Cognitive Dissonance

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather boa!" - Allen Ginsberg

Posts tagged US Senate

16 notes

wonkette:

Liz Cheney Is Really, Really From Wyoming, Again (This Time With Dick Cheney Grandspawn)

In this new campaign ad, creatively titled “Daughters,” Liz Cheney’s daughters talk about their family’s “deep roots” in the state that their mother left during junior high school and returned to last year to run for Senate. She is totally a Wyoming … what is the word you people say… “gal.” Through and through. Her papa, Dick “Papa Dik” Cheney, lived there oncet, and even represented the state in Congress. In the last century. Also, pay no attention to their Aunt Mary and her heathen Virginia ways.

READ MORE

Oh, and what’s this I hear today? Liz Cheney’s hubby committing VOTER FRAUD in Wyoming? I’m not sure the tighty-righties will actually care, given that there’s no ACORN in sight - just a bunch of nuts. But say it ain’t so, Darth Lizzy.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/report-liz-cheney-s-husband-on-voter-rolls-in-2-states

http://wonkette.com/536985

Well, gee whiz. It’s so.

Filed under Liz Cheney Politics Wyoming US Senate Mike Enzi voter fraud Republican

36 notes

Liz Cheney Tax Flub Explored

Awesome. Maybe that’s why Liz Cheney is running on “No taxes ever because reasons” as a key plank of her platform.

But this is my favorite part: “Cheney has lived most of her life outside Wyoming but traces her family roots in the state to 1907 settlers and describes herself as a fourth-generation Wyomingite.”

Uh… no.

Filed under Liz Cheney politics Wyoming US Senate Taxes republican Mean Girls is so appropriate to this whole thing

23 notes

Harry Reid to Reporter: ‘That’s a Clown Question, Bro’

Just awesomeness from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in response to whether or not Democrats in the U.S. Senate will force another vote on the DREAM Act to make Republicans “go on the record” about immigration. Here’s why it’s a clown question: The GOP has filibustered it twice already.

I think they’re on the record regarding immigration and the DREAM Act.

Filed under Harry Reid Politics DREAM Act Democrats immigration GOP Republicans US Senate

64 notes

I see a reporter here. I just pray that you start writing about these issues. I just pray. Stop always writing about, ‘Oh, the person couldn’t get, you know, their food stamps or this or that.’ You know, I saw something the other day — it’s like, another sob story, and I’m like, ‘But what about what’s happening to the country and the country as a whole?’ That’s going to devastate everybody.

Republican Wisconsin U.S. Senate candidate Eric Hovde scolding the media at a recent event for writing “sob stories” about Americans affected by the recession.

The issues they should be covering? Hovde says lowering the corporate tax rate and the national deficit are more important than unemployment and poverty. Not surprisingly, he’s also a former hedge fund manager.

Go to hell, Eric Hovde. I hope your family never has to do without for fear you’d be too stubborn to ask for help, thereby jeopardizing their existence.

(h/t ThinkProgress)

Filed under Politics poverty inequality fuck you got mine GOP Election 2012 Wisconsin US Senate Republican Eric Hovde

83 notes

Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass. takes to the Senate floor to implore his fellow GOP colleagues to re-authorize the Violence Against Women Act, briefly sharing his own story of how his life was affected by domestic violence. 

Though I support his opponent, Elizabeth Warren, it’s great to see him standing up to this opposition from his own party. Why won’t the GOP reauthorize it? Because it has protections for GLBTQ people and undocumented immigrants. Seriously.

Filed under Scott Brown GOP domestic violence politics Violence Against Women Act VAWA Republicans US Senate Sen. Scott Brown Conservative sexism bigotry misogyny violence

158 notes

Republicans Retreat on Domestic Violence

It’s as terrible as you think:

Even in the ultrapolarized atmosphere of Capitol Hill, it should be possible to secure broad bipartisan agreement on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, the 1994 law at the center of the nation’s efforts to combat domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. The law’s renewal has strong backing from law enforcement and groups that work with victims, and earlier reauthorizations of the law, in 2000 and 2005, passed Congress with strong support from both sides of the aisle.

Yet not a single Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted in favor last week when the committee approved a well-crafted reauthorization bill introduced by its chairman, Senator Patrick Leahy, and Senator Michael Crapo, a Republican of Idaho, who is not on the committee.

The bill includes smart improvements aimed, for example, at encouraging effective enforcement of protective orders and reducing the national backlog of untested rape kits. The Republican opposition seems driven largely by an antigay, anti-immigrant agenda. The main sticking points seemed to be language in the bill to ensure that victims are not denied services because they are gay or transgender and a provision that would modestly expand the availability of special visas for undocumented immigrants who are victims of domestic violence — a necessary step to encourage those victims to come forward.

You cannot tell me this isn’t rooted in misogyny, bigotry, and racism. You fucking can’t. Domestic violence is NOT a political football…

A bill to provide for prosecution of those who perpetrate domestic violence and to give victims protection - the sticking point is language about transgender people and undocumented immigrants?! REALLY?!

FUCK. YOU. ALL.

(Source: cognitivedissonance)

Filed under Republican Republicans Domestic Violence Politics GOP Senate US Senate government fuck you no really fuck you bigotry misogyny racism Violence Against Women Act violence not ok

136 notes

History lesson time!

Today, the GOP is losing its collective shit over President Obama making a recess appointment to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. He chose former Ohio attorney general Richard Cordray. Cordray, besides being a five-time Jeopardy champ, took on Bank of America and AIG as Ohio’s attorney general, and was endorsed by Elizabeth Warren to lead the CFPB. The attorneys general of other states also support his nomination.
As with anything else Obama wishes to put forth (besides kicking the door open to indefinite detention of Americans), the GOP said no. Since July, Republicans in the Senate have refused to consider his nomination because they hate Dodd-Frank. Seriously.
But Obama kicked a hornet’s nest by appointing Cordray during the Senate’s recess that is not technically, actually a recess. By holding pro-forma sessions, Senate Republicans allege the Senate has not recessed, thereby circumventing the requirement that the Senate approve nominations by the president. A pro-forma session does not require the Senate to meet in any meaningful way - essentially, one senator can bang the gavel, call the Senate to order, and then declare it in recess.
Brian Beutler has an interesting take on why Obama chose to challenge this at Talking Points Memo:

It’s customary for Presidents to heed this defensive tactic. But there’s nothing that says they have to. And Obama concluded he could move ahead. According to the Wall Street Journal the administration’s own attorneys don’t think they do — the Senate’s “pro forma” sessions are meaningless and Obama retains the Constitutional right to recess appoint whomever he wants until session begins in earnest.
This creates a significant new precedent — a bold power play in the face of an unprecedented act of GOP obstruction, but also something to which Obama (and Democrats more generally) have been pretty averse. Given that aversion, it’s hard to figure why Obama would choose to create a new precedent rather than avail himself of an existing one — unless you imagine he’s daring the GOP to make a big stink about it, and thus loudly side with Wall Street against him and middle-class consumers. It’s a safe bet that’s part of his thinking.

Because of GOP obstructionism, Obama has made a paltry 28 recess appointments in his entire term. Compare that with President Ronald Reagan’s 240 recess appointments, President George H. W. Bush’s 77 recess appointments, President Bill Clinton’s 140 recess appointments, and George W. Bush’s 171 appointments. So recess appointments have been done.
Former legal advisers to President George W. Bush agree Obama is in the right, and wrote of pro-forma sessions in 2010:

"The Senate cannot constitutionally thwart the president’s recess appointment power through pro forma sessions. Historically, the recess appointments clause has been given a practical interpretation. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 67, the clause enables the president to keep the government fully staffed when the Senate is not ‘in session for the appointment of officers.’
The Senate Judiciary Committee recognized that a “Recess of the Senate” occurs whenever the Senate is not sitting for the discharge of its functions and when it cannot ‘participate as a body in making appointments.’
This practice will inevitably become the standard operating procedure, and the recess appointment power could become a virtual dead letter - undermining what the Founders viewed as an essential tool for the effective functioning of our government.”


In summary, there’s nothing that says Obama can’t do it, and precedent appears to suggest he can make the appointment since the Senate cannot meet to confirm an appointment. He’s only made 28 appointments in recess. He appointed someone who was blocked from taking office for several months because Republicans want to eliminate the office he would assume. And yet, Mitch McConnell calls the president arrogant, and Judson Phillips of Tea Party Nation issues this (metaphorical) call to arms:

Obama is acting like a dictator because he is not getting his way. The danger for the country is that no one is standing up to him. The one thing we have always learned about dictators and bullies is that someone must stand up to them and must do it early. When people do not stand up to dictators they keep grabbing more and more power until it is too late and impossible to stand up to them.   We must stand up, while we still can.

No one is standing up to him?! Have you seen the gridlock in Washington DC? When the GOP demands something, Obama has bent over backwards time and time again to “negotiate” - invariably crumbling in the process. Debt ceiling and health care reform anyone? If Obama were a dictator, Cordray would have been appointed, we might have had a public option, he wouldn’t have cared what the GOP thought about the debt ceiling or tax cuts, etc…
Remember this whole repeal tax cuts for the rich thing that happened this summer? You know, that didn’t happen? I’ll break it down for you:

If Obama’s a dictator, then what the hell does that make the reactionaries in the GOP?

History lesson time!

Today, the GOP is losing its collective shit over President Obama making a recess appointment to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. He chose former Ohio attorney general Richard Cordray. Cordray, besides being a five-time Jeopardy champ, took on Bank of America and AIG as Ohio’s attorney general, and was endorsed by Elizabeth Warren to lead the CFPB. The attorneys general of other states also support his nomination.

As with anything else Obama wishes to put forth (besides kicking the door open to indefinite detention of Americans), the GOP said no. Since July, Republicans in the Senate have refused to consider his nomination because they hate Dodd-Frank. Seriously.

But Obama kicked a hornet’s nest by appointing Cordray during the Senate’s recess that is not technically, actually a recess. By holding pro-forma sessions, Senate Republicans allege the Senate has not recessed, thereby circumventing the requirement that the Senate approve nominations by the president. A pro-forma session does not require the Senate to meet in any meaningful way - essentially, one senator can bang the gavel, call the Senate to order, and then declare it in recess.

Brian Beutler has an interesting take on why Obama chose to challenge this at Talking Points Memo:

It’s customary for Presidents to heed this defensive tactic. But there’s nothing that says they have to. And Obama concluded he could move ahead. According to the Wall Street Journal the administration’s own attorneys don’t think they do — the Senate’s “pro forma” sessions are meaningless and Obama retains the Constitutional right to recess appoint whomever he wants until session begins in earnest.

This creates a significant new precedent — a bold power play in the face of an unprecedented act of GOP obstruction, but also something to which Obama (and Democrats more generally) have been pretty averse. Given that aversion, it’s hard to figure why Obama would choose to create a new precedent rather than avail himself of an existing one — unless you imagine he’s daring the GOP to make a big stink about it, and thus loudly side with Wall Street against him and middle-class consumers. It’s a safe bet that’s part of his thinking.

Because of GOP obstructionism, Obama has made a paltry 28 recess appointments in his entire term. Compare that with President Ronald Reagan’s 240 recess appointments, President George H. W. Bush’s 77 recess appointments, President Bill Clinton’s 140 recess appointments, and George W. Bush’s 171 appointments. So recess appointments have been done.

Former legal advisers to President George W. Bush agree Obama is in the right, and wrote of pro-forma sessions in 2010:

"The Senate cannot constitutionally thwart the president’s recess appointment power through pro forma sessions. Historically, the recess appointments clause has been given a practical interpretation. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 67, the clause enables the president to keep the government fully staffed when the Senate is not ‘in session for the appointment of officers.’

The Senate Judiciary Committee recognized that a “Recess of the Senate” occurs whenever the Senate is not sitting for the discharge of its functions and when it cannot ‘participate as a body in making appointments.’

This practice will inevitably become the standard operating procedure, and the recess appointment power could become a virtual dead letter - undermining what the Founders viewed as an essential tool for the effective functioning of our government.”

In summary, there’s nothing that says Obama can’t do it, and precedent appears to suggest he can make the appointment since the Senate cannot meet to confirm an appointment. He’s only made 28 appointments in recess. He appointed someone who was blocked from taking office for several months because Republicans want to eliminate the office he would assume. And yet, Mitch McConnell calls the president arrogant, and Judson Phillips of Tea Party Nation issues this (metaphorical) call to arms:

Obama is acting like a dictator because he is not getting his way. The danger for the country is that no one is standing up to him. The one thing we have always learned about dictators and bullies is that someone must stand up to them and must do it early. When people do not stand up to dictators they keep grabbing more and more power until it is too late and impossible to stand up to them. We must stand up, while we still can.

No one is standing up to him?! Have you seen the gridlock in Washington DC? When the GOP demands something, Obama has bent over backwards time and time again to “negotiate” - invariably crumbling in the process. Debt ceiling and health care reform anyone? If Obama were a dictator, Cordray would have been appointed, we might have had a public option, he wouldn’t have cared what the GOP thought about the debt ceiling or tax cuts, etc…

Remember this whole repeal tax cuts for the rich thing that happened this summer? You know, that didn’t happen? I’ll break it down for you:

If Obama’s a dictator, then what the hell does that make the reactionaries in the GOP?

Filed under Richard Cordray Obama recess Politics recess appointment GOP Republican Republicans Mitch McConnell Tea Party GOP US Senate conservative CFPB Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

948 notes

The suffering that [the Defense of Marriage Act] DOMA causes and will cause is very real and it’s cruel. DOMA hurts people who love each other and want to make a commitment to each other for life. DOMA hurts people who want to have kids and adopt kids and raise them and take care of them. DOMA hurts people who want to save up money and retire and live the rest of their lives together with some degree of comfort. DOMA hurts families.

Mr. Chairman, we need to pass this bill. And when we do pass it, straight people aren’t suddenly going to become gay. Straight people aren’t going to stop getting married. We’re going to be just fine, really.

What will happen is that millions upon millions of lesbian and gay Americans aren’t going to suffer the indignity of having their own government tell them that their marriages are no good. What will happen is that it will be easier for those people to start and to protect their families.

Sen. Al Franken at today’s hearing on the Respect For Marriage Act.

Franken sums up the very real, human issues behind DOMA so well. Video here:

I feel Neil Patrick Harris cheering is appropriate.

Filed under Sen. Al Franken Al Franken DOMA Defense of Marriage Act Respect for Marriage Act government politics DOMA GLBTQ GLBTQ Rights marriage equality same-sex marriage US Senate Senate

27 notes


After a video of [Elizabeth] Warren talking about the deficit and the social contract went viral last week (see above), Rush Limbaugh, the Fiscal Times and Rich Lowrey all spent time attacking her. Now, Lowrey has decided to spend another column going after her, and places like the Daily Caller and Reason have piled on. There is also this gem from right-wing blog Wizbang:
Picture text: When I hear the word “contract” I reach for my revolver think of two unique definitions — formally, a legally binding mutual agreement made between two or more parties, or idiomatically, an attempt to hire an assassin to kill one or more of your enemies.

I have been half-joking on my radio show for months that, with the way political discourse has degenerated, Mission of Burma’s song “That’s When I Reach For My Revolver” will one day be the Tea Party anthem. Here’s Moby’s version:

Check out the lyrics here. This shit isn’t funny. We just had Andrew Breitbart, sweaty and pacing, fire up a Tea Party crowd by fantasizing about killing liberals. Breitbart said, “They can only win a rhetorical and propaganda war. They cannot win. We outnumber them in this country, and we have the guns. I’m not kidding.” Read the rest of Michael Laprarie’s entry here.
And now, Elizabeth Warren dares to run for U.S. Senate and challenges Scott Brown (someone they don’t even like) and the Wall Street status quo. I’m not going to sit here and pretend that liberal are always civil and conservatives uncivil. Can we simply stop with the veiled (and not-so-veiled) references to killing people? It’s getting really old.

After a video of [Elizabeth] Warren talking about the deficit and the social contract went viral last week (see above), Rush Limbaugh, the Fiscal Times and Rich Lowrey all spent time attacking her. Now, Lowrey has decided to spend another column going after her, and places like the Daily Caller and Reason have piled on. There is also this gem from right-wing blog Wizbang:

Picture text: When I hear the word “contract” I reach for my revolver think of two unique definitions — formally, a legally binding mutual agreement made between two or more parties, or idiomatically, an attempt to hire an assassin to kill one or more of your enemies.

I have been half-joking on my radio show for months that, with the way political discourse has degenerated, Mission of Burma’s song “That’s When I Reach For My Revolver” will one day be the Tea Party anthem. Here’s Moby’s version:

Check out the lyrics here. This shit isn’t funny. We just had Andrew Breitbart, sweaty and pacing, fire up a Tea Party crowd by fantasizing about killing liberals. Breitbart said, “They can only win a rhetorical and propaganda war. They cannot win. We outnumber them in this country, and we have the guns. I’m not kidding.” Read the rest of Michael Laprarie’s entry here.

And now, Elizabeth Warren dares to run for U.S. Senate and challenges Scott Brown (someone they don’t even like) and the Wall Street status quo. I’m not going to sit here and pretend that liberal are always civil and conservatives uncivil. Can we simply stop with the veiled (and not-so-veiled) references to killing people? It’s getting really old.

Filed under Elizabeth Warren politics Conservative conservatives liberal liberals violence rhetoric violent rhetoric Wizbang Right-Wing right-wing violence threats US Senate government