Rob Simmons is former congressman from Connecticut now campaigning to win the Republican nomination to take on Senator Chris Dodd next year. A moderate, Simmons was one of the last Republicans in the House of Representatives before New England had the good sense to rid themselves entirely of them.

As we've seen earlier this year with Rob Simmons championing the efforts of radicals in the Tea Party movement, Simmons seems to be having no qualms at all about moving hard right to appease these extremist elements which will make up a large portion of the Republican primary voters, their "base". In some cases he's even abandoned positions he had voted in favor of while in congress. As he says on the Simmons' campaign blog:

I was wrong about two issues I supported in Congress – the Employee Free Choice Act (also known as “card check”) and “cap and trade.” After hearing more from the people who would be most affected by these bills, I became convinced they would cause more harm than good and I would oppose them in the Senate.

I learned of the enormous burden these two proposals would impose on job producers in the form of dramatically higher operating costs, and how those costs would be passed in turn onto workers and consumers. The net result will be an even weaker economy and fewer jobs.

The Hartford Courant noted this phenomenon in a piece sarcastically titled "A change of heart or a sharp turn to the right by Rob Simmons?"

Rob Simmons has long burnished his reputation as a moderate Republican in the classic New England mode: conservative on fiscal matters, liberal on social issues. He supports abortion rights, earned top grades from a national gay rights group and sits on the honorary board of Republicans for Environmental Protection.

He's also been a supporter of two bills long championed by liberals, union members and environmentalists.

The first is the Employee Free Choice Act, commonly known as "card check,'' which would permit workers to form a union if a majority sign pro-union cards, instead of voting by secret ballot. The second is a climate change bill known in political shorthand as Cap and Trade.

Simmons backed both measures when he served in Congress. But now, as a candidate for U.S. Senate, he has changed his mind.

At least one of his Republican opponents has noticed and is derisively calling out Simmons on his bullshit 'change of heart'.

"While Rob Simmons can spin this all he wants, he is in a primary battle and is desperate to get the support of real, principled Republicans,'' Tiffany Romero Grossman, spokeswoman for Sam Caligiuri, said in an email this morning. Both Caligiuri and Simmons are seeking the Republican nomination to unseat Democratic U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd.

"Everyone has the right to change their mind on where they stand - but doing so years later, once confronted with a competitive primary, simply stinks of political pandering,'' Grossman said in the email.

The Connecticut Democratic party put out yesterday one of the more salacious and offensive political ads I've ever seen. They did so by simply taking some WWE clips from YouTube and mixed that with a voice-over from former WWE CEO Linda McMahon, now running for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in Connecticut.

Within an hour of this web ad going up YouTube removed the clips in question. The fact remains though that few political candidates usually want their names associated with simulated rape, public sex acts, and necrophilia.

From a press release put out by CT Dems Colleen Flanagan:

As WWE Chief Operating Officer, Linda McMahon presided over programming that showed simulated rape, public sex and necrophilia, and now she wants to be our U.S. Senator? People across this state, not to mention the millions of women who are the victims of sexual violence every year, would be horrified and embarrassed to know that the person who seeks to represent them condones this kind of behavior. That kind of programming has no place in our society, and Linda McMahon has no place in the U.S. Senate.

This is certainly good news. I don't know if it has a snowball's chance in hell of passing, but you never know:

Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Russ Feingold (D-WI), and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) announced today that they will introduce the Retroactive Immunity Repeal Act, which eliminates retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that allegedly participated in President Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program.

“I believe we best defend America when we also defend its founding principles,” said Dodd. “We make our nation safer when we eliminate the false choice between liberty and security. But by granting retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies who may have participated in warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, the Congress violated the protection of our citizen’s privacy and due process right and we must not allow that to stand.”

Senator Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said, “Last year, I opposed legislation that stripped Americans of their right to seek accountability for the Bush administration’s decision to illegally wiretap American citizens without a warrant. Today, I am pleased to join Senator Dodd to introduce the Retroactive Immunity Repeal Act. We can strengthen national security while protecting Americans’ privacy and civil liberties. Restoring Americans’ access to the courts is the first step toward bringing some measure of accountability for the Bush-Cheney administration’s decision to conduct warrantless surveillance in violation of our laws.”

“Granting retroactive immunity to companies that went along with the illegal warrantless wiretapping program was unjustified and undermined the rule of law,” Feingold said. “Congress should not have short-circuited the courts’ constitutional role in assessing the legality of the program. This bill is about ensuring that the law is followed and providing accountability for the American people.”

Linda McMahon has begun airing tv ads in Connecticut in her quest to secure the Republican nomination and take on Chris Dodd for the U.S. Senate next November. When she recently stepped down as the CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) it was known her approach would be a little different. And from not bothering to vote, to publicly supporting Democrats from time to time, not to mention her own wrestling antics, her entering an already crowded Republican field guarantees Connecticut politics won't be boring.

I haven't seen Michael Moore's new movie, but Howie Klein has, and while he praises it, he excoriates Moore for dredging up the discredited Chris Dodd Countrywide story, which has been picked over to death, with nobody finding any impropriety.

First, everyone who has seriously looked at the claims of a sweetheart deal has dismissed them: the Senate Ethics Committee; an independent compliance firm; the (not exactly Dodd-loving) Hartford Courant. And not once, but twice.

This is not the definition of the word "is." The man got a mortgage. He was told that he would get enhanced customer service, and assumed it was because of his good credit score. He got the exact same mortgage rate that anyone else buying a mortgage at the time would have gotten. He didn't know the CEO of Countrywide, nor anything about a Friends of the CEO program [...]

Why does this feel like, in the interest of being able to sit on Leno and say, "I went after Democrats too!," Moore passed up the real story here? It would have been really powerful if he made the connection between the bullshit allegations about Dodd and the banking industry desperately wanting to put the breaks on important housing and foreclosure legislation that Dodd was championing in the Senate at that very moment. Well, mission accomplished assholes, excuse me, the Sheriff is here to foreclose on my house (is it possible its the same one from Roger and Me? Oh, the irony) [...]

All in all, still love Moore, still want everyone to see the movie, but kind of wish he hadn't decided to jump ugly with one of the most progressive Senators in the Senate -- the guy responsible for the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Credit CARD Act, who voted for cramdown, worked to make that disaster of a bankruptcy bill better, then voted against it twice, voted for a 15% cap on interest rates, and is co-sponsoring another cap that is likely to come up again, is a leader on direct-student-loan reform, is in favor of a consumer financial protection agency and stripping the fed of some of its regulatory authority, and just last week introduced legislation to reign in the diabolical overdraft fee practice-- all stuff, if you are keeping score, which Moore clearly wasn't, that banks would rather paint a hammer and sickle on their walls than accept! I wish Moore hadn't got played like a three dollar harmonica. He should donate the 10 grand to Dodd's campaign.

It appears that the premise of Moore's film is that banking interests have taken over the government and prevented any meaningful regulation on the industry. Dodd's case can be an example of that, but not in the way Moore thinks. The banking lobby has consistently kneecapped him, with old charges that have a Whitewater quality to them, with all the same innuendo and the same lack of factual detail, right at the moments when Dodd was trying to get things passed to crack down on them. Dodd could have given away the Banking Committee Chair to completely-in-the-pocket Tim Johnson, but he didn't. And in the last few days, Dodd has introduced the aforementioned legislation to end the practice of banks charging overdraft fees on debit cards automatically, with 1000% interest, instead of giving customers the opportunity to have a transaction denied; introduced a plan for a single bank regulator that is at odds with the Obama Adminstration and his House counterpart Barney Frank, as well as being hated by the banking industry; and has taken the lead on weakening the power of the Fed, which is deeply desirable. In other words, despite the many slings and arrows, Dodd is basically doing the job Michael Moore would expect someone in his position to do, and doing it with gusto. He should be commended and not smeared.

We're going to have to watch this corporatist tool like a hawk. Not as if we didn't have to watch Dodd, mind you, but still:

If Senator Tim Johnson ascends to the chairmanship of the Senate Banking Committee, the biggest winners will be Wall Street, pay-day lenders and credit card companies. The biggest losers: widows and orphans.

No, really.

In late 2006, the South Dakotan spoke out against an effort by his fellow Democrats to cap the interest rates that members of the military pay for short-term loans. "This time it's military. Who's to say it isn't going to be widows and orphans or other sympathetic groups in the future?" he griped in an interview with the American Banker.

That's the man who's next in line to lead the Banking Committee if the current chair, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), as expected, vacates the position to take the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee chair left empty by the death of Ted Kennedy.

Meanwhile, Democrats are hoping to push through the most sweeping financial regulations in a generation, including the creation of a government panel that would regulate financial products with an eye toward consumer protection. All of that will have to go through the Banking Committee.

Consumer advocates and backers of a regulation overhaul are deeply concerned that handing the committee to Johnson would be a death sentence for reform.

"He's got a long track record of supporting small predatory loan companies, pay-day loan companies," said one longtime consumer advocate, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he would have to work with Johnson as banking chair.

In 2003 and again in 2005, Johnson intervened with federal regulators on behalf of pay-day lenders, sending a letter to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,

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

DOWNLOADS: (858)

PLAYS: (640)

The Hill:

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said on Sunday that Vicki Kennedy should be considered to replace her late husband in the Senate.

Hatch, one of Kennedy's closest friends in the Senate, said on CNN's State of the Union that Vicki Kennedy is well-qualified to serve, even if only until a January special election to fill the rest of the term.

"I think Vicki ought to be considered. She's a very brilliant lawyer. She's a very solid individual. She certainly made a difference in Ted's life, let me tell you. And I have nothing but great respect for her," Hatch said on CNN.

Another close friend of Kennedy, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), acknowledged that Vicki Kennedy has not expressed much interest in filling in for her husband, but said he would support her next step.

"Whatever Vicki wants to do, I'm in her corner," Dodd said on State of the Union. "She knows that. And she's expressed to me her own sort of reluctance to [fill in for Kennedy], but she could change her mind. If she did, I'm for it. I think she'd be great."

"She brings talent and ability to it, and to fill that spot I think is something the people of Massachusetts would welcome. We could certainly use her in the Senate," Dodd said. "But I leave that up to her. She's got a lot on her mind right now, and frankly, I'll leave it up to her decision-making process."

Massachusetts lawmakers, spurred by a letter from Kennedy himself, have begun discussing new legislation that would allow Gov. Deval Patrick (D) to appoint a temporary replacement to serve until an election. State law passed when Gov. Mitt Romney (R) was in office took the power to appoint a replacement away from the Republican when Sen. John Kerry (D) appeared in strong position to win the presidency.

Kennedy was reportedly worried that the Democrats would fail in their health care reform push without that 60th vote and wanted to make sure that Patrick could appoint someone before that January special election. You gotta love that about Teddy, optimistic 'til the end that the Dems would find their spines.

Meanwhile, BoldProgressives has started the Honor Senator Kennedy petition:

PETITION TO THE SENATE: "Ted Kennedy was a courageous champion for health care reform his entire life. In his honor, name the reform bill that passed Kennedy's health committee 'The Kennedy Bill' -- then pass it, and nothing less, through the Senate."

Sign it, it's getting passed on to the Senate today as they come back from recess.

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

DOWNLOADS: (1164)

PLAYS: (6805)

[YouTube]

Republican efforts to roadblock meaningful health care reform take on the fantastic and bizarre at times, and this example of Theatre of the Absurd is no exception. MyLeftNutmeg, a Connecticut blog, puts their silly manoeuvres into perspective:

This is a revealing moment from Monday's markup of the health care bill in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee that illustrates the level of procedural obstruction Senate Republicans are willing to rise to in order to impede its progress and in the hopes of killing its momentum.

At the opening of Monday's hearing, Sen. Dodd asked Sen. Enzi (R-WY), the ranking Republican on the committee, if he would agree to accept by unanimous consent a total of 64 Republican amendments. After a whisper from an aide, Enzi, a little perplexed and not a little embarrassed, refused to allow the 64 Republican amendments to be accepted, lowering his voice to mumble, "I think some of our members want votes on some of those." Dodd's visible exasperation and disbelief is priceless.

Continue reading »

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

DOWNLOADS: (1078)

PLAYS: (1669)

I feel like I'm turning into Jerry Seinfeld: Have you ever noticed how only Democratic deficits are a problem? Republicans are sticking to their Frank Luntz-authored talking points on health care (as Chris Dodd points out about Lindsey Graham on This Week this morning) and pulling their beards, speaking ponderously of the horrors of spending money to save money:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Republicans seem to be digging in, Senator Graham, on a couple of big issues. On the issues of taxes to pay for health care, on the issue of a public health insurance plan. But let me show you this New York Times poll that's just out this morning showing 72 percent, 72 percent of the public supports a government health insurance plan and 57 percent of the public is willing to pay more taxes for universal health care. They seem to be ready for the kind of change that Republicans are fighting.

GRAHAM: Well, it's just not Republicans, George. The reason you're not going to have a government run health care pass the Senate is because it would be devastating for this country. The last thing in the world I think Democrats and Republicans are going to do at the end of the day is create a government run health care system where you've got a bureaucrat standing in between the patient and the doctor. We've tried this model -- people have tried this model in other countries. The first thing that happens -- you have to wait for your care. And in socialized health care models, people have to wait longer to get care and the government begins to cut back on what's available because of the cost explosion.

Lindsey, you silly thing! I know you're only saying what Frank told you to say, but since you've apparently had government-run health care most of your adult life (in the military and in public office), you probably don't know: We already have bureaucrats standing between us and our doctor. We already wait for care, and it's already rationed. That's why these talking points from Frank aren't working - they're not our reality.

The CBO estimates were a death blow to a government run health care plan. The finance committee has abandoned that. We do need to deal with inflation in health care, private and public inflation, but we're not going to go down to the government owning health care road in America and I think that's the story of this week. There's been a bipartisan rejection of that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, you call it a death blow. Let me just press that point. Are you saying now that Republicans just as we saw in the stimulus where I think only three Republicans voted for the president's stimulus package -- if there's a government run health insurance plan, are Republicans going to vote on that against this package?

GRAHAM: I don't think it's just going to be Republicans. You've got Senator Conrad talking about a co-op. You've got other Democrats running away from the government-run health care where the bureaucrat stands between the doctor and the patient. I think this idea is unnerving to the members of the Senate and will be to the public when they understand what it means, that you'll wait longer to get treated and you'll get health care the government decides for you, not that of your doctor. So yes, I think this idea needs to go away and replace it with something maybe like Kent Conrad's proposal.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Now Senator Dodd, I think that Senator Graham talked about the public there. We just saw that hole. But his read of the Senate seems pretty accurate right now. You have not only Republicans but several of your Democratic colleagues, including the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Baucus saying the public option isn't going to fly in their committee. They want something bipartisan and that can't include this public health insurance option.

DODD: Well, again, I'm delighted to hear Lindsey talk about the possibility of having something like a co-op and non-profits. I happen to support a public option, I don't think you can bring down costs without it. If there isn't some competition out there to drive down the overall cost -- costs have gone up 86 percent since '96, 1996. Forty-five percent might stay the loan, increase in health care cost. The American average working family can't afford this. A family of four now. it's $12,000. We're being told in 20 years, it could be half the gross income of a family spent on health care premiums. That is just unacceptable.

Now how we get those costs down -- you use a lot of these buzz words. No one I know is for socialized medicine. We're going to develop a U.S. plan, not a Canadian or a U.K. plan, one that meets our needs in our country. It's designed for Americans, by Americans, that isn't socialized medicine. But you've got to drive down these costs. We need quality, accessible health care in bringing down those costs are absolutely critical, or we're going to bankrupt the country. It's unsustainable. That's why we're at the table.

Now, let me make that even clearer: Dodd's right when he says the present situation is unsustainable. Borrowing money to fix this is rational, the same way borrowing to fix a major structural problem with your house is. As economist Brad DeLong pointed out this week:

America's long-run fiscal problems are caused by health care, and will not be appreciably made worse by this half-decade's federal fiscal stimulus. If restructuring the health care system can bend the curve on the rise in overall (and hence public as well as private) health care costs, then America has ample debt capacity to borrow whatever we wish in this crisis--and to borrow it at extraordinarily favorable rates as well.

If the curve of rising health-care costs is not bent, then the government's long-term finances are in trouble and so is the growth of private-sector non-health living standards: health care costs that rise as fast as CBO is projecting in the baseline cause lots of long-run economic problems, of which government fiscal bankruptcy is not the worst. Health care reform to bend the long-run curve of costs is now just what it was back in 1993: the most important issue for the American political system to deal with.

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

DOWNLOADS: (1116)

PLAYS: (1582)

Senator Dodd just got his first primary opponent yesterday when virtual unknown Merrick Alpert announced his candidacy at his home. Alpert has no prior experience but apparently has the money to burn. A few hours later he would go on Fox News, where his appearance was more important than a White house press briefing going on at the same time. Alpert's talking points in this clip are straight out of the republican handbook. Earlier in the day he called Chris Dodd "Bambi", and that Dodd was part of the "culture of corruption" in Washington.

Dodd also has to contend with two real republican weasels who are vying for his job in the U.S. Senate.

Should be an interesting 18 months until the election. Or as one CT journalist succinctly put it,

"Somewhere, Glenn Beck and Rob Simmons are smiling."

DOWNLOAD (111)

PLAY (118)

Sean Hannity of Fox News tried this week to goad Republican challengers Sam Caliguiri and Rob Simmons into calling Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) "a lying weasel" on national tv. One gladly took the bit in his teeth and ran with it, one did not. Hannity's glee came from a local Connecticut rag publication, the New Haven Register.

The knives have come out in earnest for Senator Dodd in recent weeks in the wake of the AIG bonuses fiasco, and some recent bad poll numbers, and we can expect more yellow journalism in the coming months as this plays out until the senate election some 18 months away.

If these republicans want to lay with the likes of a Sean Hannity, intent on negative campaigning for the duration, then I fully expect Senator Dodd to recover. In recent years three republican congressmen in Connecticut have gone down to defeat employing such tactics, one of them being Rob Simmons himself.

Glenn Greenwald sums it up nicely:

There is a major push underway -- engineered by Obama's Treasury officials, enabled by a mindless media, and amplified by the right-wing press -- to blame Chris Dodd for the AIG bonus payments. That would be perfectly fine if it were true. But it's completely false, and the scheme to heap the blame on him for the AIG bonus payments is based on demonstrable falsehoods.

Jane Hamsher (who's really been on fire lately) breaks it all down, step by step. A well-placed leak to the New York Times (who's always oh-so-grateful for any story they don't have to actually investigate) was all it took to finger Dodd as the bad guy.

But, as Glenn says, it's just not true.

It was Dodd who did everything possible -- including writing and advocating for an amendment -- which would have applied the limitations on executive compensation to all bailout-receiving firms, including AIG, and applied it to all future bonus payments without regard to when those payments were promised. But it was Tim Geithner and Larry Summers who openly criticized Dodd's proposal at the time and insisted that those limitations should apply only to future compensation contracts, not ones that already existed. The exemption for already existing compensation agreements -- the exact provision that is now protecting the AIG bonus payments -- was inserted at the White House's insistence and over Dodd's objections. But now that a political scandal has erupted over these payments, the White House is trying to deflect blame from itself and heap it all on Chris Dodd by claiming that it was Dodd who was responsible for that exemption.

From a Feb. 14th article in the Wall St. Journal:

The most stringent pay restriction bars any company receiving funds from paying top earners bonuses equal to more than one-third of their total annual compensation. That could severely crimp pay packages at big banks, where top officials commonly get relatively modest salaries but often huge bonuses.

As word spread Friday about the new and retroactive limit -- inserted by Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut -- so did consternation on Wall Street and in the Obama administration, which opposed it.

Lots more, go read.

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?

Once again Bush shrinks into the background and lets someone else take the responsibility of a catastrophe during his administration. It shows in the polls.

Howie has statements from some of our Blue America candidates on the bail out....

So does Matt Stoller...

Congress cannot let President Paulson have a blank check. We can't be shocked (buy the “The Shock Doctrine”) into something once again...Although Dodd's bill seems to be better overall...

 Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd is taking much more aggressive approach to the Treasury bailout plan, demanding foreclosure assistance, limits on executive compensation and profit sharing for taxpayers if the Treasury begins to make money back on the bad debt it plans to purchase.

Dodd's legislation, obtained this morning by Politico, has just started to circulate among Senate legislative directors. His plan addresses many of the concerns raised by Democrats and Republicans who are concerned about handing over $700 billion blank check to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

Part of me wants to let it burn.. Let the credit crisis hit and let Americans see really what it's like to live under Conservative/Milton Friedman rule...Then, being a Conservative would be poison for-evah. OK, that part is wishful thinking... 

Sen. Chris Dodd spoke out against immunity for the telecoms on the Senate floor Monday night as they prepare to vote on the new FISA bill today and quoted our pal, Glenn Greenwald. (rough transcript)

Dodd: And the idea that this body would grant retroactive immunity in the face of these challenges and deny the courts an opportunity to determine at the mere request of a president....the major companies for years on end can sweep up---vacuum up to use the Church committees language, every telephone conversation, every fax , every email of millions and millions of Americans is a precedent I don't think we would want to have left as part of our heritage in coming generations. And believe me they will look back to us...Constitutional lawyer and author Glenn Greenwald expressed the high stakes this way, Mr. President and I quote:

'The Bush administration will be gone in eleven months, but in the absence of some meaning accountability all of this will remain. If these theories remain undisturbed and unchallenged. And all of these crimes go un-investigated and unpunished, that will have a profound impact on changing our national character and further transforming the type of country we are.'