DOWNLOADS: (252)

PLAYS: (2340)

Embed

In his Rewrite segment Wednesday night, Lawrence O'Donnell tackled a Republican lawmaker's nonsense with regard to the farm bill and SNAP funding. But he danced around the question of why Democrats like Al Franken and Tom Harkin join with Republicans to defeat an amendment restoring funds to the food stamp program. Surely they don't believe that stupid quote about those unwilling to work should not eat, especially when they know the ones hit the hardest are children. So why not vote to restore those funds?

Answer: Farm subsidies. (Third rail, sacred cow, etc.) Senator Kirsten Gillibrand had introduced an amendment to the farm bill restoring $4.5 billion in funding to the SNAP program and reducing crop insurance reimbursements to providers.

It's not that Democrats oppose restoration of funds to the SNAP program, you see. It's that they don't want any subsidy to farmers -- direct or indirect -- to be reduced. As O'Donnell explains in this segment, farm subsidies and their ugly stepsisters like crop insurance reimbursements take precedence over everything, even though they are the absolute worst form of socialism there is.

Campaign for America's Future:

The Senate on May 21 rejected an amendment by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N,Y., that would block a 10-year, $4.1 billion cut to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (also known as SNAP or the food stamp program) that was included in the farm bill that is now up for reauthorization. Twenty-eight Democrats sided with all 42 Senate Republicans in opposing this amendment, which if passed would have prevented thousands of low-income households from losing as much as $75 a month in benefits.

The Republican agenda concerning SNAP is clear: They want to shrink the program, not by improving the economy so there’s less need for it, but by providing fewer benefits to fewer people, and by making those benefits harder to obtain. What’s not clear is why 28 Senate Democrats would side with Republicans in denying economically struggling people access to food.

That’s why Campaign for America’s Future today has partnered with Daily Kos to get signatures on this petition asking those 28 Democrats to “put low-income families ahead of corporate welfare—and to oppose draconian cuts to food stamps.”

The thing is, this is the second time it's been cut this way, with the same exact offset. Last year they let $5 billion get chopped out of the program which means this year there will be even more hungry people. And this came from our progressive Senators like Harkin and Franken.

When exactly do hungry people take precedence over greedy farmers, and why aren't Democrats standing up for what's right? The answer to the first question should yield an answer the second one.

I have been bemused for many years by the peculiar mindset represented by DC centrism. I have written about it a number of times over the years, in my book The Progressive Revolution: How The Best In America Came To Be, and in many of my blog posts. DC Centrism embraces what the political establishment, especially including the big special interests who tend to control this town, thinks is right, even when the vast majority of Americans are opposed to it.

For example, cutting Social Security, something 80% of Americans oppose, is a classic example of DC centrism. Another example is focusing obsessively about the deficit while ignoring new measures to create jobs, which is the reverse of what voters want the government to focus on. Bailing out, and now subsidizing, the Too Big To Fail banks is yet another example. And these three examples really just scratch the surface- there are so many ways that DC Centrism is different from what the centrist position of real voters is.

I was thinking about all this again over the last week while I was out in my home state of Nebraska, where the Senate and Governor races are wide open. While traveling around the state talking politics with folks, I was also doing email conversations with friends about the South Dakota, Montana, Iowa, Minnesota, and Oregon Senate races. In all of these cases, the political situation goes against DC conventional wisdom, as candidates and potential candidates scramble the usual political labels and dynamics. Let’s look at the situation in all of these races.

Continue reading »

Sen. Al Franken made FOF's Thomas Minnery look like a blithering idiot by calling him out of his faulty use of a study that he mischaracterized to attack gay couples.

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) took on a representative of the conservative group Focus on the Family for mischaracterizing a study on "nuclear families" at a hearing on a bill which would repeal the Defense of Marriage Ac.

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday, Sen. Franken noted that the group's testimony listed the benefits of children "living with their biological and/or adopted mothers and fathers" as surpassing those of children "living in any other family form." He observed they listed a Department of Health and Human Services study as backing that up.

"I actually checked it out," Franken said in reference to the study FOF's Thomas Minnery has cited. He then observed it uses the term "nuclear families" without specifically mentioning "opposite sex married families."

"Isn't it true, Mr. Minnery, that a married same-sex couple that has had or adopted kids would fall under the definition of a nuclear family in the study that you cite?" Franken asked.

"I think that the study, when it cites nuclear families would mean a family headed by a husband and wife," Minnery said.

"It doesn't," Franken said, getting laughs from the audience.

"The study defines a nuclear family as one or more children living with two parents who are married to one another and are each biological or adoptive parents to all the children in the family," Franken continued. "And I frankly don't really know how we can trust the rest of your testimony if you are reading studies these ways."

Much of the Televangelists that are engaged in the DOMA debate do not care much for truth or accuracy. They only see their hatred of the gay community and play the Game of Thrones Nixon or the politics of dirty tricks that Nixon helped define.

The Conservative Top of The Ticket blogger writes:

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) needed a better defense witness than Tom Minnery could provide Wednesday after Rep. Al Franken exposed him for misrepresenting a study.

Franken, the former "Saturday Night Live" cast member and now a Democratic senator from Minnesota, used some of his comedic skills and razor-sharp timing to take down the Focus on the Family representative.

He also used the curious technique of actually reading the study his witness cited. Hilarity ensued when Franken discovered that Minnery had misrepresented a Department of Health and Human Services definition of a "nuclear family" to better fit FOTF's conservative worldview.
--
The Defense of Marriage Act was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein yesterday introduced a new bill, the Respect for Marriage Act, that would repeal it. President Obama has endorsed the new act.

Once again the use of satire cuts to the heart of the matter better than long winded explanations.

Al Franken, retelling the President's car in the ditch story with a bit more accuracy:

When the President took office, not only had the car gone into a ditch, the car had flipped over and was rolling down a steep embankment. We, the American people, were in the back seat, and the Bush Administration had removed all the seat belts, so we were all flying around the interior of this car as it was rolling and flipping and careening down this steep embankment, headed to a 2,000 foot cliff. And at the bottom of that cliff were jagged rocks. And alligators.

Now, at noon on January 20th, 2009, as the car was careening toward the cliff, George W. Bush jumped out of the car.

President Obama somehow managed to dive in through the window, take the wheel and get control of the thing just inches before it went over the precipice. Then, he and Congress starting pushing this wreck back up the embankment. Now you can’t push a car up an embankment as fast as it careens down the embankment, especially if some people are trying to push against you. But we got it going in the right direction. And slowly we’ve gotten ourselves up the embankment, out of the ditch and onto the shoulder of the road.

There. That’s what happened.

His point? This:

Well, they may have the powerful corporations on their side. But we’ve got you.

If I sound like a broken record, it's because I cannot bear the idea of Joe Lieberman as Senate power broker. So please, go vote.

I have high hopes for Sen. Al Franken, who never stops fighting for the things he believes in. How refreshing that a freshman Senator refuses to shut up and sit down, instead putting himself in the forefront of progressive fights:

Republican senators and conservative jurists found themselves on the defensive after Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) blasted "conservative activism" on federal courts.

Franken, in a major speech Thursday evening before the American Constitution Society, sought to set the stage for a summer confirmation battle in the Senate over President Barack Obama's pick, Elena Kagan, to join the Supreme Court.

The first-term senator launched a full-throated attack on originalism, the judicial philosophy often upheld by conservatives as an example for model nominees for the federal courts.

"Originalism isn’t a pillar of our constitutional history. It’s a talking point," Franken said, adding a jab at Chief Justice John Roberts for his famous comparison between judges and baseball umpires during Roberts's confirmation hearings.

"How ridiculous," Franken said. "Judges are nothing like umpires."

The Senate is set to take up the Kagan nomination in the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which Franken serves, later this month.

With the battle over Kagan and other judicial nominees having stalled in the Senate, Franken also took a moment to castigate GOP filibusters of Obama's court picks.

"The Republican obstruction that is standing between you and the work you’ve agreed to do for your country is unacceptable. And we will continue to fight it," Franken said, apologizing to Goodwin Liu and Dawn Johnsen, the president's picks for a circuit court spot and director of the Office of Legal Counsel, respectively, who were both in the audience.

Bill O'Reilly won't like this, but Al Franken is proving his moxie as a US Senator yet again.

This is an important measure to be passed:

This is a big victory for financial reform:

The Senate on Thursday voted to impose tighter regulations on credit-rating agencies, which have been criticized for misjudging the risks of debt instruments at the core of the 2008-2009 financial crisis.

The ratings services were tied to the banks that were using them so here's a tool stripped away that helps perpetrate corruption on Wall Street.

There's more:

Chris Bowers at Open Left had a good summary of the amendment this morning:

Making the bill stronger: Sen. Franken (D-Minn.) creates a Credit Rating Assignment Board which would assign the credit rating agency that does each initial rating in order to reduce the inherent conflict of interest in the current business model - where the person who hopes to sell the rated product pays the rater. This amendment stops securities issuers from shopping around among credit rating agencies for the best rating, leading raters to inflate their grades as they scrap for market share.

Why it matters: Credit Rating Agencies got paid to slap AAA ratings on packages of dangerous investments they did not even try to understand or evaluate. Their triple A ratings created huge markets for these investments, and spread them through every corner of the market. When the House of Cards built on their false promises collapsed, millions of Americans lost their savings.

The financial reform bill gets stronger and stronger by small increments. This is a good result. Let's hope there is more like it to come.

And the ratings agencies should be held accountable. That is unless this gets kicked to the Supreme Court, who will vote for big business every time with Roberts leading the way.

This week, CalPERS, the largest U.S. public pension fund, won a court ruling allowing it to proceed with a lawsuit accusing the three biggest rating agencies of assigning "wildly inaccurate and unreasonably high" ratings, causing $1 billion of losses. The agencies say they expect to eventually prevail on the misrepresentation claim.

The clearinghouse measure could give smaller ratings agencies a chance to challenge the dominance of the top three firms.

Dan Hicks And His Hot Licks - How Can I Miss You When You Won't Go Away?

If it's Sunday, you know that it's time for John McCain to show up on one of the bobblehead shows. According to Benen, McCain amazingly didn't show up on a single Sunday show through the month of March. However, that's not to say he hasn't been highly visible. Since Obama's inauguration, today's Fox News Sunday appearance marks his 21st on the Sunday shows. And how many times have we seen Dennis Kucinich, Russ Feingold, Al Franken, Barbara Boxer or any other congressional Democrat? Yeah, that's what I thought. McCain has been on the Sunday show circuit more than any other public official. The question for the media is WHY???

I do want to share a tête-à-tête I had on Saturday. One of my Twitter/Facebook "friends" is Jake Tapper, interim host of This Week. Yesterday, he was pimping his interview with former president Bill Clinton, saying that Clinton would address the violent and hateful rhetoric from the left. Well, that just wasn't going to fly with me, and I scolded him for falling for the media's false equivalencies once again. He in turn told me that I needed to chill out, watch the interview and to save my outrage. Don't you love the patronizing attitude? When I tried to explain to him that the very framing was objectionable, he repeated that I needed to watch the interview. So, you, my dear C&Lers, please watch Tapper interview Clinton. But pay attention to the framing of the questions--and you tell me, is Tapper setting up another false equivalency? If he is, I'm going to call him on it and invite him to respond here on the blog.

ABC's "This Week" - Former President Bill Clinton.

CBS' "Face the Nation" - Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass.

NBC's "Meet the Press" - Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner; Gov. Ed Rendell, D-Pa.; Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.

NBC's "The Chris Matthews Show" - Panel: Joe Klein, Kathleen Parker, Norah O'Donnell, John Heilemann. Topics: All The New Rage: How Dangerous Is The Current Anti-Washington Anger? Would the GOP Recapture The House With A Gingrich-LikeContract With America? Meter Questions: Should Republicans Issue A New Contract With America? YES: 11 NO: 1; Will President Obama Win Comprehensive Middle East Peace? YES: 3 No: 9.

CNN's "State of the Union" - Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va.

CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" - First, we have an exclusive conversation with the Foreign Minister of Poland, one of the few leaders who was not on that plane -- he'll talk about how Poland goes on after such a staggering tragedy. Plus, we talk to the man who effectively oversees the global financial system and we have a lively debate over what appears to be the Obama administration's bold new approach toward the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

"Fox News Sunday" - Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.; Gen. Ray Odierno, top American commander in Iraq.

So what's catching your eye this morning?

This is a real bummer of a day for those of us who really, really wanted to see Dawn Johnsen's nomination confirmed. It's even more of a bummer to realize it was probably Ben Nelson who scuttled it months ago, before Scott Brown was elected and after Al Franken was sworn in. From the Huffington Post:

But the votes, apparently, weren't there. Johnsen had the support of Sen Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) but was regarded skeptically by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) -- primarily for her positions on torture and the investigation of previous administration actions. A filibuster, in the end, was likely sustainable. Faced with this calculus, the White House chose not to appoint Johnsen during Senate recess, which would have circumvented a likely filibuster but would have kept her in the position for less than two years.

I have my doubts about Lugar, to be honest. The Republicans are too dogged in their determination to undermine this administration at every turn to let any of their ranks fall away. And Nelson once again demonstrates his undying loyalty to Republican principles with his "skepticism".

Dawn Johnsen is hardly a six-headed monster. She's a highly regarded lawyer with experience in the OLC's office. She has expertise in the legal questions surrounding executive power and yes, she's known for her views on abortion.

Frankly, I'm getting pretty sick and tired of the Republicans and Ben Nelson using abortion as an excuse for every obstructionist tactic they can throw against a wall. This Congress has done more to undermine women's reproductive rights on spin alone than any other I can recall in recent history.

It would be good for Democrats in particular to remember they ran on a platform that honored a woman's right to choose and make her own reproductive decisions. It's truly time to quit making us the sacrificial lamb for political pokey points.

Defying Gravity from the musical, Wicked

I love meta-fiction; that which takes an established story and turns it on its ear and gives a different point of view. The story of Wicked is an interesting example of that kind of meta-fiction. Elphaba is an emotionally-neglected but principled witch who tries to do the right thing, but she runs up against people in power who are only interested in self-preservation and who don't care if those they are charged with representing are hurt in the process. Because she refuses to play along with dishonest and immoral power grabs, she is smeared as 'wicked', blamed for all manner of evil actually done by the Wizard of Oz and run out of town. Elphaba, in this scene, chooses to embrace the epithet (and thus the Wicked Witch of the West of the original L. Frank Baum story is born) and defy the gravity demanding that she give up her principles to succeed in Oz. She knows that she'll be blamed, even if she is innocent, so she chooses to follow her own path and do what's right.

It occurs to me that we could use a few more Democratic politicians willing to defy gravity. Anthony Weiner, Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, Alan Grayson and Al Franken is a pretty pitiful number of congresspeople to count on doing what's right even if they get labeled as wicked erroneously. More's the pity, do you see any of those names on the list of bobbleheads invited to add their two cents to the national dialogue? Of course not. It's much less wicked to give more airtime to Mitch McConnell, Orrin Hatch, Lindsey Graham and Tom Friggin' Delay. Sigh.

ABC's "This Week" - Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius; Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

CBS' "Face the Nation" - Sens. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

NBC's "Meet the Press" - Sebelius; Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

NBC's "The Chris Matthews Show" - Panel: Dan Rather, Katty Kay, Andrea Mitchell, Joe Klein. Topics: Critical Care: Can President Obama Pass Health Care Reform By Easter? Rove's Rewrite: The Architect's Plans To Rehab George W. Bush's Reputation

CNN's "State of the Union" - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas; Reps. Brian Baird, D-Wash., and Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.

CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" - Gen. David Petraeus, Iraq's former Prime Minister, Ayad Allawai.

CNN's "Amanpour" - The son of a founder of Hamas, Mosab Hassan Yousef, tells Christiane about his espionage for Israel and conversion to Christianity.

"Fox News Sunday" - Former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass.; Rep. John Adler, D-N.J.; Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pa.

So what's catching your eye this morning?

DOWNLOADS: (825)

PLAYS: (2460)

Embed

The obsession Republicans have with lawsuits and the amount of money someone should receive if they win a case is very perplexing and disingenuous to me. I mean, they are the first people to use lawyers and sue you, like Fox News did to Al Franken over a book. But during the Obama health-care summit, I heard more garbage about "tort reform" from the Republicans as if it will cure our ailing health-care system. (Sen. Dick Durbin dispelled that myth perfectly, by the way.)

But that was just a drop in the bucket compared to the garbage we get served up on a daily basis from the media elite pundits who take to our airwaves and say the most insipid things to defend their positions. Fox News' Megyn Kelly earlier this week gave probably the most ludicrous argument against trial lawyers and for tort reform than anyone I've ever seen. She sacrificed her arm for the cause. For some reason, if malpractice cases disappeared, suddenly health care premiums would majestically be reduced.

Kelly was discussing tort reform with Debbie Wassermann-Schultz and dove into the twilight zone by arguing that if her arm was cut off, it really wasn't worth all that much as long as you can still function. And what the hell? It's only an arm. I mean how much of an impact does it have on your life if you lose one arm, because you have a back up, right?

Kelly: this is a CNN poll and thy ask people about tort reform and 66% of those asked said they favor limiting the amount of money patients can get if they win a medical malpractice lawsuit. 66 % want that. 33 % don't want that. Why can't there be an agreement on tort reform?

Schultz: They support that until it's them or their family member that is injured in a medical malpractice suit and then the poll numbers change.

Kelly: You just have to limit the economic damage, in other words you, if a doctor cuts my arm off. I can get the money back from what my life is to live like without this arm so I can function. You can't get punitive damages.

WTF? How does a person figure out how much one of my limbs is worth? And then I'm not allowed to get punitive damages because I don't deserve it? Are you confused?

You know, if some moron of a doctor cut off my arm through incompetence, not only would I want to get enough money to make my life whole, I would want to make sure the doctor paid a price too, just to try to assure it didn't happen to anyone else. It might not put him out of business, but it would take a piece out of his hide that he would never forget.

Maybe we should have Kelly draw up a diagram of a body and then monetize each part as it relates to how a person functions. She could then pass it on to Michael Steele, Sarah Palin and the teabaggers, because I'm sure they would argue that one foot is only worth about thirty three hundred dollars and sixteen cents.

Why would anyone care if I won $10 million dollars from a f*&king doctor if he cut my leg off and I sued his ass because he was supposed to only drain a little fluid out of my knee? This is the kind of crap Republicans argue for on Fox News every day, and conservative pundits on all the channels spew regularly. They really are ethically bankrupt.