Last Call For Conyers's Karma

Michigan Democratic Rep. John Conyers finally couldn't withstand the pressure to resign anymore and did the right thing...or was forced to, kicking and screaming.

Embattled Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, has announced Tuesday that he is retiring and has endorsed his son, John Conyers III to run for his seat. Conyers' lawyer confirmed that the retirement is effective immediately. 

"My legacy can't be compromised or diminished in any way by what we're going through now. This too shall pass," said Conyers on a local Michigan radio station Tuesday morning.

He added, "I want you to know that my legacy will continue through my children. I have a great family here and especially in my oldest boy, John Conyers III who incidentally I endorsed to replace me in my seat in Congress." 

Shortly after the announcement, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, took to the House floor to read a statement from Conyers. She said he asked her to read his statement announcing his decision and that he's notified House Speaker Paul Ryan, Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Michigan Governor Rick Snyder of his plans to step down. 

"Given the totality of the circumstance of not being afforded the right of due process in conjunction with current health conditions, and to preserve my legacy and good name, I am retiring. I hope my retirement will be viewed in the larger perspective of my record of service as I enter a new chapter," the statement from Conyers read.

But as politically useless as the Congressional Black Caucus has been over the last decade or so, they have a valid point when it comes to the double standard of Democrats not having the back of black lawmakers like Conyers compared to say, Sen. Al Franken.

Many CBC members see a double standard at play. They won't say the treatment of Conyers is racist, necessarily — and all express strong support for his alleged victims — but they think white politicians accused of similar misconduct like Blake Farenthold, Al Franken, Roy Moore and Donald Trump get a "benefit of the doubt" that black politicians don't enjoy.

Some members believe House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other party leaders moved too quickly in calling on Conyers to resign and should have let the process play out more, although they understand the pressure she was facing. And still another faction thinks Conyers' declining health and mental acuity after more than 52 years in Congress led to the debacle, despite evidence that Conyers allegedly had been harassing female staffers for years. 

There is also significant anger within the CBC, aimed at one of their own: Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas). Conyers was going to announce his retirement from Congress last Friday. Then Monica Conyers, the congressman's wife, and Jackson Lee got involved and stopped it from happening, said several Democratic lawmakers and aides. That decision dragged out the controversy for five days, although the delay ultimately allowed Conyers to endorse his son, John Conyers III, for his seat. Ian Conyers, the congressman's grand-nephew and a Michigan state senator, also may run, setting off an intrafamily battle.

Franken, by the way, has yet another accusation out against him today.

A former Democratic congressional aide said Al Franken tried to forcibly kiss her after a taping of his radio show in 2006, three years before he became a U.S. senator. 

The aide, whose name POLITICO is withholding to protect her identity, said Franken (D-Minn.) pursued her after her boss had left the studio. She said she was gathering her belongings to follow her boss out of the room. When she turned around, Franken was in her face.

The former staffer ducked to avoid Franken’s lips. As she hastily left the room, she said, Franken told her: “It’s my right as an entertainer.” 

“He was between me and the door and he was coming at me to kiss me. It was very quick and I think my brain had to work really hard to be like ‘Wait, what is happening?’ But I knew whatever was happening was not right and I ducked,” the aide said in an interview. “I was really startled by it and I just sort of booked it towards the door and he said, ‘It’s my right as an entertainer.’” 

The former staffer, who was in her mid-20s at the time of the incident, said she did not respond to Franken.

That was a bridge too far for Senate Democrats, who called on Franken en masse to resign, and tomorrow he is expected to do just that.

A Democratic official who has spoken to Al Franken and key aides says Franken will resign his Minnesota Senate seat on Thursday, the official tells MPR News.

The official spoke to Franken and separately to Franken's staff. A staff member told the official that Franken had gone to his Washington home to discuss his plans with family.

MPR News agreed to withhold the official's name because the official wanted to give Franken the chance to talk about his decision in his own words.

Franken faced a cascade of calls Wednesday from fellow Democrats and other political allies to leave office in response to multiple allegations of sexual harassment.

So in the same week, within 48 hours of each other, both Conyers and Franken are gone.  I did say both had to go, but of course I also believe the same holds true for Roy Moore and Donald Trump.

And I know the argument, "If only Democrats resign then eventually there will be nothing but Republicans in Congress."  I'm sorry, but morality shouldn't be wholly dependent on the cynicism of political expediency.  That's what Republicans do.

Last Call For Franken My Dear, I Don't Give A Damn, Con't

Sen. Al Franken's hometown newspaper isn't buying his apologia for his sexual harassment behavior, and neither am I to be honest.

U.S. Sen. Al Franken broke his self-imposed silence over the weekend, submitting to a series of media interviews on the sexual misconduct allegations against him, professing his shame and embarrassment. That was a necessary move — Minnesotans and the country at large deserved to hear from him. But his apology falls lamentably short in several respects. 

The Minnesota Democrat said in one interview it was important "that we listen to women," but then refuted the story of Leeann Tweeden, the USO entertainer who accused him of shoving his tongue down her throat during a rehearsed "kiss." He recalls "a normal rehearsal," but didn't elaborate. On the subsequent allegations of women who say he groped them during photos — specifically, that he grabbed their buttocks — Franken apologized, but for what, exactly? 

He said he does not recall groping and said he "would never intentionally" squeeze or grope a woman but often hugs people. Is he suggesting these women could not distinguish between a friendly embrace and groping? Or that at his age he somehow groped unintentionally? Can one credibly apologize for acts without acknowledging they occurred? 

With a Senate ethics investigation looming, Franken remains on politically shaky ground. It's debatable whether he is, as he said, "holding myself accountable." Without saying he didn't do it, he nevertheless has countered every allegation except the one that carries indisputable proof — the infamous photo of him appearing to grab at Tweeden while she slept. 

Under such circumstances, Franken's apology is less a statement of accountability and more akin to "I'm sorry for what you think I did." Franken may just be trying to ride out the storm, as is the case too often these days. After all, President Donald Trump survived multiple sexual misconduct allegations to become president, and it's possible that Roy Moore will become Alabama's next senator despite credible allegations that he molested a 14-year-old and repeatedly approached underage teens. Moore's conduct is in a different league from what Franken is accused of, but none of it is acceptable.

And that's really the issue, isn't it?  How much sexual harassment is "acceptable" in our political leaders, particularly the ones in the party we support?  Republicans obviously don't give a damn, about that, Trump and Moore prove that beyond any objective doubt.

And yes, I know that it's easy to say "This is another GOP ratfvcking operation, just done by people smarter than O'Keefe and his Project Veritas clowns."  Sure, this has Roger Stone's primordial ooze all over it. But as the Star-Tribune notes, Franken's not denying the allegations from Tweeden, and he's not denying that more women may come forward still. No matter how cynical you are about Tweeden's timing, a picture speaks a thousand words, and she didn't deserve to be groped, even in jest.  At some point however, we have to be better than the damn GOP when it comes to having morality.

We're not Republicans.  We do give a damn. And you'll excuse me for thinking that Al Franken needs to go.

Not before Trump does and Moore too for that matter.  But he still needs to go.

Last Call For Franken My Dear, She Doesn't Give A Damn

If you've been following me on Twitter, you know that I believe a lot of politicians who have engaged in sexual assault and misconduct need to be out of Washington, starting with admitted serial sex criminal Donald Trump.  Roy Moore needs to go too.

But so does Sen. Al Franken.  And while Leeann Tweeden may have forgiven Franken and doesn't believe for now that he should step down from the Senate, there are others who see Franken's continued presence as both an insult and a weapon to be used again and again, and that he is no longer capable of doing his job.

It was on a November evening in 2014, after a tailgate party on her University of Minnesota campus, that Abby Honold was brutally raped by a fellow student. Despite going to the hospital in an ambulance with bruises and bite marks, despite reporting everything to police, it would take more than a year for Honold to find justice. 

In August 2016, her rapist, Daniel Drill-Mellum, pleaded guilty to criminal sexual conduct and was sentenced to six years in prison. Honold’s public and agonizing fight to hold Drill-Mellum accountable drew statewide attention, shedding light on the challenges of reporting and prosecuting sexual assaults. 

It also led Honold to the offices of Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.). Honold’s convicted rapist, it turns out, had interned for the senator. 

Franken, moved by Honold’s story, worked with her to draft a Senate bill that would provide federal funding for special law enforcement training on interviewing victims of trauma. He planned to introduce the bill this month. 

“He was one of the few people who listened to me and actually let me talk,” Honold told The Washington Post. “It felt really validating to be heard and to see something come of my experience that was positive for other people.” 

So on Thursday, Honold was stunned and crushed when she heard that a Los Angeles radio broadcaster, Leeann Tweeden, had accused Franken of forcibly kissing and groping her during a USO tour in 2006. He was captured posing for a photo grabbing Tweeden’s breasts while she was sleeping. 

Honold wholeheartedly believed the woman. She decided that her bill — and her efforts to combat sexual assault — could no longer be associated with someone who was accused of this kind of behavior. 

The 22-year-old no longer wants Franken’s name on the legislation when it is introduced and hopes to find someone else to sponsor it.

“It’s really difficult when someone who has been a champion for you turns out to be the exact opposite for someone else,” Honold said in a phone interview.

Call me a stupid idealist, call me a purity crusader if you want, but at some point we have to be better than the goddamn Republican party in both word and deed.

I stand by my call for Franken to resign.

What About Bill Whataboutism

Given a known vile Republican sexual predator currently in the White House and another one trying to win a Senate seat in a special election next month, only Democrats would be stupid enough to go after Bill Clinton at a time like this, but there you are.

How vitiated Bill Clinton seemed at the 2016 Democratic convention. Some of his appetites, at least, had waned; his wandering, “Norwegian Wood” speech about his wife struck the nostalgic notes of a husband’s 50th-anniversary toast, and the crowd—for the most part—indulged it in that spirit. Clearly, he was no longer thinking about tomorrow. With a pencil neck and a sagging jacket he clambered gamely onto the stage after Hillary’s acceptance speech and played happily with the red balloons that fell from the ceiling.

When the couple repeatedly reminded the crowd of their new status as grandparents it was to suggest very different associations in voters’ minds. Hillary’s grandmotherhood was evoked to suggest the next phase in her lifelong work on behalf of women and children—in this case forging a bond with the millions of American grandmothers who are doing the hard work of raising the next generation, while their own adult children muddle through life. But Bill’s being a grandfather was intended to send a different message: Don’t worry about him anymore; he’s old now. He won’t get into those messes again.

Yet let us not forget the sex crimes of which the younger, stronger Bill Clinton was very credibly accused in the 1990s. Juanita Broaddrick reported that when she was a volunteer on one of his gubernatorial campaigns, she had arranged to meet him in a hotel coffee shop. At the last minute, he had changed the location to her room in the hotel, where she says he very violently raped her. She said that she fought against Clinton throughout a rape that left her bloodied. At a different Arkansas hotel, he caught sight of a minor state employee named Paula Jones, and, Jones said, he sent a couple of state troopers to invite her to his suite, where he exposed his penis to her and told her to kiss it. Kathleen Willey said that she met him in the Oval Office for personal and professional advice and that he groped her, rubbed his erect penis on her, and pushed her hand to his crotch.

It was a pattern of behavior; it included an alleged violent assault; the women involved had far more credible evidence than many of the most notorious accusations that have come to light in the past five weeks. But Clinton was not left to the swift and pitiless justice that today’s accused men have experienced. Rather, he was rescued by a surprising force: machine feminism. The movement had by then ossified into a partisan operation, and it was willing—eager—to let this friend of the sisterhood enjoy a little droit de seigneur.

The notorious 1998 New York Times op-ed by Gloria Steinem must surely stand as one of the most regretted public actions of her life. It slut-shamed, victim-blamed, and age-shamed; it urged compassion for and gratitude to the man the women accused. Moreover (never write an op-ed in a hurry; you’ll accidentally say what you really believe), it characterized contemporary feminism as a weaponized auxiliary of the Democratic Party.

And Michele Goldberg isn't the only one dealing in hair shirts and horsehide whips this week, over at Vox Matthew Yglesias comes to the conclusion Clinton should have resigned 20 years ago in order to prove his wokeness.

In the midst of the very same public statement in which he confessed the error, Clinton also mounted the defense that would see him through to victory — portraying the issue as fundamentally a private family matter rather than a topic of urgent public concern.

"I intend to reclaim my family life for my family," he said. "It's nobody's business but ours. Even presidents have private lives. It is time to stop the pursuit of personal destruction and the prying into private lives and get on with our national life.”

To this line of argument, Republicans offered what was fundamentally the wrong countercharge. They argued that in the effort to spare himself from the personal and marital embarrassment entailed by having the affair exposed, Clinton committed perjury when testifying about the matter in a deposition related to Paula Jones’s lawsuit against him.

What they should have argued was something simpler: A president who uses the power of the Oval Office to seduce a 20-something subordinate is morally bankrupt and contributing, in a meaningful way, to a serious social problem that disadvantages millions of women throughout their lives.

But by and large, they didn’t. So Clinton countered with the now-famous defense: “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” Ultimately, most Americans embraced the larger argument that perjury in a civil lawsuit unrelated to the president’s official duties did not constitute high crimes and misdemeanors.

But looking back through today’s lens, this whole argument was miscast. The wrongdoing at issue was never just a private matter for the Clinton family; it was a high-profile exemplar of a widespread social problem: men’s abuse of workplace power for sexual gain. It was and is a striking example of a genre of misconduct that society has a strong interest in stamping out. That alone should have been enough to have pressured Clinton out of office.

I'm going to say this once: Bill Clinton indeed needs to be reckoned with, but right now is about the worst possible time for the Democrats to be having this argument.  It's great to say that Clinton should have been pressured to resign two decades ago, but Clinton isn't in the White House right now.

Donald Trump is.

Can we pressure him to resign first since he's the imminent danger?  Can we do that?  Can we get Roy Moore to drop out?  Can we take a look at both Democrats and Republicans who are in Congress now who have sexually assaulted people and need to be pressured into resigning before we tackle Big Dog's very real issues?

Yes, it's far past time to talk about Clinton, sexual predator.  I get that.  But he's not in office right now.  We have sexual predators who are, one of who may be Democratic Sen Al Franken.

Let's deal with them first, shall we?

Last Call For You Can Call Him Al

There's a reason as a former Minnesota resident and voter that I've backed Al Franken since the beginning of his Senate career, and I'm glad to see him not only freely admit that the briefings the intelligence community gave were valuable to the Senate, but that the American people should take reassurance that safeguards that were not there under Bush are there now.

Franken, chairman of the Judiciary subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law, also said there are aspects of security programs that he should be aware of but the public should not.

"There are certain things that are appropriate for me to know that’s not appropriate for the bad guys to know," he said. "Anything that quote the American people know, the bad guys know so there's a line here, right? And there's a balance that has to be struck between the responsibility of the federal government to protect the American people and then people’s right to privacy. We have safeguards in place …The American people can’t know everything because everything they know then, the bad guys will know."

He said that the data the security agency has collected have kept Americans safe.

"I have a high level of confidence, that it is used…to protect us and I know that it has been successful in preventing terrorism," he said.

The senator, who is running for re-election, said, however, that he is not confident that the proper balance has been struck between privacy and safety concerns.

"We haven’t quite hit the exact balance we want to," he said. "I have been for more transparency and I actually co-sponsored legislation to require the FISA court to release their opinions on why they’ve decided the way they have."

I support that legislation, and I'm hoping that Senator Franken will be a key player in any effort to repeal the Patriot Act.  Yes, that's a massive long shot, but it's got to start somewhere.

We'll see.

No, Americans Are Not Subject To Infinite Detention

And Milt Shook does an excellent job of explaining what's actually going on with the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) legislation, what it means, and who is responsible for it.

Obama doesn't have a line-item veto, so he can’t veto the “Indefinite Detention Bill” without vetoing the entire NDAA. Now, you may think that would be a good thing, but would it? It’s not just about the troops. What about all of those civilians who might lose their jobs for at least a month or two, while Obama and Congress, including teabaggers, who have declared defeating Obama as their main goal, worked out a new NDAA without that little amendment, assuming they could do so? What do you think canceling all those defense contracts for a month or two would do to the unemployment rate? How about six months? What would happen to all of those small towns that depend on the military bases and contractors to support their small businesses? Do you imagine the GOP might be a bit energized after the unemployment rate suddenly rises to 10%?

Those of you who claim “principle” when you discuss this need to stop. Many pros and emos claim Obama’s showing a “lack of principle” by signing this “Indefinite Detention Bill.” Forget the fact that you're claiming a lack of principle when you're lying to the public about a bill that doesn't exist. You’re actually advocating for an action that could put millions of people out of work for a few months, and forcing our troops to lose their meager pay for a few months for… what, exactly? What are your “principles” when you advocate for that, in order to kill an amendment that will probably ultimately have zero effect on anyone, and might even die in the courts?

I don’t like this amendment any more than you do. But you know what? If he vetoes this bill to kill that amendment, and then causes the Republicans to win in 2012, they’re just going to pass the same bill, and allow President Gingrich/Romney/Perry to detain people at will, anyway, right?

So we see why President Obama needs to pass a bill like this.  But what about the "indefinite detention of US citizens" part?  It's crap, and here's the main point:  the bill's Section 1021 (e).

(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

I don't think it gets any more clear than that.  It's in the friggin text of the bill, and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you.  Got it?

Now ask yourself why they are lying to you.  And do read Milt's piece.

On the other hand, I am very disappointed with Sen. Al Franken.

The bill that passed on Thursday included several problematic provisions, the worst of which could allow the military to detain Americans indefinitely, without charge or trial, even if they’re captured in the U.S.

No, Al, it does not.  Which means you didn't actually read the bill.  Try doing that next time.

Turn On The Lights, Watch The Roaches Scatter, Part 4

Things are moving fast on the Ally/JPMorgan mortgage fraud story now.  Sen. Al Franken has joined the fray, sending out a letter to among other people Helicopter Ben insisting that this issue needs to be investigated for possible criminal charges.  ZH:

The biggest financial story which continues to get absolutely no mention on CNBC just got its latest multi-step escalation: Senator Al Franken has just blasted a letter to Tim Geithner, Shaun Donovan, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Eric Holder, John Walsh, Controller of the Currency, Sheila Bair, and, drumroll, Ben Bernanke, telling the recipients that "each of your agencies has an important role to play in addressing this egregious situation and holding all appropriate actors fully accountable. As such, I respectfully request that you collaborate to conduct a thorough investigation into the alleged misconduct. As part of this investigation, it is crucial that Ally and its employees are held fully accountable for any criminal misconduct."

Since if this pervasive mortgage fraud is more than just alleged, the stink will reach to the very top of places like JP Morgan, Ally, and possibly every single bank that has been in the mortgage origination business, something tells us that Ben Bernanke, whose job is precisely to protect the banks' interests will not rush into any investigation for the duration of FASB's existence. It gets better: "Additionally, all homeowners who may have experienced illegitimate foreclosure sales, those who have been forced to defend against illegitimate foreclosure actions, and those who have been harmed must be identified. These individuals must received proper restitution and compensation, as provided for under the law." And the punchline: "It is critical to confirm that no loans provided through the FHA or in conjunction with the HAMP program were associated with Ally's misconduct." Yes, oddly enough the government is about to lose even more credibility once it is discovered that it worked in collaboration with the biggest mortgage fraud scheme in history.

Somebody in the Village may actually notice that underneath all this smoke there's actual flames, especially with Alan Grayson and Al Franken's names attached to the story.  This one is beginning to accelerate at a rapid pace, folks.

I'll keep an eye on it.

Al And Christine

The TPM folks have dug up an episode of Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect talk show from 1997 featuring Christine O' Donnell...and Al Franken.

The first topic: A provision in then-President Bill Clinton's welfare reform bill that would fund sex ed, but only if the curriculum taught that extra-marital sex "will have harmful physical and psychological effects."

O'Donnell, who in May 1997 was the director of pro-abstinence SALT, argues that abstinence-only education was the only way to protect kids from HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, because "condoms don't work. Condoms fail."

Franken responds, "I think hypocrisy will have harmful psychological and physical effects. Don't you?"

And don't miss Star Parker asking, "Where's the condom for your heart?"

It's good stuff.  Let's not forget that more than a dozen years later after O'Donnell proclaimed abstinence-only sex ed as the wave of the future (and Bush pushed just that) we have ample evidence that it fails miserably at preventing pregnancy and STD transmission, too.

Good to see Al sticking it to this goofball too.

Meanwhile In The Financial Regulation Bill Arena

The Senate today passed a couple of amendments to the Dodd bill making things a hell of a lot tougher on the credit ratings agencies like Moody's and Standard & Poor's.  DDay has the roundup on the Franken Amendment:

The clerk has called the roll on the Franken amendment, which would end the conflict of interest in the rating agency process by creating a new agency in the SEC to assign initial ratings of securities. Earlier, Senate Banking Committee chair Chris Dodd came out against the measure, fearing unintended consequences from it. Defending the “crackdown” on the credit rating agencies in the base bill – which really don’t amount to much, and by Dodd’s own admission don’t get rid of the conflict of interest – Dodd said “I like the idea where it’s (the Franken amendment) going, but I don’t know if it’s sound.” He preferred more study (great, a study, where good intentions go to die) of the problem.

The amendment still has a shot at passage, with members of the Banking Committee like Tim Johnson and Chuck Schumer supporting, as well as at least two Republicans, Roger Wicker and Chuck Grassley. We’ll have to see.

…Carl Levin closed out debate by reading some of the emails gleaned from his Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations about the rating agencies clearly trading triple-A ratings for the promise of more business and more money. Just so you understand which side people are on who vote against this amendment.

…The problem of the rating agencies is precisely what Andrew Cuomo is investigating in New York right now.

The amendment passed 64-35. Good job, Al.  That's the good news.  Here's the bad.

One of the most far-reaching pieces of the Senate's Wall Street reform bill has powerful enemies. The White House doesn't like it. FDIC chief Sheila Bair doesn't like it. Obama adviser Paul Volcker--the patron saint of financial reform--doesn't like it. And neither do a number of key Democrats, including Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd. All of them say that a controversial proposal to force financial firms to spin off their derivative-trading desks into separate entities goes too far.

But they may have gotten themselves stuck with it--at least for now. With their assent, the plan was authored by Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), who designed it to guard her left flank against a somewhat formidable primary challenge, and has been boasting of it on populist grounds for weeks. And that according to Republican and Democratic Senate sources, has led Democrats to quietly agree to postpone any changes they decide to make to her proposal until after this Tuesday's election has passed, to avoid embarrassing her in front of voters.

"I got a pretty good idea that it won't be dealt with before Tuesday," Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) said last night, in response to a question from TPMDC.

Democrats will hold a special caucus meeting this afternoon, where they could make a final decision on how to proceed.

In other words, the Dems can't kill Lincoln's derivatives legislation until after she wins the primary next week.  Then they can bury the thing for good.  They never had the intention of passing  it, looks like.  But they couldn't kill it without getting rid of Blanche.

What, you thought Miss Senator Wal-Mart was going to really, really limit the massive derivatives market?  I didn't.  A nice bait-and-switch for the voters of Arkansas.  Problem is, Brian Beutler just blew the lid off this one 5 days before the election.

Have fun, Blanche...

Bunning Blocks The Plate AGAIN

Jim Bunning is turning into a one-man Daily Show punchline as he continues to block Obama's nominees.

The Kentucky Republican battled Democrats on the Senate floor Tuesday to block two nominations to relatively backbench positions -- because he is opposed to a tobacco-related law passed by the Canadian Parliament (that's right, the Canadian Parliament). The use of such delaying tactics is not unprecedented in Senate history, but holding up such minor business stretches the purpose of the Senate's open debate rules to the breaking point.

"This is a perversion of the filibuster and a perversion of the role of the Senate. It used to be that the filibuster was reserved for matters of great principle," said Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) from the well of the Senate. "Some of my colleagues seem more interested in using every procedural method possible to keep the Senate from doing anything than they are in creating jobs or helping Americans struggling in a difficult economy."
Bunning, who sits on the Senate Finance Committee, is blocking the nominations of Michael Punke and Islam Siddiqui. Punke was nominated to be the Deputy U.S. Trade Representative and was unanimously recommended by the Senate Finance Committee three months ago.

Siddiqui has been tapped to be the Chief Agriculture Negotiator. With the position unfilled, the U.S. is at a trade disadvantage with other countries. A coalition of 42 food and agriculture groups wrote Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in January to urge his confirmation.

The Senate is backed up with 88 unconfirmed nominees, 83 more than the Bush administration faced at this point in its tenure.

"I think you get the picture that this is a list of systematic efforts to undermine the ability of the executive branch to do its job," said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon), urging the nominees to be moved through if there are no real objections. "So I call upon my Republican colleagues who are conducting this attack on the president and his team to honor their constitutional responsibilities to advise and consent, to this list, and if there are a couple key nominees that you have serious concerns about, then indeed let's have that debate here on the floor."

Both Al Franken and Jeff Merkley are right.  Republicans don't want a debate.  They don't want the government to work at all, and they want to blame the Democrats when it fails to do so.  If the Republicans can't run the country, then the country doesn't run.  They're perfectly fine with that.

Are you?

No Option For The Public Option

Four more senators have signed on to Sherrod Brown's call for the public option, including Al Franken and John Kerry, but at Greg Sargent points out, it's effectively a moot point:

The new signatories: Al Franken, Pat Leahy, John Kerry, and Sheldon Whitehouse.

They join yesterday’s signers: Michael Bennet, Kirsten Gillibrand, Jeff Merkley, and Sherrod Brown.

The letter asks Harry Reid to stage a full Senate vote on the public option under budget reconciliation rules. It argues that there’s a history of using the technique for passing significant health care legislation and that a majority of Americans has consistently supported a public option.

The letter — the work of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Democracy for America — also bears the signatures of over a hundred House Dems.

That's the good news.  Here's the reality.

Despite the growing support for a reconciliation vote on the public option, it’s all but certain not to happen. The Senate and House leadership have shown no appetite for such a move. And the White House is not on board as it gears up for its high-stakes summit next week and the politically dicey health care endgame that will follow.

But the move by these eight Senators — and perhaps more to follow — is likely to gain them plaudits from liberals and health reformers for showing leadership on a provision that still enjoys the support of the American people even as the Congressional leadership has left it for dead.

And that's a problem.  The American people overwhelmingly want it.  Not even with these massive margins in Congress will the GOP allow it.

Angry Johnny The Hypocrite

John McCain is getting a lot of traction from the village today, attacking Al Franken for moving along the debate.  McCain is bemoaning the loss of civility in the Senate.  His FOX News buddies are chiming in, calling Franken an angry clown.

And it took the Think Progress guys all of a couple hours to find John McCain cutting off debate in the same manner on the Iraq War eight years ago.

On October 10, 2002 — just ahead of the looming mid-term elections — the Senate rushed a debate on a war authorization giving President Bush the power to use force against Iraq. The resolution ultimately passed the Senate after midnight on an early Friday morning by a vote of 77-23.

During the course of the frenzied floor debate, then-Sen. Mark Dayton (D-MN) spoke in favor of an amendment offered by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) that would have restricted Bush’s constitutional powers to wage war against Iraq. After a minute and a half, Dayton ran out of time, prompting this exchange:

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator’s time has expired.

Mr. DAYTON. I ask for unanimous consent that I have 30 seconds more to finish my remarks.

Mr. McCAIN. I object.

Byrd stepped in to grant Dayton time to finish his remarks. But just moments later, Byrd asked for more time to speak for himself. Again, McCain objected, prompting Byrd to chide him for doing so. “This shows the patience of a Senator,” Byrd said. “This clearly demonstrates that the train is coming down on us like a Mack truck, and we are not even going to consider a few extra minutes for this Senator.”

After being publicly shamed, McCain acquiesced to Byrd’s request. But moments later, McCain added this disclaimer: “I wish to say very briefly that I understand people have a desire to speak. We have a number of Senators who have not spoken on this issue. It is already looking as if we may be here well into this evening. From now on, I will be adhering strictly to the rules.” In other words, he acted just like Franken did yesterday.

And of course, the Village will ignore McCain doing this and only continue to attack Al Franken.

Joe And Al

More of this, please.



McCain and Malkinvania get in on the act too.

New tag, because he's earned it:  Al Franken Is Good Enough.