...will he ever win?

I would very much like to school Ben Nelson on what his responsibility is with regard to Supreme Court nominations. Whether he likes it or not, Elena Kagan has no disqualifying factor that should cause him to oppose her. But in Upside-Down Contrarian SenatorLand, Senator Nelson is doing exactly that. From his official statement:

July 30, 2010 – Today, Nebraska’s Senator Ben Nelson issued this statement on the president’s nomination of Elena Kagan for the U.S. Supreme Court to fill the seat of retired Justice John Paul Stevens:

“As a member of the bipartisan ‘Gang of 14,’ I will follow our agreement that judicial nominees should be filibustered only under extraordinary circumstances. If a cloture vote is held on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court, I am prepared to vote for cloture and oppose a filibuster because, in my view, this nominee deserves an up or down vote in the Senate.

“However, I have heard concerns from Nebraskans regarding Ms. Kagan, and her lack of a judicial record makes it difficult for me to discount the concerns raised by Nebraskans, or to reach a level of comfort that these concerns are unfounded. Therefore, I will not vote to confirm Ms. Kagan’s nomination.”

Supreme Court nominations are not a question of "Nebraskans' concerns". They are not a popularity contest. This is why, by the way, Alito and Roberts slithered onto the court. Despite their politics, they had nothing in their history to disqualify them.

As far as judicial experience goes, once again Nelson labors under the false impression that a Supreme Court Justice must be disgorged from our Federal Court system -- an impression which is false, harmful, and gave us Alito and Roberts.

It's pretty pathetic when Arlen Specter, Republican-turned-Democrat, has a stronger record of supporting judicial nominees than Ben Nelson. Or unemployment insurance extensions. Or just about any other initiative that isn't Republican.

And hey, Nebraska? I don't really give two whits about your 'concerns'. You and your conservative pals gave us ... Roberts and Alito.

July 31, 2010 02:00 PM

So, yesterday I put up a Shorter ridiculing Steve Spruiell, a blogger at America’s Shittiest Website.™ Steve had gotten all pissy over at ASW™ about Krugman limiting the length of comments on his NYT blog in order to deal with an influx of cut-and-paste trolls.

The point of my post, in addition to taking a jab at Spruiell’s David Cassidy-ish 70s do, was that Spruiell wasn’t fast enough on the uptake to realize that he looked like a complete idiot and a total hypocrite accusing Krugman of censoring blog comments given that Spruiell was doing this from a blog which doesn’t even allow comments in the first place. Sir, have you no sense of irony?

Unable to comment on Spruiell’s post itself, and learning that Spruiell was a Twitterer, Milou (“Snowy” for you Francophobes) and I rushed over to Twitter and set up an account and twittered this to Steve:

Spruiell mulled for quite some time over my shameless reference to his passé teen idol coiffure and finally manned up enough to fire off this limp riposte:

Well, as we say over here, Steve, “Sadly, No!” The post wasn’t “entirely” devoted to your physical appearance. It was mostly devoted to the hilarity of your dissing Krugman about his comments policy from the safety of comment-free blog.

Now, as to the physical appearance business, I do readily admit that commenting on the physical appearance of some of your colleagues is part of our comedy schtick. And I’ll also admit that in the case of say, Jonah Goldberg, this is perhaps a bit unfair because, after all, Jonah didn’t get to pick his mother. But you, dude, you picked that haircut. Voluntarily. You marched straight into some suburban Hair Cuttery of your own free will and accord and said “Make me look like this” while pointing to the cover of an ancient issue of Tiger Beat.

Of course, you got me on the anonymity charge. But sometimes anonymity is a good thing, as your son, whom you shamelessly hold up as some kind of human shield in your Twitter profile pic, would probably say if he could.

(Pixelation added by the Sadly, No! Graphics Studio)

UPDATE:

July 31, 2010 01:19 PM

DOWNLOADS: (269) PLAYS: (2704) I wonder if Sean Hannity fed Elisabeth Hasselbeck her talking points before President Obama appeared on The View this week? Hasselbeck got taken to school over jobs saved and unemployment by the President in this segment. Hasselbeck: I want to get to something that’s really important to so many Americans. You had promised that the stimulus bill would cap unemployment at 8 percent. We’re at near 10 percent across the country, 12 percent in my home state of Rhode Island. We are in a state of chronic joblessness. Yet, and we heard in the beginning of the show as well, you claimed that there’s "saved jobs", something, a standard that’s not been used before by any administration. [Sigh] It’s frustrating to hear that saved jobs boasting, because it doesn’t feel that way to Americans when they don’t have jobs and they’re losing jobs. How can you continue and your administration continue saying you’re saving jobs when in fact people are losing jobs? Obama: Well, actually Elisabeth what’s happened is that we’ve gained private sector jobs for the last five months. So, we were losing jobs when I was sworn in, as I said 750,000 jobs per month. We’ve now gained jobs for five consecutive months in the private sector. You’re absolutely right that it’s not enough. And if you don’t have a job right now, the only answer you want to hear is "I’m hired". Hasselbeck: Right. Obama: So, the frustration that people have is entirely justified. Now, I have to tell you though, this isn’t just my standard, Elisabeth, or my administration’s standard. There was a report that came out by a couple of economists just today, including John McCain’s former economist, that said had we not taken the steps that we had took, you would have actually seen millions of more jobs lost and we would be in a Great Depression. So, I know that’s not satisfying and it’s not good enough. But... Hasselbeck: I think it’s the word ‘saved’ is what’s troubling people cause they don’t feel it. Obama: Well, it makes a difference though if your job is one of the one that was one of the ones that was saved. Someone needs to ask Hannity in a skirt if she's seen Steve Benen's monthly jobs chart if she thinks that nothing's been done to improve things since President Obama came into office. Most on the left would argue that not enough has been done and we had a reversal in the trend last month but we're definitely moving away from the bottomless pit Bush was taking us into.

July 31, 2010 01:00 PM

Babble on, Babylon!  We're watching you!

It's that time of week, once again, and the question of the hour is: "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who can spot the most blathering idiot of them all?"

It COULD be you!  But only if you participate by entering your nomination in the comments below.

Last week's winner was sb's picture-perfect nomination of Politico's Kiki Ryan:

From Politico's "50 Scenemakers" list: http://www.politico.com/news/s... "Absence may or may not make the heart grow fonder, but blogger Andrew Breitbart says it definitely boosts his buzz. "The secret sauce and the added value is the inadvertent mystery that is born from being absent from the scene," Breitbart told POLITICO, explaining why his moments on the D.C. social scene become events to remember. The conservative writer and personality lives on the West Coast - a fact that gives him a certain mystique among Washingtonians accustomed to seeing the same faces again and again. Breitbart says his political opposite, Arianna Huffington, has the same edge. "Arianna and I have a similar dynamic," he began. "We both live in L.A., so when we come to town on social business terms, we use it as a chance to finally get the face to face with the people you know through your BlackBerry. Then we go back to our lives." For him, that includes being a husband and a father of four children. Still, it's more than rarity that makes Breitbart a party get. He's an ideal guest. "Andrew's fun, provocative and obviously not afraid to speak his mind," Huffington said about her conservative counterpart. Raptor Strategies President David Bass, a Washington-based friend of Breitbart's, echoed Huffington. "He's dead-on and witty at the same time," said Bass. That opinion may not be widely shared as a result of Breitbart's posting of an edited - and misleading - video of Agriculture Dept. official Shirley Sherrod this week. While Breitbart seemed to revel in the ensuing controversy - "I am public enemy No. 1" he proclaimed in an interview with POLITICO - even some of his conservative allies said he had crossed a line. Breitbart is in D.C. only sporadically, but every year he reliably shows up at one party: Tammy Haddad's brunch on the weekend of the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. "I remember missing it [twice]," he said, "and having that sick sense of 'I can't believe that everybody is over there having fun and I'm not.'" Editor's note: The item on Andrew Breitbart was written before this week's controversy over his posting of a video of Agriculture Dept. official Shirley Sherrod. It has been updated to reflect that controversy." - Kiki Ryan

Rules on the flip.
The Rules:

(A) We're looking for inane blather that is blissfully indifferent to the actual facts of the matter being commented on. ?These are the "Chatty Cathy" Awards, not the "Archie Bunkers." ?Of course, this doesn't exclude wingnut punditry, it's just that cluelessness is what we're looking for, more than hatefulness. ?If you can find examples that combine both, though... I think you've got a real winner.

(B) You may nominate any pundit from the M$M-print, broadcast tv/radio or cable-or from any online extension or associated outfit. ?(If this really catches on for some reason, I may decided to break the awards into separate categories at some point.) Nominations should include the name of the person nominated (preferably in the subject line), the outlet and date, an exact quote of what they said or wrote, and a link to where it can be found-original, transcript, or first-hand report (such as Media Matters).

(C) You may submit as many nominations as you want, but each must be in a separate comment.

(D) People vote for each nomination by giving recommendations. ?There is no limit on how many recommendations you can give.

July 31, 2010 12:00 PM

MAL Contends: U.S. Army Clears War of Wrongdoing

Obsidian Wings: WTF? ANTI-Defamation League? Really? Really?

Left in the West:Tester, Baucus obstruct Senate reform

The Center for Public Integrity: Five of the nation’s largest health insurers are in serious discussions about creating a new nonprofit group and bankrolling it to the tune of about $20 million to influence tight congressional races and boost the image of their industry. Wonder who they'll support?

OurFuture: Where are the prosecutions? SEC lets Citi execs go free after $ 40 billion subprime lie

Danger Room: U.S ducks as cluster bomb ban takes effect

July 31, 2010 12:00 PM

I’ve come to the conclusion that the future of all mainstream media news is Taiwanese animation. This piece from NMA News in Taiwan explains our 2012 presidential election prelims to a Chinese audience.

What is truly frightening (or sad) – Without understanding one word of Chinese, I completely understand every single frame in this story.

July 31, 2010 05:45 AM

Gladys from Austin, TX is hilarious. Especially at about the four-minute mark. Open thread below.

July 31, 2010 03:30 AM

Title: Range LifeArtist: Pavement The longer I was on the road as a touring sideman, the more I began to understand what Pavement were talking about in this song off of 1994's Crooked Rain Crooked Rain. I don't think Billy Corgan was too happy when he heard this though.

July 31, 2010 03:00 AM

(The leopards attempt at changing spots) DOWNLOADS: 284 PLAYS: 284 When Iran, under Mohammed Mossadegh nationalized Iran's oil production in March of 1951, it put a crimp in the relations between Iran and Britain, who had enjoyed massive profits from drilling operations going back to 1909 and who, by 1950 had come to rely (as did the U.S.) on Middle East oil for 70% of its consumption (even back then). After a hotly contested dispute, which brought in the League of Nations to re-negotiate in 1933, Iran got slightly more of a percentage and by 1946 had negotiated to get 30% profits to Britain's 70%. After Mossadegh took over and nationalized Iran's oil production, Britain quickly attempted to negotiate a 50/50 split, but Mossadegh would have none of it. The dispute between Britain and Iran went on for two years. So on August 22, 1953, with the help of our very own CIA the Mossadegh government was overthrown and The Shah was reinstated. Shortly after, Britain and Iran were negotiating oil. And shortly after, The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company became British Petroleum. And the rest, as they say, is history. This clip comes from a CBS newscast of August 21, 1951 when the negotiations had broken down.

July 31, 2010 02:00 AM

DOWNLOADS: (320) PLAYS: (614) Looks like Lindsey Graham is worried about appeasing the nativists in his wingnut base. On Greta Van Susteren's show the other night he announced he might introduce a bill that would change the law granting citizenship to children of immigrants born in the United States. As Steve Benen noted: ...as far as much of the media is concerned, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is a reasonable, pragmatic Republican, with whom Democrats should have no trouble finding common ground. He's proving once again here he doesn't deserve that label. Lawmakers Consider Ending Citizenship for Children of Illegal Immigrants: Lawmakers since last year have been kicking around a proposal to bar U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants from becoming U.S. citizens. Such a move, which has been ridiculed by legal scholars, would be a drastic reinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. But those supporting the move say it removes a key incentive luring illegal immigrants over the border. And with Arizona lawmakers now prohibited from requiring police to check immigration status, the option might be back on the table. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Fox News after the Arizona ruling came down that "birthright citizenship" needs to be changed. "I'm a practical guy, but when you go forward I don't want 20 million more (illegal immigrants) 20 years from now," he said. "Let's have a system that doesn't reward people for cheating." Though other lawmakers have called for a change in U.S. or state law, Graham said he might introduce a constitutional amendment. "We should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child's automatically not a citizen," he said Wednesday. "They come here to drop a child -- it's called 'drop and leave.' ... That attracts people here for all the wrong reasons." As Steve also noted, Jamelle Bouie at the American Prospect did a very good job of pointing out just how extreme Graham's position is -- What Ever Happened to the Maverick of South Carolina?: Of course, we should be careful not to confuse independence with moderation. Yes, Graham has been willing to work with Democrats, but he's consistently brought a conservative approach to the issues. And when working on his own, he doesn't hesitate to champion conservative causes. For instance, Graham isn't too fond of children born to illegal immigrants in the United States -- "anchor babies," as the right-wing describes them. Indeed, Graham is so incensed by this that he wants to amend the Constitution to end it. [...] It's genuinely difficult to overstate the radicalism necessary to seek a transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed to ensure that slavery could never again happen in the United States and is now integral to keeping the United States free of a permanent underclass of immigrant workers. At its core, birthright citizenship gives immigrants a reason to stay and provide lasting contributions to the United States. In assaulting birthright citizenship, Graham is attacking an incredibly important part of the American social contract. If the media has any sense, this should kill the narrative that Lindsey Graham is a maverick or a reasonable Republican. Even the Fox article pointed out that this is not likely to happen and how crass this political game being played by the right wing is. The amendment process is drawn out, and success is almost always unlikely -- it would take a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress as well as ratification by three-fourths of the states. That's 38 states. Michael Wildes, an immigration lawyer and former federal prosecutor, called the push "pie in the sky" no matter how lawmakers go about it. He said any law altering the 14th amendment would never survive a court challenge and questioned the intent. "It's spiteful," he said. "These are U.S. citizens. ... They're babies that by the grace of God were born in one country instead of another.

July 31, 2010 01:00 AM