Texas Lawmaker Calls Wendy Davis A Terrorist For Blocking Anti-Abortion Bill

By Rebecca Leber/Think Progress

Late last night, a Republican lawmaker compared Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis (D) and the crowd of her supporters to terrorists. Davis gained national attention and admirers overnight for launching an epic 13-hour filibuster that successfully blocked a restrictive abortion bill from becoming law. Once Republicans failed to pass SB 5, an omnibus bill to ban abortion after 20 weeks and shut down most of the state’s abortion clinics, Rep. Bill Zedler (R) tweeted:

In addition to voting for the 20 week abortion ban in the Texas House, Zedler’s record includes requiring women to undergo an ultrasound and report their education history before being able to have an abortion.

Meanwhile, Lt. Gov David Dewhurst described the crowd that cheered Davis on as “an unruly mob, using Occupy Wall Street tactics” that “disrupted the Senate from protecting unborn babies.” For the record, this is what the protests in the capitol building looked like:

Obama fights obstructionism

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

ABC News & The Whitewater Tactics At The Center Of The Scandal Machine

JEREMY HOLDEN/Media Matters For America

Republicans leaders are reportedly concerned that the scandal machine that has been kicked into high gear in recent days will lead to similar backlash the party faced over its endless and costly investigations into President Clinton in the 1990s:

To veteran lawmakers, the sudden proliferation of investigations cannot help but raise the ghost of 1998. After seizing control of Congress in 1995, Republicans opened investigations into the White House Travel Office, allegations of malfeasance around the Whitewater Development Corporation, and claims of campaign finance improprieties in the 1996 presidential campaign. Representative Dan Burton, Republican of Indiana, famously shot a melon in trying to prove that the White House lawyer Vincent W. Foster Jr. did not commit suicide.

But it was the impeachment of Mr. Clinton that cost Republicans seats in the House, cost Newt Gingrich his job as House speaker, and ultimately lifted a moribund Democratic president from the political depths.

Right-wing media have been quick to invoke Whitewater, the real estate scandal that developed during Clinton's first term, as part of their endless quest to scandalize the Obama administration over the tragedy in Benghazi.

And reliance on shady Whitewater tactics - which involved leaking selectively edited transcripts to the media to push forth the scandal -- was on full display this past week, leading to a critical question: how will the media respond to the campaign of press manipulation?

CBS News reported on May 16 that Republican staffers have been selectively and deceptively leaking information to reporters in order to keep the Benghazi "scandal" alive. As Kevin Drum of Mother Jonesexplained:

So here's what happened. Republicans in Congress saw copies of these emails two months ago and did nothing with them. It was obvious that they showed little more than routine interagency haggling. Then, riding high after last week's Benghazi hearings, someone got the bright idea of leaking two isolated tidbits and mischaracterizing them in an effort to make the State Department look bad. Apparently they figured it was a twofer: they could stick a shiv into the belly of the White House and they could then badger them to release the entire email chain, knowing they never would.

ABC News, which initially reported that it had "obtained" the actual emails showing greater White House involvement editing the talking points than administration officials had acknowledged, was forced into a slippery acknowledgement that its "exclusive" report was based only on summaries of emails, a method of reporting that journalism experts called "highly problematic ethically" and "sloppy."

ABC's flawed reporting on the emails, based on selective leaks, has led to questions about reporter Jonathan Karl's future, vividly demonstrating the consequences of this type of press manipulation. But whether fellow journalists - and viewers - will demand accountability from Karl remains to be seen.

It's the Whitewater experience, which GOP leaders are reportedly skittish of repeating, that provides a blueprint for accountability over this type of press manipulation.

In the 1990s it was David Bossie, at the time an investigator for the House Government Reform and Oversight, who leaked selectively edited transcripts to the press in order to advance the scandal mongering of President Clinton. Bossie was reportedly fired for his role manipulating the press.

Will the media, which once again saw one of their own get burned by relying on selective leaks in furtherance of a hunting of a president, demand accountability this time?

GOP Sources Altered Benghazi E-Mails To Suggest A Cover-Up, Reporter Confirms

By Rebecca Leber/Think Progress

Since September, Republicans have claimed the Obama administration covered up the truth about the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya by altering the talking points Susan Rice used on the Sunday morning talk shows. To bolster the story, Republicans misquoted or significantly embellished the emails officials used to draft Rice’s remarks, the CBS Evening Newsreported Thursday.

CBS News’ Major Garrett confirmed that it was a GOP source who leaked the altered emails.

The miscast quotes affect at least two emails that include a State Department spokesperson and a White House deputy adviser — the two parties GOP lawmakers insist were trying to engage a cover-up on behalf of the Obama administration to protect the president’s chances of re-election.

A leaked email adds new language to State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland’s email, including a specific reference to al-Qaeda:

“The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda’s presence and activities of al-Qaeda.“

The actual email read:

“The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings.“

A leaked email written by deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes suggests that he asked for the final draft to remove references to warnings about specific attacks, a demand made by the State Department:

“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation.”

But the actual email did not mention the State Department:

“We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.”

Since the congressional hearings last week, the White House on Wednesday released a hundred pages of emails from after the consulate attack. The full version undermines already-thin accusations that this is a White House scandal.

BREAKING: Senate Republicans Make History, First To Filibuster Defense Secretary Nominee

By Hayes Brown/Think Progress

Senate Republicans today chose to uphold a filibuster against Secretary of Defense nominee Chuck Hagel, despite many of them previously pledging that they would be willing to allow him to be confirmed.

Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), and John Cornyn (R-TX) all voted against cloture, despite their pleas during the Bush administration that a president’s Cabinet nominees should receive an up-or-down vote.

Four Republicans, Sens. Thad Cochran (R-MS), Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Mike Johanns (R-NE), voted to break the filibuster. The final vote was 58-40, with Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) voting present, Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) not voting at all, and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) voting “no” as a procedural move so that he can bring another vote to the floor at a later date.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) had originally scheduled the cloture vote for tomorrow morning, but surprised many by pushing it up to this afternoon. Earlier today, Reid took to the Senate floor to lambaste his Republican colleagues for delaying an up-or-down vote on Hagel, the first filibuster of a Secretary of Defense nominee.

Prior to the roll call’s beginning, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) attempted to explain that the vote that was set to take place was the vote “to confirm Chuck Hagel,” rather than merely being a procedural vote. Inhofe also claimed that a 60-vote margin was common practice, rendering the actions of the Republicans not a filibuster. However, the motion was still filed by Reid as cloture — the ending of debate — rather than the actual confirmation of Hagel, as laid out be Levin before voting. This leaves the door open for Hagel’s nomination to remain on the Senate floor and renders the GOP’s actions a filibuster under the Senate’s rules.

While Senate Republicans are opposed to voting on Hagel today, they seem to believe that they’ll change their minds after the Senate returns from its President’s Day recess in 10 days. This morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that he expected to be willing to move Hagel forward at that time, “unless there’s some bombshell that he likes blood sucking vampires.” Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and John McCain (R-AZ) said roughly the same thing today, leaving their votes against Hagel today confusing.

The hope for such a bombshell emerging seems far less than likely. A speech given by Hagel in 2008 that conservatives have long-sought as evidence that Hagel falls far outside of the mainstream was released today, turning out to be a dud. Likewise right-wing implications that Hagel was secretly being backed by a group called “Friends of Hamas” also proved to be utterly false, fabricated on a far-right media outlet.

After today’s filibuster, the Senate will reconsider Hagel after their break. While today’s vote showed that the GOP was willing to obstruct and delay, they ultimately will be unable to do this forever. In the end, Hagel still possesses more than the majority vote needed for final passage.

House GOP blocks Violence Against Women Act

By Steve Benen/The Maddow Blog

 

Congress had a lengthy to-do list as the end of the year approached, with a series of measures that needed action before 2013 began. Some of the items passed (a fiscal agreement, a temporary farm bill), while others didn't (relief funding for victims of Hurricane Sandy).

And then there's the Violence Against Women Act, which was supposed to be one of the year's easy ones. It wasn't.

Back in April, the Senate approvedVAWA reauthorization fairly easily, with a 68 to 31 vote. The bill was co-written by a liberal Democrat (Vermont's Pat Leahy) and a conservative Republican (Idaho's Mike Crapo), and seemed on track to be reauthorized without much of a fuss, just as it was in 2000 and 2005.

But House Republicans insisted the bill is too supportive of immigrants, the LGBT community, and Native Americans -- and they'd rather let the law expire than approve a slightly expanded proposal. Vice President Biden, who helped write the original law, tried to persuade House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) to keep the law alive, but the efforts didn't go anywhere.

And so, for the first time since 1994, the Violence Against Women Act is no more. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the Democratic point person on VAWA, said in a statement:

"The House Republican leadership's failure to take up and pass the Senate's bipartisan and inclusive VAWA bill is inexcusable. This is a bill that passed with 68 votes in the Senate and that extends the bill's protections to 30 million more women. But this seems to be how House Republican leadership operates. No matter how broad the bipartisan support, no matter who gets hurt in the process, the politics of the right wing of their party always comes first."

Proponents of the law hope to revive the law in the new Congress, starting from scratch, but in the meantime, there will be far fewer resources available for state and local governments to combat domestic violence.

As for electoral considerations, Republicans lost badly in the 2012 elections, thanks in large part to the largest gender gap in modern times, but if that changed GOP attitudes towards legislation affecting women, the party is hiding it well.

Update: Reader AG asks about the House version that was approved several months ago. AsI reported at the time, the House gutted the bipartisan Senate bill with a watered-down version, which was widely seen by everyone involved as a joke that undermined the interests of victims. It had no support in the Senate and drew a White House veto threat. House Republicans knew this, and instead of revisiting the issue and/or working with the Senate on a compromise, GOP leaders simply decided the law was not a priority. The result was this week's outcome. 

Susan Rice And How The Press Keeps Ignoring Republican Obstructionism

ERIC BOEHLERT/Media Matters for America

Once again, the press is turning a blind eye to the unprecedented obstructionism coming from the Republican Party.

In the wake of Ambassador Susan Rice's Capitol Hill meetings with Republican senators this week and the harsh assessment they quickly gave reporters, most new accounts stressed that if Rice were nominated to be secretary of state she would face stiff opposition. Reporters detailed how Republicans were raising objections to Rice's involvement in the controversy surrounding the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi after she was selected to appear on Sunday talk shows to relay the intelligence community's assessment of the attack. (An assessment that was later changed.)

Here's the key fact most press accounts omitted: The GOP continues to engage in unrivaled obstructionism. And its threat to vote down Rice as secretary of state before she's even named likely represents an unparalleled act of partisan defiance.

The extremist maneuver erases decades, if not centuries, of Capitol Hill protocol with regards to allowing a newly elected president to confirm the secretary of state of his choosing. The aggressive GOP attempt to derail Rice's rise also runs counter to how Democrats confirmed Condoleeza Rice as secretary of state, despite outstanding questions about her involvement in selling and planning the Iraq War.

Even more shocking with regards to Susan Rice was the threat this week from Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) that she would try to block any secretary of state nominee, whether it's Rice or someone else, unless the White House provides more answers about Benghazi. (The White House has been providing Benghazi answers for 10 weeks now.)

Ayotte's stunning threat is, without question, the definition of (militant) obstructionism :

One who systematically blocks or interrupts a process, especially one who attempts to impede passage of legislation by the use of delaying tactics, such as a filibuster.

Ayotte's scorched-earth tactic was treated by the Beltway press as nothing more than routine political posturing. Virtually no information was provided cluing news consumers into just how radical and extraordinary a proposal the Republican was making, or just how remarkable it was for senators to mount a campaign to block a secretary of state nomination.

Note that in these news reports from the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and Washington Post, all of the crucial context was missing. And it's routinely missing from the ongoing Rice coverage.

The coordinated, partisan campaign to attack and derail Rice's possible nomination is highly, highly unusual regarding a secretary of state. But you would never know it from watching and reading the press coverage, which depicts the battle as simply more political jockeying and part of a long-running partisan feud where both sides are to blame.

It's not. And the press ought to say so.

Fact: For decades, secretaries of state were confirmed by the U.S. Senate unanimously, as senators acknowledged the president's prerogative in selecting one of the country's most important cabinet posts. There existed a longtime acknowledgement that partisanship was supposed to end "at the water's edge" and that the United States' envoy to the world should have the backing of both parties.

In 1981, when Al Haig was confirmed to be Ronald Reagan's secretary of state and received six no votes that was considered unusual and newsworthy. When Condoleeza Rice was confirmed in 2005 with 13 no votes, she collected the most dissenting votes for any secretary of state in 180 years. 

At the time, Fox News' Charles Krauthhamer noted that historic fact [emphasis added]:  

In this country, it is customary to allow the president to choose his own Cabinet so long as the nominee is minimally qualified.

...

Indeed, secretaries of state are generally approved unanimously. This is the first nomination in a quarter-century to have earned even a single dissenting vote.

Note that in 2005, Krauthammer thought it was imprudent for any Democrat to vote against Rice's nomination. (Sean Hannity decried the Democrats' "shrillness" on the topic.) With Republicans now threatening to indefinitely block Susan Rice's possible nomination by placing a hold on her would-be bid, and with Fox News talkers (including Krauthammer) leading an endless barrage of attacks against Rice, placing her at the center of an alleged cover-up, the conservative script on secretaries of state has certainly flipped. 

It's true that twelve Democrats and one Independent voted against Condoleeza Rice, based on her role in selling the public on the need for war with Iraq. (i.e. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.")  But at no time was there a concerted campaign to actually block her nomination. Democrats made it clear early on in the process that Rice would be confirmed. And that's how the story was covered.

On Nov 17, 2004, when the Washington Post reported on President Bush's selection of Rice, the article didn't even bother quoting Democrats to gage the party's reaction. The premise of the article was straightforward: Rice will be the next secretary of state because the president wants her to be.

And that's how the process has mostly worked throughout American history. That's certainly how it's worked in modern American history.

Today though, in a radical bout of obstructionism, Republicans are vowing to vote down Rice and vowing to possibly block any secretary of state nomination put forward by President Obama.

And the press is giving Republicans a pass. Just as they've done throughout Obama's presidency, pundits and reporters are careful not to spell out the historic, extremist tactics being adopted by Obama's opponents; the same opponents who have voted en masse against his initiatives for four years in an unrivaled display of legislative partisanship.

How far would GOP go to block the president?

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

AFSCME mocks ‘The Boehner Bunch’ in new video

By Eric W. Dolan/Raw Story

The AFSCME, a union representing 1.6 million public service workers, on Tuesday uploaded a video to YouTube that humorously criticizes Republicans for their opposition to the Affordable Care Act.

The video, based on the intro to the 1970′s sitcom The Brady Bunch, claims that “working people don’t matter” to prominent Republicans like House Speaker John Boehner (OH), Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (KY) and Florida Gov. Rick Scott.

All the Republicans in the video have vowed to do whatever they can to repeal President Barack Obama’s health care reform law.

Though the union insists it is non-partisan, the AFSCME has made it clear they will support President Barack Obama in the 2012 elections. They also support the Affordable Care Act.

“Even though the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act (‘Obamacare’), Speaker John Boehner and Republican leaders refuse to let go,” the union wrote on their website. “This week the U.S. House is set to vote — for the 31st time — on a bill to repeal the law. Enough is enough. It’s time to stop re-fighting political battles of the past and get to work on the economy.”

Watch video, uploaded to YouTube on June 10, below:

30 million uninsured not the issue for GOP

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

Harry Reid finally gets fed up with ‘mindless’ Republican obstructionism

By Muriel Kane/Raw Story

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reed (D-NV) may have finally gotten his fill of Republican obstructionism. In his soft-spoken way, he might even be described as absolutely furious over the refusal of Senate Republicans to pass a completely non-controversial reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank on the grounds that they wanted time to offer amendments.

“The bill that the House passed reflects a negotiated agreement that was struck between Democratic and Republican leaders,” Reid stated in a speech on Thursday evening. “They worked hard to come up with an agreement. As one would expect with an agreement of that nature, the House passed it with a very strong vote. The vote was 330 to 93. … Only the far right Tea Party wing of the House Republican conference voted against the bill.”

“It’s so unusual here,” Reid continued. “I have been here in Congress thirty years, but this is a new one. Even bills that they agree on, they want to mess around with. In years past, this would have gone through here just like this [snapping his fingers]. … The House passed something 330 to 93, and we’re here playing around with it? It should be done. We should have passed it yesterday. This thing is going to expire.”

“It’s hard to comprehend what the new mantra of the Republicans in the Senate, what it is,” he added. “I don’t get it.”

Reid pointed out that the Export-Import Bank is about to hits its lending limit and in any case has to be reauthorized by the end of May — but if the bill is amended in the Senate it will have to go back to the House, which is barely in session all this month. He also stated that he had glanced at the proposed amendments and that several of them seemed designed to gut or even eliminate the program.

Reid expressed regret that he had not supported a proposed change to the filibuster rule in January 2011, but had instead entered into a “gentleman’s agreement” with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to keep it intact.

“This is just absolutely mindless, what’s going on,” he concluded.

As the Huffington Post notes, it would take a two-thirds vote of the Senate to change the filibuster rule now. If Reid is serious, however, his best opportunity may come next January, since at the start of each new session of Congress it is possible to alter rules with a simple majority vote.

This video from CSPAN-2 was uploaded to YouTube by HuffPostPolitics on May 10, 2012.

Paul Ryan Mocks Senior Citizen Handcuffed At His Town Hall: ‘I Hope He’s Taking His Blood Pressure Medication’

By Marie Diamond/Think Progress

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), the author of the House GOP plan to phase out Medicare, does not like it when constituents publicly challenge him. In fact, people who disagree with Ryan have a habit of getting arrested for it. A few weeks ago, several of Ryan’s unemployed constituents staged a peaceful sit-in at his Kenosha, Wisconsin office toprotest his unpopular decision not to hold any free public town halls during the August recess. These constituents didn’t think they should have to pay to ask their elected representative a question. Instead of meeting with them, Ryan’s staff called the police.

So it should come as no surprise that this week, three people who paid to see Ryan speak werearrested and charged with trespassing for protesting the event. One constituent, a 71-year-old retired plumber from Kenosha, Wisconsin, was handcuffed and pushed to the ground by security:

Video footage taken by an attendee at the event shows that one of them, Tom Nielsen, received particularly harsh treatment — he was pushed to the ground and handcuffed. Nielsen received an additional charge of resisting arrest.

Ryan was speaking Tuesday afternoon at the Whitnall Park Rotary Club. Protesters gathered both outside his event and inside, standing up and disrupting the congressman’s remarks.

According to Oak Creek Patch, as many as a dozen protesters were escorted out of the event. Another dozen or so left willingly.

Ryan seemed supremely undisturbed that a senior citizen worried about receiving the Medicare he’s paid into his whole life was treated so brutally. Indeed, Ryan made light of the arrest and quipped to the audience, “I hope he’s taking his blood pressure medication.”

Watch it, courtesy of Wisconsin Jobs Now:

Another woman was shown the door when she challenged Ryan’s claim that the jobs crisis is directly related to the debt crisis. “Our debt is out of control because of the tax cuts you’re giving,” she said. “Our unemployment in 2003 was 6.2% before the tax cuts went through. Now our unemployment rate is 9.1%. What are you doing to create jobs, Congressman?” Another woman was escorted out when she stood up while Ryan was speaking and said, “You won’t talk to us. How can we give our opinions when you refuse to talk to us?”

Ryan has consistently faced angry constituents at his events since his Medicare-killing budget became a top GOP priority. Tired of being publicly embarrassed by constituents who voice their disagreement and say his policies are hurting them, Ryan has resorted to increasingly harsh responses to deal with people who have the audacity to speak up at his events.