I admit that I was stunned to see Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein on the guest list for Reliable Sources this week. Mann and Ornstein's book placed very pointed blame on the media for failing Americans in presenting the truth of the extremism of the Republican Party. So how could the king of the false equivalency, Howard Kurtz, handle having on such dead-on criticism on his show?

By pretending that he isn't part of the problem, natch. And then a little blaming-the-messenger suggestion to dismiss the allegations:

KURTZ: Well, this is a striking message coming from the two of you, because you've both been around Washington a long time. You do have a reputation as being kind of centrist, even though you're different kinds of think tanks.

But at the same time, I just have to wonder, maybe you just don't like where the Republican Party has gone. I mean, after all, the people who represent the Republicans here in D.C. were elected by constituents who want them to do what they're doing. And so this is more of an ideological message on your part as opposed to calling out the press for supposed bias.

MANN: It could be, but I don't believe it is. We don't do that kind of analysis and --

KURTZ: You do it right here. The Republicans are extremists. Republicans are radicals.

MANN: But look to see how we back it up. I mean, we really look at arguments made and there's no truth content to them.

Wait...facts backed up by evidence? Thems alien concepts to Kurtz. And to the rest of the Beltway media, which Kurtz never internalizes. In fact, I've never seen him more invested in not internalizing what's being said or following up on questions in an interview. Clearly, Mann and Ornstein have hit too close to home.

DOWNLOADS: (94)

PLAYS: (505)

Embed

Dancin' David Gregory had on his favorite washed-up politico on his roundtable: Newt Gingrich. Again.

And Newt is doing his damnedest to put a good spin on the inexcusable fact that the House delayed voting on the Hurricane Sandy relief bill. It wasn't that they didn't care about the good people of New York and New Jersey, mind you, it was because the bill was laden with pork, donchaknow?

I think it's, this will clearly distinguish the two parties. That bill, 64% of it did not spend out in the next two years. 31% of it had nothing, nothing, zero, to do. The train came through and the boys said, "Let's throw the pork on the train." It came out of the Senate as-- exactly why the country's now sick. This is not emergency spending.

[..]

E.J. DIONNE:

--four states, who said they needed that bill--

NEWT GINGRICH:

Yeah, they of course they want any bill. They don't care how much extra the rest of the country spends as long as they get what they want. I understand that. That's local politics in a crisis. I think the House should have passed a purely stripped down reform bill that met everything for Sandy and nothing for the pork. Now the country would have understood clearly doing that. And I think the House is not moving at the speed it needs to.

Well, sure the country would absolutely understand stripping pork out of the bill. I mean, that bill was intended to help the victims of Hurricane Sandy and it would be unconscionable for some Senator to throw some unrelated spending project on top of it, delaying the relief so desperately needed.

Except....

Fox News is continuing its hunt for "pork" in a Hurricane Sandy relief bill blocked by House Speaker John Boehner, claiming that the bill included $600 million for the Environmental Protection Agency to address climate change. But the funds in question actually focused on ensuring affected states' access to clean water, a crucial issue in the wake of the storm - and emblematic of future consequences of climate change.

Rep. Boehner recently canceled a vote on a Sandy relief bill, prompting heavy criticism from some members of his own party. He later reversed course and called for a vote on $9 billion for the National Flood Insurance Program, with another $51 billion in relief spending to be voted on later.

Let's be clear, just because Republicans can't understand why improving wastewater systems or Amtrak lines (heavily used along the Eastern seaboard hit hard by Sandy), doesn't necessarily make it pork. There were undoubtedly extraneous spending projects in the bill (as there are in EVERY bill and one of the few bipartisan actions Congress is capable of), but that's not why Boehner didn't put the bill up for a vote and every single person at that table knew that. But delaying relief for victims who are now dealing with mold and other potentially life-threatening issues because Boehner is afraid of the extreme fringe of his own party is absolutely a dereliction of his duties.

DOWNLOADS: (128)

PLAYS: (718)

Embed

I’m sure it’s just a coincidence, now that the 2012 election is over – and Benghazi-gate was useless in defeating President Obama – Fox News is suddenly making it all about Hillary Clinton, a potential 2016 nominee. Last week, the Communications Arm of the GOP was sneering that Clinton’s concussion, which caused her to cancel testifying in Congress about Benghazi, was faked. Today, Fox helped hype a Republican effort to embarrass Clinton by blocking John Kerry’s confirmation as her replacement as Secretary of State until she testifies.

Today's chapter in the zombie Benghazi “controversy” began with the curvy couch crew on Fox & Friends joining their Republican pal, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen in her outrage over a report that the four State Department officials who resigned over Benghazi may have been re-assigned to new jobs. Of course, there was no attempt to find out whether there are certain procedures the State Department has to follow in order to actually fire somebody, what those procedures are, whether the four had fit the criteria or even whether or not anyone had been demoted or what kinds of jobs the people were going to return to.

Instead, guest host Kelly Wright all but urged Ros-Lehtinen to blast the Clinton State Department. He said, “I know you are not happy about the news of this at all. How do you describe it?”

On cue, she said, “This is unbelievable. The American people should be outraged at this because it is pathetic. It’s disgraceful. It is purposely misleading. It is a ruse, smoke and mirrors. I mean, this is so wrong for the State Department to do.”

The discussion went on in predictable Fox News fashion until, suddenly, Wright brought up this little nugget:

Congresswoman, …we understand that some Republicans may try to block voting on or confirming the nomination for the Secretary of State in John Kerry until Hillary Clinton actually testifies before the Committee on what took place in Benghazi, what her role may or may not have been. What do you say to that?

Ros-Lehtinen: Correct and I think that they’re right to do so.

Never mind that Clinton is already expected to testify and that any Committee could subpoena her, if attorney and Fox News host Greta Van Susteren is to be believed. But at least some Republicans are willing to block the nomination of a Secretary of State – who would otherwise be easily confirmed - in order to tarnish the sitting SOS over a faux scandal. It never seemed to occur to Wright to even question such a plan.

Continue reading »

Courtesy of The Onion, but not far from the truth, is it?

Albert Einstein once famously said that the definition of insanity was "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Well, how else can you characterize this statement by President Obama?

In an interview with the Associated Press published Saturday, Obama says Republicans hell-bent on shutting down his agenda will be more willing to play ball if he’s re-elected.

He said two changes — the facts that “the American people will have voted,” and that Republicans will no longer need to be focused on beating him — could lead to better conditions for deal-making.

If Republicans are willing, Obama said, “I’m prepared to make a whole range of compromises” that could even rankle his own party. But he did not get specific.

Oh help me, Rhonda. This fetish for bipartisanship is killing this country, especially when the Republicans are clearly so unwilling to play along. Please do not let this mean that Obama's "Grand Bargain" dismantling critical social safety nets are what we're in store for.

DOWNLOADS: (902)

PLAYS: (796)

Embed

The press is supposed to confront and challenge politicians, to fact check, to provide a service to their viewership to be informed.

Which is why I'm less upset at Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell publicly announcing that the Senate Republicans will be contributing an Amicus Brief to the case against President Obama's recess appointments than I am that Candy Crowley never bothered to mention that during the previous administration, Bush made 171 recess appointments--including Ambassador to the UN John Bolton--and Mitch McConnell never said boo to any of them.

There's nothing unconstitutional about Obama's appointments, as the Republicans well know:

The Justice Department is publicly rebutting Republican criticism of the legality of President Barack Obama's recent recess appointments of a national consumer watchdog and other officials.

The department released a 23-page legal opinion Thursday summarizing the advice it gave the White House before the Jan. 4 appointments. GOP leaders have argued the Senate was not technically in recess when Obama acted so the regular Senate confirmation process should have been followed.

Assistant Attorney General Virginia Seitz wrote that the president has authority to make such appointments because the Senate is on a 20-day recess, even though it has held periodic pro forma sessions in which no business is conducted. Seitz argued the pro forma sessions – some with as few as one member present – have not been sufficient for the chamber to exercise its constitutional authority to advise and consent to normal presidential nominations.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has said Obama has endangered the nation's systems of checks and balances, and Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch says the appointments are a very grave decision by an autocratic White House.

Autocratic? Such pearl-clutching hypocrisy. Sen. Mike Lee has promised to obstruct all further nominations as retribution for this completely legal tactic made necessary by Republican obstruction. This, of course, doesn't bother Mitch McConnell either. Because the tyranny of the minority to hold the entire country hostage against the desires of its populace is absolutely acceptable practice, if you're a Republican.

Continue reading »

Appearing yesterday on MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan Show, The Nation's Ari Melber reminded us how Republican obstructionism has crippled administration appointments -- and suggested what Obama and Harry Reid should do:

ARI MELBER: Most of you know Congress just left for vacation. Normally when Congress is on recess, the president can make recess appointments to advance nominees that have been obstructed, but it turns out Congress is not really on recess. Republicans are holding symbolic sessions during their entire vacation in order to prevent recess appointments. This is just the latest ploy in a long obstruction campaign by the GOP.

Since Obama came into office, Republicans have blocked an unprecedented number of nominees from ever getting a vote. Take judicial nominees. Republicans have blocked almost half of the nominees for judicial nominations, the worst obstruction rate in U.S. history. And the targets aren't random, either. GOP obstruction has hindered female and minority nominees the most.

Here's a disturbing statistic from the People for the American Way, and I'm quoting now: "Every district court nominee with unanimous opposition from the Senate Judiciary committee Republicans has been a woman or a person of color." You know, people forget that Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan was first nominated to an appeals court back in the day by President Clinton, but Republicans wouldn't allow her a vote on that nomination. Then, when President Obama nominated her to be the third woman to ever serve on our high court, the same Republicans complained she didn't have the experience as a judge -- even though they were the ones who kept her off the bench.

Continue reading »

Proving once again that partisan hackery is far more important than any sense of honor or national security, Sen. Lindsey Graham toes the party line and says he opposes ratifying the START treaty. After all, why should the fact that EVERY living Republican and Democratic Secretary of State and other national security experts urge Congress to ratify START or the verbal promise to address these issues of importance once they got their precious tax cut extension to the wealthiest 2% of Americans hinder a great opportunity to obstruct Barack Obama's agenda yet again?

And like Mitch McConnell and John Kyl, Lindsey Graham throws up a whole lot of nonsense to rationalize delaying the ratification of START:

Graham had been considered one of the GOP senators likely to support ratifying the treaty. The Washington Post had reported earlier this month that Graham would allow a vote on START if the Democrats moved fast to extend the Bush era tax cuts, and he had voted to start debating the treaty, which was interpreted as a sign that he could support final ratification.

But sounding vexed during the show, Graham seemed not only chafed by the Senate voting down a Republican effort to amend the preamble of the treaty; he also linked the START treaty to his resentment over how the current lame-duck session of Congress has turned out.

Graham exclaimed how hard it was to pass a bipartisan compromise over extending the Bush era tax cuts, and expressed his disappointment over repeal of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy banning openly gay service members.

"If you want to have a chance of passing START, you better start over and do it in the next Congress, because this lame duck has been poisoned," Graham told CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer.

"The last two weeks have been an absolutely excruciating exercise. 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' a controversial topic - some say the civil rights issue of our generation, others say battlefield effectiveness - was passed in the lame-duck session without one amendment being offered," Graham said.

Graham complained of other parts of the legislative agenda of the Senate Majority and outgoing House Majority: "The DREAM Act, we've had two votes on the DREAM Act. Controversial immigration, there was no efforts to find a common ground there, passed without the ability to amend, to try to make Republicans look bad with Hispanics.

"We tried to fund the government by clean [continuing budget resolution bill] but we took a $1.2 trillion omnibus bill with 6,000 earmarks and it failed yesterday. We still haven't funded the government. We haven't had a serious debate on START. We've been fighting a multiple front war to try to do every special interest group's bidding in the lame-duck session.

That's not a way to ratify a treaty that has importance to the country," Graham said.

Right. Everyone knows that the only thing a lame duck Congress should pass is an unfunded tax cut adding trillions to the deficit through reconciliation.

Ironic that Graham voices his frustration with the DADT repeal when it was the Republicans that tied DADT to the START treaty in the first place to slow down the pace of the lame duck agenda.

His concern trolling about how the START treaty would control our ability to develop missile defense? Another big fat whopper that Bob Schieffer doesn't call him on.

President Obama issued a letter to the Senate on Sunday pledging to fully develop a U.S. missile defense system in Europe, as part of a final offensive to relieve concerns about the nuclear arms pact with Russia as it moves toward a final vote.

The letter reiterated administration policy but was an especially extensive and detailed statement on missile defense by the president. Parts of it were read aloud by Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) shortly before a vote on an amendment that could have killed the treaty. That amendment was defeated, 59 to 37.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who has been leaning toward supporting the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), took to the floor to welcome the president's letter. "A number of people on our side of the aisle have asked for it," he said.

But that's not enough for Lindsey, no how.

Maybe it's because he's read this op-ed at HuffPo: Any Republican Senator Voting for START Should Get a Primary Challenger

Continue reading »

(h/t Media Matters)

Rush Limbaugh constantly makes me wonder how he manages to find women self-loathing (or alternatively, mercenary) enough to want to marry him. He is such a disgusting misogynist. I pray that his latest bride has made the choice to remain childless, because I shudder at the thought of any child, but especially a little girl, being raised with such a sexist and hateful father.

Rush thinks it's amazing that one of the first acts of incoming Speaker of the House John Boehner was to add a women's restroom near the House of Representatives chamber. Currently, female congresspeople must walk down the hall to utilize the women's restroom near the Senate chamber. Inconvenient, to be sure.

But rather than simply acknowledging this long-needed addition, Rush has to get a little dig in on the attractiveness of our female congresspeople.

"Now, a lot of Democrat Congresswomen could have probably used the men's room and nobody would have said anything...might not have really noticed anything..."

[insert Beevis & Butthead guffaw here] hehehehe Powerful women are mannish, right, Rush? Well, I guess that's fair, considering that I think that right wing blowhards who self-medicate, take sex vacations to the Dominican Republic and love to decorate their homes with cherubs and gilt are clearly over-compensating for raging homosexual panic (yeah, I went there).

But of course in all this celebration of how the Orange One is clearly so much more interested in gender equality than the outgoing (female) Speaker of the House and her Democratic majority, the reason it took so long gets buried:

While hailing a victory for "potty parity", some female commentators have noted that the number of female congressmen actually fall from 76 to 71 in the new Congress, which convenes in January, after numerous Democratic women were defeated in November's midterm polls.

Efforts earlier this year to make lavatory access more equitable in all federal buildings stalled.

That's right. The Democratic majority TRIED to get the vaunted "potty parity" but the Republicans obstructed it.

Obstructing toilets in the name of equality. Yup, that's today's GOP.

In this season of peace on earth, goodwill towards men, Santa Claus and other myths, House Republicans are once again showing they’re not only the party protecting the interests of the Have Mores, they’re aggressively the party who would literally take food out of a poor child’s mouth, brazenly blocking legislation to fund school meals for tens of thousands of hungry American kids. The increase would add up to a grand total of six cents per kid.

That’s all… six whole cents.

And to add insult to injury, Sarah Palin brought cookies to a Pennsylvania school to protest what she was spinning as a nanny state edict banning cookies from school lunches. You can’t even buy a cookie for six cents. Hell, you can’t even make them yourself for that little.

So while it doesn’t surprise or even shock me that Republicans could be so clueless and so heartless as to actually deny children food, some of whom are the children of the more than 15 million unemployed Americans and who only ever see a square meal at a school lunch, it does shock and sadden me that there’s not more Democrats pointing out how little money it costs to feed a child. By my calculation, and I’m no math wizard here, just one single Bush tax cut giving one single Republican fat cat a $80,000 bonus would buy… (clicketyclicketyclick on my calculator)… one million children a school lunch, and still have $20,000 left over to buy the human skull off the Skull and Bones Society. Now imagine how many school lunches $700 billion could pay for.

The House of Representatives just voted 234 to 188 to permanently extend the Bush tax cuts on incomes up to $250,000, after having blocked an earlier attempt by GOP members from offering their own bill to make the tax cuts permanent for all Americans, including the highest earners, which angered the Speaker-in-waiting John Boehner, who called it ‘chicken crap.’

Or, to paraphrase Marie Antoinette, if there’s not enough money to feed our kids a cookie, let them eat chicken crap.

Not that this will matter to the congressional Republicans, whose agenda is not actually improving the economy nor listening to economists, the wealthiest 2%, or any other American, come to that. But the country's wealthiest men, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, dismiss the calls of Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans and say that the wealthy SHOULD pay more taxes.

Warren Buffett, Chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, said that the rich should be paying more taxes and that the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy should be left to expire at the end of December.

"If anything, taxes for the lower and middle class and maybe even the upper middle class should even probably be cut further," Buffett said. "But I think that people at the high end -- people like myself -- should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we've ever had it."

The billionaire brushed aside Republican arguments that letting tax cuts expire for the wealthy would hurt economic growth.

"They say you have to keep those tax cuts, even on the very wealthy, because that is what energizes business and capitalism," anchor Amanpour said.

"The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we'll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you. But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on," Buffett explained.

It's the simplest of messages and yet sadly not on the tongues of any Democratic politicians (including the President): if tax cuts worked, why isn't the economy better right now? Gates also expressed disappointment in the failure of the ballot initiative 1098 that his father, Bill Gates Senior, was very publicly endorsing, to raise taxes on the wealthiest citizens in Washington state, showing once again how easily the majority of Americans will vote against their own interests, especially in the face of big money advertising persuasions.