DOWNLOADS: (725)

PLAYS: (1254)

Embed

Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly "There Is No Job That Is America’s God-Given Right Anymore" Fiorina apparently thinks that it a good idea to make jobs a central issue of her Senate campaign against Barbara Boxer in California given what she told Chris Wallace during this interview on Fox News Sunday.

WALLACE: All right. Give us an overview of your sense of this race. Take a minute and lay out what you think the choice is for California voters.

FIORINA: I think this election is about the direction of our state and of our nation. And in particular, it is about the direction of our economy. We are destroying jobs in California.

So while Barbara Boxer comes to California to tout the impact of the stimulus bill, the reality is that the unemployment situation in California has deteriorated since the passage of the stimulus bill.

We now face 12.6 percent unemployment. We have 2.3 million Californians out of work, hundreds of thousands of them for more than six months. Hundreds of thousands of Californians have quit looking for work.

We're not just going through tough economic times in California. We are destroying jobs. And we're destroying them because of a government that is too big, taxes that are too high, regulations that are too thick. So this election is about jobs, but it's also about out-of-control government.

And the reason I am running for the Senate is because so much of the Senate's work impacts every family and every business in California and, indeed, in our nation. The Endangered Species Act...

Chris Wallace actually points out that Fiorina's record on keeping jobs in the United States hasn't been the greatest, but of course we don't get any follow up from him.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (164)

PLAYS: (1071)

Embed

Republicans in the North Carolina state Senate on Monday pushed through bill that would strip public benefits like food stamps and job training for people who fail a drug test.

In 35-15 vote largely along party lines, senators passed SB 594. A single Democrat voted for the bill, and no Republicans voted against it.

The bill requires those applying for benefits to pay for their own drug tests. Applicants who test negative would be eligible to have the costs of their tests reimbursed. The policy could cost the state more than $2.1 million.

At the same time, senators rejected an amendment offered by Democratic state Sen. Gladys Robinson that would have drug tested lawmakers, the governor and cabinet secretaries.

"We receive state funds, we represent the law, we institute policy," Robinson told senators on Monday night. "So, it should not be above any of us to submit to drug screening."

Republican State Sen. Jim Davis said that he did not mind being tested, but insisted that he would vote against the amendment because it had no mechanism to provide him with a reimbursement for the $100 test.

Instead of voting on Robinson's amendment, state Senator Tom Apodaca (R) used a substitute amendment as a parliamentary maneuver to kill the the proposal.

"The substitute amendment is offered to have the affect of killing the other amendment," Democratic state Sen. Martin Nesbitt explained in a floor speech. "You need to know that before you vote because you'll be killing the one that requires a drug test of the leaders of this state since we want to require it for the followers of this state."

"And we seem to be getting into a situation where where we're kind above the people," he added. "Kind of looking down on them, telling them what to do or telling them to be quiet while we talk, and I just sense that it keeps on going."

(h/t: Progressive Pulse)

DOWNLOADS: (506)

PLAYS: (5879)

Embed

Jon Stewart took our "broken bad" Senate and their failure to pass even some watered down gun regulation to task during the opening segment of The Daily Show this Thursday night. Stewart also took a page out of Chris Hayes' book, going after them for being willing to move heaven and earth to combat terrorism, while pretending there's no point in even passing any laws if criminals are just going to break them when it comes to guns.

After showing a portion of Hayes show comparing the number of terror vs gun fatalities in the United States, here's how Stewart wrapped things up.

STEWART: Well, thank God for Chris Hayes, because I'm not good at math. I'm so stupid. I still think 54 votes is more than 46, because I'm a f**king idiot. But I'm pretty sure that a million is more than 3400, and yet, to battle the evil of terror, we started two wars, tortured people, reorganized almost the entire federal government, disallowed the air trafficking of shampoo and conditioner and okay'd the robot sky killing of American citizens, if warranted by... someone.

Because one American life lost to terror is one too many, which I agree with. But it seems to me we'll move heaven and earth to do whatever it takes to prevent weapons from falling into the hands of foreigners who might kill our citizens, because apparently we think killing our citizens, is our job.

John Oliver continued the theme in the following segment, where he made a complete mockery of the Virginia Citizens Defense League's President, Philip Van Cleave, who was attempting to make many of the same arguments as those Senators, despite the fact that, as Oliver pointed out to him, Australia has proven that gun regulation can prevent mass shootings and gun deaths.

DOWNLOADS: (404)

PLAYS: (4562)

Embed

DOWNLOADS: (233)

PLAYS: (1693)

Embed

With the Senate just voting down the Manchin-Toomey amendment to the gun safety bill, while the media continues to focus on the Boston bombing attacks, MSNBC's Chris Hayes discussed the difference between the way crimes are handled once they're "put in the terrorism bucket" as compared to the "gun bucket" and the differences between what Americans are willing to accept in each instance.

Violence and terror: What’s the difference?:

On Wednesday night, host Chris Hayes asks the question: What happens when someone is apprehended? Will the identity of the bomber(s) impact the way we describe and govern the incident?

Incidents like the Boston Marathon bombings, that appear to be driven by unfettered hatred, shake us to our collective core. They make us think twice about entering public spaces: going out for a meal, taking public transportation, taking a dog for a walk. There is no doubt that the intended consequence of an act like the bombings at the Boston Marathon is to scare. But how should we characterize and define that fear? And what does this fear drive us to do? Does it drive us to suspend rule of law?

What exactly is the distinction between an ordinary crime and what we call terrorism?

After showing some of President Obama's speech following the filibuster, Hayes wrapped things up with this:

HAYES: And so, as we follow the developments out of Boston, as we leave no stone unturned attempting to find the perpetrator, another eighty eight or so people will lose their life to a bullet tomorrow, and the day after that and the day after that. And meanwhile, all worry that if the suspect who blew up the finish line isn't caught, we can't be sure that we're safe.

DOWNLOADS: (118)

PLAYS: (699)

Embed

Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert (R) on Wednesday connected the Monday bombings in Boston to the immigration debate and warned that "radical Islamists" were "being trained to come in and act like Hispanics."

During an interview on C-SPAN, host Greta Wodele Brawner asked the Texas Republican about a bipartisan "Gang of Eight" proposal in the Senate that would increase funding for border security by $5.5 billion over ten years and establish a 13-year pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

"What I first thought after my prayers went for the victims and the families in Boston is, 'My gosh, we've seen this in Israel,'" Gohmert recalled. "And after Israel had to suffer the slings and arrows and the deaths and the maimings... Finally the Israeli people said, 'You know what? Enough.' They built, over 70 percent of it is just a fence, and the rest is a wall, prevents snipers from knocking off their kids. And they finally stopped the domestic violence from people that wanted to destroy them."

"And I'm concerned we need to do that as well," he insited.

Pressing Gohmert, the C-SPAN host noted that Rep. Steve King (-R-IA) had speculated that the Boston bombings were perpetrated by a "foreign national" and that Congress should proceed with caution on immigration reform.

"We know that al Qaeda has camps with the drug cartels on the other side of the Mexican border," Gohmert agreed. "We know that people are now being trained to come in and act like Hispanics when they're radical Islamists. We know these things are happening, and it's just insane to not protect ourselves and make sure that people come in -- as most people do, they want the freedoms we have."

(h/t: Think Progress)

DOWNLOADS: (128)

PLAYS: (1836)

Embed

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) corrected NBC host David Gregory on Sunday after he repeated the National Rifle Association's (NRA) talking points in opposition to expanding gun background checks even though only 10 percent of the country agrees with the lobbying group.

During a panel discussion on NBC's Meet the Press, Gregory argued that "not a lot is about to be accomplished" even if the Senate succeeds in passing a bill to close the so-called gun show loophole and expand background checks to Internet sales.

"I disagree," Gillibrand insisted. "I think we have a very good start on beginning to crack down on gun crime. And the bottom line is the families of Newtown, the families all across America who lose children every single day, they deserve a vote, they deserve an answer, they deserve leadership out of Washington."

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) argued that the background check proposal "would serve primarily to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens, while doing little of anything to prevent tragedies like [Newtown] from occurring in the future."

Gregory asked Gillibrand if supporting gun control would be "tough" to do after she had touted a pro-NRA voting record during the 2008 election.

"That's why I know this bill will work," the New York Democrat explained. "It is making sure you protect Second Amendment rights. We're not undermining Second Amendment rights by saying criminals have to go through a background check before they can buy that weapon or straw purchasers and trafficker can't be stemming their guns straight into these communities."

"But the NRA doesn't believe that," Gregory interrupted. "The NRA does not agree."

"This is not about the NRA!" Gillibrand exclaimed. "This is about families! This is about America! Seventy-percent of NRA members like the background check bill, like the straw purchase bill. They even support things like assault weapons ban."

"So if you're talking about people and if you're talking about America and what Americans want, Americans want these reforms. We just saw that mother who lost her child, you cannot do nothing in the face of that tragedy!"

DOWNLOADS: (85)

PLAYS: (455)

Embed

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) says that he would like to weaken existing gun control laws with any new legislation by decreasing the number of background checks required for people who apply for concealed carry permits in multiple states.

During an interview on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked Rubio if his filibuster of a bill to expand background checks to include gun shows and Internet sales meant that he would also vote against the final bipartisan legislation.

"Well to be fair, I haven't read it in its totality, but I can tell you this, I am very skeptical of any plan that deals with the Second Amendment because invariably these gun laws end up impeding on the rights of people to bear arms who are law abiding and do nothing to keep criminals from buying them," the Florida Republican opined. "Criminals don't care what the law is."

"You have supported background checks in the Florida legislature," Wallace pointed out.

"Yeah," Rubio replied. "But those background checks in Florida are for people who have concealed weapons permits. If you have a concealed weapons permit, you do background check. I have no problem with that."

"But are they going to honor that in all 50 states? If someone goes to another state to buy a gun, do I have to undergo another background check or will my concealed weapons permit be de facto proof that I am not a criminal? These are the sorts of things that I hope we'll talk about."

According to The Washington Post, gun rights lobbyists and pro-gun lawmakers are hoping to weaken existing gun laws by amending a background checks bill in the Senate.

"Most worrisome to those who advocate new gun limits is an expected amendment that would achieve one of the National Rifle Association’s biggest goals: a 'national reciprocity' arrangement, in which a gun owner who receives a permit to carry a concealed weapon in any one state would then be allowed to do that anywhere in the country," the Post's Karen Tumulty and Ed O’Keefe wrote on Friday.

DOWNLOADS: (121)

PLAYS: (871)

Embed

It looks like the Anchor Baby isn't too happy with Republicans like Lindsey Graham for working with Senate Democrats on the immigration bill he was touting over the weekend. Michelle Malkin and her ilk seem determined to make sure that the GOP ends up as popular with Hispanic voters as they are with African Americans right now.

From the Fox News Insider site: Michelle Malkin Calls Out Republicans for Supporting “Shamnesty” Immigration Bill:

On Your World this afternoon, Michelle Malkin called out “deluded” Republicans for joining with Democrats to craft legislation that she equates to amnesty for illegal immigrants already in the country.

“There are many self-deluded Republicans who feel that this kind of ‘shamnesty’ is a salvation for a party that is in shambles. [...] At the same time that they are talking out of one side of their mouth to grassroots conservatives and people of all political persuasions who believe that it is the government’s constitutionally-mandated role to secure the borders,” said Malkin, referring to a TownHall.com report indicating that border crossings are rapidly increasing since talks on an immigration deal began recently.

Good luck with that "minority outreach" program of yours, Republicans!

DOWNLOADS: (104)

PLAYS: (291)

Embed

Good for Sen. Bernie Sanders for standing up for what's right if President Obama tries to offer Republicans cuts to our social safety nets as part of some "grand bargain": Bernie Sanders says give people what they want: Safe Medicare and Social Security:

Sen. Bernie Sanders is leading the charge in the Senate to block any grand bargain that would cut Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security benefits, and he's got a pretty smart strategy. He explained his efforts in an interview with Greg Sargent. Getting a budget deal is not about offering up the trophy of entitlement cuts to lure in Republicans, Sanders says.

"It's a question of making Republicans an offer they can't refuse," Sanders tells me. "Their position is no more revenues. You and I know that is not the position of the American people. One in four corporations doesn't pay any taxes. What Democrats and progressives should say is, 'Sorry, we're not going to balance the budget on the backs of the vulnerable.'" Sanders described the idea of cutting education, Social Security, Medicare and veterans' benefits as an "obscenity." [...]

"The alternative is not to go into a back room and negotiate with Boehner; it's to make our case to the American people," Sanders said. "I don't believe there's a red state in America where people believe you should cut Medicare, Social Security and veterans' benefits rather than doing away with corporate tax loopholes."

Now that's a pretty smart and pragmatic reading of the American electorate as well as a smart and pragmatic strategy for getting the Republicans to relent on revenue. Wooing them sure as hell isn't going to get the job done. But standing up as Democrats, with the people, could.

And as Greg Sargent noted, he may have some help some of his fellow Democrats in the Senate:

I asked Sanders if he would filibuster any grand bargain that cuts entitlement benefits. “It’s more than just the filibuster,” he said. “That’s a one day tactic. This is about rallying the American people and winning.” He predicted liberals in the Senate (Jeff Merkley, Sherrod Brown, and Elizabeth Warren come to mind) would likely band together to adopt a range of tactics to block such a grand bargain. “Filibustering may be part of it,” he said.

It’s still unclear to me what the endgame would look like if liberals stick with such a strategy. Republicans could simply continue to support indefinite sequestration rather than agree to anything at all, let alone a deal that includes new revenues but no entitlement cuts. Or if the White House does strike a grand bargain, liberal Dems may ultimately cave and support it. Or if a deal is reached in the Senate, it could pass without liberals. However unclear the way foward remains, it’s undeniably good for progressive Senators to be out there defining the liberal position in the debate in as high-profile a way as possible.

And from the Kos diary as well: Send an email to the White House telling President Obama to immediately stop proposing any cuts to Social Security.

DOWNLOADS: (139)

PLAYS: (683)

Embed

It sure would be nice to see Mitch McConnell get the boot in Kentucky if Judd does decide to get in: Ashley Judd Senate Run: Actress, Activist Planning To Declare Candidacy, Sources Say:

Ashley Judd, the 44-year-old actress and social activist, has told key advisers and political figures that she is planning to announce her candidacy for U.S. Senate here this spring.

Judd told one close ally that she plans to announce her run for the Democratic nomination for the 2014 race “around Derby” -- meaning in early May when the Kentucky Derby brings national attention to Louisville and the Bluegrass State.

Reached for comment by email Saturday, Judd offered a not-quite-ironclad denial to The Huffington Post. “I am not sure who is saying this stuff, but it is not I! I’d prefer as a fan of your journalism that you stay accurate and credible. We told everyone who called us yesterday these stories are fabrications.”

But she declined to specify which "stories,” did not say what wasn't "accurate,” and did not respond when asked directly whether she had, in fact, decided to run or chosen a time to declare her intentions.

“I know she knows she has to declare soon,” said one source, a highly placed elected official who declined to be identified because he was discussing private plans.

Continue reading »