Just got off a conference call with Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and she begged for our help in getting people to flood their local senators' offices for the jobs bill now being filibustered by Republicans.

"We don’t have even one Republican willing to help us break this filibuster," she said. "We have every anticipation that we will not have the votes. It’s become very clear that the Republicans in the Senate want this bill to fail.

"It's a cynical move, because it doesn’t serve them in terms of their elections this fall. They have decided they want this economy to fail, and they’re willing to take the country down with them," she said in an emotional conference call.

Republicans have claimed that the extended unemployment benefits can't be covered as an emergency. "If 15 million people without jobs isn’t an emergency, I don’t know what is," she said.

Stabenow said Democrats have paid for the job provisions in this bill. "When you look underneath, they [Republicans] are protecting wealthy investors who are sending jobs overseas and the big oil companies," she said. The Democratic bill removes tax incentives for sending jobs overseas, and increases the charge per barrel for cleaning up oil spills.

"We desperately need to keep this economic recovery going. Unemployment benefits help people keep food on the table, and a little gas in the car to go look for work," she said.

"The Republicans are counting on the fact that no one’s going to know what’s going on here. It would help us if offices were flooded with emails, and phone calls and outrage when we come back next week."

From Mother Jones:

What’s the price of this political obstructionism? In addition to the millions of Americans who stand to lose unemployment benefits, a huge number of private and public sector employees will lose their jobs due to state budget cuts. Without federal help, states will have to pour more money to prop up Medicaid, forcing them to make cutbacks in other parts of the budget. As a result, Moody's chief economist estimates that 200,000 jobs could be axed without federal Medicaid support, and the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities puts the number as high as 900,000—jobs belonging to teachers, firemen, police, and social workers, among others.

While federal and state governments both contribute to Medicaid funding, the economic crisis has left the states in a terrible budget crunch. The federal government has tried to step in, devoting over 60 percent of the federal stimulus money to propping up Medicaid so states wouldn’t have to make other cuts. But that money is now set to expire, and the states have yet to recover from the effects of the recession to make up the difference.

In addition to the unemployment benefit and job losses, the cuts to social services could be brutal.

Now we have to wait to see if Harry Reid will schedule a vote this year, before three of the Senators supporting the change leave office:

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said Saturday she's secured the votes to force a rules change ending the Senate's practice of secret holds.

McCaskill said on Twitter that she had secured the support of two more senators to give her the 67 votes necessary to change the rules in the Senate to abolish the traditional practice of being able to anonymously hold up nominees to positions requiring Senate confirmation.

Sens. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) and Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) were the last two signatories.

McCaskill tweeted Saturday:

First battle won!With Sens Bond and Brownbeck now have 67 Senators on my letter calling for the end to secret holds.Now gotta get a vote.

66 senators have signed a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in support of the rules change, and Reid has said he supports the change, too, but did not sign the letter since it was addressed to him.

McCaskill said earlier this month that she was two votes shy of ending the practice, which gives minority party senators the ability to hold up nominees. Republicans have used the privilege to some effect against President Barack Obama's nominees, most notably senior Sen. Richard Shelby's (R-Ala.) hold earlier this year on 70 of the president's picks for various positions requiring federal confirmation.

Paramore - Looking Up

Love me, love my pie-eyed optimism. The interim anchorage of Jake Tapper on ABC's This Week, has left me surprisingly encouraged. First, they have taken Jay Rosen's suggestion of how to fix the Sunday shows by working with Politifact to fact check claims made by guests. Then Jake himself has been soliciting feedback on his Twitter/Facebook streams, which I think has shaped some of his questions (and he responds to individuals, unlike many journalists on Twitter). And now, This Week is taking the initiative to move past the tired (and false) dichotomy of every issue falling into Dem vs. Rep binary scale. From ABC email promo:

On “This Week,” White House Economic Adviser Austan Goolsbee, and two key Senators EXCLUSIVELY join interim anchor Jake Tapper to debate next week’s critical Senate vote on whether financial reform will move forward. Goolsbee defends the President’s plan, while Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) argues that the bill does not go far enough to keep banks from getting too big. Republican Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) lays out what needs to be changed in order for the White House to gain Republican support.

Did you catch that? In addition to representing the White House plan for economic reform, they've asked on a fairly progressive Senator who argues that it's not progressive enough. Okay, it's not earth-shattering, but I do find it a step in the right direction and after four years of monitoring Sunday shows, this is the first time I remember them looking at an issue and considering a progressive point of view as a reasonable alternative. Contrast that with Meet the Press's David Gregory and his glib dismissal of any responsibility as the host to keep his guests honest in any way. Yup, I'm going to see This Week's actions as a positive change.

ABC's "This Week" - Sens. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio; White House economic adviser Austan Goolsbee.

CBS' "Face the Nation" - Chief White House economic adviser Lawrence Summers.

NBC's "Meet the Press" - Sens. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Richard Shelby, R-Ala.

NBC's "The Chris Matthews Show" - Panel: Katty Kay, Andrew Sullivan, David Ignatius, Kelly O'Donnell. Topics: Does Obama Want A Fight On Wall Street Reform Or To Move On To Immigration? Is the Extreme Anti-Washington Rhetoric Seditious? 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" - Sens. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., and Robert Menendez, D-N.J.; Gov. Jennifer Granholm, D-Mich.

CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" - We discuss everything from Goldman Sachs to economic and political brawls in the US and abroad. First, Fareed has a candid conversation with Timothy Geithner, US Secretary of the Treasury. Then, we have a great panel featuring: Eliot Spitzer, Slate columnist and former NY governor and attorney general; Andrew Ross Sorkin, the chief mergers and acquisitions reporter for the New York Times and author of Too Big to Fail; Martin Wolf, Financial Times' chief economics commentator; and Amity Shlaes, Bloomberg columnist and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

"Fox News Sunday" - Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, co-chairmen of a bipartisan commission on debt.

In another example about how Republicans cannot be trusted to responsibly address national security (or domestic security) issues, Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Joe Lieberman (R-at Heart) are threatening the Defense Department with subpoenas if it does not release documents that they requested through the Senate's homeland security committee.

"The painful fact is that 13 Americans died in the Fort Hood massacre," Lieberman said. "We owe it to them and their survivors and everyone else in our country to determine whether our government could have prevented their deaths -- and if so, why it did not -- so that we can make sure it does the next time."

Collins faulted administration aides for "an inexplicable determination to stalemate and slow-walk our investigation."

Appropriately, SecDef Bob Gates has told the two to go pound sand, since there are, in fact, a few other pressing defense issues on his agenda, and there is no story here.

Gates, speaking to reporters after attending a Caribbean security conference in Barbados, said the US government had no interest in hiding information from Congress but the legal case against Major Nidal Malik Hasan had to take priority.

“Anything that does not have any impact on that prosecution, we are more than willing to share,” Gates said. “But what’s most important is this prosecution. And we will co-operate with the committee in every way - with that single caveat, that whatever we provide doesn’t compromise the prosecution.”

Of all the possible homeland security or military issues that one could address, keeping the Major Hassan story alive shouldn't be the top priority of this Senate's committee. Why these two want to keep this non-story alive is beyond me. Neither is up for re-election prior to 2012 - that's a long way off - so the only other explanation (because I don't buy the idea of misplaced concerns about DOD or DoJ practices and policies) is to embarrass the Obama administration at the cost of screwing the government officials who are correctly addressing the situation right now.

Racewire: The Senate isn't working either

SCOTUSblog: The "Kennedy Court," only more so

The Daily Dish: The Vatican's Watergate: Follow The Money

slacktivist: Which sect, Newt?

The Washington Note: Breaking analysis on a possible Obama Peace Plan

Ken Silverstein: Two former senators may find themselves out of board positions at a Kyrgyz bank

(h/t MediaMatters)

Remember that old saying, "Elections have consequences"? Well, apparently, Louis Gohmert (R-obviously, TX) doesn't think that should apply to him or his Senatorial cohorts:

Yesterday, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) suggested another response to the passage of health reform: eliminating the right of American citizens to elect U.S. Senators. According to a press release from Gohmert's office:

Rep. Gohmert stated, "The usurpation of the rights of the states and of the people perpetrated by the U.S. House last night is blatant, arrogant, and cries out for action. A potentially bankrupting 'mother of all unfunded mandates' needs to be stopped. The courts may or may not do it, but the states are not helpless. Article V of our U.S. Constitution anticipates a time when states perceive a looming crisis and provides an avenue for amending the Constitution. It makes clear that if two-thirds of the states are fed up with the federal government's abusive action, then they simply apply for a convention, and the Congress SHALL call such a convention for proposing an amendment."

Ever since the safeguard of State legislatures electing U.S. Senators was removed by the 17th Amendment in 1913, there has been no check or balance on the Federal power grab for the last 97 years. Article V requires a minimum of 34 states to request a Convention which in this case, would be an Amendment Convention for only ONE amendment.

Could he be a bigger whiner? Now, it's true, as originally conceived by the Founding Fathers, senators were appointed by their respective state legislatures to serve, which worked moderately well (with only the occasional accusation of corruption or bribery with which to contend) until the Civil War era. Then the accusations exploded. Per Wikipedia:

After the Civil War, the problems multiplied. In one case in the mid-1860s, the election of Senator John P. Stockton from New Jersey was contested on the grounds that he had been elected by a plurality rather than a majority in the state legislature. Stockton defended himself on the grounds that the exact method for elections was murky and varied from state to state. To keep this from happening again, the Congress passed a law in 1866 regulating how and when Senators were to be elected from each state. This was the first change in the process of senatorial elections. While the law helped, there were still deadlocks in some legislatures and accusations of bribery, corruption, and suspicious dealings in some elections. Nine bribery cases were brought before the Senate between 1866 and 1906, and 45 deadlocks occurred in 20 states between 1891 and 1905, resulting in numerous delays in seating Senators. Beginning in 1899, Delaware did not send a senator to Washington for four years.

Obviously, this was unsustainable, and so after much pushing and pulling and grumbling from muckrakers like Hearst, the 17th Amendment was passed in 1911 and adopted in 1913. There have been a few attempts to repeal it, most notably by Zell Miller, who called it an 'assault on federalism'.

However, I have news for Rep. Gohmert. Repeal of a constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress (what are your odds on that, Louie?) and ratification by three-fourths of the states' legislatures. Want to take a look at that electoral map again? Does the phrase "pissing in the wind" have much resonance with you?

Finally, as Media Matters points out, this only undercuts the GOP's crowing of the Scott Brown election:

Remember that conservatives, including Gohmert, argued that the election of Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) signaled the public's rejection of the president's plan. Yet, while Tea Party activists flooded Massachusetts and pushed Brown to victory, Gohmert's proposal would have made that effort impossible. The state's overwhelmingly Democratic legislature could have simply appointed a Democrat.

I almost feel embarrassed for John McCain, but I really don't.

The Maverick is really a pony.

Mean old man McCain has a sad:

Democrats shouldn’t expect much cooperation from Republicans the rest of this year, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) warned Monday.

McCain and another Republican senator decried the effect health reform legislation has had on the Senate, a day after the House passed the upper chamber’s bill.

GOP senators emerged Monday to caution that the health debate had taken a toll on the institution, warning of little work between parties the rest of this year.

“There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year,” McCain said during an interview Monday on an Arizona radio affiliate. “They have poisoned the well in what they’ve done and how they’ve done it.”

Oh no! Not obstructionism! They wouldn’t dare try that!

What is amazing is that a Senator is openly saying “Fuck the nation’s business, we’re a bunch of kids,” and no one in the media will point out how worthless and childish the Republicans are. Even worse, no one is even surprised.

Harry Reid responds.

“For someone who campaigned on ‘Country First’ and claims to take great pride in bipartisanship, it’s absolutely bizarre for Senator McCain to tell the American people he is going to take his ball and go home until the next election. He must be living in some parallel universe because the fact is, with very few exceptions, we’ve gotten very little cooperation from Senate Republicans in recent years.

“At a time when our economy is suffering and we’re fighting two wars, the American people need Senator McCain and his fellow Republicans to start working with us to confront the challenges facing our country—not reiterating their constant opposition to helping working families when they need it most.”

John McCain should just turn in his paycheck if he's not going to work, but then again, his wife can support him just fine. Maybe all the Republicans can forgo their salaries if they continue to obstruct every piece of legislation.

Digby has more:

I can't help but recall hearing a whole lot of patronizing advice from these same people a few years back when anyone breathed that President Bush might not have legitimately taken office since he lost the popular vote, his brother manipulated the system in Florida and he was was installed by a partisan supreme court decision. Back then it was all "get over it," and "I've got political capital and I'm gonna spend it!" Now, these same people are all screaming that it's a usurpation if the Democrats win the majority and then pass legislation that they don't like.

It's fairly clear that Republicans don't understand how democracy works. You campaign, people vote, you win elections, you get a majority, you pass legislation. They seem to think Democracy means that that elections are irrelevant, majorities are meaningless and that all legislation is contingent upon the permission of the Republican Party.

I'm sorry these people are so unhappy. I know how they feel. I used to hate it when the Republicans passed some disgusting initiative that went against everything I believe in. But I don't recall having a mental breakdown at the notion that they could do it even though I didn't want them to. The idea that they were obligated to do my bidding didn't actually cross my mind.

Elections have consequences, or so I was told by conservatives when Bush won in 2004.

Greg Sargent reports:

Senator Bernie Sanders, in a brief interview in the Capitol just now, confirmed to me that he’s willing to commit to introducing an amendment that would add the public option to the Senate bill’s reconciliation fix.

This is important, because as far fetched as this seems, if this amendment is introduced, a vote on it would be very hard for the Senate Dem leadership to block. The only thing that could stop it from happening, according to Senate expert Robert Dove, is for the parliamentarian to rule that it’s not germane to the Senate bill somehow — something that seems unlikely...read on

As Adam Green is launching another initiative for the PCCC, we know the House doesn't trust the Senate at all, but the process seems to finally be winding down.

Ryan Grim reports that the public option is still viable, but he says it's a matter of will and not votes.

The public option faces its last stand. With more than 40 senators publicly willing to vote for a health care reform reconciliation package that includes the option, the opportunity to reinsert it into the final bill has never been greater, though the battle is nearly over without having been fought.

--

That balance of power gives House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) extraordinary leverage of a historical nature. Pelosi, however, has yet to concede in negotiations that it is the obligation of the House to go first. And the deal that is being reached is driven largely by the White House. But both the Senate and the White House need Pelosi. And the House, of course, has already passed a health care bill with a public option.

If the House does move first, the Senate would essentially face an up-or-down vote on whatever Pelosi sends over. Durbin was asked by HuffPost if he would whip a reconciliation package from the House that included a public option. An analysis of past statements and positions taken by members of the Democratic caucus indicates that there could plausibly be 53 votes for a public option and perhaps several more.

Durbin, in response to the question, said at first that it was hypothetical, but then answered, "I think there will come a time when we reach agreement on what the reconciliation package includes, with the understanding that any changes in the House or Senate could slow down or stop the process."

So whatever comes from the House, that's what you will whip?

"That's basically it," he said. "I hope that what comes from the House is what we agree on going into this debate."

--

UPDATE: The news that the Senate parliamentarian told Senate Republicans that the bill must become law before any amendments can be made through reconciliation alters the equation if true. The House, however, could still pass the Senate bill into law and then send the Senate a reconciliation fix with a public option. The Senate could torpedo that legislation without concern that no reform package at all would get passed, giving the Senate added leverage. The underlying dynamic, however, remains unchanged: In the next few days, as the White House and congressional leaders meet to hash out the way forward, the votes appear to exist to include a public option. It's only a matter of will.

It appears that Dick Durbin is not going to risk the entire bill because of the public option.

Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) acknowledged Wednesday that liberals may be asked to oppose any amendment, including one creating a public option, to ensure a smooth ride for the bill. “We have to tell people, ‘You just have to swallow hard’ and say that putting an amendment on this is either going to stop it or slow it down, and we just can’t let it happen,” Durbin, who supports a public option, told reporters. “We have to move this forward. We know the Republicans are likely to offer a lot of amendments, and some of them may be appealing to Democrats, but we have to urge them to stick with the bill.”

The PCCC is running a campaign against Durbin at this time and asking members of the Senate to not turn their back on it.

DOWNLOADS: (632)

PLAYS: (2960)

Embed

Sen. Jim Bunning's outrageous actions have put in jeopardy 400,000 Americans receiving unemployment benefits. ABC news tracked him down and asked for comment while he was entering an elevator. Apparently the elevator is part of his ROYAL infrastructure and he yelled at the reporters and flipped then the bird::

The exchange took place as Senator Bunning was getting into an elevator in the Hart Senate Office Building.

“Excuse me! This is a Senators only elevator!” Bunning thundered.

I tried again to ask his reasons for blocking the bill, Bunning said he already explained his reasons last Thursday, when he said he wanted the $10 billion cost of the bill to be paid for, rather than simply adding to the national debt.

“Excuse me!” he yelled. “I’ve got to go to the floor!”

As the doors closed, I asked Bunning if he is concerned about those losing their benefits.

He did not answer. This is all on-camera.

Senator Bunning was even more expressive before the cameras arrived, using a little sign language.

When Senate producer Z. Byron Wolf spotted Bunning exiting his office, Bunning said, “I’m not talking to anybody.” When Wolf asked him to stay and talk to our cameras, Bunning walked toward the elevator and shot the middle finger over his head.

He deserves to be voted into the Hall of Shame: Dirty Ballplayer, Dirty Senator.

I've never seen Sen. Claire McCaskill quite so fired up about, well, anything:

A committee investigation of the company revealed that contracting personnel acquired hundreds of weapons, including more than 500 AK-47s, from a facility in Kabul that stores arms for use by the Afghan police. The contractors were not authorized to be armed.

Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill says if members of the U.S. military were involved in such actions they would face immediate and serious consequences.

"If one of the Army had gone out there with an AK-47 they were not supposed to have on top of a moving vehicle and shot a guy in the head and paralyzed him something would have happened in that chain of command," said Claire McCaskill.

"And if they had kept somebody on the force that had been using cocaine, that had been drunk, that had been charged with larceny that had done all these things these guys had done, they went out and killed Afghan people in the spring of 2009, something would have happened to them if they were in the military."

Senator McCaskill says most Afghans do not distinguish between private American contractors and members of the U.S. military.

She says reckless behavior by contractors is jeopardizing the U.S. mission in Afghanistan.

"And what is killing me about this problem with Blackwater is we have two sets of rules and one image," she said. "And as long as we have two sets of rules and one image we are in trouble on this mission."