DOWNLOADS: (199)

PLAYS: (1659)

Embed

Now that Saxby Chambliss has decided he doesn't want to have to face a primary race for his Senate seat, Rachel Maddow took her viewers through the list of potential replacements that would like to succeed him, and it's a doozy.

Georgia's Saxby Chambliss to retire:

Just a few months ago, Sen. Saxby Chambliss, a two-term Republican incumbent from Georgia, started facing credible primary threats in advance of his 2014 re-election bid. In a bit of a surprise, the senator has said there won't be a re-election campaign -- Chambliss is retiring at the end of his term (via James Carter). [...]

The news was not widely expected, and Chambliss was expected to win re-election if he sought another term.

What's especially interesting now, however, is the field of Republican candidates who may try to succeed Chambliss in 2014. One of the leading GOP officials to watch is Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.), who said just this week that was considering taking on Chambliss in a primary, and with the incumbent stepping down, the congressman is that much more likely to run himself.

That would set up quite a campaign -- Broun is one of Congress' more ridiculous members, and a Senate campaign would create an Akin-in-Missouri situation in which a candidate may simply be too nutty to compete on a statewide level, even in the South. In this case, Broun is perhaps best known for arguing that that cosmology, biology, and geology are, quite literally, "lies straight from the pit of Hell," and that President Obama only believes in supporting "the Soviet constitution."

In other words, even among loony extremists, Broun is almost a caricature of himself.

This matters because Georgia could prove to be far more interesting than expected. In 2008, when Chambliss sought a second term, he won by a narrow margin after being forced into a runoff when he won 49% of the vote on Election Day. Since then, Georgia's population has only grown more diverse.

If a strong Democratic candidate faced off against a ridiculous right-wing extremist, could this become a blue-to-red pick-up opportunity? Quite possibly, yes.

We've got more on Broun here: Is Paul Broun the dumbest member of Congress? Signs point to Yes and here: Rep. Paul Broun: Evolution, Embryology, and the Big Bang Theory are 'Lies Straight from the Pit of Hell'.

And as Rachel mentioned, another potential candidate is Karen Handel whose anti-abortion views are so extreme they just about took down a cancer charity: Former Susan G. Koman Exec May Run For Senate In Georgia.

And then there's Todd Akin's buddy Phil Gingrey: Republican Congressman Backs Akin’s ‘Legitimate Rape’ Comments: ‘He’s Partly Right’.

Steve Benen's article also mentioned Herman Cain, but Rachel informed her viewers that alas, Cain has said he's not running.

DOWNLOADS: (103)

PLAYS: (506)

Embed

Now that Mittens has gone on Fox and tried to Etch-a-Sketch his 47 percent comments, we've got the surrogates coming out to defend him. Here's the first one out of the gate this morning -- Campaign Surrogate Admits Romney Is Changing Positions Just To Win Votes:

Mitt Romney campaign surrogate Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) admitted that the GOP presidential candidates was changing his positions and moving towards the middle in order to win over voters, during an appearance on CNN’s Starting Point on Friday morning. Gingrey’s comments, reminiscent of Romney advisor Eric Fehrnstrom’s claim that Romney would “Etch-A-Sketch” his positions after the GOP primary, came in response to the candidate’s recent claim that his 47% remarks were “completely wrong.”

“[T]he Republican, the conservative candidate in the primary, is always going to lean right and come back to the center for the general, the opposite for the Democrat,” Gingrey explained. “That’s all you are seeing here. It is very typical. We strong conservatives understand that. There are a lot of undecideds in this country…we want those votes too. So, this is campaign strategy.”

Romney began moving towards the center during Wednesday night’s debate, distancing himself from his $5 trillion tax cut plan, embracing portions of his Massachusetts health care law as a model for the states, faulting Wall Street reform for providing “the biggest kiss that’s been given to New York banks,” and considering eliminating tax deductions for oil companies.

I can't believe they're trying this stunt so close to the election and think they're going to come across as anything other than craven liars, but then, that's all Romney has done since he started campaigning, so it's nothing new. The man has been on every side of every topic imaginable, so why stop now? He's gotten some push back like this interview from the media, but for the most part he's been given a pass for his behavior.

Full transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (520)

PLAYS: (565)

Embed

Steve Benen wrote about this latest Republican gimmick last month where the GOP is pretending that they actually want to listen to everyday Americans to help mold their policy agenda. As Steve asked in his post in June...

So, how's that going?

Its stated purpose is to provide people with "a new platform to share their priorities and ideas for a national policy agenda." ... But the project's usefulness in shaping a Republican agenda is questionable.

Last week, the top five entries in the "Liberty and Freedom" category were: ban handguns, "drop the idea that we're a 'Christian' country," declare abortion "none of the government's business," allow gays to serve openly in the military and legalize marijuana.

Republican leaders mentioned none of these when they began highlighting proposals from the project.

You don't say.

The Republican spokesperson on the initiative said party officials "are plucking out ideas" they like. "It's not a 'top vote gets in'" deal, he said.

That's not unreasonable, I suppose -- no one ever said this was some kind of game-show -- but it raises questions anew about why the gimmick exists in the first place. The ideas faring well on the Republicans' website are ideas Republicans don't like, so they're ignoring them. Fine. But why bother with a website at all if the party is only going to accept policies it already approves of?

And as Matt Finkelstein noted, Boehner Should Broadcast Lobbyist Meeting On "America Speaking Out" Website:

Yesterday, Roll Call reported that House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) will meet with an elite group of lobbyists next week to hear “their suggestions for a new GOP agenda.”

The meeting, which is scheduled for July 16, is hardly surprising on its own. Republican lawmakers have habitually huddled with lobbyists to formulate their opposition to President Obama’s policies, so it’s only natural that they would take a similar approach to crafting their own platform.

It is, however, astounding that Republicans have the nerve to hold a private meeting with lobbyists under the guise of “America Speaking Out” — the party’s feckless initiative to solicit ideas from the American public.

None of that kept them from having Rep. Phil Gingrey continue to plug their gimmick in this week's Republican Weekly Address.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (1550)

PLAYS: (266)

Embed

Phil Gingrey joins the ranks of John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Michael Steele who went on the Sunday talk shows and called the racist and bigoted rhetoric from the Tea baggers as just "isolated incidents". When Michael Smerconish asks Gingrey if it's fair to hold the GOP leadership accountable for the conduct of some of the protesters he lets Gingrey get away with this.

GINGREY: Of course not. The Tea Party activists don't even represent themselves as Republicans. They have a policy in regard to what they stand for. But I mean when you have literally thousands, I don't know, there may have been twenty five thousand people on Saturday and I stopped and spoke to many of them and they're good red blooded Americans and good honest people who traveled thousands of miles in some instances, some drove, some took buses, so you know, they're frustrated.

In any crowd like that you're always going to get somebody who goes a little bit over the line in regard to their remarks, what they shout out or the signs they carry, but I think Jim Clyburn who's a good friend, I respect the Majority Whip and John Lewis of course in my own delegation, the senior member of the Georgia delegation is a great human being. And we, I think they understand that people sometimes get out of line. But they're not representative certainly of the Republican Party and I don't think of the Tea Party movement in general.

Michael Smerconish failed to ask Phil Gingrey about his participation at that protest which consisted of quite a bit more than just stopping and speaking to a few of them. If you go look at the screen shot in this video, that's Phil Gingrey standing behind Michele Bachmann while she thanks Sean Hannity for providing a forum for her to organize the health care reform protests. Smerconish didn't bother to ask Gingrey how anyone could say that Dick Armey's fake grass roots organization Freedom Works could not be considered just an arm of the Republican Party.

As Thomas Frank pointed out, the Tea Party Movement is Led by Characters from the Jack Abramoff Story. Fox News and Republican astroturf groups started this movement and Michael Smerconish allows Gingery to paint them as some independent group that isn't being used by the Republicans for political gain. Pitiful.

Jon Stewart rips old "Pony Express" John McCain for stepping into the void left by Ted Stevens and his support of the "Internet Freedom Act of 2009".

DOWNLOADS: (1377)

PLAYS: (3550)

Embed

Phil Gingrey (R-Healthcare Industry) doesn't think we need any stinking regulation of the insurance industries. Just trust them if they say they're going to make changes. Why do we need any silly laws to make sure they behave? We've got their word they won't keep shafting us. Isn't that good enough?

Of course when pinned down on those statements and asked directly if we can trust the insurance industry to keep their word without any laws in place to make sure they won't keep sticking it to their customers, Gingrey retreats to attacking a "government takeover" of health care rather than answer the question.

DOWNLOADS: (143)

PLAYS: (488)

Embed

Chris Matthews asks Congressmen Jim Cooper and Phil Gingrey about the people bringing the guns to the town hall meetings and at least Cooper says he would discourage people from bringing them to the town hall meetings. Gingrey on the other hand defended it and says he feels perfectly safe at his town hall meetings and has no fear of anyone there with a gun. Well tough guy, if you were getting called Hitler and screamed at instead of applauded, maybe you'd feel a little differently about that.

DOWNLOAD (210)

PLAY (216)

You Tube

On Hardball while discussing the aid for family planning included in the stimulus package, Chris Matthews says that government support for family planning "sounds like China" to him. Robert Wexler attempts to reason with him and explains that proper funding and education in this area actually increases people's choices and ultimately reduces medical costs. Rough transcript:

Gingrey:...I mean we're throwing away, gosh I think that there's two hundred million dollars in there for family planning and contraceptives. Now indeed that may stimulate something but I don't think it's going to stimulate the economy.

Matthews: Well Congressman Wexler why isn't it just, why isn't it just what we thought it was going to be...infrastructure, roads, bridges, stuff that everybody agrees on needs to be fixed and creates real jobs for real people that pay decent salaries. Why don't we spend all the money on that stuff that people can see rather than all these odds and ends and cats and dogs? I mean the bill has so much in it you think it's just a shopping list of the Democratic party. That's what it looks like.

Wexler: No. No.

Matthews: Everybody that wants something has something in here.

Wexler: No what the Obama administration is arguing, and I believe they're correct is that three quarters of the money spent in this stimulus package will be out into the economy in eighteen months and I realize it's easy to find one item or this item but even, let's talk about that family planning. Family planning saves if done correctly an enormous sum of money down the road in the health care system. But back to your original point. Most of the money goes to building roads, bridges, infrastructure projects like my friend Mr. Gingrey said. As the states will have designed them and local governments as well will have designated them.

Also in terms of building schools. We desperately need to upgrade our education systems. We have enormous amount of resources devoted towards construction projects and public education as we do in terms of alternative energy sources. We are going to invest enormous sums of money in creating green jobs which have the benefit of employment increases as well as leaving our dependence on foreign oil. This is exactly what the country needs combined with three hundred billion dollars plus of tax cuts which affect ninety five percent positively of the American family base.

Matthews: I don't know. It sounds a little like China. I, Congressman Gingrey I think everybody should have family planning. Everybody believes in birth control as a right. I'm for abortion as a right and all that. It's all right. But why should the federal government have a policy of reducing the number of births? I don't know why the federal government has an interest in that. They have an interest in freedom and people making choices but I just heard a case made by Congressman Wexler that it was in the national interest to have fewer kids. I don't understand that. (crosstalk) What did you mean by that? What did you mean by that? Why is it an economic stimulus...why are we talking about family planning as an economic stimulus program...(crosstalk).

[...]

Wexler: Chris you are right family planning is a personal choice and in order to make personal choices people need to have both education and resources. And when they lack an education or know how or resources in effect then they're choice is negated. And in terms from an economic analysis to give people choices that in some instances based on personal choice will reduce health care costs in the future, that of course then reduces the burden on federal tax payers. This is not a new concept. This is what we run the government on. If we can reduce Medicaid expenditures by giving people more knowledge and choice and resources I think most people regardless of their ideology would say that's a good economic decision.