Hoyer Warns GOP: Tone Down Rhetoric, Senate Fight Looms

GOP Gears Up For Senate Theatrics




So much for the “Nuclear” Senate showdown.

After President Barack Obama’s showy Tuesday signing ceremony, the Senate’s cleanup work this week on health care is looking more like a political strategy session, as each party tries to cement public impressions of the bill.

“It’s going to pass here,” Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said matter-of-factly. “It’s a matter of what amendments [Democrats] want to be for and what they’re not.”

To be sure, Republicans have lined up a bundle of politically embarrassing amendments and plan to wreak all sorts of procedural havoc.

“I think there’s going to be long nights, and there’s going to be anger and demagoguery from the Republicans,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio). “But I think the outcome is pretty clear.”

So at this point, Republicans are simply going to continue with their key themes: that the new law will drastically cut Medicare, increase taxes and expand the government’s ballooning budget deficit.

And as Democrats try to downplay the bill as mere “fixes” to the law and vow to kill all GOP amendments, Republicans are inflating the measure’s importance by arguing it would make even more draconian changes to the newly enacted law.

Republicans are challenging several provisions with the Senate’s parliamentarian, Alan Frumin, on the grounds that they violate the so-called Byrd rule — named after Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) — which prohibits the addition of extraneous items to budget legislation. Republicans are also pushing uncomfortable amendments, including one by Coburn that prohibits sex offenders from being prescribed drugs for erectile dysfunction.

And Republicans are planning unusual procedural tricks to ensure their objections are heard; the GOP on Tuesday forced committee work in the Senate to essentially come to a halt.

But even if the GOP is successful in delaying action in the Senate and forcing changes to the bill, House Democratic leaders may bring the chamber back to session during the upcoming spring recess to pass the reconciliation bill one last time.

And that fact is not lost on some.

“Obviously, the damage has been done,” said New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, who is leading the fight over the reconciliation bill. “But we have not had an opportunity to address some of the substantive policy questions which are out there that should be discussed in an amendment-type atmosphere.”

Since they began the health care debate last year, Democrats had kept the reconciliation process — a filibuster-proof way to make changes in tax laws and entitlement programs — firmly on the table. Nearly every time the strategy came to the fore, Republicans likened the idea to the “nuclear option” that nearly shut down the Senate in 2005, when the GOP tried to end filibusters for George W. Bush’s judicial nominees.

Gregg said the nuclear option was being referred to in the context of moving the whole health care bill through reconciliation — rather than the smaller set of items now being considered.

“This bill was used to buy votes; it’s a much smaller bill,” Gregg said.

In fact, it was House Democrats who pushed for the reconciliation bill to clean up some of the more politically problematic provisions in the Senate bill, including closing the doughnut hole on Medicare prescription drug coverage, delaying an excise tax on high-end insurance plans and killing the so-called Cornhusker Kickback. The Senate bill also includes a sweeping rewrite of student loan laws that most Republicans strongly oppose.

Democrats, feeling confident, are making fun of Senate Republicans for actually holding up the bill that removes some of the most controversial items.

“I don’t understand what they’re doing, because they’re all going to be for supporting the Nebraska cornhusker provision and will be voting against all the things this bill cleans up,” Brown said.

There is one potential area that could blow up the debate. If Vice President Joe Biden uses his authority to overrule a decision by parliamentarian Frumin, it could cause chaos in the chamber because that is so rarely done.

“They would be very loath to do that because it would clearly be a political act,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). “And the Democrats have already said they’re going to abide by the parliamentarian, which means they must have some confidence that whatever they said is going to work out their way.”

Democrats downplay the likelihood of such a scenario, and Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), declined to comment on the possibility.

Republicans aren’t sparing Frumin, who is supposed to be an impartial referee on Senate procedure.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) refused to say Tuesday whether he believes the parliamentarian has been a fair arbiter of the Senate rules.

“We’ll have views about that, I suppose, as we move along,” McConnell said Tuesday. “We’ll see what the parliamentarian rules and whether he becomes a player in this exercise or truly a referee, an umpire.”

The theatrics may go beyond rhetoric as well. Republicans could go to lengths to keep the Senate in session by trying to extend the freewheeling amendment process indefinitely — even though Democrats said they may push Frumin to rule such a tactic dilatory and prevent them from doing that.

“Realistically, I think the answer to that question is how long can senators stay awake continuously,” said Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.). “We may see.”

But most Senate insiders don’t think the GOP will go to such lengths, as the real battle is now on the campaign trail.

“I’m not sure the public really differentiates between the [comprehensive] bill and the reconciliation bill,” said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “It’s all part of the machinations; it’s part of the process here.”


Sources: AP, Politico

Obama Concedes On Jobs Funding; Won't Use TARP Money

W.H. Won't Use Repaid Bank Funds For Jobs Plan


In his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama proposed using $30 billion in bailout funds for small-business lending. He later repeated the idea in Nashua, N.H.

Both times, Obama said he would use bailout funds that were “repaid” to the government by financial firms — conjuring up the politically appealing image of taking money from a chastened Wall Street and sending it straight to Main Street.

But Obama’s description didn’t give an accurate picture of how he plans to pay for the new program. And his comments sowed controversy and confusion on Capitol Hill.

In reality, the administration is proposing taking $30 billion from the unspent portion of the Troubled Asset Relief Program to seed the new initiative, not — as Obama’s language suggested — taking the funds from the approximately $170 billion that banks have returned to government coffers.

While that distinction might seems painfully technical, it carries significant political weight on Capitol Hill. The reason: The legislation creating TARP dictates that repaid funds must go to pay down the national debt.

The program as “originally outlined” was “totally inconsistent with the law,” Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) said in an interview with POLITICO.

Earlier this week, Gregg accused Obama of trying to create a “slush fund” from the repaid TARP cash. And he tore into White House budget chief Peter Orszag based on the description that repaid TARP dollars would be used to fund it.

“You don't appear to understand the law! The law is very clear!” Gregg told Orszag during a hearing on the administration’s budget. He went on to read the TARP law to Orszag: “ ‘The monies recouped from the TARP shall be paid into the general fund of the treasury for the reduction of the public debt.’ It's not for a piggy bank because you're concerned about lending to small businesses… This money is to reduce the debt of our children!”

But it wasn’t just Republicans who had concerns. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), who has been working with the administration to create a small-business program, said he sought clarification on the issue from the administration on Thursday.

“This is a major difference, particularly for some of my Republican colleagues,” Warner said. “It makes, I think, a stronger case that it fits within the footprint of the original TARP,” shoring up financial system and sending credit where it’s needed.

“And clearly one of the areas where credit is not moving is to small businesses,” Warner said.

White House officials didn’t say why Obama specifically talked of using “repaid” funds in both settings —including the State of the Union address, in which every word is carefully vetted.

But they say Obama didn’t intend to suggest that the actual repaid TARP funds would be used.

“The policy was always to transfer $30 billion of existing unused TARP authority to a new small-business lending fund, not to use repayments,” said Gene Sperling, a top Treasury adviser. “The moment we realized that there was any confusion we took immediate steps to clarify. The point the President and others were making was that the combination of repayments and increased financial stability … allowed there to be TARP funds available to have a special reserve for small banks and small businesses.”

But Greggsays he sees politics at work and that he urged Treasury not to use TARP to fund the program because it would only tempt Congress to dip into TARP for other purposes as well.

“They were trying to set up a political juxtaposition here of having [bailout] money that was used to stabilize the big banks used to help the little banks. That’s the politics, and that’s all this is about, is politics,” he said.

Gregg said he had two extensive discussions with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Wednesday and Thursday in which Geithner explained that they were using unallocated TARP authority. Gregg still believes the program is bad policy and outside the intent of TARP.

And he thinks the officials who green-lighted the original rhetoric in the State of the Union speech didn’t understand what the words meant. “I think Treasury did understand what they were doing, but there was some miscommunication somewhere along the line, and the politics of the presentation caused them to make a statement that was totally unsupportable as a practical legal act.”

Administration officials have changed the way they describe the program. On Thursday, Geithner told the Senate Budget Committee that “we will support legislation that would take existing authority that we've reserved under the TARP,” to fund the new lending program.

Obama, too, has changed his rhetoric. Speaking to a group of small business owners Friday, the president described the initiative as a lending program “that would take $30 billion of the fund originally used to rescue big banks on Wall Street, and use it to provide lending capital to community banks on Main Street.”

Warner said he plans to introduce legislation along the lines of the administration’s proposal — though not necessarily exactly the same — as early as next week. And despite the confusion on funding, he’s optimistic he can get bipartisan support.


Sources: Politico, CNN, Zimbio

Gregg & Orszag Face-Off Over Obama's 2011 Budget

Senator Grills White House Budget Director




Sources: CNN

MSNBC's Liberal Reporters Are Out Of Control!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Judd Gregg Lectures MSNBC: "Irresponsible"


Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) attacked MSNBC hosts Contessa Brewer and Melissa Francis on Thursday, questioning their “integrity” as journalists and calling them “irresponsible.”

The scuffle started with Francis asking Gregg to name specific areas of the budget he would cut after he criticized the White House’s proposed freeze on nondefense discretionary spending, saying President Barack Obama has done little to reduce the size of government.

“That’s good in theory,” Francis started to say before Gregg cut her off.

“It’s not a theory,” Gregg said. “Don't tell me it's good in theory. What are you? How do you get off saying something like that?”

Francis then jumped in to offer Gregg a chance “to tell us how to practically put it to work.”

Gregg then launched into an attack of the administration for increasing spending and the federal debt, quickly getting interrupted by Brewer.

“My partner Melissa, Sen. Gregg, is really asking for specifics,” Brewer said. “If you don't believe we should have a $1.3 trillion budget, which programs are you willing to cut?”

“Are you willing to tell schools, no money for you?” Brewer asked.

“Nobody is saying ‘no money for schools,’” Gregg responded. “What an absurd statement to make, a dishonest statement to make.”

“Sen. Gregg, what we're both asking is which programs to cut?” Brewer said. “Senator, you're going to be asked to cut certain programs if you're on the senate Banking Committee — just tell us which one you'll cut?”

Gregg said he’d ‘eliminate’ the money for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, cut stimulus spending and reform entitlement programs. But after being given his chance to outline his proposals, Gregg still clearly had an ax to grind with the two hosts.

“I've made very specific proposals and I'm willing to stand by them. The problem is that this administration’s view of governance is economic prosperity created by growing the government dramatically,” he said. “Then it gets misrepresented by people like yourself that say if you do this you're going to end up not funding education. That's the most irresponsible question.”

“You can't be duplicitous about this,” he added. “You can't make a representation and then claim you didn't make it. You know, it just shouldn't work that way. You've got to have some integrity on your side of this camera, too.”






MSNBC: Shuster Tweets "Inappropriate"



MSNBC may be obsessed with the four men arrested for trying to tamper with Sen. Mary Landrieu’s telephones, but the network says reporter David Shuster crossed the line when he attacked one of them via Twitter.

Just before leaving for New Orleans to cover the story, Shuster used a Twitter message to tell Conservative Filmmaker James O’Keefe — one of the four men arrested by the FBI — that he’s “not a journalist,” that he “intended to tap phones” and that he “will go to prison.”

“The comments were inappropriate,” an MSNBC spokesperson told POLITICO Thursday. “We have talked to David about them.”

Still, Shuster continues to cover the story for MSNBC. At 3 p.m. Thursday, he’s expected to interview Andrew Breitbart, who pays O’Keefe a salary and published his undercover anti-ACORN videos on his website Big Government.

MSNBC has been all over the arrests at Landrieu’s New Orleans office, dubbing the alleged attempt to tamper with the phones of the Democratic senator “PhoneGate” and “Bayou Break-In.”

On Wednesday night — when other news networks were focused on President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address — MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann devoted the first 20 minutes of “Countdown” to the Landrieu case.

In addition to speaking with Shuster from New Orleans, Olbermann talked with analyst Richard Wolffe and former Nixon counsel John Dean, famous for his role in the Watergate coverup.

Fox News, by contrast, has spent relatively little time on the story.

Media Matters, a liberal watchdog group, reports that Fox devoted roughly 4½-half minutes on O’Keefe’s arrest Tuesday during its evening and prime-time shows, while spending over an hour on the ACORN tapes when that story broke on Sept. 10.

It’s quite a contrast from last fall, when Fox gave loads of airtime to the undercover videos in which O’Keefe pretended to be a pimp seeking help from ACORN. The 25-year-old activist appeared on “Glenn Beck,” “Hannity” and “Fox & Friends” and was named the “Power Player of the Week” by Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday.”

A Fox spokesperson did not return a request for comment.

Ari Rabin-Havt, vice president of research and communication for Media Matters, said that in addition to the airtime Fox gave the ACORN story, the network also allowed O’Keefe, Hannah Giles — who appeared as the prostitute in the undercover tapes — and Breitbart to talk up their legal defense fund.

Rabin-Havt said that given the amount of time Fox provided for what he considers an “unethical piece of journalism,” the network has “some culpability” for whatever O’Keefe may have done next.

But while Media Matters sees Fox as overhyping the first O’Keefe-related story, those on the other end of the political spectrum now see MSNBC giving too much play to the second.

Seton Motley, director of communications for the Media Research Center, said that MSNBC is “hyperventilating in their coverage” and that O’Keefe’s been “convicted in the court of Twitter by David Shuster.”

“I think what the MSNBCs of the world are trying to do is to undo what [O’Keefe] did to ACORN with this,” Motley said.

Breitbart also thinks the media have gone overboard.

“For those in the mainstream media committed to report the false and libelous narrative of ‘Watergate Jr.,’ ‘wiretapping’ and ‘bugging,’ I predict much egg on your J-school grad faces,” Breitbart wrote on his Big Journalism site.

Mark Jurkowitz, associate director of Pew’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, noted that the different levels of coverage between the ACORN story — presumably bad for liberals — and the O’Keefe arrest — presumably bad for conservatives — is just par for the course.

“One thing we’ve seen repeatedly on ideologically oriented shows, in cable and radio, is not only the ideology evident in how a subject is treated but whether a subject is covered,” he said.

During the campaign, Jurkowitz pointed out that Fox hosts Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity focused more on issues such as the controversy over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, while MSNBC hosts Olbermann and Rachel Maddow offered more coverage of issues relating to Sen. John McCain’s campaign tactics.

“If you were watching the Fox hosts or the MSNBC hosts, you’d be getting different subjects of the campaign covered,” Jurkowitz said. “You are getting in some ways a different world.”





Ed Schultz Curses Robert Gibbs: "Full Of Sh*t"


MSNBC host Ed Schultz is tearing into Robert Gibbs and the rest of President Barack Obama’s team, telling the White House press secretary that he is “full of sh—.”

Speaking at the progressive Blue State Bash event at the Minneapolis Convention Center on Saturday, Schultz relayed a combative exchange he had off the air with Gibbs, who last appeared on his program “The Ed Show” on Thursday.

“I know it’s being recorded, but I wasn’t told it was off the record,” Schultz said in a video posted on theuptake.org. “Mr. Gibbs and I had quite the conversation off the air the other night. I’m gonna tell ya, I told him he was full of sh—.”

“I did,” Schultz continued. “And then he gave me the Dick Cheney f-bomb the same way Sen. Leahy got it on the Senate floor. I told Robert Gibbs, I said: ‘And I’m sorry you’re swearing at me, but I’m just trying to help you out. I’m telling you you’re losing your base. Do you understand you’re losing your base?’”

Schultz set a fiery tone in the nearly 20-minute speech that eviscerated the Democratic Party for not listening to its progressive wing.

“We have to get these people who have infiltrated the Democratic progressive movement and get them the hell out,” Schultz boomed. “We are still in an ideological fight for this country.”

The liberal talk show host — who was asked by North Dakota Democrats to run for the Senate seat vacated by Sen. Byron Dorgan’s retirement — implored the audience to hold the Obama administration’s feet to the fire.

“We have to make sure President Obama gets the message: We’re with you, but you have to be with us,” he said. “If we don’t speak up and tell the White House they’re wrong right now, who will do it?”

Schultz also said that despite turning down an opportunity to run for the Senate, he would have used the same aggressive tone on the campaign trail.

“I want all of you to know that I am not running for the United States Senate,” he said. “But I also want you to know that if I did, I’d kick their ass.”

The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment.


Sources: MSNBC, Politico, Twitter, NY Mag.