I'm not some big fan of MSNBC regular Jonathan Capehart because frankly the man regularly just glosses over or minimizes just how crazy the Republican Party has become these days and chalks a lot of it up to just politics as usual, when I don't think there's anything normal about how far the GOP has fallen off the cliff to the right, but the treatment he received by both host Joe Scarborough and guest New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on this Thursday's edition of Morning Joe just sickened me.

As most people who visit this site probably already know, Gov. Christie vetoed the gay marriage bill in New Jersey and that ended up being the main topic of discussion during this segment. When Capehart tried to pin Christie down about why he thought it was acceptable to put a civil rights issue up for referendum with the voters, he ended up being bullied and talked over and interrupted by both Christie and Scarborough.

Christie is trying to have it both ways with this debate and deflect how rotten it is that he had a chance to single-handedly give a group of people in New Jersey the right to be married by signing that bill into law, and blamed his decision on the Democrats, because they claimed that a majority of people in his state wanted it, while not wanting it subjected to the will of the voters. So naturally it's all their fault because he had no other choice than to decide to try to prove them wrong instead of doing the right thing. He also tried to claim that both he and President Obama have the same stance on gay marriage.

When Capehart attempted to explain that that's not true since Obama has instructed his Justice Department not to defend DOMA, or the Defense of Marriage Act and that he has never issued any veto threats if the Congress would actually pass a law allowing gay marriage, Christie decided it was best to just talk over him and hammer him about what Obama's stance is on gay marriage. I'll give Capehart credit for this much though and that is he got Christie to admit that civil rights should not have been put up for a vote a half century ago. He didn't have that same luck trying to get him to relate that struggle to those wanting marriage equality for the LGBT community today.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (130)

PLAYS: (569)

Embed

Current TV's Keith Olbermann spoke to Human Rights First's Raha Wala about the extremely dangerous threat to our civil liberties that the United States Senate is considering in the defense authorization bill where citizens of the United States could be held under military custody, all in the name of our so-called "war on terror."

Carl Levin's support of this bill astounds me quite frankly and who would have thought Dianne Feinstein of all people would turn out to be one of the Senators speaking out against the bill.

Here's more on Obama's veto threat -- Obama Threatens Veto of Defense Authorization Bill :

The debate over terrorism suspects on Thursday divided Democrats, with Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., squaring off over the language with Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., Senate Intelligence Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill.

Democratic opponents of the provisions, who offered a series of amendments to strike or water down the language, appear to face an uphill effort to find the votes to amend the detainee language as almost all Republicans and most Armed Services Committee Democrats support it.

By moving ahead with the bill without a deal—the White House threatened to veto the bill earlier Thursday—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., reduced the leverage and ability of opponents to force changes. Feinstein said she isn't confident the bill can be amended, saying only that she strongly opposes the provisions. She declined to comment on Reid’s decision to press ahead with the bill but several Democratic aides said his move caught Democratic opponents of the provision by surprise. The aides said Reid told Democrats he is eager to move ahead with the bill in the face of pressure from Republicans and his own desire to clear “must pass” bills that are ready for the floor.

The Obama administration threatened to veto the major defense authorization bill because of language paving the way for many terror suspects to be put under military custody, a sharp escalation of its battle with Congress over the future course of the war on terror.

DOWNLOADS: (199)

PLAYS: (1197)

Embed

President Obama had stern words for any Republicans who are thinking about trying to reverse the automatic cuts that will take place now that the super committee has failed to reach an agreement -- Obama threatens to veto changes to $1.2T in cuts:

President Barack Obama says he will veto any effort to get rid of automatic spending cuts that would take effect in 2013 if Congress can't find other ways of trimming government deficits. [...]

Obama issued his threat Monday an hour after leaders of Congress' deficit-reduction supercommittee announced that they had failed to reach agreement on cutting the debt. The inability of the committee to meet its deadline means the government is facing about $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts in January 2013.

Obama said the threat of those reductions should remain in place to maintain pressure on Congress find a compromise.

DOWNLOADS: (1084)

PLAYS: (2213)

Embed

Will Tea Partiers Have a Veto Over the 2012 GOP Nominee?

That was the “Matthews Meter” question for the panel this weekend on The Chris Matthews Show where they discussed whether the Tea Partiers are going to drag the party further to the right, as the right led by Barry Goldwater did back in the 60's. His regulars are split including Gloria Borger who says let's wait for the mid-term elections and see how independent voters end up reacting to their candidates and doesn't think they're going to have enough power to have a veto power over who their presidential nominee is.

Dan Rather disagreed with Borger and agreed with Matthews that at least one of the people on the Republican presidential ticket was going to have to be someone that the Tea Party was satisfied with.

Richard Stengel is asked about Sarah Palin and what kind of power she's going to wield and Matthews notes that Palin is not just picking “stupid right wingers” but winners. (Note to Chris Matthews, not all of her picks have been winners, some have been right wingers and she's often waiting until those picks are fairly safe before she makes them. I know you and Uncle Pat love her, but she's not some political genius.)

Stengel agrees that Palin will wield a lot of power because so much of the Republican electorate is “listening to the silent song of Sarah Palin” but also notes that there's not going to be some big rift in the party no matter who they choose because the truth of the matter is the “mainstream” of the Republican Party and their right wing base are not that far apart ideologically, unlike the days of Rockefeller and Goldwater Matthews showed earlier in the segment.

That got a good chuckle from the panel who were amused by Stengel's statement. Whether it is because they agreed with it or not I'm not sure. That seems to be the big elephant in the room they all managed to almost get to but failed to discuss in this segment. This is not just a matter of whether the Republican Party is going to continue to move further to the right for the next election cycle. It's a question of whether they're ever going to move back to the center if they see some short term gains in these mid-term elections.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (1421)

PLAYS: (1450)

Embed

Sean Hannity brought on New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie to discuss his great "Republican victory" standing up for the millionaires in his state. Although Christie would not say how many jobs he thought it would create, he explained to Hannity why he thought taking a page right out of Ronald Reagan's play book and following his policy of trickle-down economics was going to mean more jobs for his state.

Somehow Christie and Hannity failed to bring up what parts of the New Jersey budget he was willing to cut to keep those tax cuts for millionaires in place. Imagine that? No mention of the students who walked out to protest his sweeping state aid cuts in education. And no mention of how he doesn't mind raising taxes on senior citizens.

NJ Democrats Try To Override Christie Veto Of Millionaire Tax, Prevent Tax Increase For Seniors:

Late last month, Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) followed through on his threat to veto a millionaire’s tax passed by the state legislature. The bill would have implemented a surcharge on income above $1 million, raising $635 million to fund property tax relief for senior citizens and the disabled (among other programs).

New Jersey Democrats are planning to hold a vote to override Christie’s veto today, but lockstep opposition from the state’s Republicans is rendering success unlikely. As the Newark Star-Ledger reported, “Republican leaders have vowed not a single GOP vote will flip.”

The end result of Christie’s veto, if it is not overridden, will be to increase taxes on seniors while cutting them for the wealthy. In fact, according to the state’s nonpartisan Office of Legislative Services, “a retired couple living on a fixed income of $40,000 would see an increase of $1,320 in taxes under the governor’s plan while a family making $1.2 million would receive a tax cut of $11,598.”

As Citizens for Tax Justice added, “there is glaring hypocrisy in Christie using his anti-tax pledge to justify his veto of the millionaire’s tax”.

And no mention of course of how his budget cuts are undermining the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act:

While states face tough decisions in cutting crucial services, some right-wing governors are slashing vital services for more vulnerable constituents while protecting the wealthy ones. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) called for "layoffs of 1,300 state workers, closings of state psychiatric institutions, an $820 million cut in aid to public schools" and a sharp cut in New Jersey Transit. Christie defends the cuts on the middle class, the poor, and schoolchildren as "shared sacrifice and fairness." However, when the state legislature asked for such a "sacrifice" via a tax on residents making over $1 million, Christie vetoed the legislation as an "irresponsible" mistake "of raising taxes on the highest taxed people in the nation." While the tax would've raised $635 million to fund public services for senior citizens and the disabled, his override will "increase taxes on seniors while cutting them for the wealthy." He is also backing a cap on property taxes that would force the state to further slash vital services.

As Ryan McNeely noted this is Why Conservatives Love Chris Christie:

The conservative movement is enamored with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, calling him the next Reagan and suggesting that he run for President in 2012. And in fact, though former Gov. Corzine was very unpopular, Christie managed to pick up the governorship of my home state while maintaining orthodox conservative views — no small feat in a state that went for Barack Obama by over 15 points.

So why do conservatives have Christie-mania? Probably because he puts the interests of multi-millionaires ahead of the well-being of low-income seniors.

Hannity just proved his point during this interview, begging him to think about running for President.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »