Sen. Bunning Continues to Block Unemployment Benefits

Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) is continuing to make quite a name for himself.

Last week, Bunning single-handily blocked the extension of unemployment and COBRA benefits to over one million of the unemployed. Bunning's objections stem from his belief that this 30-day extension of benefits should be paid for prior to passing. Watch as Bunning objects repeatedly to the extension:



In the clip above he states that he will be there as long as the other Senators are in the Chamber to object to every motion to extend the benefits. Later in the evening, after hours of this back and forth, Bunning continued to state his opposition and even complained about missing the University of Kentucky basketball game:



It was also reported that when some Democratic Senators asked Bunning to drop his opposition, Bunning replied, "Tough Shit".

Well today, Bunning displayed some more classy behavior:



and prior to this video clip? From ABC News:

Senator Bunning was even more expressive before the cameras arrived, using a little sign language.

When Senate producer Z. Byron Wolf spotted Bunning exiting his office, Bunning said, “I’m not talking to anybody.” When Wolf asked him to stay and talk to our cameras, Bunning walked toward the elevator and shot the middle finger over his head.

The effects of Bunning's actions are already being felt by the unemployed as was reported by Michael McCauliff of the New York Daily News:

“As of yesterday, 8,000 New Yorkers are left without benefits,” said Leo Rosales, a spokesman for the state Department of Labor. “What it means is, for the days they’re out, there is no money coming in…. You can imagine the worry they have right now.”

Democrats offered a long-term bill this afternoon that would fix the problem through the end of the year, but unless they can amend it to pay back the lost benefits, that money is gone for good.

As the debate advanced in Washington earlier today, Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) joined the debate and even argued that payment of unemployment benefits is a disincentive for those out of work to seek employment:

Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the Republican whip, argued that unemployment benefits dissuade people from job-hunting "because people are being paid even though they're not working."

Unemployment insurance "doesn't create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work," Kyl said during debate over whether unemployment insurance and other benefits that expired amid GOP objections Sunday should be extended.

"I'm sure most of them would like work and probably have tried to seek it, but you can't argue that it's a job enhancer. If anything, as I said, it's a disincentive. And the same thing with the COBRA extension and the other extensions here," said Kyl.

Bunning successfully blocked the motion again earlier today and Senate Democrats are still trying to work around Bunning's objections so that those who are unemployed will receive their benefits.


This piece is cross posted here.

Harold Ford Jr. Gets Grilled by Colbert

This clip of New York Senate Candidate Harold Ford Jr. (D-NY) on The Colbert Report from last night is a prime example of what a train wreck looks like.

Colbert calls out Ford on his shifting positions on various issues over the years and it isn't pretty:

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Harold Ford Jr.
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Economy

Pelosi Indicates that Dems will no Longer Push Current Health Care Reform

Remember yesterday, when I talked about how Democrats need to pay attention to populist views in order to not suffer the same defeats like we just saw in Massachusetts?

Well, it looks like on the issue of health care reform, the Democrats are tucking their tail between their legs and putting the issue on the back-burner:

Nancy Pelosi's statement viaTPM:

"I don't see the votes for it at this time," Pelosi said. "The members have been very clear in our caucus about the fact that they didn't like it before it had the Nebraska provision and some of the other provisions that are unpalatable to them."

"In every meeting that we have had, there would be nothing to give me any thought that that bill could pass right now the way that it is," she said. "There isn't a market right now for proceeding with the full bill unless some big changes are made."

Fairly ambiguous especially considering that she goes on to say that "we have to get a bill passed". While her statement makes mention of "big changes" that need to be made, we have come so far in the wrong direction that it is hard to view her comments as anything other than applying the brakes to the process.

Politically, I don't see how this can be a smart move. Not only for the reasoning that I mentioned yesterday, but because this is surely going to give the tea-party crowd as well as the GOP a leg-up.

From a practical standpoint, the current legislation is not good and needs a lot of work to repair the damage that was done to it when it was in the Senate. If the Democrats are serious about doubling their efforts to make this legislation better, then great, but it would simply be naive to expect that conclusion from all that we have seen take place thus far. If they are really going to put this issue on indefinite hold, then the last several months can only be viewed as a giant waste of time.

Harry Reid's Racial Comments May be the Icing on the Cake for Republicans

The upcoming release of the book "Game Change" by journalists John Heilemann and Mark Halperin next Tuesday is already creating a stir. The book chronicles the 2008 Presidential campaign and one of the items that has received some press attention is this snippet from Page 37 about Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) saying that his:

encouragement of Obama was unequivocal. He was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a "light-skinned" African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one," as he said privately. Reid was convinced, in fact, that Obama's race would help him more than hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination.

If you are wondering whether this is true, you don't have to wonder very long as Sen. Reid's office put out this statement apologizing for his "choice of words":

I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words. I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African Americans for my improper comments. I was a proud and enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama during the campaign and have worked as hard as I can to advance President Obama's legislative agenda. Moreover, throughout my career, from efforts to integrate the Las Vegas strip and the gaming industry to opposing radical judges and promoting diversity in the Senate, I have worked hard to advance issues important to the African American community.

So what does this mean for Reid? Chris Bowers at OpenLeft makes some good arguments that this incident may be the icing on the cake for Reid's political opponents who are licking their chops at the prospect of defeating him:

It is very difficult to see how Harry Reid can win re-election at this point.

At the base of Harry Reid's problems are the unemployment and foreclosure rates in Nevada. In terms of foreclosures, "Nevada is #1 in the entire country, and has been so for years. Further, the Silver State has significantly higher unemployment than the rest of the nation. Even the recent drops in unemployment in Nevada have come as a result of tens of thousands dropping out of the Nevada workforce, not from an increase in jobs.

There are few places in the country, if any, that have been hit harder by the recession that Nevada (and that includes Michigan). In that environment, it would be difficult for any longstanding, powerful, well-known politician in the state to be re-elected.

[...]

While at one time there was an argument that Reid could still have won re-election by using his vast monetary advantage to go nuclear on his unknown Republican opponents, thus driving up their unfavorables, this latest incident now makes that much more difficult. This is a sort of scandal has the potential to cut right at the heart of Reid's base, which is mainly the 30% of state voters who self-identify as non-white. It may not turn into a big deal, but it will be something of a deal. Given his current position, taking any hit, especially among his base, is virtually fatal to Reid's chances.

Given this, I would not be surprised to see Reid pull a Chris Dodd in order to save face politically. However with no standout Democrat to take his place at the moment, it is very easy to see how this seat may already be a lost cause come November for Democrats.

Dorgan and Dodd Will Not Seek Re-election, Nader Ponders Entering Senate Race

Democratic Senators are dropping like flies over the last few days. Both Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) are retiring from the Senate and will not seek re-election bids in 2010. In an election year that is already said to be tight for Democrats, these announcements put a big question mark on if these Senate seats will be able to remain blue.

So who are so-called "winners" and "losers" of these decisions? Glenn Thrush of Politico has some ideas:

Winners:

1. Joe Lieberman. Let's see, we started the year with a posse of Dems looking to pants the Connecticut Independent for demeaning Barack Obama from the podium of the Republican National Convention. Then Harry Reid and Obama intervened to save his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee -- and he rewarded them by single-handedly scuttling the public option and expansion of Medicare.

Now a new gift for the independent who already has everything. Dodd's departure removes Connecticut AG Dick Blumenthal from the 2012 race, removing the gravest threat to Lieberman yet -- and explaining, perhaps, why Lieberman's Cheshire grin is especially wide these days.

3. Wall Street, Ben Bernanke and Barney Frank. Still a huge open question, but Dodd's exit throws the fast-evolving bipartisan -- yes, bipartisan -- Wall Street regulation effort into semi-disarray. It would be going too far to say that Dodd's bill will be derailed, but financial industry lobbyists and their defenders on the Hill now have an excuse to slow walk the entire process. On the other hand, voters are demanding some payback for the financial crisis and bailouts -- and want some kind of reg reform, Dodd or no Dodd.

On to the details... Dodd's bill would strip bank oversight from the Fed. Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, favors vesting that power with Fed boss Ben Bernanke, despite the Fed's poor oversight in the years leading up to the meltdown. Having Dodd on the way out might strengthen the Frank/Bernanke hand.

Losers.

3. Rob Simmons and Linda McMahon. Alas, it was too good too last. Blumenthal is as popular as any Democrat in Connecticut right now, with sky-high name recognition and a decades-long rep as a corruption fighter. The NRSC and the state party had been pulling their punches for weeks in hopes that Dodd would retain enough of a pulse to stay, wounded and ripe, in the race. That's over. While Dodd and GOP Gov. Jodi Rell tanked over the summer with below-40 percent approval ratings, Blumenthal happy number was hovering around 80 (!) percent.

That's unsustainable. But Democrats are heaving a huge sigh of relief this morning that Blumenthal is now their candidate instead of Dodd -- regardless of all the "Black Tuesday" headlines.

7. Liberals. This time next year, the Senate will have lost its two leading veteran progressives -- Ted Kennedy and Dodd. Moreover, Dodd's perceived crony relationship with Wall Street -- Angelo's List, AIG, etc. -- turned him into something of a populist crusader on credit cards and other financial regulatory matters over the last 12 months. Blumenthal has similar liberal/populist views -- even though he opposes same-sex marriage -- but he's far less connected, forceful or charismatic a liberal standard-bearer than Dodd.

The news about Chris Dodd is also interesting because the Green Party of Connecticut is strongly pushing consumer advocate and former Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader to run for a Senate seat out of Connecticut later this year. There is a Facebook Group created to this affect that has over 2,100 members that is also encouraging citizens from all over the country to call his offices and encourage him to run.

Nader has thus-far been non-committal saying that he wants to gauge the level of grassroots support before making an announcement and it is unclear how Dodd's retirement will affect Nader's decision.

2010 election buzz is heating up, so I am sure this will only get more interesting as we go along.

Lieberman Torpedoes Health Care Legislation, Progressives Split on the Way Forward

Under the threats from Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and at the insistence of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, the Senate has dropped the Medicare buy-in provision from the health care legislation.

Lieberman's reversal on his support for such a buy-in has been all over the blogosphere and has cast a shadow on whether he has been acting in good faith or if he is simply trying to stick it to liberals.

It so happens that the New York Times put up an interesting piece that included this (emphasis mine):

Mr. Lieberman had supported the Medicare buy-in proposal in the past — both as the Democrats’ vice presidential nominee in 2000 and in more recent discussions about the health care system. In an interview this year, he reiterated his support for the concept.

But in the interview, Mr. Lieberman said that he grew apprehensive when a formal proposal began to take shape. He said he worried that the program would lead to financial trouble and contribute to the instability of the existing Medicare program.

And he said he was particularly troubled by the overly enthusiastic reaction to the proposal by some liberals, including Representative Anthony Weiner, Democrat of New York, who champions a fully government-run health care system.

“Congressman Weiner made a comment that Medicare-buy in is better than a public option, it’s the beginning of a road to single-payer,” Mr. Lieberman said. “Jacob Hacker, who’s a Yale professor who is actually the man who created the public option, said, ‘This is a dream. This is better than a public option. This is a giant step.’”

So by Lieberman's own admission, he opposed (at least in part) this piece of the health care legislation because liberals were enthusiastic about it. Did Lieberman not think that liberals would be enthusiastic about such a proposal when he supported it just three months ago? It is ludicrous to think that Lieberman is objecting to this on principled grounds. It is much more likely that his love affair with the insurance industry combined with his vehement disgust toward liberals, has led him to take pause.

The White House, which is more concerned with passing any version of health care legislation regardless of the strength of the public option, naturally urged the Senate Dems to capitulate in order to move the process forward. All of these developments have made the prospect of robust health care reform a bad joke and progressives are expressing their rage not only at Lieberman, but at Emanuel as well. Check out this new ad by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee:



With these recent developments, progressives are split on their support for this bill. Howard Dean has come out and voiced his support for killing the Senate version of the bill and going back to the House for reconciliation. Others, like Chris Bowers at OpenLeft, are questioning if progressive support for "killing the bill" will actually backfire and end up helping the Senate legislation pass.

What Lieberman has done with placing himself in a pivotal opposing position on this piece of legislation, is force the hand of the White House to give in to his demands in order to move this process forward. It matters not to the White House how robust the reforms are in this legislation, as long as some kind of reforms get to the President's desk.

There is much talk among progressives over who is going to suffer politically for watering down this legislation in the midterm and 2012 elections. While political consequences have their place in these discussions it should not obscure the fact that the real suffering is going to take place with the ordinary citizen who will continue to get denied health care coverage by their insurance company, who will continue to see premiums rise, and who will continue to incur debt in the absence of affordable coverage. There is something wrong when thousands of people regularly show up for free health care clinics in the so-called "greatest country on Earth" because it is their only affordable option.

Shame on this incessant capitulation to the status quo.



This piece is also posted here.

Breaking: Senate Democrats Reach a Compromise on Health Care Bill

Reports are surfacing that Senate Democrats have reached a compromise on the Health Care legislation. From Talking Points Memo:

An aide briefed on the negotiations among the gang of 10 offers up the rundown of the most important aspects of the public option compromise being sent to CBO.

If this trade-off carries the day, the opt out public option is gone.

In its place will be many of the alternatives we've been hearing about, including a Medicare expansion and a triggered, federally-based public option.

[...]

As with the process Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid undertook in merging the Senate Finance Committee and Senate HELP Committee bills, CBO will evaluate a menu of options, some of them interchangeable, so there's no certainty that this list won't change in the coming days. However, a senior leadership aide says that all of the options sent to CBO include the (triggered) public plan. Reid and other senators declined to offer specifics earlier tonight, as part of an agreement with CBO not to publicly discuss the policy options on the table while actuaries analyze competing ideas.

Now it's a question of what the CBO says, and then: will Joe Lieberman object to the trigger. This trigger seems awfully hard to pull. But he's said he'd object to any kind of government insurance option--even triggered--in the past.

Real details are still emerging on what this compromise exactly entails, but I don't have a good feeling about what this is going to mean for meaningful reforms to our health care system.

Peter Bronson Gets Busted for Posting a Photoshopped Picture of Al Franken...and Then Deletes the Entire Post

I have written criticisms of Cincinnati Enquirer columnist and blogger, Peter Bronson, in the past but this time will highlight an item that was posted by The Dean of Cincinnati over at The Cincinnati Beacon. (Full disclosure: I also contribute to the Cincinnati Beacon.)

Last week, Bronson posted a blog entry on July 1 saying that the joke was actually on Minnesota for electing Al Franken as their Senator. (I will address why I am not linking directly to his original entry in a moment). In his post Bronson wrote:

The new Franken-Senate may not be as congenial as his old cast and crew on Saturday Night Live. There will be defections, rejections, betrayals and walk-outs. And if they let Franken be Franken, he might embarrass his party and become a kick-me sign on the back of Democrats at election time. Meanwhile, Democrats are now running the federal Titanic and can no longer blame the icebergs on Republicans.

Or Franken might surprise us and become a pretty good Senator. (Cue the canned laughter.)

For now, if Republicans can find their misplaced sense of humor, there must be some great ads to be made from Franken’s clips and quips. Such as:

Is this who you want making decisions about your health care?

and then posted this picture:



As the Cincinnati Beacon pointed out, the only problem is that the photo was photoshopped (not by Bronson) and was debunked in 2006 by Think Progress. Ironically, a reporter for the Cincinnati Enquirer also posted a piece debunking this photo in 2006. The Dean of Cincinnati wrote to Bronson and the Enquirer the following:

Dear Mr. Bronson,

I am writing to inform you that your recent blog item, “Minnesota - the joke is on you,” includes information that has been thoroughly debunked in 2006—and interestingly the information was debunked by Jon Craig on the Politics Extra blog. I would like to request formally, therefore, a correction and an apology on your blog for misleading your readers.

You included a photo of Al Franken where he appeared to be holding a stuffed animal and wearing diapers. However, that is a doctored photo. Here’s the proof from your own news organization: http://tinyurl.com/p2oftv

You introduced this doctored photo without making any indication of its status as a fake. In fact, you suggested otherwise: “For now, if Republicans can find their misplaced sense of humor, there must be some great ads to be made from Franken’s clips and quips.” The phrase “Franken’s clips and quips” indicates that Franken owns the “clip” you provided, namely the doctored photo. But that is not true. The picture is a fake, and your item totally misleads your readers—unacceptable even for a columnist.

Please advise what steps you intend to take to remedy the situation, and I look forward to reading your reply.

Respectfully,

[The Dean of Cincinnati]

So in the comment section of the original post, Bronson then posted:

PeterBronson wrote:

Yes, the photo of Franken in a diaper was apparently altered. But it’s not exactly a big reach to believe it could have come from one of his SNL skits. It resonates because people find it easy to see Franken that way.

7/6/2009 10:46 AM EDT

Interesting response that seems to justify Bronson's posting of the fake image in the first place..."It resonates because people find it easy to see Franken that way." That argument can be made to justify the posting of all sorts of inappropriate items, but I digress.

After this story was picked up by numerous other blogs, Bronson posted another entry entitled "Changing Al Franken's Diaper" in which he wrote:

Last week I posted a blog about comedian Al Franken joining the Senate (here), including a picture of Franken wearing bunny ears and a diaper.

Franken did many things on Saturday Night Live that could be embarrassing to a Senator. But apparently, that was not one of them. It turns out the picture was photoshopped.

We don't knowingly run false pictures, so I took it down and replaced it with another goofy picture of Sen. Franken.

So he replaced the one image in his original post with a new image. Apparently what Bronson meant by this, is that he would delete all evidence of the original posting by deleting that blog entry, which is what Bronson did. He actually links back to his original entry within the text of his corrected entry, but it jumps to this page.

So to recap, Peter Bronson posted a photoshopped picture (that was debunked in 2006)of Al Franken in order to make fun of his election to the Senate. Bronson gets caught by The Dean of Cincinnati who writes about the issue and writes a letter to Bronson asking for a correction. Bronson posts a comment in the original thread that admits that the picture was photoshopped, but justifies that it "resonates" with people because many can see Franken in that manner. After the item gets reposted and linked to at other blogs, Bronson posts another entry as a half-apology for posting a fake image and completely deletes the original entry from the record.

and this is the same guy who just posted an entry about the so-called "liberal media" unfairly attacking Sarah Palin.

The Passage of the FISA Legislation and the Disrespect for the Rule of Law

Today members of the Senate voted to approve the FISA legislation that would allow retroactive immunity to be granted to telecommunications companies that spied on Americans in violation of the Constitution. This bill would also allow the telecom companies to cooperate with the government in the future by continuing to spy on Americans without a warrant and without fear of prosecution.

The Senate began with debate over the bill and followed up the debate with votes on proposed amendments to the FISA legislation. Senators Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold proposed an amendment which would have stricken the immunity title from the overall bill. This amendment failed 32-66. Barack Obama voted in favor of this amendment and John McCain was not present and did not cast a vote, but has expressed his support for the bill.

The next amendment that was voted upon was proposed by Senator Arlen Specter and would have required a court to review the constitutionality of the NSA programs before giving immunity to the telecom companies. This amendment also failed 37-61. Barack Obama voted in favor of this amendment and John McCain was not present and did not cast a vote, but has expressed his support for the bill.

The third and final amendment that was voted upon was proposed by Senator Jeff Bingaman and would allow for a stay on prosecution of the telecom companies until 90 days after a review of the Inspector General's report. This amendment also failed 42-56. Barack Obama voted in favor of this legislation and John McCain was not present and did not cast a vote, but has expressed his support for the bill.

After the defeat of these amendments, the Senate voted for cloture on the bill. Cloture would allow for the Senate to overcome any filibuster of the legislation. This measure passed 72-26. Barack Obama voted for cloture and John McCain was not present and did not cast a vote, but has expressed his support for the bill. The amazing part about this vote, is that it shows a complete reversal in position for Barack Obama. Obama's position during the primary was that he would support any filibuster of legislation that would give retroactive immunity to telecom companies. Voting for cloture of the bill is the complete opposite of supporting a filibuster. It is assuring that the Senate can override any filibuster of the bill.

After the vote on cloture, the Senate voted on the unchanged FISA bill and passed the legislation 69-28. Barack Obama voted in support of this bill and John McCain was not present and did not cast a vote, but has expressed his support for the bill. The bill will now move on to President Bush's desk, where he has praised its passage and stated that he will sign it.

This vote marks a dark day for the Fourth Amendment and for the very idea of the rule of law in the United States. Not only does this give the telecom companies immunity from breaking the law, but it also shields the Administration from their illegal acts in instructing the telecom companies to spy on Americans in violation of the original FISA agreement. The original FISA legislation clearly states that this is a violation of the law, a felony, that can be punished by up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine for each offense. This is also a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution in that it violates the very clear understanding of needing probable cause in order to obtain a warrant for search and seizure. Both of these violations of law underscore the abuse of power shown by President Bush in ordering the telecom companies to break the law in spying on Americans. As Glenn Greenwald pointed out the other day, it is helpful to look at Thomas Paine's view on how America is supposed to function:

But where says some is the King of America? I’ll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve as monarchy, that in America the law is King. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is.

No one, not even the President of the United States, is above the law, or that is how things are supposed to work in this country. Instead we find ourselves immersed in the thinking of former President Nixon who believed that "when the President does it that means it is not illegal." That belief was partly the reason for which Nixon had to resign and avoid the articles of impeachment that were drafted against him. Today, 35 years later, we find ourselves in a country where our legislative representatives have voted not to hold the Administration accountable for breaking the law, but instead they have voted to retroactively protect and condone such behavior while expanding the power of the government to eavesdrop in the future. All of this being done under a Democratically controlled Congress and with both major presidential candidates supporting this action. There is simply no justification for such actions and all those who supported such detrimental legislation need to be held accountable.