Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer announces plan to filibuster Trump's Supreme Court nominee.

Courtesy of Washington Post: 

Thursday as Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he would join with other Democrats in attempting to filibuster the nomination — a move that could complicate his confirmation and lead to a total revamp of how the U.S. Senate conducts its business. 

Since last year’s elections, Democrats have threatened to force Trump’s Supreme Court nominees to clear procedural hurdles requiring at least 60 senators to vote to end debate and proceed to a confirmation vote. Republicans are eager to confirm Gorsuch before an Easter recess next month, but with no Democrat expressing support for Gorsuch, they are threatening to change Senate rules to ensure the judge’s swift confirmation by allowing Supreme Court picks to be confirmed with a simple majority vote. 

On Thursday, Schumer warned that they should focus instead on changing Trump’s nominee. 

“If this nominee cannot earn 60 votes — a bar met by each of President Obama’s nominees, and George Bush’s last two nominees — the answer isn’t to change the rules. It’s to change the nominee,” he said.

It is not clear that Democrats have the votes to block Gorsuch and to keep Republicans from changing the chamber’s way of doing business. But Schumer’s announcement is likely to further politicize an already divided Congress.

Considering what is going on right now with all of these investigations into Trump's ties with Russia I am of the opinion that EVERY nominee that Trump puts forward should be blocked until the investigations are over.

Let's face it every single day we learn of more evidence that this president is compromised by Vladimir Putin and making decisions, including cabinet appointees, that benefit Russia far more than they do America.

I am simply not comfortable with this man putting ANYBODY on the Supreme Court, nor putting his surrogates in positions of power, so long as there is mounting evidence that he is working for the Kremlin.

Essentially I agree with Rep. Ted Lieu of California: 

“Other than allowing routine governmental functions, there must be a total and complete shutdown of any agenda item being pushed by the Trump Administration. Congress cannot continue regular order and must stop voting on any Trump-backed agenda item until the FBI completes its Trump-Russia collusion investigation.” 

Exactly!

It is time to start our own chant of "Lock him up!"

Democrats hold filibuster in the Senate over gun control.

Courtesy of HuffPo:  

Led by the senators who represent Newtown, Connecticut — where a gunman fatally shot 26 people, including 20 children, in 2012 — Democrats took control of the Senate floor Wednesday and vowed to keep talking until lawmakers start doing something about gun violence. 

“Newtown is still putting itself back together, probably will be for a long time,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who launched the filibuster-style takeover, declaring it was time for the Senate to do something about gun violence beyond the usual ineffective debates. 

He said lawmakers could not go about business as usual after a mass killing at a gay club in Orlando, Florida, on Sunday claimed 49 victims. 

“This is a different moment today than it was at the end of last week,” Murphy said. “There is a newfound imperative for this body to find a way to come together and take action, to try to do our part to stem this epidemic of gun violence and in particular this epidemic of mass shootings.”

I have spent much of my morning watching this filibuster and it actually great.

I saw Chris Murphy, Elizabeth Warren, Bob Menendez, Jeanne Shaheen and many others talking with real passion about the desperate need for stronger gun laws and it was inspiring.

I made the comment this morning that America is near the breaking point over gun violence, and I would suggest that the breaking point is what we are now witnessing.

And one way to recognize that is to check Donald Trump's Twitter feed:

I will be meeting with the NRA, who has endorsed me, about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 15, 2016

I doubt the conversation will make much of an impact, but at least the conversation is happening.

And there is someone who seems quite please to see that it is.

Courtesy of HuffPo:

In a Wednesday interview with The Huffington Post, Clinton argued that she and others had essentially forced Donald Trump to consider legislation that would prevent those on the terrorist watch list from being able to buy firearms. Trump said earlier in the day that he planned to meet with the National Rifle Association to discuss its opposition to the proposal. 

“Welcome to the cause,” said Clinton. “This is something I’ve been talking about for a long time. Look, the NRA and the other gun lobby members should be moving rapidly to work with Congress on this legislation. I know members of Congress, hopefully on both sides of the aisle, are beginning to look to see if they can pass this. And I fully support it.” 

Nicely done!

I imagine right now Trump is torn between being seen jumping through Hillary's hoop, or going back on the claim he made in that tweet.

Gee, what a conundrum. 

Sarah Palin has her very own nuclear meltdown over the Democrat's decision to return to simple majority votes to confirm judges and approve executive office appointments.

Courtesy of Facebook.

From the poisoned pen of Palin's personal ghostwrtiter:

May this day honor the late President John F. Kennedy. In his honor, and to protect our republic, Americans implore today's elected leaders to exercise virtuous truth and integrity in office. (Not to put too find of a point on it, but does ANYBODY really believe that Sarah Palin has ANY respect for John F. Kennedy? No, her hero is Ronald Reagan was the very antithesis to JFK.)

Shockingly to some, the White House and Senate Democrats, desperate for a winning political talking point before Congress’s Thanksgiving vacation, just did the opposite. 

Liberals just changed 230 years of enduring Senate rules by enacting the “Nuclear Option” that will now let just 51 votes approve the President’s nominees, and thus prevent dissenting Senators from filibustering controversial appointees who’ll be charged with decision making that affects our lives. (And they were forced to do so by who exactly?)

This is significant as further proof that our government is so broken. (And the Teabaggers you supported broke it.) When politicians can’t get anything to work, they change rules and hope we’ll just get distracted. The hugely divisive, dysfunctional “Nuclear Option” sets a terrible precedent. (It might make Palin feel better if she realizes that many refer to his rule change as the "constitutional option." After all she so LOVES the Constitution. But then again probably not.) Mark Levin appropriately calls it “the latest act of leftist tyranny.” It’s also leftist hypocrisy. Back under Republican control of the Senate, Democrats blocked President Bush’s judicial appointees. You should have heard Harry Reid and then-Senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden freak out in railing against the “danger... arrogance... poison” of the Republican majority even considering enacting such a rule change. To ensure cooperation and unity in balancing power for We the People, Republicans wisely did not change the rules. (Yes but that was before this happened.)

But that was then. Now this makes for a nice Thanksgiving distraction for the left, but Americans are awake today – we’re not easily distracted with turkeys like this. (Turkeys, oh that reminds me, I have a video to put up next Thursday morning.)

Do these far leftists realize Americans will not be chatting cheerfully around our Thanksgiving tables about how Obama and Reid nuked Senate rules? No, if political speak befalls dinner, we’ll no doubt vent about losing health insurance, seeing premiums skyrocket, not being able to afford unworkable Obamacare plans, and still wanting socialized healthcare scrapped altogether. We'll discuss disappointment in the President and his Party for lying to us. (Don't worry we liberals are ready for that.)

But don’t let this distraction ruin your Thanksgiving, America! Be thankful for at least one thing revealed in this latest radical act of the far left: more Americans are now stirred from slumber! (Yes we are, and the majority of us are liberals.) Only a Butterball’s serotonin-induced sleepiness after dinner will lull us back in; Senate power grabbing distractions won’t do it. (Update: I think she meant Tryptophan-induced sleepiness, NOT serotonin.)

- Sarah Palin

This was not a power grab, this was simply a repair of a broken system that the Republicans had taken advantage of in order to nullify the election of Barack Obama.  They do not consider him a legitimate President so they have refused to treat him like a legitimate President.

Harry Reid is on record for not wanting to change this rule, and in fact has resisted incredible pressure from the liberals to do something to fix this broken system for quite a long time. He did not change his mind, the Republicans changed it for him.

Sarah Palin and her conservative buddies were counting on the Democrats to continue playing by the rules forever even as the Republicans tied their shoelaces together, peed in their Gatorade, and hid home plate repeatedly in order to win by any means possible, what they could not win fairly.

Well, if I may be so blunt, fuck them!

They have NOBODY to blame except themselves. And as Rachel Maddow pointed out last night, all the Republicans had to do to avoid this outcome, was to simply allow the President to appoint three more judges to the federal court. The Republicans refused to let that happen, and the Democrats had had enough.

And as for this biting the Democrats in the butt the next time there is a Republican President and Republican majority in the Senate, not really. Number one, considering how the GOP is viewed these days, we may all be dead before that happens. And number two as a rule the Democrats don't pull this filibuster crap nearly as often as the Republicans, and not having the option will have very little effect on how we govern.

After all Democrats are actually interested in governing, NOT breaking the government so that it no longer functions.

Democratic darling Wendy Davis takes on Tea Party terrorist Ted Cruz.

Courtesy of Keye TV:  

State Sen. Wendy Davis, the Democratic candidate for Texas governor, criticized Republican U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz on Monday for his role in the recent federal government shutdown, saying he harmed average citizens just to score political points. 

"I think he demonstrated that being the loudest person in the room isn’t necessarily equivalent to being a leader,” Davis said. "I was disappointed to see that he was willing to put so many thousands of Texas families in harm’s way for purposes of making a political statement.” 

Davis’ remarks, made outside an early voting location for the constitutional amendment election, amounted to her harshest assessment yet of the Tea Party-backed Republican. During her appearance at the Texas Tribune Festival last month, before the shutdown and debt ceiling brinkmanship roiled Washington, Davis noted that she and Cruz "agree on some things” and said politicians shouldn’t be afraid to say that. 

Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier fired back, saying the senator's efforts to stop the Affordable Care Act were justified. She also favorably compared what Cruz did with Davis' summer filibuster of a restrictive abortion bill. The legislation, which eventually passed, includes a ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. 

"I think most Texans would agree that fighting to give them relief from a law that’s killing their health plans and hiking their insurance rates is a statement worth fighting for, as opposed to platforms centered on killing unborn babies after 20 weeks,” Frazier said. 

Davis rejected comparisons between her actions and those of Cruz and other Republicans who tried to gain concessions on Obamacare by withholding funding for the government and opposing an extension of the nation’s debt limit. 

"I was attempting to block a bill that would have harmed thousands of women across the state of Texas,” she said. "Never once, of course, did I threaten to literally shut down the state government for that purpose, and I certainly would never use the budget in the state of Texas for purposes of making a political statement.” 

In the shutdown fight, Davis said thousands of Texans were harmed, and she called for a more bipartisan approach in budgetary negotiations. 

"The concern is that we literally got to the brink of financial disaster. Political gamemanship overtook common sense,” she said. 

You know my all time favorite fantasy for a debate between to individuals would be Rachel Maddow VS Sarah Palin, which would be akin to a bug hitting a car windshield at 60 mph, however I have to admit that the idea of a Wendy Davis using her pink sneakers to kick the crap out of Ted Cruz is also pretty tantalizing.

I don't think that Cruz would stand much of a chance, and I also think that every time Davis takes him on she demonstrates her integrity and will attract more support from those infamous hard to motivate liberal voters in Texas.

My hope is that she will continue to goad him into these little back and forths, and use them to get national media attention, while also showing the people of Texas that they don't have to keep electing under-evolved Neanderthals, like Rick Perry, to lead their state.

By the way Harry Reid actually, kind of, endorsed the idea of Ted Cruz as the GOP nominee in 2016:

“If I didn’t care so much about our country, I would hope he would get the Republican nomination for president, because that would mean the end of the Republican Party.”

Maybe if we keep our fingers crossed, this will be the reality. 

Chris Matthews discusses Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, and the future of the Republican party.

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

This conversation gets very contentious and there is a lot of people talking over each other, but I thought it was a very good indication of the problems that Republicans, in this case represented by GOP strategist John Brabender, are having reconciling the numerous moving parts within their party.

It is becoming clearer then ever that the Republican party is under a very aggressive attack by political insurgents and there may be NO WAY for them to survive intact.

I don't know how anybody is not watching politics these days! I swear there is nothing on television to rival the drama, plot twists, and villainous characters that are contained within this struggle for political dominance.  

The Daily Show mocks perhaps the most mock-able thing in the news, Ted Cruz's non-filibuster filibuster.

Click image for video.

Part two: The Bore-ax

There were a plethora of choices to post today of pundits taking shots at Cruz's ridiculous ineffective grandstanding yesterday, but it was not until I watched the Daily Show last night that I knew what I HAD to post.

Not only is it spot on, it is truly hilarious. 

Sarah Palin laments fact that media responded more positively to the Wendy Davis filibuster than to Rafael Cruz's phony one. Go figure!

"Not fair, not fair, not fair!"

Yesterday Palin had her ghostwriter link to a Heritage Foundation attack on President Obama's UN speech, which most people seemed to think was quite good.

However this was the portion that caught my eye:  

Instead of calling out the President's deceptive comments, his reliable lapdogs in the media turn their attention and ire on Ted Cruz for daring to stand up for the American people. Maybe if Ted had worn pretty pink running shoes he'd have gotten more respect from the same leftwing media that gushed over the Texan state senator who filibustered in the Texas legislature for the right to late term abortions of babies (a position at odds with the sentiment of the majority of Texans and Americans).

The next Governor of Texas.

Okay first off the Wendy Davis filibuster was NOT just about maintaining the right to an abortion for a woman who finds that her pregnancy is putting her life at risk or that her baby has a serious and possibly fatal birth defect. It was also about keeping family planning centers open, since the proposed bill would, and did, cause many of them to close their doors.

However the reason that the media is treating the Davis filibuster differently than the Cruz fake filibuster, is that she was actually filibustering a bill. Not only that she won! (Well temporarily at least.)

Here is what Think Progress said about the comparison:

Davis successfully delayed an anti-abortion bill that didn’t come up for a vote during Texas’ regular session, but that was brought up for consideration during a special legislation session that was specifically convened to give lawmakers more time to enact abortion restrictions. Davis’ 11-hour filibuster — during which she wasn’t allowed to sit down, take a sip of water, cede the floor, or stray off topic — ran out the clock on that special session. The Senate was not able to vote on the abortion bill in time. Davis’ efforts were backed by hundreds of grassroots protesters who rallied against the abortion restrictions for weeks. 

Cruz, on the other hand, decided to launch a “speaking filibuster” against a continuing resolution that must be passed in order to keep the federal government operating. He’s standing in opposition to the funding bill because, after House Republicans added a provision to defund Obamacare, the Democratic-controlled Senate will surely strip that out of the final legislation. Cruz wants to stall the bill — and ultimately force the government to shut down next week — unless Democrats agree to defund Obamacare. But it’s not actually a real filibuster. The Senate will vote on the legislation on Wednesday afternoon regardless of how long Cruz speaks. And the effort doesn’t actually have that much support. Republican leadership has split with Cruz over this strategy, and recent polling has found that just seven percent of GOP voters actually favor defunding Obamacare in this way. 

And ultimately, Cruz’s filibuster doesn’t have the same policy implications as Davis’ did. Davis was attempting to block a piece of legislation from imposing new restrictions on Texas’ abortion clinics and enacting a new ban on abortion procedures after 20 weeks. 

Comparing the heroic actions of Wendy Davis to the Ted Cruz sham is insulting, and actually helps illustrate the fact that the Republicans don't have anybody on their side of the aisle that is her equal.

And it is also important to remember that Wendy Davis was chosen by her fellow Texas Democrats to represent them, and had the support of hundreds of grassroots supporters.

The next paid Fox News contributor

On the other hand Ted Cruz was representing Ted Cruz, and the ONLY people supporting him were those unaware of how the Senate works, and how bills become laws.

You know, like Sarah Palin.

Senator Ted Cruz votes to open debate on the House budget after spending 21 hours filibustering against it.

Courtesy of The New York Times: 

Republican Senator Ted Cruz’s 21-hour, 19-minute verbal assault on President Obama’s signature health care law ended Wednesday when the Senate voted 100-to-0 to break off debate and move to consider House legislation that Democrats plan to use to keep the government open next week. 

Mr. Cruz’s marathon session — which began Tuesday afternoon, went straight through the night and ended at a predetermined noon deadline — did not win over senators from either party, and in fact Mr. Cruz even voted to open debate. After the vote, Senate Mike Lee, Republican of Utah and a Cruz ally, said Mr. Cruz never intended to oppose the motion to take up the bill, a position contradicted by his words and procedural motions for days before the tally. 

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, greeted the conclusion of Mr. Cruz’s performance by declaring it “a big waste of time.”

Okay so to be clear, this is the  legislation that Cruz clamored for, then wasted valuable Senate time filibustering against, and now has voted for.

Damn are there some Teabagger heads exploding today!

Quick somebody interview Sarah Palin. Her response to this will be priceless.

Especially after she posted this picture to her Facebook account of her holding a clearly groggy, and just pulled from his warm bed, Trig over at Bristol's house while watching "Uncle Teddy" make a fool of himself.

Over the top of it was this caption:

Ted & Mike are going strong for over 10hrs now. We can hear you all the way in Wasilla. DC better be listening! #MakeDC

Yep and at the end of it he cast his vote right along with everybody else. Now don't you feel like an idiot?

Hey, I have a question. Why is Trig sleeping over at Bristol's?

Sarah Palin shows up on Hannity to shake her pom poms for Raphael Cruz and his non-filibuster filibuster. Update!

To play video click sourpuss

Palin, with her beastly wig shellacked into place, starts off by comparing the Affordable Care Act to a Bible she waves in her hand for effect, saying the law is bigger at 20,000 pages of "boot on your neck" bureaucracy. (I might add that it is not only longer, it is also full of things that will actually help people instead of iron age myths that won't.)

Hannity than rattles off the names of the handful of Senators supporting Cruz, which were Mike Lee, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, David Vitter, Pat Roberts, and Senator Inhofe. And then asks where are the other 39? (Could it be that they recognized this is a exercise in futility, that Cruz is ONLY engaging in simply to attract media attention and garner support for a 2016 presidential run? Could that be why?)

Her reply: "And the Democrats, remember many Democrats had recently come out against Obamacare saying specifically they understood now about the death panels and other things that Obamacare, as the court said, was actually a tax that..uh...they had not been aware of previously, And the Democrats even who had opposed it, where the heck are they? Sean what you are suggesting is this is something much greater than just this boot on the neck, jammed down your throat America, socialized, healthcare coverage program of Obama's, that's going to be run by the IRS. It's greater than that,"

She goes on: "Ted Cruz loves his countrymen ans he does not want to see us destroyed by bad selfish policies so he fights for what is right and yet the naysayers, Sean, are telling us that this is a lost cause? Fighting for what's right. Fighting against a program that's so bad that Congress itself exempted itself out of."

Hannity then claims that Cruz is not advocating shutting down the government, but that he is trying to filibuster a vote for cloture which would allow Harry Reid to put back the Obamacare funding with 60 votes and move the bill forward.  He then asks why the other Republicans do not support him in that? (I must point out that the vote for cloture has not even been scheduled yet, and is not expected until next week. So unless Cruz can stand on the floor for another week he is really just making an ass out of himself.)

However of course Palin does not really understand all that legislative change-y stuff: "Well they're expecting that the American people will not be keeping up with the political-ese that is a part of these kind of arcane Senatorial rules that are kin of tough to follow, you get kind of glassy eyed in trying to follow what exactly is going on, but Cruz is right when he explains that a vote for cloture, to cut off debate and just take a vote on the CR, and allow Senator Reid to defun..or to take out the defunding mechanism that is part of the CR now. A vote for that WILL be a vote for Obamacare. Let me go back to those though who are causing...calling this a lost cause. I don't know if you saw 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,' in that movie when Jimmy Stewart's character said 'a lost cause' during his own filibuster, his character, he said 'a lost cause is the only one it's actually worth fighting for' because a lost cause, the only reason you would be fighting for such a thing was for one reason, one plain and simple reason, and that is love thy neighbor. And in a world today that is full of hatred that one politician who understands that virtue, love they neighbor, is going to fight tooth and nell (sic) until his political death if you will in order to do the right thing and in that he has a great trust. So are people going to trust that virtue, love thy neighbor, and in this case loving of the country so that we won't be insolvent under Obamacare? Or are you going to love this deceptive program called Obamacare, that they passed not know even what it was really entailing?"

Hannity then invokes Reagan's challenging of Gerald Ford in 1776, and wonders why all of the Republicans do not stand with Cruz to stop the ACA.

Palin: "Well you're right and these statesmen can do what happened back then during our bicentennial year in '76, I remember I was going into junior high and the world's eyes and ears were on the debates at that time and what was going to happen. (I will bet my house that Palin had no idea whatsoever who Ronald Reagan even was back in 1776.) What Reagan allowed then by standing tall and strong on what was right was opening the door for success of a real conservative agenda that the nation needed at the time fours years later. (Did Palin just admit that Cruz is simply positioning himself for a run at the White House? So much for all of that "love they neighbor" stuff!) That is exactly what we are going to need in a few years here, Once President Obama is gone, our country will be so close to having been fundamentally transformed as he had promised that we're going to have a heck of a lot of work to do get us back on solid footing, back to that exceptional, growing, producing nation that we once were. We're going to have a heck of a lot of work to do so yes if the statesmen would stand up today and actually do their job which is fulfilling their campaign promises and implementing the will of the people. (You mean "the people" who elected President Obama by a huge margin in both 2008 and 2012?) We'll see another Reagan uprising, if you will, in a couple of years and that is exactly what we need."

Hannity then suggests that, like Reagan, the establishment Republicans (John McCain included.) are jealous of Ted Cruz.

She of course rushes to throw roses pedals at his feet: "He's is a tough Texan he can handle this. Remember that people throw rocks at things that shine, and Ted Cruz is shining and it's not just him personally, individually, what it is that he, as a person, is represent..represents it's his belief, his idills (sic) his love of country and of, again, not wanting to see us destroyed under something like Obamacare that the IRS is going to continue to cram down our throats."

So if I may sum up. Ted Cruz is either the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan, or Jesus Christ, John McCain and the establishment Republicans want to destroy America, and Obamacare is most likely something we were warned about in the Book of Revelations.

Well I will say that Palin looked much more presentable for this interview, but you know new wigs and more makeup just can't hide the crazy.

Hopefully the lunatic stays off of the television for awhile as I cannot wade through another one of these until I have fully decompressed from this one.

Update: By the way just in care there is any question as to just how full of shit Ted Cruz is, it should be noted that he negotiated the terms for this fake filibuster with Harry Reid ahead of time.

Oh yeah, Palin's backing yet ANOTHER winner.

The Taiwanese animators take on the Wendy Davis filibuster. This is SO great!

I love the Supergirl costume and the ghost of Ann Richards.

So much awesome!

S.E. Cupp outraged that Texas State Senator Wendy Davis is getting so much positive attention. Yeah, what's THAT about?

It never closes.

Courtesy of Raw Story: 

S.E. Cupp is outraged that a Texas state senator who blocked an extreme anti-abortion bill with a more than 10-hour filibuster has received national attention. 

During an appearance on CNN’s Piers Morgan, the conservative commentator lashed out at those who had “lionized” state Sen. Wendy Davis (D-Fort Worth) for her opposition to a bill that would close all but five abortion clinics in the state. Though Republicans in the Texas Senate cut her filibuster short, Democrats were still able to block the bill with some help from the gallery. 

“This lionizing of Wendy Davis, who is a politician and did what politicians are supposed to do I think would make Susan B. Anthony and Fredrick Douglass and Rosa Parks roll over in their graves,” Cupp said. “Our standards for what counts as a hero today have become so shockingly, patheticly low.” 

She claimed the bill was merely intended to make abortions safer, though Texas Republicans have publicly stated they want to completely abolish abortion in the state. 

“Democrats have lost their rational common sense on the issue of abortion,” Cupp proclaimed. “The pendulum is going to swing back in the other direction.”

Yeah, it's the DEMOCRATS that have lost their rational common sense. Oh huh.

Interestingly enough Cupp, like most Republicans, was VERY impressed by Rand Paul's filibuster back in March and even retweeted this in support:

Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden Joins Rand Paul For Historic Bipartisan Filibuster Over Drone Strikes http://t.co/W05PeI8qn3 (VIDEO)
— Mediaite (@Mediaite) March 6, 2013

But hey it could have been worse, at least Cupp did not call Wendy Davis a terrorist:

We had terrorist in the Texas State Senate opposing SB 5
— Bill Zedler (@Bill_Zedler) June 26, 2013

As was expected the Republicans are still so focused on controlling women's bodies that Rick Perry has called for yet another special session and then mocked Davis for not having "learned her lesson:"

"Even the woman who filibustered the Senate the other day was born into difficult circumstances. She was the daughter of a single woman, she was a teenage mother herself. She managed to eventually graduate from Harvard Law School and serve in the Texas senate," Perry said Thursday in a speech to the National Right to Life Convention. "It is just unfortunate that she hasn’t learned from her own example that every life must be given a chance to realize its full potential and that every life matters."

Yes because having been a teenage mom automatically makes you want to tell other women what to do with their bodies. Seriously?

Well you know perhaps the Republicans, and their mouthpieces, are not impressed with Davis and her filibuster, but the American people sure were.

And they also learned a simple truth.

And I hope she runs for Governor and kicks Rick Perry's ass all the way back to his old N*****head campground where he belongs.

P.S. By the way, didn't Jon Stewart drive a fucking stake through the heart of Crossfire seven years ago?

A star is born. Texas Democrat single-handedly stops draconian anti-abortion bill.

Courtesy of the New York Times: 

Hours after claiming that they successfully passed some of the toughest abortion restrictions in the country, Republican lawmakers reversed course on Wednesday and said a disputed late-night vote on the bill did not follow legislative procedures, rendering the vote moot and giving Democrats a bitterly fought if short-lived victory. 

The reversal capped a remarkable day in the Texas Legislature here. A petite Fort Worth Democrat in pink sneakers staged a 10-hour-plus filibuster marathon in which she never sat down. Abortion rights activists succeeded in disrupting Republican senators, and the fate of a bill that Gov. Rick Perry had made a priority devolved into a legislative mess so thick that even senators who had voted on the bill could not say for certain whether they had indeed voted on the bill. 

The state Senate’s vote came right at a midnight Tuesday deadline, amid widespread confusion the noise of a chanting crowd of the bill’s opponents in an upstairs gallery. Senate Democrats said the vote took place past the deadline at 12:02 a.m. or 12:03 a.m., while Republicans disputed those claims, saying the vote was legitimate. 

But at 3 a.m., Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, the presiding officer of the Senate and a Republican supporter of the bill, told lawmakers and reporters that although the bill passed on a 19-to-10 vote, the bill could not be signed in the presence of the Senate and was therefore dead, blaming “an unruly mob using Occupy Wall Street tactics” as the primary cause. 

The reversal served as an embarassing episode for Mr. Dewhurst and Republican senators on a divisive bill that was closely watched around the nation, both by anti-abortion activists and supporters of abortion rights. 

“The G.O.P. Senate leadership comes out of this whole process looking somewhat disingenuous, deceptive and disorganized,” said Mark Jones, a political science professor at Rice University in Houston. 

In the final minutes before the midnight deadline, Republican senators had interrupted a filibuster that began at 11 a.m. But their attempts to push forward with a vote on the bill caused the bill’s opponents in the gallery to erupt into screams and cheers. Attempts to bring about order failed.

Beating an anti-abortion bill in Texas is no mean feat, and Senator Davis is a hero to both men and women in that state.

Chalk one up for the good guys! Especially since by doing this Davis also clearly exposed the underhanded methods that Texas Republicans are willing to use in order to take women's rights over their own bodies away from them.

I am going to keep a close eye on Senator Davis I see very big things for her future.

Rand Paul pulls a 180 on drone strikes directed at American citizens: "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him." Wait, what?

"Shh, don't wake it, it's sleeping."

Courtesy of The Hill:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Tuesday that he would have supported police using drones in last week's hunt for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, one of the brothers suspected in the Boston Marathon bombing. 

"If there is a killer on the loose in a neighborhood, I’m not against drones being used to search them," Paul told Fox Business Network. 

Last month, Paul conducted a nearly 13-hour filibuster on the Senate floor after the Obama Administration said in a letter that it was theoretically possible for President Obama to authorize a lethal drone strike on an American citizen under "extraordinary circumstances." The administration subsequently clarified that they did not believe the president had the authority to "use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat." 

Paul said that the question of an "imminent threat" was the pivotal one when considering drone policy. 

“Here’s the distinction — I have never argued against any technology being used against having an imminent threat an act of crime going on," Paul said. "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him, but it’s different if they want to come fly over your hot tub, or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities." 

Okay that "imminent threat" excuse does not hold any water in my opinion. What really seems to be the case is that Paul is perfectly fine with killing people, he just doesn't want anybody to spy on him while he is soaking his tiny Libertarian member in the hot tub.

Paul got ALL kinds of positive praise for holding in his urine for 13 hours to complain about the use of drone strikes,  which culminated with libertarians, college kids, and desperate pro-war Republicans throwing confetti all over his hairpiece.

But as far as I am concerned this statement the other day COMPLETELY undermines his argument, and provides ready made political advertisements for his future opponents.

And Paul, seeming to realize this, attempted to walk back his comments:

“My comments last night left the mistaken impression that my position on drones had changed. 

“Let me be clear: it has not. Armed drones should not be used in normal crime situations. They only may only be considered in extraordinary, lethal situations where there is an ongoing, imminent threat. I described that scenario previously during my Senate filibuster. 

“Additionally, surveillance drones should only be used with warrants and specific targets. 

“Fighting terrorism and capturing terrorists must be done while preserving our constitutional protections. This was demonstrated last week in Boston. As we all seek to prevent future tragedies, we must continue to bear this in mind.”

 No his comments did not "leave the impression" that his "opinions had changed." They stated it outright!  Or, to play devil's advocate, they demonstrated an example of blatant hypocrisy.

In other words it is NOT okay for the President to use drones, but totally cool for local law enforcement to use them to gun down a guy with a bottle of stolen Jack Daniels in one hand and a fifty dollar bill in the other. How's THAT work?

Look I am not a fan of the use of drones either, though to be fair I much prefer them over having our soldiers coming home in body bags. And I appreciate the fact that this conversation about the appropriate use of drones has started. (You can see Alex Wagner's report on yesterday's Senate hearings on drone strikes here.)

However if Rand Paul thinks that he is still the "go to guy" on the appropriate use of this new technology he is fooling himself

As for the drones being used on American soil, unlike Rand Paul I am MUCH more at ease with the idea of them flying over my hot tub than having them open fire on American citizens. Somehow the idea of the government sneaking a peek at my trouser snake is much preferable to the idea that they might instead shoot it off.

But hey, that's just me.

Arizona Republican lawmakers don't like the idea of restricting access to guns, decide to put bulletproof vest on everybody instead. Oh yeah, MUCH better.

Courtesy of TPM:  

An Arizona state representative has a novel idea to increase safety among state lawmakers: start wearing bullet-proof vests. 

State Rep. Bob Thorpe (R) sent an email on Thursday to all Arizona House and Senate members, inviting them to attend an event this coming Wednesday at the capitol, where someone from a company called Arizona Tactical is scheduled to educate lawmakers about the protective vests it sells. 

In his email, Thorpe said he has been researching body armor in the wake of the Tucson, Ariz. shooting that injured Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) and led her to step down from Congress. He suggested the vests could be worn at public events like town halls and parades. “Just like our police and DPS (Department of Public Safety) officers, you typically wear the vest under a shirt or top, which conceals their use,” Thorpe wrote, adding that the company would cut the lawmakers a deal and offer the vests at the same price law enforcement officials pay. 

So this Republican feels that the best way to avoid ending up like Gabby Giffords, is NOT to demand background checks or out law extended magazines, but instead to wear body armor?

Who wants to volunteer to remind him that Gabby Giffords was shot in the FACE?

Some how I don't think covering her in Kevlar would have done her one tiny bit of good.

While we are on the subject of not doing a tiny bit of good, it looks like getting any gun legislation past the Senate is going to present quite the challenge as there are now 13 GOP Senators threatening to filibuster ANY attempt by Harry Reid to bring it to a vote.

This courtesy of Politico:

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s threat to filibuster any new gun restrictions is gathering steam, as a dozen of his Republican colleagues have now signed onto his plan. 

The Kentucky Republican and Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) first wrote to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid late last month to warn him of their intention to try to tie up the Senate if, as planned, Reid moved forward with legislation that would expand background checks and attempt to crack down on interstate gun trafficking.

Reid is expected to bring a gun-control bill to the floor as early as next week, or perhaps the following week, and Paul is renewing his vow to try to block the measure. Paul’s follow-up letter, obtained by POLITICO, bears Monday’s date and is signed by 13 Republicans, including fellow potential 2016 presidential aspirant Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) — who signed on shortly after Paul’s first threat was issued — and National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman Jerry Moran of Kansas.

Can somebody explain to me again WHY Harry Reid backed away from his promise to end the filibuster?

Because I for one am sick and tired of this shit!

Lawrence O'Donnell obliterates Rand Paul's conspiratorial filibuster.

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

Excellent job on Lawrence's part. I don't know which filibuster Dionne and Grim saw but the one I saw closely matched the one that O'Donnell is describing.

It was crazy, it was conspiratorial, and it was aimed right at the most deeply held fears of the Tea Party movement, That this president will soon target them with drones for daring to speak out against him.

For those who keep asking what the purpose of Paul's filibuster was, first off I can't believe how slow you are on the uptake, and secondly this:

Paul himself seemed to appreciate that this was an important moment for himself, confidently acknowledging to POLITICO in an interview that he was “seriously” considering running for president in 2016. 

“I think our party needs something new, fresh and different,” he said. “What we’ve been running — nothing against the candidates necessarily — but we have a good, solid niche in all the solidly red states throughout the middle of the country.” 

But he suggested previous Republican candidates have had limited appeal to voters beyond the Republican base. 

“We have to figure out how to appeal to the West Coast, New England [and] around the Great Lakes area. We need to figure out how to appeal to the blue-collar voters that voted — that were Democrats that voted for Reagan and I think are drifting back because they see us as the party of the wealthy. … I do want to be part of making the Republican Party again more of a national party, less than a regional party, which I think we’re in danger of becoming. 

Does that make it more clear?

Paul was able to grab the spotlight, use the drone strike debate to make himself seem vaguely topical, and manipulate a few people out there who don't feel very connected to any one party, into believing that he is not an absolute lunatic.

Which of course is EXACTLY what he is. But hey seeing open disagreement within the Republican party is never a bad thing in my opinion.

And if Rand Paul wants to run in 2016, let him run in 2016. Who knows, considering how discombobulated the Republican party is these days, he might just win.

The black helicopter crowd VS the Democratic party, sounds like popcorn time to me!

Right now Rand Paul is getting all kinds of support and attention for his filibuster yesterday, but I bet this is one person whose support he would like to ignore.

Proud to #standwithrand since 2009. GOP, we need more courage like this!
— Sarah Palin (@SarahPalinUSA) March 7, 2013

You know it is not at all surprising that Palin is so quick to jump on the #standwithrand bandwagon, though it puts her in direct conflict with the guy that chose her for his VP in 2008:  

“I don’t think that what happened yesterday is helpful to the American people,” McCain snarled from the floor of the Senate. 

"The country needs more senators who care about liberty, but if Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms. He needs to know what he’s talking about,” he added. 

“To allege that … our government would drop a drone hellfire missile on Jane Fonda,” he said, “that brings the conversation from a serious discussion about U.S. policy to the realm of the ridiculous.”

So much for getting invited to the McCain house for next year's Thanksgiving Day feast, huh Sarah?

Personally I am a little surprised at how many so-called progressives are willing to pat Rand on the back for his egotistical display.  I am all in favor of the idea of filibusters being conducted the old fashioned way, with the Senators having to actually be on the floor to hold the Senate hostage, but let's not forget that Rand was doing this to delay the vote to confirm the President's choice to head the CIA, John Brennan. A confirmation that has officially been finalized, now that the theatrics are over.

And I am not at all impressed that Rand Paul used his time in the filibuster to address drone strikes in America, a concept that I don't think was EVER really a concern. As evidenced by the Attorney General's response.

However I will give Rand Paul some credit for irritating Lindsey Graham so much that he responded with this:

“To my Republican colleagues, I don’t remember any of you coming down here suggesting that President Bush was going to kill anybody with a drone, do you?” Graham said. “They had a drone program back then, all of a sudden this drone program has gotten every Republican so spun up. What are we up to here?”

THAT is fucking gold, and almost makes Paul's attention seeking worth it.

Okay I didn't accidentally agree with Sarah Palin did I? Because that would suck!

Jon Stewart's take on Mitch McConnell's "self filibuster" is must see TV!

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Did you notice where Jon went to get an explanation about the debt ceiling?

That's right, the Newsroom! God I miss that show!