Harry Reid done good today

Folks have been pretty hard on Harry Reid of late (not unfairly so) for the ongoing debacle that is the Democratic Senate. Today, however, Senator Reid said he was going to stand up to the Republicans, and he did. And he won. At least a temporary, but rather big, victory. Reid basically stuck his thumb in the Republicans', and George Bush's, eye. It's a rather long and convoluted story, with lots of hard-to-explain votes on various pieces of legislation, but in a nutshell, the Republicans wanted to jam through their latest domestic spying exoneration act and Reid said, no, we're not gonna rush it. Then the Republicans actually filibustered legislation that would continue the current domestic spying law for another month, rather than letting it expire later this week. The Republicans think they're sticking a thumb in our eye by taking away the one-month extension. They think that by making Thursday a hard and firm deadline the Dems will cave. And untrue to form, the Dems didn't cave (at least not yet). They actually stood up to the Republicans' bluff.

It remains to be seen if over the next few days the Dems hold firm. And if they don't, we'll blast them, dutifully. But today the Senate Democrats did a good thing. They showed they have some backbone. Let's hope it's the beginning of a beautiful thing. Read the rest of this post...

SOTU Liveblog (and open thread)

9:09: And we're off! This is AJ; Joe and John may jump in at some point. Hey look! CheneyBot makes an appearance!

9:11: I guess this is what happens when your speechwriter jumps to WaPo . . . "Vigorous debate and we answered the call"? That, um, doesn't make any sense.

9:15: Look, it's Serious Bush. He's very sad about the economy he ruined. And he's threatening to veto a bill that he's already agreed to sign. Ooohhh, Cheney is VERY amused by the idea that some people pay taxes. Funny stuff!

9:20: In only four short years, we can get back to the surplus we had . . . right before Bush was elected. So he's telling me it'll take four years to undo eight years of economic damage? Um, that seems like a bad deal.

9:22: Doctors should make health care decisions! Unless insurance companies overrule them. Or if you can't afford to see a doctor. On the bright side, I loved Hillary's response to that, which was basically to roll her eyes. Also: trial lawyers are baaaaaaaad. Baddity bad bad. God forbid people should be have a remedy after being harmed.

9:26: Our children is learning!

9:29: I could have sworn we were at war somewhere . . . I guess I was wrong. Weird.

9:31: Will that new technology get us to Mars? I heard we're going to Mars. Mars, anybody? Mars?? I also heard that dedicating money to research helps it along. Energy research included, I'm pretty sure. Could be wrong.

9:35: Just about at the half hour mark. Nothing about Iraq. Nothing about Afghanistan. Maybe he's saving it for his closing argument or something.

9:38: Immigration is the "other" pressing issue. Not sure what the first one was . . . Mars? Bush is brutalizing his base on immigration right now -- he knows that his bill was torpedoed by Republicans, right?

9:41: Hey look, foreign policy! Yeah, how's that Lebanon thing working out right now? The ol' purple finger routine is pretty ridiculous at this point, no?

9:42: 9/11. Millions of people just did a shot. P.S. We're gonna get that Osama guy one of these days. Terrorists! Another shot, everybody. Try to keep up.

9:45: Iraq time. New mission: pay off our former enemies. Make no improvements in the political situation. Call it victory. This is very frustrating to watch. "Iraqi government has stepped up as well" . . . like, uh, how?

9:49: Iran. Drink. You know, it's easy to just keep claiming that we're going to win. But it would be kinda cool if Bush changed something -- anything -- in his strategy for those purposes.

9:53: Baghdad is making progress. Also, Baghdad needs to make progress. There seems to be some kind of logical issue there, but I can't figure out what it is. Iraq = source of stability. Mmmkay. Aaaaaaand they're GOING TO ATTACK TEH WASHINGTON!!11!11!! If you're scared enough, maybe you'll vote Republican.

9:55: Iran is TEH EVIL. Also, they're looking for nukes. Seriously. I'm sure this isn't scaremongering. Honest. "America will confront those who threaten our troops" . . . unless your name rhymes with Shmin Shladen.

10:00: FISA time -- Democrats are soft on terror, terror, 9/11 . . . I'm pretty sure I've seen this movie before. In related news, FDL just exploded.

10:02: Why did Bush grin when he mentioned Darfur? Hey, alliteration! That's a fun toy. Is this over yet? I'm in a room with about 25 people and it's devolved into shouting at the teevee. Just excruciating all around. I will now light myself on fire.

10:04: Look ma, no legacy! As far as I can tell, the big goals for this year are (1) reducing earmarks, and (2) scaring people. On the one hand, it's not very ambitious. On the other, he might actually be able to handle those goals. But none of our big problems will be helped. 2009 can't come soon enough. And with that, I'm outta here. Have a good night, and don't forget to drink lots of water before you go to bed tonight. TTFN. Read the rest of this post...

NOW-NY: Ted Kennedy can't handle a woman as president because he endorsed Obama

Never have I read a whinier, more sophomoric press release from a national organization, or in this case, their rather important state affiliate. Apparently, anyone who supports any Democrat other than Hillary is a misogynist. So does that also mean that anyone who supports any Democrat other than Obama is a racist? Truly one of the most ridiculous, knee-jerk, stuck-in-the-1960s, and downright offensive things I've ever seen from what I thought was a respectable organization.

From the National Organization for Women's NY chapter:

Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few. Women have buried their anger that his support for the compromises in No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bogus drug benefit brought us the passage of these flawed bills. We have thanked him for his ardent support of many civil rights bills, BUT women are always waiting in the wings.

And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! He’s picked the new guy over us. He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not “this” one). “They” are Howard Dean and Jim Dean (Yup! That’s Howard’s brother) who run DFA (that’s the group and list from the Dean campaign that we women helped start and grow). They are Alternet, Progressive Democrats of America, democrats.com, Kucinich lovers and all the other groups that take women's money, say they’ll do feminist and women’s rights issues one of these days, and conveniently forget to mention women and children when they talk about poverty or human needs or America’s future or whatever.

This latest move by Kennedy, is so telling about the status of and respect for women’s rights, women’s voices, women’s equality, women’s authority and our ability – indeed, our obligation - to promote and earn and deserve and elect, unabashedly, a President that is the first woman after centuries of men who “know what’s best for us.”

But does this make Obama and Edwards woman-haters too since they obviously aren't supporting Hillary either? Actually, I think Obama is off the hook since NOW specifically says that only "white" men who don't support Hillary hate women. (Now who's race-baiting?) Read the rest of this post...

Bush's speech preview

Apparently we aren't going to Mars this year. AP has the preview (written as a post-view, which is always fun). Read the rest of this post...

Mitt on McCain: He likes Democrats

The Florida GOP primary is a real dog fight between McCain and Romney. Lots of charges and accusations flying back and forth. It's ugly. Let's hope these two can keep spewing their venom for a couple more months. Seems clear Mitt and McCain do not like each other one bit.

Mitt accused McCain of the ultimate sin for the right-wingers -- collaborating with the enemy:

“I don’t think McCain is a Democrat,” Mr. Romney said. “I do recall a story that he was thinking about being John Kerry’s running mate. He gave that some thought. Had someone asked me that question, there would not have been a nano-second of thought about it. It would have been an immediate laugh.”

Mr. Romney added: “So we are different. I’m a conservative.”

Okay, Mitt. You need to qualify that statement. It should be: "I am different now. I used to vote for Democrats. I wasn't a conservative, but became one to run for President. So now I hate McCain and Democrats like him." Read the rest of this post...

FISA vote coming up shortly (well, several votes actually

UPDATE: Both cloture motions failed.

It's all rather confusing. Christy at FireDogLake sums up what's taking place:

First up in terms of voting will be the cloture vote that Sen. McConnell moved on Friday, regarding closing debate on S.2248. If the "no" votes take it, then there is a subsequent cloture vote to allow for a 30-day extension of the PAA, as I understand it, so that both the House and Senate can take time to go through the materials on NSA domestic spying that the Bush Administration finally turned over to the House Intel committee late last week. (Piles and piles of paper, which they have been pouring over all weekend, I hear.)

If that fails, then we are potentially back to debate on S.2248 and all of the proposed amendments that various groups have been trying to put forward to improve the bill -- or change it in some way, depending on the amendment. And we are again facing the potential of a Dodd filibuster, among other efforts to block wholesale passage of telecom immunity and basket warrants, among other constitutional and legal problems with the bill.

Or Sen. Reid could remove the bill from consideration altogether if the 30-day extension is not agreed to, the PAA would expire on Friday, and we would then go back to the FISA bill as it stood before this whole chain of idiocy began -- and we could start fresh with the House RESTORE Act as a base for negotiations potentially. Or any number of other scenarios that can be spun out from there.

After the jump, Senator Reid's remarks, as prepared for delivery on the Senate floor concerning these votes...

Just a few hours from now, President Bush will stand in the well of the House of Representatives, just a few hundred yards across the Capitol from here, to deliver his final State of the Union address.

It’s a fair bet that in this speech, he will continue the drumbeat started by Dick Cheney last week by trying to scare the American people into believing that if he does not get his way on the FISA bill now before us, America’s national security will be gravely jeopardized.

I have said on more than one occasion in recent days that the we face: a faltering economy at home and a failing foreign policy abroad – call upon us to rise above partisanship.

I have said on more than one occasion that we extend our hand to the President and Congressional Republicans and hope they join us in a genuine spirit of bipartisanship.

But, M. President, in my twenty years in Congress, I have not seen anything quite as cynical and counterproductive as the Republican approach to FISA.

The American people deserve to know that when President Bush talks about the foreign intelligence bill tonight, he’s doing little more than shooting for cheap political points – and we should reject his efforts.

Members of Congress from both parties have legitimate policy disagreements on FISA.

Some of us believe that history proves the need for more protections against government abuse. Others support the law the way it stands.

But all of us – Democrats and Republicans – want to wage an effective fight against terrorism.

All of us – Democrats and Republicans– want to give our intelligence professionals the tools they need to win this fight.

We will be taking two votes: the first is on whether to invoke cloture on the Bond-Rockefeller substitute to the FISA bill that we have on the floor.

The second is a cloture vote on whether to extend the authorities of the Protect America Act for an additional 30 days, while Congress works to pass a new FISA bill.

I will oppose cloture on the substitute, and will support cloture on the extension.

An extension will give the Senate time to fully debate this complex issue and pass a longer-term law that protects America without compromising the privacy of law-abiding Americans.

Both the Intelligence Committee bill and the Judiciary Committee bill authorize the same surveillance tools our intelligence community needs. Democrats and Republicans stand together on all of the terrorism-fighting components of these bills.

Some Democrats, including me, support the additional privacy protections in the Judiciary Committee bill. Others are satisfied with the protections in the Intelligence Committee bill.

But all of us believe that the Senate should have an opportunity to vote on these important questions.

As a result, many Democrats, including Chairman Rockefeller, are going to oppose cloture on the substitute because they object to the heavy-handed tactics of the Republicans we saw last week on this legislation.

The Republican leader filed cloture on this bill after it had been on the floor for just a few hours. He filed cloture after Republicans blocked every amendment they could from being offered and blocked all amendments from getting votes.

In simple terms, this means the Republicans were filibustering their own bill. Let me repeat that. The Republicans were filibustering their own bill. In my time in the Senate, I can’t remember this taking place.

Meanwhile, at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, President Bush has actually threatened to veto a temporary extension of FISA.

Let’s remember – a temporary extension would guarantee all the terrorism-fighting tools remain in effect. There is absolutely no policy or security problem with an extension.

All it would do is give us more time to work toward bipartisanship while the law continues uninterrupted.

There is no reason to vote against an extension – or for the President to veto one- - except for political posturing.

None of us want the current law to expire. But if it does expire because of Republican tactics, surveillance will not end.

All surveillance orders issued under the law we passed last August, the Protect America Act, are effective for one year, so they will continue until at least August of 2008.

Even in a last resort -- if the current law expires, our intelligence professionals can get surveillance orders under the FISA law as it existed for several decades before we passed the Protect America Act last August. FISA includes provisions for emergency warrantless surveillance.

Again, no one is arguing that the law should be allowed to expire. Doing so would send the wrong message.

But the safeguards in place ensure that our war on terror will not be adversely affected. Anyone who says otherwise, from the President on down, is not being truthful.

Why do Democrats seek an extension? We still believe that bipartisanship is appropriate and possible. The economic stimulus package shows us that when circumstances are dire, we can work together.

The Republican leadership’s actions in this FISA debate have not given us reason for confidence that they are interested in working with us, but we owe it to the American people to give them every opportunity to work with us.

Democrats have requested a 30-day extension repeatedly. Each time, Republicans have said no.

Compromise, M. President, is a two way street. Bipartisanship is a two way street.

As I said last week, we are willing to pass an extension of current law for two weeks, 30 days, 18 months – whatever our colleagues want. But we need to pass an extension now if we are to ensure that the law does not expire. The House is going out of session shortly.

Already, Democrats have introduced several amendments to strengthen the bill:

- Sen. Feingold sought a vote on his amendment to provide FISA court documents to the Senate Intelligence Committee. Republicans blocked him.

- Sen. Whitehouse sought to offer an amendment to give the FISA court authority to review compliance with minimization rules, to protect the privacy of Americans whose communications are inadvertently intercepted. Republicans blocked him.

- Sen. Cardin sought to offer an amendment to sunset this legislation in four years, rather than six, to make sure the Congress returns to this legislation sooner to evaluate how it is working. Republicans blocked him.

- Sen. Kennedy sought to offer an amendment providing for a report by the Inspectors General of the relevant agencies to review the conduct of these programs in the past. Republicans blocked him.

- Sen. Feinstein sought to offer an amendment making crystal clear that FISA is the exclusive means by which the executive branch may conduct surveillance. Republicans blocked her.

Whether these amendments pass or not, M. President, we should be allowed to have votes on them. That is what the U.S. Senate does. We take up bills reported to us by our committees, senators offer amendments to them, and we let the Senate work its will.
The Republicans can’t block us from voting on any amendments and expect us to follow along. Senators are entitled to a vote on their amendments.

And with Republicans blocking every amendment, we haven’t gotten to the crucial issue of immunity.

Let’s not forget: the question of retroactive immunity wouldn’t even be before us if President Bush hadn’t ignored Congress and established his own process outside the law.

But far from taking responsibility for his actions, the President bullies and threatens the Congress he is supposed to work with. He is like the kid in the schoolyard taking his ball and going home when he doesn’t get his way.

When the President talks tonight about how important this program is and how it must continue, I say to him that he must reconsider his political posture and ask his colleagues in the Senate to support an extension.

We are the deliberative body. Let us deliberate.

I urge my colleagues to oppose cloture on the substitute amendment, so that the Senate can return to considering and improving this bill.

We must pass a bill that gives our intelligence authorities the tools they need, while protecting the privacy of all Americans.

And I urge my colleagues to support the extension, so that we can ensure that current authority does not expire while Congress works to pass a new and stronger FISA bill.

Read the rest of this post...

Money and food

This has been covered extensively in the past few days, but I'll briefly add to the general consensus that Megan McArdle's comments on food stamps are absolutely moronic. Basically she says that food stamps shouldn't be part of the economic stimulus package (which they're not, thanks to Republican insistence) because . . . wait for it . . . poor people are fat, so the last thing they need is more money to buy food. You really have to know absolutely nothing about *several* topics to reach a conclusion that abjectly stupid -- including, but not limited to, nutrition, poverty, food stamps, health, diet, food cost, and the demographics of grocery supply -- so it's almost an impressive display of ignorance.

Now, I'm not an expert on any of those things, but I know enough to say that a proper, balanced diet promotes health and often correlates with avoiding obesity. Cheap food generally does not make such a diet, and food stamps make the problem worse, rather than better. You can get a lot of *calories* in cheap food, but (and this is reductive, but true) they're mostly bad calories that don't fill you up, so you consume more than you need and can gain an unhealthy amount of weight (or, to even avoid the health issue, enough weight so that Megan will call you a fatty). Yes, there are plenty of rich fat people, and it's not a precise correlation. But what we need is more education about diet, better access to good food, and to move away from making the whole thing about appearance rather than health and choice.

On a personal note, a little over a year ago I randomly read a book about, well, food. Horrified by what I was (unknowingly) putting into my body, I read much more -- on the way we eat, what nutrition is really all about, and even a well-reviewed "diet" (but really more like general health) book. I totally revamped how I ate (and indeed, how I approached eating generally) and a year later I had lost 15% of my body weight. It was easy, once I knew what the hell I was doing. Anyway, the kicker is this: I lost a bunch of weight, felt great, had more energy than ever before, and lowered my blood pressure and cholesterol significantly . . . by spending more than twice as much on food as I had previously. I'm in a position where I have access to and can afford good food (as well as the knowledge to understand what that means), and it makes all the difference. Read the rest of this post...

Obama receives the endorsement of Ted Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy

Obama held an event at American University here in DC today to receive the endorsements from the Kennedy clan: Ted, Caroline and Patrick. CNN and MSNBC carried it live. Looked pretty intense. Obama spoke about his father -- a Kenyan immigrant who got to attend college in the U.S. in part through a grant from the Kennedy Family Foundation. Here's the video of those remarks:

Senator Clinton has several other members of the Kennedy family supporting her including the former Lieutenant Governor of Maryland, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. Read the rest of this post...

Filibusters

I'm sitting at progressive media summit in the US Senate today. It's an annual event that the Democrats put on for progressive bloggers and talk radio, so that we can meet with Senators and House members and talk about the issues of the day. Oops, strike that. It's apparently a chance for members of Congress to come give us speeches about how they're not blame for being outsmarted repeatedly by the Republicans, and then they get to flee before we can ask any questions. This is actually pretty pathetic, so far. (Stoller just got up and yelled at Senator Stabenow, asking her when we're going to get to ask questions - good for Matt.) Reid and Hoyer both just spoke and hurriedly left before anyone could ask a single question. Last year, we got to ask questions of the members coming to speak. They were good questions, hard questions. Perhaps that's why we're not getting to ask them this year. We're told that the schedule is a little behind, that's why we can't ask questions. So now we're watching some propaganda video showing us how wonderful the Democrats are. Much more important than actually talking to Senator Reid or Congressman Hoyer about Iraq or FISA. Yes, assemble all the top bloggers and talk radio folks in the same room and then piss them off. And who says the Democrats don't know anything about PR?

After the jump, why the Republicans are so good at using filibusters while the Dems pretty much sucked at it. (Actually, I kind of feeling like we're being filibustered right now.)

Anyway, back to the "substance." Senator Reid just explained to us, and Senator Stabenow just expanded on the point, that because of all the Republican filibusters - 62 to date - the Dems aren't able to do what we want them to do on Iraq and other issues.

Hmmm.... a few thoughts.

First, if the filibuster is such a potent weapon then why didn't Dems use it more often, and more effectively, when we were in the minority?

Second, Dems didn't filibuster as much, or as effectively, as the Republicans because it's not just how big your party's majority (or minority) is in the Senate. Just as important is how good a job you do on the public relations/spin surrounding the issue. All Bush has to do is say "Osama!" and the Democrats cave. That isn't because they don't have enough members in their majority, it's because the members they have don't have enough backbone. And no increase in their majority is going to change that fact, or their courage.

PS After Matt yelled at them, we now get to ask questions. Read the rest of this post...

A pre-Florida primary prayer for Rudy Giuliani

"A Very Very Very Long Shot Prayer for Rudolph Giuliani" from Room Eight. It's very, very funny. Read the rest of this post...

Poll: Which GOP candidate would be the easiest to beat in November?

I've just put up a new AMERICAblog straw poll question, this time asking which Republican candidate would be easiest to beat in November. As always you can find the poll in the right-most column, below the "Popular Post" box. Last week's poll, about the state of the economy, had over 90% of you saying that the economy is doing badly or very badly. Read the rest of this post...

AMERICAblog Podcast: Episode 13

In this episode, Joe and I discuss Obama's blow-out victory in South Carolina, we talk about tomorrow's Florida primary, and then, of course, have a lengthy chat about Super Tuesday, which is only one week away.

You can listen to the podcast by clicking here. For those who don't know, a podcast is really just a radio show. Click the link and your computer should play it automatically, assuming you have speakers and your volume is turned up.

As always, you can subscribe to the AMERICAblog podcast via iTunes here, or you can subscribe to the podcast's RSS feed here. And you can listen to any of our old shows via either of the two links in the preceding sentence, or you can find them in the Podcast tab in the upper right corner of this page. Read the rest of this post...

Mitt on McCain: "He's lying" -- or not.

A new record for Mitt backing away from something he said. Seconds. Just a couple seconds. He said McCain was lying, which McCain was, then backed off. Took Mitt a little longer to change positions on every other issue. Huffington Post has the video, too:

Appearing on the campaign trail in Florida, Romney was asked about the criticism, launched by McCain, that he has a timeline for withdrawing troops from Iraq.

"I don't have one, never had," Romney said.

"He says you do," chimed a reporter.

"Well, he's lying," replied the former governor, with a slight laugh. Within a second his tune changed. "He's dishonest [inaudible]. He's being dishonest about that. That's not accurate."

"Are you calling him a liar?" the reporter asked.

"No I'm not. I'm saying he made a dishonest comment. I misspoke."

Republicans have just grown so accustomed to George Bush lying that they don't even know if lying is good or bad.

The Reuters/CSPAN/Zogby tracking poll today has McCain up by 3 points over Mitt. That may explain Mitt's little outburst. Read the rest of this post...

Monday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

Tonight, Bush gives his last State of the Union. His primary topics will be the economy and Iraq, which are the two biggest disasters he's foisted upon us. It's going to take a long, long time to recover from the Bush presidency. He's done major damage to the state of the union.

Mitt and McCain are down in Florida fighting over Iraq and the economy. They both want to inherit the Bush mantle.

Undoubtedly, it'll be an interesting week.... Read the rest of this post...

Shell and Exxon Mobil prepare to announce record profits

We kicked off 2008 with the price per barrel at double the starting point from 2007. Prices declined to the high $80's though bounced back over $90 when the news of the stimulus plan was announced. Prices could free fall, but as long as the Federal Reserve continues with its pro-inflation policy, prices appear more likely to stay high. Within that context, Big Oil will be rolling out financially impressive profit figures this week. Remember when Bush and the GOP wanted to give them even more tax breaks and handouts?

Shell will be at the centre of a political storm this week when it posts profits of almost $27bn (£13.6bn), the highest earnings ever made by a British company.

The record-breaking profits, on the back of soaring oil prices, seem likely to stir fresh allegations of profiteering. The price of petrol has been increasing sharply, rising from 71p a litre five years ago to about 104p a litre today, according to the AA.

Texas-based Exxon Mobil, the world's largest privately-owned oil company, is expected to improve on its own previous record on Friday by reporting earnings of $39.6bn, the biggest annual profits that the US has ever seen.

Read the rest of this post...

Bush fails again to show leadership

So much for another Bush theory. He continues to say business should lead though there's no sign at all from business that there will be any movement on climate change until the government leads the charge. Business rarely takes action on issues such as this without prodding. If they do and no other companies follow, it could be a financial loss that could lead to hostile actions by the board or even a takeover if money is lost. We all know Bush was a terrible business leader and lost everyone else's money so his miscalculation should come as no surprise. Will anyone call him out this week during the climate change meetings in Hawaii?

Nearly nine in 10 of them do not rate it as a priority, says the study, which canvassed more than 500 big businesses in Britain, the US, Germany, Japan, India and China. Nearly twice as many see climate change as imposing costs on their business as those who believe it presents an opportunity to make money. And the report's publishers believe that big business will concentrate even less on climate change as the world economy deteriorates.

The survey demolishes George Bush's insistence that global warming is best addressed through voluntary measures undertaken by business – and does so at the most embarrassing juncture for the embattled President. For this week he is convening a meeting of the world's largest economies to try to persuade them to agree with him.

Read the rest of this post...