DOWNLOADS: (188)

PLAYS: (3769)

Embed

Here's something you don't see happen every day. Peggy Noonan actually got called out for attempting to repeat one of her favorite talking points -- that President Obama could somehow wave a magic wand and force the members of Congress to behave the way he wants them to -- and on Meet the Press of all places.

GREGORY: And-- and yet this week as-- as this was going on, as the investigation was going on, the Senate defeats a background check bill for-- for guns. So we-- we are confronting this violence but still very divided about how we react to it and try to solve it.

NOONAN: Yeah, I think the essential problem is that Americans at this point don’t trust their government so much to do the right thing. They are skeptical of all bills on things that they care about to-- to lower the conversation a little bit, get it down to-- to mere politics, I guess. I think there is a problem when you’ve got 90 percent of the American people wanting something like background checks and a president who is just re-elected and riding a wave, can’t make anything move that way. I think there is a problem there, and I think he is having, as somebody said, a problem with the levers of power.

KEARNS GOODWIN: But maybe the problem is also the structure of the Senate. You know, at the turn of the 20th century when public sentiment wanted a lot of things done to deal with industrialization and the problem of the slums, the Senate was impossible to move because it was millionaires in there. They finally realized they have to have direct election of senators. They used to be elected by the state legislatures and they’re only susceptible to special interest. Maybe that’s the trouble now, that structural Senate given the 60 votes that are needed, given who they listen to, given the power of special interest, public sentiment cannot penetrate. And we’ve seen it now for the last decade. That’s what the dysfunction is about. It’s not just the Senate, it’s the Congress.

Continue reading »

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: (135)

PLAYS: (739)

Embed

Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe is one of 14 Republicans who have pledged to filibuster any sort of new gun restrictions and as MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell noted, he now apparently believes enough time has passed that he feels free to insult the parents of the murdered children from Sandy Hook elementary school.

I guess Inhofe believes only senators who have an A+ rating from the NRA are allowed to talk about gun control.

James Inhofe: Gun Debate Has Nothing To Do With Families Of Newtown Victims:

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said Tuesday that the gun control debate doesn't have anything to do with the families of the Newtown, Conn., shooting victims, and that the only reason those families think it does is because President Barack Obama told them it did.

Eleven family members of Newtown victims were in Washington on Tuesday, meeting privately with senators to urge them to support a forthcoming gun package that would impose tighter background checks, crack down on gun trafficking and enhance school safety measures. Speaking to a handful of reporters, Inhofe said he feels bad for those families because they're being used as pawns in a political fight.

"See, I think it's so unfair of the administration to hurt these families, to make them think this has something to do with them when, in fact, it doesn't," Inhofe said.

When it was suggested that the families of Newtown victims actually believe the gun debate pertains to them, Inhofe said, "Well, that's because they've been told that by the president."

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: (238)

PLAYS: (3424)

Embed

Look out. Grandpa McGrumpy got a little testy and decided to pull out old St. Ronnie's corpse after Fox's Shepard Smith dared to call him "an interventionist" and bring up McCain's "joke" about bombing Iran during a discussion about Rand Paul's filibuster this week.

McCain Says He, Not Rand Paul, Represents ‘Party Of Ronald Reagan':

At a time when there appears to be a burgeoning rift in Republican ranks over the government's use of drones, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) on Friday argued that he, not Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), represents former President Ronald Reagan's true legacy in the party.

In a tense interview on Fox News, anchor Shepard Smith brought up the emerging schism between hawks such as McCain and non-interventionists like Paul.McCain and his longtime ally Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) each blasted Paul earlier this week for the Kentucky libertarian's epic 13-hour filibuster over the nomination of John Brennan to lead the CIA.

Smith brought up McCain's ardent support for military intervention in the past, as well as an infamous Beach Boys parody once sung by the Arizona Republican that seemed to express support for bombing Iran. The latter reference drew McCain's ire.

"You really believe that?" McCain asked Smith incredulously.

"Sir, all I'm asking is is it your sense that Rand Paul may be bringing together people in the basement who align maybe in some cases more closely with the left than with the right," Smith said.

McCain bristled at Smith's reference to his "joke" about a strike against Iran and then argued that his vision of establishing "peace through strength" upholds Reagan's legacy more than Paul's isolationism. The two-time presidential candidate also quibbled with the notion that he's an "interventionist."

"I'm of the party of Ronald Reagan and there's been a debate in our party for years and years about whether we should withdraw to fortress America or not. But to say we're interventionists is a mislabeling and absolutely false," McCain said. "We are for a strong America and we believe that's the best way to prevent war rather than a weakened military, which many of my colleagues now support who are the isolationists, which goes all the way back to post-World War I."

McCain is apparently hoping the country's collective amnesia prevents them from even remembering as far back as the Bush administration.

He didn't look a whole lot happier than he was earlier the previous day when he shared an elevator ride with Paul.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (374)

PLAYS: (4345)

Embed

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell drew the ire of The Daily Show's Jon Stewart this Thursday evening after he decided to briefly join Sen. Rand Paul's thirteen hour filibuster of John Brennan's nomination to head the CIA. As Stewart rightfully pointed out, any of these members of Congress who sat silent during the Bush years pretty well forfeited their right to feign concern over the civil liberties of Americans now.

STEWART: Those other senators are recent additions to the Senate, so I don't mind them jumping into Paul's filibuster, but you don't get to jump in on the concern the executive branch might be trampling the Constitution train. If I remember correctly during the Bush torture, suspended habeas corpus, see if you can get the Attorney General to sign off wireless wiretapping while he's in a coma years, I believe your response to that was... yeah.

DOWNLOADS: (151)

PLAYS: (902)

Embed

Fox News host Sean Hannity on Thursday congratulated Republicans for successfully using a filibuster to temporarily block a president's nominee for secretary of defense -- former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) -- for the first time in the history of the U.S. Senate.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Wednesday said Republicans should feel "shame" for the unprecedented obstruction, but Hannity called the outcome a "major win for the GOP."

"Republicans say it is premature to close the debate over the nominee and say that before that any confirmation vote will take place, they want answers from Hagel and the White House about what exactly President Obama was doing the night of the Benghazi terror attack that killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans," Hannity noted on Thursday.

"It's the first time a filibuster of a cabinet nominee has been used," he added. "And needless to say, this marks a major win for the GOP, and pretty embarrassing defeat for the president."

Fox News political analyst Juan Williams pointed out that Hannity "must have missed the news" that "Republicans have basically said that in a week they will vote to end the cloture, end the filibuster and approve Chuck Hagel."

"So, nobody in this town thinks there's any chance that Chuck Hagel, one, is either going to resign or, two, is going to be denied the office of secretary of defense," Williams explained. "What we're really seeing here is a political game."

Rachel Maddow took viewers through the litany of statements made by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid about the need to reform the filibuster rules to prevent the Republican minority from forcing 60 votes on every single bill, but as she noted, what ended up passing this Thursday was nothing that anyone could consider any type of meaningful reform.

About the only issue I'd take with Rachel's reporting on the subject is that I'm not sure if it's fair to lay all of the blame at Reid's feet, or if it's what I believe is a more likely scenario, which is that he'd have gladly signed onto the reforms himself if he thought he had the votes within his own caucus, which he did not. If that is the case, I'd like to know which Senators he was dealing with that refused to go along with stopping the unprecedented obstruction we've seen from the Republicans since Barack Obama was elected president.

And in regard to the failure to pass any new reforms now, as long as Democrats do not control the House, it's not like there is going to be any actual progressive legislation making it through our Congress that Senate Republicans would be blocking. It would make a big difference with nominees and treaties being held up (which I don't want to minimize) to get the rules changed now, but if Democrats were going to reform the filibuster rules, it would have made a real difference when they had control of the House as well and they refused to do it then. I'm disgusted but not shocked that they didn't do anything about it now as well, given their track record.

I've read jokes about the day Al Franken finally got sworn in being the worst day of Harry Reid's life because they couldn't use the Republicans as an excuse any more for not getting anything done in the Senate. I think we're seeing right now that we're not going to have any reforms as long as we've got a bunch of Democrats mucking up the works who are not much better than their counterparts on the right.

Here's more from Ezra Klein on the latest: Harry Reid: “I’m not personally, at this stage, ready to get rid of the 60-vote threshold”:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (124)

PLAYS: (541)

Embed

Here's the latest excuse to come from Fox News on why Republicans will not cooperate with President Obama on passing any new gun control legislation. According to Bloody Bill Kristol, they're only going to feel compelled to work with him on legislation that he campaigned on.

WALLACE: The Obama White House is clearly determined to keep up the pressure for more gun controls in the wake of Newtown. Bill, do you see any sign, and you heard the conversation today between Neera Tanden and Larry Pratt, of a new willingness on Congress to pass this kind of legislation?

KRISTOL: No, not much. I assume they'll consider various measures, but ultimately those measures are not really going to do much about it, unfortunately, the mass killings we've had. The President didn't campaign on gun control. Second term presidents do well when they actually try to implement things they told the voters they hoped to focus on. President Obama was going to focus on the economy. He was pro-Israel and now he's nominated one of the most anti-Israel Senators as Secretary of Defense.

He didn't talk about gun control when he controlled Congress in 2009 and 2010 and Democrats had huge majorities. They didn't reinstate the assault ban.

WALLACE: But we did have Newtown.

KRISTOL: We did have Newtown, but honestly, one incident does not tell you what policy should be and in any case, as we pointed out a million times, the particular things Vice President Biden seems to be proposing would have nothing to do with Newtown. There's not a single proposal in their menu that would have stopped Mrs. Lanza from buying those guns and having those guns apparently. There would have been a registry where people would have known she had those guns. Would that have really helped?

One incident, huh? As my fellow contributor Mugsy pointed out today, it was hardly one incident that led up to them finally having this long overdue debate. And the idea that these Republicans in the Congress would work with President Obama on anything simply because he campaigned on it is laughable.

Kristol also seems to have a short memory about just what sort of majority President Obama had during his first term. He had a filibuster proof majority for a few months, but when that majority includes a bunch of consderva-Dems in the Senate who are as bad or worse than their Republican counterparts, you're not going to get any real progressive legislation through that Congress.

DOWNLOADS: (61)

PLAYS: (128)

Embed

Lindsey Graham refused to say whether he'd filibuster the nomination of Chuck Hagel for Secretary of State, but he did guarantee we'd see plenty of kicking and screaming out of the neocons who think that anyone who didn't agree with them on our invasion of Iraq is "out of the mainstream."

Graham: Hagel Pick An ‘In Your Face’ Nomination:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said Sunday that former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, President Obama's likely pick for secretary of defense, would be a problematic choice, particularly regarding to his positions on Israel and Iran.

"He has long severed his ties with the Republican Party," Graham said during an appearance on CNN's "State of the Union." "This is an 'in your face' nomination by the president to all of us who are supportive of Israel.'

"It looks like the second term of Barack Obama is going to be an 'in your face' term," Graham added.

"Quite frankly, Chuck Hagel is out of the mainstream of thinking I believe on most issues regarding foreign policy," he said.