits he doesn't know the facts but impugns the integrity of a police force… when the president calls me a liar for reporting what is actually in the health care bills and encourages my neighbors to report me to some enemies list… when the president apologizes to nations around the world and bows to a Saudi king… he loses the benefit of the doubt," the blogger wrote.

"Without benefit of the doubt, the president doesn't get to speak to my children unchallenged," the writer said.

Whereas starting a war based on fake information and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians - and letting an entire city of American brown people die - well, that inspires blind devotion, right? Which pretty much lets us know where these folks are coming from.

As I was pleased to note last night in an update, pressure from the Netroots was instrumental in getting Sens. McCaskill (D-MO) and Specter (D-PA) to come out against the Thune Amendment, an assault on federalism, personal security and the proposition that Dems might actually stand up for something.

The vote is at noon. Keep your calls coming, as we are on the cusp of wining this one and saving countless lives, not to mention shutting down a key element of the right-wing machine in DC: The NRA.

Here are your numbers once again:

Those whose minds need to be changed

Bayh (D IN) 202-224-5623

Bennet (D CO) (202) 224-5852

Collins (R ME) (202) 224-2523

Conrad (D ND) (202) 224-2043

Feingold (D WI) 202/224-5323

Hagan (D NC) 202-224-6342

Landrieu (D LA) (202)224-5824

Lincoln (D AR) (202) 224-4843

McCain (R- AZ) (202) 224-2235

Pryor (D-AR) (202) 224-2353

Reid (D – NV) 202-224-3542

Snowe (R – ME) (202) 224-5344

Udall (D – NM) 202-224-6621

Udall (D – CO) 202-224-5941

Voinovich (R- OH) (202) 224-3353

Warner (D – VA) 202-224-2023

Webb (D –VA) 202-224-4024

Those we must hold:

Kohl (D – WI) (202) 224-5653

Klobuchar (D – MN) 202-224-3244

Nelson (D - FL) 202-224-5274

UPDATE: (Nicole) The Thune Amendment, which needed 60 votes to pass, went down 58-39) Thanks to all who called. Nice to see we can beat the NRA.

Full disclosure: I have been hired to work with Mayors Against Illegal Guns on this effort, and couldn't be happier or more passionate about it.

DOWNLOADS: (903)

PLAYS: (1196)

Embed

This topic comes up once in a while, but I think it's good to get out there again because it's all about transparency. Why won't the Supreme Court allow cameras into the process? I know being on TV could affect some of the court, but if they are so solid in their understanding of the law then why should it matter? We need to be able to see how they conduct themselves and how major decisions are handed down.

Arlen Specter says he will push for cameras in the high court. I think that's a great idea even though Joe Sestak looks to be a solid challenger for his seat and is for the public option also.

You know, I'm not a Democrat to protect our politicians. As far as I'm concerned, they're little more than tools to execute the policies I support. But I know not everyone else feels that way, and that's why it really makes me furious to see them use people by promising one thing and delivering something completely different - you know, like this expensive mishmosh of a healthcare "reform."

The Kathleen Sebeliuses of the world, those timid souls who can be found out in the middle of the road hugging the center line with the rest of the road kill, can go take a flying leap if they think we're going to support backward thinking like this:

As lawmakers on Capitol Hill hammer out legislation to overhaul the nation's health care system this year, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius says that a single-payer option is not on the table.

"This is not a trick. This is not single-payer," Sebelius told Steve Inskeep. She added: "That's not what anyone is talking about — mostly because the president feels strongly, as I do, that dismantling private health coverage for the 180 million Americans that have it, discouraging more employers from coming into the marketplace, is really the bad, you know, is a bad direction to go."

[...] Republicans have also raised the specter that a public option could evolve into a single-payer health care system where funding comes from one source — usually the government. The GOP says that such a system would lead to health care rationing and long delays in treatment.

Asked if the administration's program will be drafted specifically to prevent it from evolving into a single-payer plan, Sebelius says: "I think that's very much the case, and again, if you want anybody to convince people of that, talk to the single-payer proponents who are furious that the single-payer idea is not part of the discussion."

Sebelius says such concerns are unfounded because a single-payer plan is not under consideration, and these "draconian" scenarios have muddled the conversation over the president's proposal for a public option.

If Obama does, in fact, include language to prevent the public health plan from becoming a single-payer option, we might as well kiss this Democratic majority goodbye. Because, as history shows, given the choice between a fake Republican and a real one, people will pick the real one every time!

(You can let the Secretary know how you'd feel about that. HHS - 202-619-0257.

Better still, Democracy for America, Health Care for America Now and Open Left join Stand With Dr. Dean in a project to pin down the politicians on where they stand.

Send an email asking the following four questions:

Do you support a public healthcare option as part of healthcare reform?

If so, do you support a public healthcare option that is available on day one?

Do you support a public healthcare option that is national, available everywhere, and accountable to Congress?

Do you support a public healthcare option that can bargain for rates from providers and big drug companies?

The goal is to remove all hedges and dodges. We want to know where they stand on the public option.

Add your responses to the form at Stand With Dr. Dean.

DOWNLOADS: (2356)

PLAYS: (4201)

Embed

While the GOP struggles to find someone -- anyone -- to be the leader who'll get them out of the political wilderness, their current leader, and the man who did more to lead them into that wilderness, is starting to make it clear he's chosen the figurehead to replace George W. Bush:

Sarah Palin.

On Monday's Rush broadcast, he dissed the GOP's current "reconnect" efforts, and said they were all missing the boat -- because Palin wasn't there:

If Jeb wants to run around and say that they've got something and we don't have anything -- I mean, the Democrats got something. We have to admit it. If we don't have something, it's the fault of the people that Jeb is meeting with in Arlington, Virginia, not conservatives and not conservatism and not the grass roots!

Ah, the -- what's -- I have to laugh. Specter and all these people talk about how far right the party's moving? It's the exact opposite. This party has muddled its identity to the point that they have to do this tour to come up with a new brand, that they're rebrand the Republican -- why? Because in many places, you can't distinguish it from the Democratic Party.

Something else you have to understand. These people hate Palin, too. They despise Sarah Palin. They fear Sarah Palin. They don't like her, either. She's -- according to them, she's embarrassing. A lot of this is aimed at Sarah Palin. When you -- when you -- when you strip all the talk that the Reagan era is over and we got to stop all this nostalgia and stuff, clearly, in last year's campaign, the most prominent, articulate voice for standard run-of-the-mill good old-fashioned American conservatism was Sarah Palin.

Now, everybody on this "speak to America" tour has presidential perspirations. Mitt Romney's out there. He wants to be president again. Jeb may some day. Eric Cantor, some of the others, McCain -- I don't think he does, but you never know. So this is -- this is -- this is an early campaign event, 2012 presidential campaign, primary campaign, with everybody there but Sarah Palin.

And then, yesterday, he was even more explicit:

Continue reading »