So long as fact checking is limited to Jon Stewart & Stephen Colbert, we all suffer.

Welcome to the Party of Faux.

Aside from the willfully ignorant Fox News crowd, who doesn't know that McConnell is lying. He has been called out repeatedly on this point. As indicated Bob Corker concedes McConnell is lying. Just who among the few who are paying any attention at all, doesn't know McConnell is a liar?

Republicans claimed that there were death panels in HCR when there weren't.

Now they claim that there are no death panels for bankrupt firms in the finance bill when there clearly are.

So they're the Party of Faux.

As John Nichols sez over at The Nation, Bernie Sanders has four amendments that nix the Repugnants' lying defense of the banksters, and the Dims tepid compromise bill...

Sanders is about the only legit senator in the whole clown car us senate -- at least on fin reform.

Props to Sen. Corker for being honest enough to publicly admit that the bill that is not a bailout bill is, in fact, not a bailout bill, but does he nevertheless plan to join with the rest of his Republican colleagues in filibustering it? If so, then WTF?

From Andrew Leonard at Salon:

"There is little question that Mitch McConnell is directly doing Wall Street's bidding by demonizing the liquidation fund. But what's surprising -- and disturbing -- is how quickly the White House made it clear that it didn't consider the fund a priority. According to the moderate Maine Republican senator Susan Collins, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told her on Monday that the fund was not an administration priority.

Geithner's promise, reports Politico, riled Senate Democrats, who are probably wondering why the White House is ready to make concessions so quickly, if it really does have the Republicans in a "head lock." Majority Leader Harry Reid is talking tough, but if the Democrats are looking to carve off a few Republican votes, avenue number one -- killing the liquidation fund -- appears wide open.

Let's recap: As the first skirmish in the battle over banking reform finally unfolds, the Republicans launch an all-out attack on an aspect of the bill that Wall Street considers especially repugnant. And the White House folds, immediately. This does not augur well for the struggle over derivatives reform, due to take center stage on Wednesday."

With a double agent like Geithner running Treasury, meaningful reform will never get passed. Obama needs to cut him and Summers loose, or he won't make it to 2012.

Republicans have PREFERRED dishonesty all along -- say one thing, do another: Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II (big time), and all their lesser known henchmen (Luntz, Ailes, et al.). Dishonesty and trickery seem to provide kicks of some sort, to people who remain stuck in the smart ass teenager intent on getting over on life stage. For years I wondered why: why cheat, why upend the laws that protect us all (including them), why be Nixon or Bush? Why collect government salaries, for example, while denouncing government as a process and entity?

There is no rational explanation. What matters is that those who are sane and sensible are beginning to see this stinky, dishonest snarkiness and madness for what it is. It won't EVER be "bipartisan" even as it says it wants that (Sen. Susan Collins, are you listening? Of course not). It's not going to earn its salary and benefits and perks with honest work: it's just going to be a noise machine.

Know the problem, and you can solve it. We need to find new strategies.

i have not seen any polling on who the public believes, but notwithstanding that no one will defend McConnell, i would not be shocked at all to see the public believes that the Dems are pushing a bailout bill.

the moronic general public has decided it wants to be petulant and angry, and trying to do anything worthwhile during this time of tantrum appears to be doomed to ingratitude at best, failure at worst. they will only believe what they want to believe, what validates the misguided anger they've already committed to; facts are lost in their free-floating distrust.

i have trouble finding much optimism about the nation's future.

May I lie to the judge when I am being interviewed to sit on a jury? Can I say I am in favor of capital punishment during voir dire, then when the deliberations come, say I lied and will not convict as long as capital punishment is on the table? Can I lie on my tax return and claim I only made $10,000 when my w-2 says I made $100,000? Can I file a false police report that says that McConnell is a pedophile and name a child who is now dead so there is no witness? The line of questioning has many creative outcomes.

Lying apparently is condoned by Congress and the POTUS and there are no consequences. Perhaps the McConnell Defense will be used in our courts of law in perjury cases. I lied but I am following precedent of the Congress of the United States.

"Now would be a terrific time for a real debate. Republicans could -- get this -- raise legitimate objections to the legislation, and raise concerns that -- believe it or not -- are entirely sensible.

But, no. We can't have real debates because we're too busy suffering through idiotic mendacity."

I don't get it Steve. It's the Dems who want to shut off debate and have a vote on a bill that you acknowledge "is not without flaw. Indeed, some of those flaws are pretty important, and deserve scrutiny before additional votes."

So why exactly are you upset with the GOP decision to force the Senate to continue debate on this bill?

Reminds me of Harry Truman on Richard Nixon:

Richard Nixon is a no good, lying bastard. He can lie out of both sides of his mouth at the same time, and if he ever caught himself telling the truth, he'd lie just to keep his hand in.

Well, all I can say is that it's wonderful we have a Rooseveltian-type no-holds-barred President strongly engaged in the issue. I think the television speech to the American public that he recently gave, wherein he called out entrenched interests for the games they are playing, has set things straight. Now he's barnstorming the country trying to get people focused on the issue, to really turn the tables and explain what is happening, so we don't experience a collapse like the one we've had again. Strong resolute leadership, making the right argument in the face of adversity--nothing makes me prouder.

Steve's getting to something that's bothered me for years, and that is there is a place for responsible conservative input in the national discourse, and in fact, it's needed. Liberals don't have a corner on the market of viable ideas.

But the key word is responsible conservative input -- input that is founded in what's best for the nation.

Instead, we have a movement that's interested only in doing what's best for the party -- which includes working against the nation's best interest if doing so discredits liberal leadership.

chicounsel, it's nice to see you don't get any smarter.

the gop unified to refuse to allow the bill to be brought to the floor for debate.

is it that hard to understand? pretending that there's principle at work here is the notion of a scoundrel (or a right-winger, but i repeat myself).

A simple mantra repeated over and over from this moment forward would have a few lasting effects one way or another - Republicans should tell the truth to the American people and stop their lies now!

Make the above part of our lexicon actively and often so those bastards begin to pay attention to our ire! -Kevo

howard be aware that when you try to engage people(and I use the term loosely) like chicounsel with the truth or facts they will predictably try to change the subject.

This part about upfront funding by the industry reminds me of the Superfund for toxic waste cleanup. Can't it be "framed" in that way?

Steve, it would be helpful to have the flaws of this bill outlined for us. Can you provide such an analysis?

Secondly, the bank fund was apparently never something the White House wanted anyway, so it's easy for them to give it up. But it certainly looks like they are simply rolling over again...and perception is obviously very important. It almost "appears" that the Republicans were "right" on their opposition in their stance of "permanent bailouts." I'd really like to know who the hell is in charge of strategy for this bill, because giving up the bank fund this early in the game is a major mistake, I think.

As for you Chicounsel, I'd suggest you bone up on the normal Senate process when a bill makes it through a closure vote. Basically, it's like 20-30 hours of debate, split evenly between the sides, until the final vote.

I don't think that was clear enough for Chicounsel.

They are filibustering the debate, not prolonging it. If teh debate fails, they will BEGIN teh discussion, not end it. At that point, teh GOP could propose an end to bailouts and if it is NOT included, they can STILL filibuster the "bailout bill."

The problem is... there IS a bailout killer in it. The Bailouts allow Wall Street to dump all the risk of their reckless schemes on the taxpayer. When they make billions they give the GOP millions. If the GOP stops bailouts, insane reckless deals won't get made and they're make mere millions which means the GOP will get paltry thousands. GOP Senators get re-elected on the capabilities of fraud artists to execute their nefarious work.

Making the GOP propose an alternative bailout fix that isn't laughable is what they're absolutely pants-wettingly scared of.

I envision a brochure with pop-up illustrations this time.

Good to see nothing has changed since I took a break. The dems are still pussies who won't even try to do something worthwhile and who cave immediately in the face of a stern frown. The GOP is still corrupt party of big business and fundamentally anti-human. And the blog is still full of idiots trying to sell snake oil and just so damn confused why the public is getting sick of it.

"the moronic general public has decided it wants to be petulant and angry, and trying to do anything worthwhile during this time of tantrum appears to be doomed to ingratitude at best, "

Case and point. Passing off what the dems have done over the last year as "worthwhile" is a flaming bag of dogshit on the stoop of the people of this country. They fucked health care. they fucked financial reform. They fucked gay rights. They fucked labor unions. They serious fucked the left. They could have put together a new new deal and really moved this country forward. We could have had major reforms and improvements to the safety nets and health infrastructure. We could have paid for it with major changes to the financial side of the economy. And we could have affirmed the importance of organized labor and the rights of gays to be, you know, human.

But campaign contributions from insurance companies and wall street companies are more important. Blaming this on the public is pure craven cowardice. This failure is on Reid and Obama.

To all those who slammed my comment, I'm well aware of Senate procedure allowing for 20 hours of floor debate after a motion for closure passes, but don't kid yourself. The purpose of the motion is to end substantive debate of the bill and allow the Senate to move on to final passage. Do you really think that the bill is going to get better in the 20 hours of debate on the floor that will follow a successful closure vote instead of being denied passage because the GOP can hold all 41 of its members to keep a final vote from being held?

Any sophisticated political observer knows that the Senate floor is the last place for making any major changes to a bill. That 20 hours will be used by Dodd and the Leadership to defeat any amendments that would make the bill "better" from either the Left's or Right's point of view.

So the real question for you unsophisticated political observers is either to support the GOP filibuster or see the Dodd bill with all its "flaws" pass the Senate. Which one do you prefer?

What matters is that those who are sane and sensible are beginning to see this stinky, dishonest snarkiness and madness for what it is.

How many of them vote I wonder? As Ronald Reagan famously said (sort of), "There they go again!" The pattern is perfectly clear - stop Obama. Period.

But why, WHY, are the Dems always on the defensive? Why is it that out shouting Republican lies is what every discussion is about? What's wrong with the Democrats that they keep getting hit by this, over and over, and seem to be unable to respond?

Unlike healthcare, it's better to kill a weak FinReg bill than to support watered down nonsense.

Unless progressives send a message that they are willing to walk away from the table unless they are listened to, watering down will be the name of the game for the next few years.

Democrats who would also love Fin industry money will pass bad bills and call it victory unless we MAKE EM go on the offensive.

It has become the George Costanza defense of "It's not a lie, if, you truly believe it".

Tlaloc sez:

They could have put together a new new deal and really moved this country forward. We could have had major reforms and improvements to the safety nets and health infrastructure. We could have paid for it with major changes to the financial side of the economy. And we could have affirmed the importance of organized labor and the rights of gays to be, you know, human.

Yeah! Right after "they" could have cloned Russ Feingold, and right after "they" secretly kidnapped Nelson (D-NE), Landreiu (D-LA), Lincoln (D-NE), Bayh (D-IN) and a few others and right after "they" ran the Feingold clones in the resulting special elections pulling off unprecedented upset wins in heretofore red or purple states like Nebraska and Arkansas!

Seriously, share some of that stuff with the rest of us. If it makes you think there were ever, no matter how much political capital Obama spent, no matter how competent we could have suddenly made Reid, 60 votes for the agenda you outline, you're on one wicked good high.

"Unless progressives send a message that they are willing to walk away from the table unless they are listened to, watering down will be the name of the game for the next few years."

Too late. A year too late. And contra your initial statement it's exactly like the healthcare bill where what we got was worse than doing nothing.

"If it makes you think there were ever, no matter how much political capital Obama spent, no matter how competent we could have suddenly made Reid, 60 votes for the agenda you outline, you're on one wicked good high. "

There were 60 votes for whatever obama pushed hard for. He came into office holding all the cards. He just chose to push hard for a douchebag agenda. His choice. And you guys cheered him on. Your choice. And hopefully come november you'll both learn the price of cozying up to the right while pissing on your base (that'd be our choice).

Seen the generic ballot polling recently? TPM calls it ugly.

Time to take a page out of Frist's playbook and go with the nuclear option - for real.

So nice to see that this blog is attracting a younger, well actually, juvenile crowd.
Tlaloc: One of these days you should actually look at how President Obama operates before shouting your platitudes. Something about "separation of powers". Look it up, it's in the Constitution.
There never were "60 votes" for whatever "obama(sic) pushed hard for". Nor did he hold all the cards. Sens. Nelson, Landrieu, Lieberman and a few others held the jokers. They had to be appeased to prevent filibusters. If you wish to take your rather childish vituperation out on someone, try those actually responsible.
As for TPM's reliability regarding polls - I have a feeling you'll be doing your part this November to ensure the outcome you so desperately long for. Shame, really, to want so much to be proven right that you'd apparently welcome a Republican victory, knowing full well what that would mean for this country. That's almost, well actually it is, Republican of you.
Oh, and by the way, "douchebag" is so '80s!

"There never were "60 votes" for whatever "obama(sic) pushed hard for"."

Revisionist history about events that just happened? Obama got 60 votes for what he really wanted in the senate, it just turns out what he really wanted was a bill that rewarded the insurance companies and screwed us.

"Nor did he hold all the cards. Sens. Nelson, Landrieu, Lieberman and a few others held the jokers."

Yes they did, and jokers are worthless cards unless your opponent decides to give them value. Obama could have metaphorically ripped off lieberman's balls and shoved them down his throat if he'd wanted to. He had the political power. All he had to do was shape the debate. He's a god damn orator who chose to be silent. And when he did finally speak we found out why- he didn't want meaningful reform.

"If you wish to take your rather childish vituperation out on someone, try those actually responsible."

I am. Obama took single payer off the table before negotiations began. Obama told congress that the public option wasn't important. Obama cut a secret deal with the insurance and pharma companies and let them write the legislation, then lied about cutting the deal. ANd you twinks cheered him on and told those of us who knew better that we should shut up because it was the best we could get. Because you;re fucking idiots. SO yeah, enjoy the vitriol.

"As for TPM's reliability regarding polls - I have a feeling you'll be doing your part this November to ensure the outcome you so desperately long for. Shame, really, to want so much to be proven right that you'd apparently welcome a Republican victory, knowing full well what that would mean for this country"

Damn right I'd welcome it. What'd it mean for the country is that we'd get screwed by the right and not the left. That's vastly preferable. These dems (Obama, Reid, Rahm, etc.) are assholes who should never be allowed power again. Get them the fuck out before they poison the left's reputation for a generation or more.

Remember the rule of thumb: if the bill really contains $APPALLINGITEM, the Republicans won't object to it.

So if McConnell suddenly stops the unlimited bailouts rhetoric and announces that bipartisanship, etc etc...there must be unlimited bailouts in the bill, he just didn't notice them previously.

"The Dodd bill has unlimited executive bailout authority. That's something Wall Street desperately wants but doesn't dare ask for. The bill contains permanent, unlimited bailout authority." -- Brad Sherman, D-CA.