This post originally appeared on the Daily Kos.
With Republican candidate Scott McInnis beleaguered by the massive plagiarism scandal and refusing to leave the race, Tom Tancredo is stepping in.
“I will officially announce at noon that I will seek the nomination of the constitution party,” Tancredo told The Denver Post….
Tancredo gave Republican candidates Scott McInnis and Dan Maes an ultimatum last week: Promise to get out of the race after the primary if polls showed the winner lagging behind Democrat John Hickenlooper or else he would get in as a third-party candidate.
Both Maes and McInnis refused.
The Post story details the out-and-out war between Tancredo and Colorado Republican chair Dick Wadhams, writing that the two “had an all-out-brawl on Peter Boyles’ KHOW radio station show this morning, screaming at each other and calling each other ‘liars.’” Wadhams, rightly, points out that a Tancredo run will split the Republican vote and almost assuredly lead to a victory for Dem John Hickenlooper, Denver’s very popular mayor — provided Hickenlooper doesn’t take the race for granted and campaigns hard. The stakes for Dems are particularly high in Colorado this year, with the hopes of keeping both a Senate and the Governor’s seat in Dem hands.
This post originally appeared on Daily Kos.
This is going to be an obnoxious few months of politics from the Republicans.
In its first memo to reporters since Kagan’s nomination to the high court became public, the Republican National Committee highlighted Kagan’s tribute to Marshall in a 1993 law review article published shortly after his death.
Joe Lieberman Introduces Unconstitutional “Anti-Terror” Legislation (Bad American, Worse Legislator)
This post originally appeared on Daily Kos.
The reviews for the unconstitutional, citizenship-stripping “anti-terror” legislation Joe Lieberman is introducing today are in, and predictable.
[W]hat Lieberman is attempting to do is to pave the way for terrorists with American citizenship to be thrown into military tribunals once they are captured. And it would give the State Department the power to make that determination.
“It sounds like a draconian solution,” said John Bellinger a legal adviser to the United States Secretary of State during the Bush administration. “I assume the Senate has thought through the constitutional issues but I would want to see what the standards are for stripping someone of their citizenship and what opportunities they would have for notice and to challenge the decision… It certainly seems like a far-reaching step.”
As Bellinger notes, the issue of revoking citizenship has been litigated to the highest levels of the justice system already. And as it stands now, the standard is set fairly high.
It’s doubtful that the Senator has thought through the constitutional issues because the Senator neither cares about the constitutional issues nor is a competent enough legislator to realize that what he is proposing won’t work. Here’s Greg Sargent, explaining what Lieberman intends with this legislation:
Lieberman’s office has clarified to me how the law would work: It would empower the State Department to conclude — on its own — that Americans are conspiring with terror groups and should be stripped of their citizenship.
Lieberman’s law would amend an earlier statute that details other things that can cost you citizenship [. . .] In those cases the State Department decides whether your disloyalty merits loss of citizen status. Lieberman’s law would add involvement with a foreign terror organization — as opposed to a foreign state — to this list.
And here is BTD on why that is impracticable:
Why is this pointless? Because unless Lieberman is planning on repealing the part of the law that provides due process prior to revocation of citizenship, then all Lieberman has done is create a new federal proceeding where suspected terrorists can “propagandize.” As noted earlier, the only way for Lieberman to get terror trials out of federal courts is to repeal federal law criminalizing terrorism. Will Lieberman propose that?
No, he won’t propose that. His primary concern is to continue to embarrass a Democratic president by joining the likes of Lindsey Graham and the Cheney’s in politicizing the prosecution of terror cases. Eviscerating the due process guarantees of the Constitution is a side benefit for him.
This post originally appeared on the Daily Kos.
As entirely expected, the Republicans continued their crusade for a backroom deal on Wall Street reform, and voted again to block debate on it. The motion failed 57-41, and Ben Nelson voted with the Republicans, again. In light of this tactic from the Republicans, Simon Johnson has a very good proposal for Senate Dems.
This post originally appeared on the Daily Kos.
With the first procedural vote on financial reform pending this afternoon, this survey has to be looming over Republicans.
About two-thirds of Americans support stricter regulations on the way banks and other financial institutions conduct their business, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Majorities also back two main components of legislation congressional Democrats plan to bring to a vote in the Senate this week: greater federal oversight of consumer loans and a company-paid fund that would cover the costs of dismantling failed firms that put the broader economy at risk.
This post originally appeared on Daily Kos.
No, Sec. of State Clinton is not on the list.
Who is? The AP has confirmed seven of them:
President Barack Obama’s candidates for the Supreme Court include a new name, federal appeals court Judge Sidney Thomas of Montana, and at least six others who were contenders when Obama chose his first high court nominee last year, The Associated Press has learned.
Among the others under consideration are former Georgia Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears, federal appeals court judges Diane Wood and Merrick Garland, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano….
Thomas, 56, of Billings, Mont., serves on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the largest of the nation’s appellate courts. He was nominated to the federal bench in July 1995 by then-President Bill Clinton and confirmed by the Senate in January 1996, with no controversy, in a voice vote.
This post was originally published on the Daily Kos.
That didn’t take long. Something like 72 hours before health insurers say that no, they really don’t have cover kids with pre-existing conditions, as nyceve nicely chronicles. Here’s what AHIP says:
This post was originally published on the Daily Kos.
Aravosis reports on the increasing threat to Dem members of Congress.
Now we find out that 10 members of Congress have asked for increased security following threats….
Here are Chuck Todd’s tweets on the latest:
RT @chucktodd: House Maj. Leader Hoyer says he’s worried about the security of fellow House Dems; Calls on House GOP leaders to join in decrying threats
RT @chucktodd: Hoyer says any member of Congress who is concerned about threats is receiving access to security; So far, over 10 members.
CBS News has obtained audio of threats made against Rep. Bart Stupak.
The calls placed to Stupak’s office reveal the extreme anger members of Congress are facing.
“Congressman Stupak, you baby-killing mother f***er… I hope you bleed out your a**, got cancer and die, you mother f***er,” one man says in a message to Stupak.
“There are millions of people across the country who wish you ill,” a woman says in a voicemail, “and all of those thoughts that are projected on you will materialize into something that’s not very good for you.”
CBS News also obtained copies of faxes sent to Stupak, which include racial epithets used in reference to President Obama and show pictures of nooses with Stupak’s name.
Another of the threatened members, pro-life Rep. Steve Driehaus, spoke with Brian Beutler today:
Last week, the anti-reform advocacy group the Committee to Rethink Reform published an ad in The Cincinnati Enquirer featuring a photo of Dreihaus with his children. (Both the Committee and the Enquirer have retracted and apologized for the ad.) Now, conservatives are planning a Sunday protest outside of his house, after a conservative blog put his address–complete with directions–on the Internet.
Speaking to me and another reporter outside the House chamber this afternoon, Driehaus said Republican leaders are to blame for the vitriol–and implied that they will bear some responsibility if reform opponents’ anger bubbles over into violence.
“I think if you look at some of the language that has been used by leaders on the Republican side, one shouldn’t be surprised,” Driehaus said. “Unfortunately many of us are now receiving threats, death threats…. These comments that have been made by Republican leaders can serve as–I don’t know if I want to say an excuse or perhaps permission for people who may be unbalanced, who may be calling with these threats.”
Rep. Tom Perriello, whose brother’s family has become a target, adds in a statement:
“My number one priority right now is ensuring the safety of my brother’s family, and I am grateful to law enforcement for their excellent work,” Perriello said in a statement today. “While it is too early to say anything definitive regarding political motivations behind this act, it’s never too early for political leaders to condemn threats of violence, particularly as threats to other Members of Congress and their children escalate.”
Absolutely Republican leaders need to condemn this, loudly and frequently. Or are they going to let Sarah Palin be the only voice of leadership on the issue?
This post was originally published on the Daily Kos.
The President has been charitable thus far in claiming that there are “philosophical” differences between the parties. From out here, it looks more like a visceral hatred for government on the part of Republicans rather than a real intellectual argument. That’s a divide that can’t be bridged. Because the Republicans continue to just lie, whether it’s about process (see reconciliation) or the CBO reports on the existing plan. Ezra:
This post first appeared on DailyKos.
In a potential breakthrough for the public option, and for saving comprehensive healthcare reform, Harry Reid’s office is saying that if the final decision is made to push helathcare reform via reconciliation, Reid would support including the public option. Greg Sargent:
With more and more Senators signing on to the letter urging Reid to hold an up or down vote on the public option under reconciliation rules, Reid spokesman Rodell Mollineau sends over a statement signaling Reid’s qualified support for the move:
Senator Reid has always and continues to support the public option as a way to drive down costs and create competition. That is why he included the measure in his original health care proposal.
If a decision is made to use reconciliation to advance health care, Senator Reid will work with the White House, the House, and members of his caucus in an effort to craft a public option that can overcome procedural obstacles and secure enough votes.
That’s a fairly big step forward: Up until now, Reid, while supporting the public option throughout the process, had been silent on whether he’d support a reconciliation vote on it.
What still has to happen: support from 50 Dem Senators to use the reconciliation process, and an agreement with the House on sequencing of votes. But this is signficant, as Sargent notes: “for the first time, the Majority Leader’s office has now said that a reconciliation vote on the public option is a real possibilty.”
