DOWNLOADS: (164)

PLAYS: (436)

Embed

November 03, 2008 C-SPAN

Congressman Dennis Kucinich on the floor of the House during debate of Congressional Resolution in Opposition To United Nations Gaza War Crimes Report.

You can watch the Full Debate at MOX News.

DOWNLOADS: (101)

PLAYS: (295)

Embed

November 03, 2009 CNN

From The Onion. Slightly not safe for work.

DOWNLOADS: (131)

PLAYS: (513)

Embed

From Lou Dobbs Tonight, the Face Off Segment with The Nation’s Jeremy Scahill, the Council on Foreign Relations’ neoconservative Max Boot and the World Policy Institute’s Patrica DeGennaro. The topic was our troop levels in Afghanistan. Scahill did a great job when he was allowed to talk, which Dobbs made sure to keep to a minimum.

DOBBS: President Obama today congratulated Afghanistan's President Karzai on his election victory. The president, President Obama, is still weighing his choices for forces in Afghanistan. The strategy for those forces. That is the subject of our face-off debate.

Joining me now is Jeremy Scahill. He's journalist and fellow at the Nation Institute. Good to have you with us. Patricia Degennaro, senior fellow at the World Policy Institute. Good to have you with us. Max Boot, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Thank you for being with us. Good to see you again.

Let's turn to, first, what happened here? Last week, there was going to be a delay as we had a -- all of that nasty fraud in the election. There had to be a runoff on the 7th of November. Suddenly, now, in the 2nd of November, the president sort of blesses Karzai and says we're done just because his opponent withdrew.

MAX BOOT: I think Abdullah Abdullah realized he would lose the runoff election, just as he had lost the initial election. And the reality is, there was fraud. There was a lot of fraud. Hamid Karzai's still the most popular politician in Afghanistan. He still has a lot of legitimacy, especially amongst the Pashtuns where the insurgency is based. And I think we've been focusing too much on the election because the people I spoke to in Afghanistan when I was just there were more concerned about what their government is delivering for them, rather than how it was selected. I think there's still a good opportunity to work with Hamid Karzai, work with the governors, to increase the kind of governing capacity that Afghanistan has to defeat the Taliban --

DOBBS: You're not saying corruption be damned, give the people what they want and they'll be fine?

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (2319)

PLAYS: (1607)

Embed

From the great mind that brought us both Sarah Palin and Dan Quayle, Bill Kristol first does his best to build up what electoral successes in Virginia and New Jersey might mean for the Republicans in 2010, even though he claims that’s not what he’s doing. Republicans managing to pick up a Governor’s seat in Virginia or having an unpopular Governor in New Jersey who is a former Goldman Sachs CEO in the middle of this scandal with Wall Street managing to hold onto his seat or barely losing are not exactly bellwether races for what might happen in 2010.

Kristol then tries to downplay the havoc that his girlfriend Sarah Palin is reaping upon the Republican Party with her endorsement of Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in the NY-23 Congressional race.

Kristol: Tim Kaine has said, and this is the favorite mantra now of the Democrats and of the liberal media I would say as you quoted “the divide between moderate Republicans and conservative Republicans” that’s kind of their hope. When was the last time that there was really a big divide between moderate and conservative Republicans? I would say in ’76 when Ronald Reagan ran a primary challenge to go then against an incumbent moderate Republican president Gerald Ford, barely lost, bitterness, divisiveness at the convention, he didn’t even really…give his full fledged, full support to Gerald Ford. In 1978 I remember a friend of mine, a young activist Jeff Bell challenged and beat the liberal incumbent Cliff Case, the Republican primary in Jersey, lost to Bill Bradley, in the general Al D’Amato challenged Jacob Javis in New York, actually won the general election. There was a huge amount of turmoil.

What came out of all of that—Reagan’s victory and a Republican takeover of the Senate in 1980. Turmoil in a party isn’t bad. Obviously it’s problematic. If you’re running a campaign you don’t, you know, it’s easier not to have a primary, it’s easier not to have people grumbling and complaining, but it’s—I think it’s a sign of health, it’s a sign of grass roots activity. It’s a sign of citizens getting involved. I don’t think people are going to go off the deep end. I think you’re going to have…the fact that there were challenges in the 23rd district of New York doesn’t mean that conservatives aren’t going to accept more moderate candidates which they will in Delaware where Mike Castle’s going to be the nominee, where Illinois where Mark Kirk’s going to be the Republican nominee.

The left keeps hoping that conservatives will be suicidal. They’re not going to be I think. But I think you do need the conservative populace’s energy and independence from Washington—and ideas. I think conservatives need that, that Republicans need that. You can’t just be top down, sort of rehashed ideas from inside the beltway, so I’m actually ah…Tim Kaine can console himself with tomorrow’s defeat—it’s going to be a pretty bad defeat and Republicans are going to win all the state wide races and I think pick up six to ten state legislative seats—Tim Kaine can console himself that hoping that the Republican Party will self destruct, but I don’t think it’s going to happen.

Bill, Hoffman wasn’t a primary challenge in case you didn’t notice. He’s a third party candidate propped up by a bunch of outsiders that are not from the state. And if you think this is going to stop with this NY-23 race and that “people aren’t going to go off the deep end”…you might want to go read this--Uncivil War: Conservatives to challenge a dozen GOP candidates.

From The Daily Show:

Mike Bloomberg connects with the common man, Jon Corzine attacks Chris Christie's waistline, and Doug Hoffman passes Glenn Beck's test.

Here's another race which may become of some interest nationally, even if you've never heard of any of these folks. Annise Parker (D) has a decent chance today to become the first openly gay mayor of a major American city. That this may happen in Houston, Texas of all places will surprise some people.

Parker is currently running a close second to a city councilman named Peter Brown (D) who has poured millions of his own money into the race. There are four legitimate contenders, three Democrats and one Republican, with the likelihood that a Democrat will replace outgoing mayor Bill White. If no one secures 50% there will be a run-off election in December.

UPDATE: Annise Parker finished first with 30.5% of the vote, and will face off next month against Gene Locke who had 25.9%.

DOWNLOADS: (1955)

PLAYS: (3813)

Embed

Keith talks to Rep. Alan Grayson about whether he thinks the Democrats will get a bill through the House this week and whether we'll be able to call what's passed reform. He also asked him what he thought would be in John Boehner and the Republicans' yet to be written health care plan they're supposed to be releasing this week.

Olbermann: You have already outlined on the floor of the House one of or the basic Republican tenets of a health insurance plan. When Mr. Boehner says he's going to have an alternative bill ready, first off they've been saying that all year and there's been nothing yet, so far. But is there actually one in the works and have your heard anything of what's been in it?

Grayson: I think what's in it is more of the same. They're going to try to do whatever they can to placate the insurance companies. The Republican national party is now a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America and that's especially true of the insurance companies. They'll do whatever the insurance companies want.

Sadly the same thing can be said about a few too many of the Democrats with positions on the Senate Finance Committee. If you want to help out one of the good guys out there and donate to Rep. Grayson't Act Blue money bomb, here's the link.

DOWNLOADS: (2211)

PLAYS: (4432)

Embed

From Think Progress-- Rape Victim Confronts Vitter Over His Vote Against Franken’s Amendment Holding Contractors Accountable:

Last month, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts if companies “restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.” Although the amendment passed, 30 Republican senators voted against it.

One of the Republicans singled out for especially harsh criticism following the vote was Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), who has a track record of siding against women’s rights. The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein reports that at a town hall meeting this past weekend, a constituent confronted Vitter about his vote. The woman, a rape victim, demanded that he explain why he opposed Franken’s amendment. Vitter refused to give her a straight answer.

As Sam Stein noted at the HuffPo--"The exchange was contentious, heart wrenching, and potentially damaging."

WOMAN: It meant everything to me that I was able to put the person who attacked me [behind bars]. And what allowed me to do that was our judicial process. I showed up in court every day to make sure that happen.

VITTER: And I'm absolutely supportive of any case like that being prosecuted criminally to the full extent of the law.

WOMAN: But there are rape victims who are being kept silent.

WOMAN: But how can you support [a law] that tells a rape victim that she does not have the right to defend herself?

VITTER: Ma'am The language in question did not say that in any way shape or form.

WOMAN: But it is unconstitutional to have a law that says a woman does not have a right to defend herself.

VITTER: You realize Mr. Obama was against that amendment that his administration was against that amendment

WOMAN: But I'm not asking Obama. I'm asking you.

VITTER: Do you think he's in favor in rape?

WOMAN: I'm asking you Senator. What if it was your daughter who was raped? Would you tell her to be quiet and take it? Would you tell your daughter to be silent?

DOWNLOADS: (151)

PLAYS: (848)

Embed

Rachel Maddow talks to former Lieberman political rival Ned Lamont about what is driving Sen. Lieberman to obstruct health reform and threaten to filibuster his own caucus. As Ned notes, it was Republican money that got him elected and he's showing that political allegiance now. I think he doesn't care what party it is as long as his pockets are being lined.

Maddow: I have a feeling you're going to say "I told you so" but I have to ask. Does it surprise you that Sen. Lieberman would join Republicans to filibuster health reform?

Lamont: It surprises me in this sense, that everybody thought that our race three years ago was just about the war in Iraq, whether it was a good idea to invade or not, but we spent an awful lot of time talking about health care reform and during that race I accused Sen. Lieberman of dithering and after twenty years in the Senate not doing anything on fundamental health care reform, and he was the one that came back and said unilaterally "I support universal health insurance for all Americans and I'm going to fight for it". So I'm surprised that a few years later he is dithering again.

Maddow: I know...I went back and looked at some of the contemporaneous coverage from your race and I know back in September of 2006, during that fight Sen. Lieberman told reporters on a conference call “I have long supported the goal of universal health care. Ned Lamont can talk about it. I’ve been doing something about it all the time I’ve been here.” If he does end up being the one guy who stops it, if it is his filibuster, what do you think the political costs will be of that?

Lamont: Look the people of Connecticut are ready to have a vote. They want to have a vote on fundamental health care reform and they want the choice of a public option. Sen. Chris Dodd and all of our Congressionals are on board with that and it’s Sen. Lieberman who’s the outlier, so I think there will be political consequences if a Sen. Lieberman is the one person who stands in the way, who obstructs our opportunity to have a fundamental vote on health care reform.

Maddow: What do you think those consequences will be though? One of the things that we have to think about is what happens in Washington, whether or not the Democrats and the Senate allow him to keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee—there’s also the question of whether he faces political consequences at home. He seems to be planning to run again.

Lamont: I believe—I probably wouldn’t know—I’d be the last person in Connecticut to know whether he’s going to run again but I can tell you this; there’s an awful lot of folks here who are looking forward to the opportunity of challenging Sen. Lieberman. You know during our race a few years ago he said nobody wants to have a Democrat elected president as much as I do. He supported health care reform. Nobody wanted to get the troops home more than he did. Three years is a long time. I think there are a number of folks, independent, moderates, Republicans and Democrats who are disappointed where the words aren’t matching the action and are looking for a change.

Maddow: Why do you think he doesn’t just become a Republican?

Lamont: I think he’s been a Democrat for an awful long time, but I think tactically he’s probably looking at his options right now. I’ve got to believe when you walk away from health care reform, when you deny your fellow Senators the right to vote on health care reform, that seems to be somebody that knows he was elected in 2006 with overwhelming Republican support. I think that’s his base.