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

DOWNLOADS: (2744)

PLAYS: (3255)

If I hear "He's with us on everything but the war" one more time, I'm going to go medieval on somebody.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Democrat-turned-independent from Connecticut, said Tuesday that he will not vote for a healthcare reform bill that includes a government-run insurance plan.

This means that as things now stand, Democrats will not have enough votes to pass healthcare reform with a so-called public option unless Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) can pick up unexpected GOP votes.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine), the only Republican to vote for the Senate Finance Committee’s healthcare bill, said Tueday that she would vote against bringing up a bill that included a government-run insurance program unless the implementation of such a program were set to a trigger.

Lieberman said he would vote with Reid and other Democrats on a motion to begin debate on a healthcare bill because he believes it is an important issue that needs to be considered. But he said he would not lend his support to an effort to cut off debate on a bill including a government-run insurance program.

Lieberman said he told Reid of his position in a recent conversation and that the leader “respected and understood.”

“We’re trying to do too much at once,” said Lieberman. “To put this government-created, government-run insurance company on top of everything else is just asking for trouble for the taxpayer, for the premium payer and for the national debt. I don’t think we need it now.”

Lieberman said he was not placated by allowing states to opt out of the public option “because it still creates a whole new federal government entitlement program, for which taxpayers will eventually be on the line.”

The motion to begin debate and the motion to move to a final vote are two actions that would require 60 votes and are considered the highest hurdles to passing a reform bill through the Senate.

Can we strip this traitor of his chairmanships already? I have several choice descriptors for Lieberman, but party/caucus loyalist is not one of them. Mr. Gang of 14/Up or Down Vote is more interested in letting insurance companies make a profit off you than helping Americans. He's afraid of doing "too much."

Too late. He already has done too much. Too much to ever be allowed to caucus with the Democrats again.

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

DOWNLOADS: (879)

PLAYS: (1219)

On three separate Fox News programs yesterday -- on Neil Cavuto's show, on Sean Hannity, and on Greta Van Susteren -- the hosts specifically referred to the Democrats' decision to go through "reconciliation" sessions to settle on the final form of the health-care legislation as "the nuclear option."

Eh?

Now just a gol-darned minute. The "nuclear option" always referred to the possibility of permanently changing Senate rules regarding filibusters so that the minority could not use it so readily to frustrate majority-approved legislation -- and it was an invention of Republicans who were considering bringing it against Democrats.

No such steps are being considered here.

Instead, we're seeing the health-care legislation go through the "reconciliation" process, which assures that it will only need 51 votes to pass. This is a long-established Senate procedure, and was indeed used frequently by Republicans when they controlled the Senate from 2001-2006.

Media Matters has the complete rundown.

Republicans repeatedly used reconciliation to pass former President Bush's agenda. Republicans used the budget reconciliation process to pass Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts as well as the 2005 "Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act." The Senate also used the procedure to pass a bill containing a provision that would permit oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (The final version of that bill signed by Bush did not contain the provision on drilling.)

These people never quit when it comes to twisting reality for their agenda, do they?

What if everyone on the Senate Judiciary Committee took a Jack Nicholson pill?

Open Thread below...

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

DOWNLOADS: (3355)

PLAYS: (13333)

One of the main features of the running debate over the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act -- which, should it pass, would become the nation's first real federal bias-crimes law -- has been conservatives' insistence on digging up new rationales to oppose it, and then clinging to them intransigently, regardless of how thoroughly their arguments get knocked down.

Thus we get spectacles like Sean Hannity with Steve King, flatly dissembling to a national audience about what the legislation does, how it works legally speaking, and repeating the usual Zombie Lies: "this bill creates thought crimes," "it creates special rights," "it protects sexual perverts," and "all crimes are hate crimes." Or Virginia Foxx informing Congress that Matt Shepard's murder was a "hoax."

That's the brazenly dishonest component of the right-wing opposition. Then there's the only somewhat less dishonest approach of the right's more intellectual corners, which does not stoop to naked falsehoods in the fashion of Hannity et. al., but instead relies on a more legalistic, largely libertarian construct that is opposed to the law on the basis of their general opposition to expanding the reach of federal law -- but clings just as mightily to disproven claims and its own preconceived mythology about bias crimes.

Their reasoning runs roughly thus: The law raises the danger of double jeopardy, while the depth of the hate-crimes problem is wildly overstated by liberal civil-rights groups. There is no problem with enforcement or investigation of these crimes. There is no problem, like we had in the South during the Civil Rights era, with juries refusing, largely on the basis of race, to convict people for bias crimes.

Apparently, these people don't bother to read the news. Because fresh in the national headlines this week is the case of the Shenandoah, Pa., jury that apparently indulged in some very current nullification in the case of the hate-crime beating death of a Latino man named Luis Ramirez.

Indeed, it seems the Justice Department is currently reviewing the case to see if federal charges might be warranted:

Two Pennsylvania teens acquitted of the most serious state charges in the beating death of a Mexican immigrant could still face federal charges.

Justice Department spokesman Alejandro Miyar says the civil rights division is reviewing evidence surrounding last summer's fatal fight between high school football players in Schuylkill County and 25-year-old Luis Ramirez.

This is a tricky issue with the law as currently written, because federal prosecutors would have to find that the killers committed a federal violation in order to act on this case. That would not be nearly the issue if LLEHCPA were already law.

One of the major components of the LLEHCPA, as we recently explored in some detail, is the ability of federal prosecutors to step in and file federal charges in cases like these where the state or local prosecutions fail for whatever reasons.

Now, this is where the conservative intellectuals weigh in, claiming the law raises the specter of double jeopardy. You'll call that this was David Freddoso's objection over at NRO -- to which we responded by citing Frederick Lawrence, dean of the GWU Law School, who explains that this falls easily under the rubric of the doctrine of dual jurisdictions:

Continue reading »

Larry Kudlow showing his "compassionate conservative" side. (h/t Heather)

Swing State Project:

This strikes me as hilarious:

Here at CPAC a well placed source with knowledge of the Republican Senate Committee plans tells me that Larry Kudlow is "considering" a Senate run against embattled Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd.

Larry Kudlow has a long track record of being wrong about just about everything. Just last week, for instance, he was addled enough to say of Obama's mortage plan that "the people who win here are Fannie and Freddie. The Americans who paid their taxes on time and their mortgages on time get hurt" - even though Fannie and Freddie are, of course, now owned by the US government. And that's just one example among many, many more - check out Atrios's archives for all kinds of gems.

We have lots and lots of gems from Larry Kudlow as well. In fact, this is a Republican challenger that I'm actually looking forward to, for no other reason than the amount of damage we can do to Kudlow's credibility simply by using his own words.

Also...joy of all joys...since the conservative blogosphere went nuts and demanded that Chris Matthews be relieved of his NBC/MSNBC duties if he threw his hat in the ring in Pennsylvania, dare we hope that Larry Kudlow would be similarly removed from the airwaves?

DOWNLOAD (56)

PLAY (62)

Well, it's now official:

Gov. David A. Paterson has selected Representative Kirsten Gillibrand, a 42-year-old congresswoman from upstate who is known for bold political moves and centrist policy positions, to fill the United States Senate seat vacated by Hillary Rodham Clinton, according to a person who spoke to the governor early Friday.

Color us thrilled. To pieces. Not.

As Gregg Levine at FDL notes:

Gillibrand is a member of conservative Blue Dog caucus. She is the only NY Democrat to have voted against the TARP legislation both times it came before the House, and has supported the renewal of Bush tax cuts.

Gillibrand has also been criticized for her close ties to the NRA. Her positions on gun control are likely to earn Gillibrand a primary challenge from Long Island Representative Carolyn McCarthy.

Gillibrand’s positions on some social issues is, shall we say, a work in progress. Once maligned for her less than clear statements on abortion rights, Gillibrand and her supporters now make it clear that she is solidly pro-choice. Gillibrand has also moved to support full marriage rights for same-sex couples; a position she was much less clear about just weeks ago. (Her new position is stronger than either that of current Senator Chuck Schumer or former Senator Clinton.)

They're certainly not happy at Progressive New York, which noted yesterday:

Wrote one person: "It's a travesty. No matter who gets picked by the governor, he or she will be damaged goods and certainly won't represent me. Yes, that person will have the title, so what? I am not going to think of a person like that as my senator until we vote".

Well, perhaps she'll prove a "work in progress," especially considering she hailed from a conservative, Republican-leaning district. But then she will be vulnerable to flip-flopping charges.

Hope New Yorkers are happy, but no one else is very impressed.

DOWNLOAD (46)

PLAY (119)

It's not hard to tell that the looming elevation of Al Franken to the U.S. Senate is making Republicans crazy. Last week Bill O'Reilly -- whose feud with Franken is now the stuff of legend -- had to resort to running one of Franken's old comedy videos (his hilarious parody of Mick Jagger) so he could call him a "pinhead."

O'Reilly: Pinhead? You have no idea, ladies and gentlemen.

Now Politico reports that Franken is feeling the love from all kinds of right-wingers:

“I don’t know if we’ve ever had an opponent who is so disliked by Republicans as Al Franken,” said Minnesota Republican Party Chair Ron Carey, who cautioned that Coleman’s election challenge could still turn the results back his way. “It’s one thing to lose to an honorable opponent, but Al Franken is not considered an honorable opponent by Minnesota Republicans.”

Marty Seifert, the Republican leader in the Minnesota House of Representatives, said Franken’s long record of antagonizing conservatives would make it difficult for him to connect with voters who supported Coleman.

“It’s going to be hard for Franken to be very effective with any Republicans, in terms of having any credibility with us, just because he’s been so nasty in the past,” Seifert said. “He certainly has callous and very partisan behavior in the past that is beyond the pale.”

According to Carleton College political scientist Steven Schier, Franken’s record as a “flamboyant and aggressive partisan” would make him ripe for criticism back home.

“I think it’s impossible to overstate the hostility Minnesota Republicans feel toward Al Franken,” Schier said. “He will be a very useful fundraising tool.”

Republicans outside Minnesota are equally apoplectic when it comes to Franken. Prominent conservative Rush Limbaugh, who Franken mocked in the title of one of his books, has already jabbed Franken on his radio show, telling listeners in December that Franken “won’t quit [the Senate race] because he doesn’t know how to get a real job…He’s a pathetic figure.”

Ah, nothing like inchoate nature of impotent rage. I just hope it doesn't keep Franken from just being himself. Because they're gonna savage him no matter what he does, so he ought to just have fun with it.

And as long as we're digging up old videos, here's one back atcha, Poppa Bear:

This one was memorable as well for the producer's view and the dance mix.

Awwwww ... and I was so looking forward to covering Sen. Tweety.

MSNBC host Chris Matthews put an end to speculation that he was considering a bid for the U.S. Senate, telling his producers Wednesday that he had decided not to jump into the 2010 race in his home state of Pennsylvania.

In a routine production meeting before his daily show "Hardball," Matthews informed the staff that he was not going to pursue the seat, network spokesman Jeremy Gaines said. The cable host, who is negotiating a new contract at MSNBC, declined to comment.

For the last several months, Matthews toyed with taking on Republican Sen. Arlen Specter. He went so far as to talk to state Democratic power brokers about what it would take to challenge the five-term senator.

Matthews' interest in the seat put MSNBC in an uncomfortable position as reports mounted that he might run. In recent weeks, executives told him that he needed to make up his mind quickly and let them know his plans.

According to this less-than-flattering profile of Matthews in the NY Times, Matthews' contract is up in June and neither side seemed inclined to renew it, despite this report to the contrary. I wonder what changed Tweety's mind. Maybe he realized the kind of coverage he'd be subjecting himself and his family to, the kind he's been doing himself. Ah, sweet irony.

Oh, how the wingnuts writhe and hiss at the prospect of Sen. Al Franken ... especially now that it's about to come true:

A state election board on Monday will announce Democrat Al Franken has defeated Republican incumbent Norm Coleman in Minnesota's U.S. Senate race, state officials told CNN Sunday.

The canvassing board on Monday will say a recount determined Franken won by 225 votes, Secretary of State Mark Ritchie told CNN.

However, Coleman's campaign, which contends the recount should have included about 650 absentee ballots it says were improperly rejected in the initial count, has indicated it will challenge the certification.

It's all going to wind up in the courts before it gets settled, but there's little doubt Franken has the upper hand.

I suppose it would be wicked to savor the knowledge that the wingnuts are going crazy at the thought of Sen. Al Franken, and are sharpening their shivs as we speak. BillO in particular, given his history with Franken.

Likewise with Ann Coulter. My weekly e-mail from the Brownshirt Barbie this week featured her shrieking about Franken:

Dear Fellow Conservative,

Last night, I had a horrible dream... and no, this isn't the famous "I Had a Dream" speech. Frankly, I think that one could use a rest.

No, in my dream it was 12 noon, so naturally I tuned in for my daily dose of conservative news and commentary from the greatest political talk show host in the history of radio.

As I imagined one half of a giant brain being tied behind a familiar back, just to make it fair, the familiar bass notes from "My City Was Gone" throbbed, and the announcer's voice boomed...

"Ladies and gentleman... in accordance with Fairness Doctrine broadcasting regulations... here's AL FRANKEN!"

I woke up screaming. But then I realized it was just a bad dream.

Or was it?

Actually, the whole schtick is just a pitch for yet another one of Coulter's imagined liberal plots -- that largely nonexistent scheme to revive the Fairness Doctrine. Coulter's been on a real tear lately in terms of pulling crap out of thin air. But it's worth noting that Al Franken has the ability to make her extra-nutty-kookoo with sprinkles on top.

One can only imagine what they'll be dreaming up for him as a senator.

  It's rule #1 in the Republican playbook that if you repeat something often enough -- irrespective of its veracity -- it becomes common wisdom.  Somehow, I don't think that rule is going to work for Senator Tubes.   TPMMuckraker:

On Saturday, Stevens visited the small town of Ketchikan, for their annual blueberry festival and gave an interesting quote to the Ketchikan Daily News (sub. req.):

"This is an indictment for failure to disclose gifts that are controversial in terms of whether they were or were not gifts. It's not bribery; it's not some corruption; it's not some extreme felony."

Felony, schmelony.   Interesting that his levels of severity have bribery and corruption as extreme, but his felony...that's nothing.