The primary field really is bad–for Democrats. As the media and voters scrutinize the Republican contenders, it is easy to forget how weak and unpopular the incumbent is. Polls suggest a majority of Americans want to replace President Barack Obama in 2012, and Democrats are hitting the panic button–even as Obama enjoys a slight bounce in approval–because they realize he has failed.

In the end-of-the-year countdown spirit, here are the top ten Democrats who would be better presidential candidates than Barack Obama in 2012:

***

10. Rep. Harold Ford, Jr.

Losing his Senate race in 2006 seems to have freed the former Tennessee congressman to speak his mind. He has bucked liberal dogma on foreign policy and the Keystone XL pipeline, and offers independent, common sense ideas.

***

9. Sen. Joe Manchin

West Virginia’s junior senator can tout his experience as governor and his victory in a tough political climate. He appeals to independents with his opposition to climate change legislation, and his criticism of his own party’s stalling in the Senate.

(more…)

Democrats, Republicans, and Independents are uniting to put a stop to insider trading in Congress.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), who is rising in Republican presidential polls this week, told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly that insider trading must be punished:

Meanwhile, from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs:

LIEBERMAN, COLLINS TO HOLD HEARING ON INSIDER TRADING LAWS AND CONGRESS

60 Minutes Story Sparks Examination

WASHINGTON – Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman, ID-Conn., and Ranking Member Susan Collins, R-Maine, announced Wednesday they would hold a hearing to examine how insider trading laws apply to Congress.

The hearing, requested by Committee Member Scott Brown, R-Mass., and sparked by a 60 Minutes report, is intended to clarify the laws and rules that govern members of Congress who may profit personally from non-public information they learn in the course of their work.

“Insider trading by members of Congress – if it occurs — is a serious breach of the public trust,” said Lieberman. “No one in Congress should be enriching themselves based on information to which the general public has no access. Our hearing will set the record straight about how existing laws and ethics rules apply to Congress and whether they are sufficient to prevent unethical market trading.” (more…)

Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) visited Heritage this week to give the annual B.C. Lee lecture, focusing on the importance of American leadership in the Asia-Pacific region. After his speech, he sat down for a wide-ranging interview.

In addition to fears about losing the additional security gained by the surge in Afghanistan, Lieberman expressed concerns with the signal a premature withdrawal might send to allies and enemies around the world.

(more…)

From The Hill:

For the third time in four weeks, Senate Republicans on Thursday voted in unison to block a piece of President Obama’s jobs package.

The GOP senators were joined by one Democrat, Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.), and Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) in rejecting a procedural motion on legislation that would spend $60 billion on transportation infrastructure programs. The vote was 51-49.

The spending was offset with a new tax on income earned above $1 million that Republicans oppose.

(more…)

From The Washington Times:

Senator Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut Independent who caucuses with the Democrats, told host John McCaslin on America’s Morning News radio show on Tuesday morning that he had not decided if he would endorse President Obama in 2012:

MCCASLIN: Will you be supporting Barack Obama in 2012 or are you going to be putting your money on a Republican candidate?

LIEBERMAN: Well I haven’t decided and I’m just waiting to see who the Republican candidate is and what President Obama’s positions are at that point, so I got a little time as an independent not to feel rushed, because this is an important position. And I’m only one person but for every one of us who we support next year is going to say a lot about how our kids and grandkids are going to grow up in America, so I’m watching.

(more…)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Francis Cianfrocca to discuss the debt and Tim Geithner’s potential exit from Obama’s cabinet. Then Senator Tom Coburn joins us to talk about his plan to reform Medicare and gives us an inside look at the debt ceiling debate.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Tom Coburn and Joe Lieberman’s Impressive New Medicare Reform Proposal
Top Democrats reject new plan to cut Medicare spending
Finally: A pragmatic proposal for Medicare
Senator Tom Coburn, M.D.

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter
Follow Francis on Twitter
Follow Senator Coburn on Twitter

(more…)

Yes, the Democrats killed it (can we still say that) and I’ve been calling out the party of good will, kindness, caring, and tolerance Democrats for more than a year about their shameful and deliberate actions.  And now, it’s game on:

The speaker, along with Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., on Wednesday plans to introduce legislation to revive a controversial program that provides private-school vouchers for kids of low-income parents in Washington, D.C. Boehner has long been a supporter of that program, which started to wind down in 2009, but is devoting some serious political capital to the cause this week.

[snip]

The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, as it is known, was launched in 2004 as the first federally funded program providing K-12 education grants. Though supporters say it gives poor students an alternative to the city’s underperforming public school system, teachers unions and other opponents say it draws sorely needed money away from the public system.

Lawmakers opposed to the program succeeded in eliminating it after Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. — who could not be reached for comment Tuesday — attached an amendment to a 2009 spending bill. President Obama stepped in and agreed to allow students currently enrolled to graduate. But the program is no longer accepting new applicants.

To recap, the Omnibus appropriations act of 2009 defunded (roll call vote here) the successful program–effectively eliminating any opportunity for poor DC schoolchildren to escape the horrid DC public schools.  The Democrats, namely Dick Durbin, claimed that the program funding would take away from the money the DC public schools needed.

(more…)

Attorney General Eric Holder testified the other day before the House Judiciary Committee.   Republican congressman Lamar Smith asked him what seemed to be a pretty simple question.

Regarding the perpetrators in the last three terror attacks (two, thank God, unsuccessful) on our homeland (Fort Hood, the Christmas day bomber, and the Times Square bomber), Smith asked our Attorney General “Do you feel these individuals…might have been incited to take the actions they did because of radical Islam?”

Holder feigned to not understand.   “ Because of…?”

Smith:  “Because of radical Islam.”

Holder: “There are a variety of reasons people do these things.”

Smith re-worded the same question and re-asked it six times, with Holder refusing to acknowledge what is as obvious as the fact that I am typing these words and you are reading them.  That every major incident of terror of recent years has been performed by Muslims and that all of them associate their particular theology with their acts of terror.

The real question today is who is governing America and what exactly is the agenda of those who sit in the seat of power of our own country?

It is no wonder that most Americans are squirming around with the most profound sense of uneasiness.  When the chief law enforcement officer of the United States refuses to acknowledge what is clear and true – that those perpetrating terror today are uniformly Muslim and motivated by Islamic theology of one form or another – how in the world can we possibly feel safe?

(more…)

This week, Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) will host a press conference announcing the fifth reinvention of “cap-and-trade” global warming legislation since 2003, the “American Power Act”. Call it the American Power Grab Act, instead, for reasons that will become obvious momentarily.

The orchestrated spectacle, with a cast expected to be in the dozens and which all involved appear convinced will persuade you of the justness of their cause, is in fact a manifestation of all that is wrong with Washington and what Americans have become increasingly enraged by.

At this press conference, Sens. Kerry and Lieberman have both already indicated, they will insist that their scheme isn’t “cap-and-trade” because they aren’t going to use that term this time around. Kerry has even said that “this is not an environment bill.” It seems that the public aren’t buying that argument, either, so it’s really about whatever appeals to you. Just not what it was about the previous four times they’ve tried to slip this Power Grab past you. Except I’ve seen a copy of the bill. Yes it is cap-and-trade. And worse.

For this latest effort to hide an enormous tax and wealth transfer — a unilateral move that guarantees jobs will be shipped to China, India, Philippines, Mexico and elsewhere — – these lawmakers will be surrounded by numerous representatives of Big Green. That includes not just the wealthy pressure group industry but many among “Big Business”, numerous of whom are the benefactors enabling those pressure group chiefs’ huge salaries and vast PR budgets to scare you into accepting an agenda that uses the state to, oddly enough, enrich these same companies. Huh.

(more…)

In the wake of last week’s attempted terrorist bombing in Times Square, legislation is being proposed to strip the would-be bomber of his American citizenship. Team Obama is opposing this bill, a bill at odds with the president’s blueprint for America.

The man who attempted to detonate a car bomb in New York City on May 1, Faisal Shahzad, was born in Pakistan and recently became an American citizen. Senator Joe Lieberman is now pushing legislation to strip Shahzad of his citizenship so that he can be treated as a foreigner in the U.S. legal system.

The pushback from President Obama’s supporters has been swift. Senator Chuck Schumer immediately declared such a bill unconstitutional. On a Sunday morning talk show, Attorney General Eric Holder expressed reluctance to pursue citizenship stripping. And others on the left are spouting off about this as well.

The constitutional law on this question is muddy. In 1958, the Supreme Court upheld a citizenship-stripping law in Perez v. Brownell. But then in 1967, the far-left Warren Court overruled Perez by a 5−4 vote in Afroyim v. Rusk, holding that Congress cannot strip anyone of citizenship unless that person voluntarily renounces it.

Then in the 1980 case of Vance v. Terrazas, the Supreme Court split the difference, moving back in the opposite direction. The Court modified its 1967 holding to clarify that in addition to renouncing American citizenship verbally or in writing, a person can renounce their citizenship by their conduct. The Court also held that whether their conduct amounts to renouncing citizenship can be determined by a “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning that the odds only need to be better than 50−50, instead of a higher standard such as “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

So the law is unclear in this case.

(more…)

So we know that Sen. Lindsey Graham has stormed away from today’s scheduled 11 a.m. Eastern Senate press conference stage, and taken with him his support climate legislation, putting on hold what will surely in this latest form also represent the biggest tax increase in our history. All of which is, of course, “for now”.

No, that won’t last. But the unfolding/ongoing theater deserves commentary for when it returns.

This is the same bill that John Kerry now says was put off until this week from last so the voters didn’t confuse it around “Earth Day” as an “environmental” measure, and that Graham now says is an “energy independence” bill. This is even though the bill was breathlessly touted instead by all of its supporters just months ago as what it is designed to be: a “global warming” law to address what they apparently no longer view as that big an issue.

Or else they took Stanley Greenberg’s advice and realized you aren’t buying and are scrambling to re-brand their Power Grab. And this seems more likely given what we know about the bill is that it’s core design remains, with tweaks aimed at luring political support by various constituencies –

First, about this dance, Rich Galen wrote in his Mullings blog last night that “So, by putting off – perhaps until the next Congress – meaningful legislation which might have led to reducing our dependence on foreign oil, in favor of legislation which may maintain our dependence on foreign workers Harry Reid and Barack Obama have chosen convenient politics over good policy.”

(more…)

Editors Note: This post is re-printed with permission from The Nation magazine, where it appears as the February 4, 2010 cover story. You can see a video interview with Professor Lessig about the piece here, or take action on issues raised in the piece by visiting FixCongressFirst.org.

We should remember what it felt like one year ago, as the ability to recall it emotionally will pass and it is an emotional memory as much as anything else. It was a moment rare in a democracy’s history. The feeling was palpable–to supporters and opponents alike–that something important had happened. America had elected, the young candidate promised, a transformational president. And wrapped in a campaign that had produced the biggest influx of new voters and small-dollar contributions in a generation, the claim seemed credible, almost intoxicating, and just in time.

Yet a year into the presidency of Barack Obama, it is already clear that this administration is an opportunity missed. Not because it is too conservative. Not because it is too liberal. But because it is too conventional. Obama has given up the rhetoric of his early campaign–a campaign that promised to “challenge the broken system in Washington” and to “fundamentally change the way Washington works.” Indeed, “fundamental change” is no longer even a hint.

Instead, we are now seeing the consequences of a decision made at the most vulnerable point of Obama’s campaign–just when it seemed that he might really have beaten the party’s presumed nominee. For at that moment, Obama handed the architecture of his new administration over to a team that thought what America needed most was another Bill Clinton. A team chosen by the brother of one of DC’s most powerful lobbyists, and a White House headed by the quintessential DC politician. A team that could envision nothing more than the ordinary politics of Washington–the kind of politics Obama had called “small.” A team whose imagination–politically–is tiny.

These tiny minds–brilliant though they may be in the conventional game of DC–have given up what distinguished Obama’s extraordinary campaign. Not the promise of healthcare reform or global warming legislation–Hillary Clinton had embraced both of those ideas, and every other substantive proposal that Obama advanced. Instead, the passion that Obama inspired grew from the recognition that something fundamental had gone wrong in the way our government functions, and his commitment to reform it.

(more…)

Following up on our post yesterday, the Workforce Fairness Institute has this video asking SEIU boss Andy Stern which Senators does he think are terrorists.

(more…)

Beyond a pleasing sight for the heart, what would Ted Kennedy’s seat going Republican really mean?

A lot.

First, there would be the psychological effect.

On Democratic donors — it would discourage them from opening their checkbooks. On Republican donors — the impact would be electric in kindling their interest and generosity. On Democratic incumbents seeking re-election — it would make the beaches and golf courses that await them in their Florida retirement homes (and the lucrative lobbying jobs in Washington) infinitely more attractive. On Republicans considering running for the House and the Senate — it will help them see the truth: That their time is at hand! (It might even help our esteemed Party Chairman Michael Steele, realize that we can capture both houses this year!)

But in the Senate itself, it would really signal the end of Obama’s legislative dominance. He’ll probably be able to pass health care either by Democratic dithering in certifying Brown’s election or by ramming through the bill while he’s en route to Washington on the shuttle.

But, beyond that, the prospects of getting 60 votes on the remaining items in Obama’s legislative agenda: cap and trade, union card check, and immigration reform would slip away with the Massachusetts result.

(more…)

Writing for Forbes, Bruce Bartlett puts forth an interesting hypothesis that healthcare legislation could have been made better (hopefully he meant to write “less destructive”) if the GOP had been willing to compromise with Democrats:

Democrats desperately wanted a bipartisan bill and would have given a lot to get a few Republicans on board. This undoubtedly would have led to enactment of a better health bill than the one we are likely to get. But Republicans never put forward an alternative health proposal. Instead, they took the position that our current health system is perfect just as it is.

Bruce makes several compelling points in the article, especially when he notes that it will be virtually impossible to repeal a bad bill after 2010 or 2012, but there are good reasons to disagree with his analysis. First, he is wrong in stating that Republicans were united against any compromise. Several GOP senators spent months trying to negotiate something less objectionable, but those discussions were futile. Also, I’m not sure it’s correct to assert Republicans took a the-current-system-is-perfect position.

They may not have offered a full alternative (they did have a few good reforms such as allowing the purchase of insurance across state lines), but their main message was that the Democrats were going to make the current system worse. Strikes me as a perfectly reasonable position, one that I imagine Bruce shares. But let’s further explore Bruce’s core hypothesis: Would compromise have generated a better bill? It’s possible, to be sure, but there are also several reasons why that approach may have backfired:

(more…)

Saturday is a big day in the Senate for ObamaCare.  Congressional Quarterly reported that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will unveil his manager’s package of changes to the Senate version of ObamaCare on Saturday morning and immediately file cloture to shut off debate on the package.  This package of changes to the bill and special interest projects were crafted by Reid to buy the support of members wavering in his caucus, including Senators Ben Nelson (D-NE), Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Jim Webb (D-VA).

Nobody knows if any acceptable compromise is possible at this point in the debate.  Liberals in the Democrat Caucus are mad because the public option has been scrapped and moderates are concerned that this bill has become so politically unpopular that a vote for any version of ObamaCare is the functional equivalent of political suicide.  If the Reid Amendment passes, then the President will be one step closer to victory.  If ObamaCare goes down in flames, then Monday may prove to be the President and Senator Harry Reid’s health care Waterloo.

(more…)

We are definitely NOT suggesting that God, Mother Nature or even Zeus has an interest in whether or not the United States adopts socialized medicine. That said, if you wanted this health care-stink bomb to pass, you would be hard-pressed to imagine a WORSE time for DC to be buried in a blizzard. To pass ObamaCare (Version 7.0) by Christmas, the Senate needs to start certain procedures tomorrow…and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Brigadoon) isn’t even in town

If there’s one thing we’ve learned over the past few years, it’s that we should never doubt the abilities of Joe Lieberman to get what he wants, and the willingness of Harry Reid to cave in the clutch. We’ll discuss where health care goes from here, the latest on the markets, and a disturbing trend in food prices on today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, a daily podcast from The New Ledger on politics, policy and the marketplace with Francis Cianfrocca, brought to you by BigGovernment.com.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

You can subscribe to the podcast by following the links above, and if you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

The Hill: Lieberman and Nelson Get What They Want
New Ledger: On Lieberman, How Reality Based Are Klein and Yglesias?
Business Insider: If You Thought The Economy Was Being Inflated By The Stimulus, You Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet
Bloomberg: Fastest Food Inflation Since Riots Means Milk Up 39%

Francis adds: Keep your eyes peeled on food prices, because it’s an explosive sleeper issue. For the first eight months of 2008, nobody except finance geeks was aware that we were in a financial crisis. The Lehman collapse took an ongoing situation and planted it into public consciousness.

But during those months before Lehman, commodity prices around the world were on an insane tear. Oil at $147 wasn’t the only thing affected by huge inflation. And it was starting to cause real social upheaval in places like the Philippines (which couldn’t beg borrow or steal enough rice) and West Africa (which couldn’t beg borrow or steal anything).

The acute financial crisis of late 2008 damped out the inflation, because it damped out all economic activity. But I never felt like I really understood the food-price inflation, and I don’t think anyone else did either. If it’s back, it’ll be a major story in 2010.

It appears one of the few things standing between SEIU and government-run health care is U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman.  That may be the most dangerous place to stand in Washington these days.

The SEIU issued an e-mail screed a few days ago, entitled “Joe Lieberman will hate this,” exclaiming: “Joe Lieberman is at it again. Jockeying for attention.”

Something tells me SEIU fell all over themselves when Lieberman was on the cusp of being elected vice president in 2000, but that was a long time ago I suppose.

Anyway, Lieberman, along with Democratic Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana are named in the e-mail as “targets” that may join a “Republican filibuster” of a Senate health care reform bill that tops the length of Pelosi’s monster 1,990 pager.

(more…)