CNN Options

[Liberio]

A neutral TV publication.

[Summy]

Aired during daytime

The William T. Hart Show

(IMG:http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/4315/wmhart.jpg)

HART: Good evening, and I welcome you to this first episode of the William T. Hart Show. I'm your host, William T. Hart, and I hope you'll join me as we consider the recent events in politics and cut through the spin and rhetoric. I'm coming from an extensive background in professional journalism, and I intend to maintain a high standard of journalistic integrity as we explore the issues and reach logical, fact-based conclusions.

HART: Of course the top story on all the cable news networks right now is the brewing partisan firestorm over the former Speaker of the House Marcos Sarmento as President Pizzuto's choice to be Secretary of State. Republicans have unanimously upheld Sarmento's qualifications and experience, while Democrats remain staunchly opposed except for a few widely-publicized exceptions, which has catapulted this story to the top of the news cycle. Although the confirmation vote is over, the controversy still lingers and might stick around for some time.

The confirmation proceedings have been tinged with politics as usual that has provoked no shortage of partisan reaction from the cable outlets. No matter what side you've taken, it's becoming apparent that in first throw-down between the Republican administration and the Democratic majority in the Senate, the Democrats seem to be taking more flak than they expected. The reasons why the Senate Democrats opposed Sarmento aren't holding up well before public scrutiny, and Mr. Sarmento's impressive accomplishments during his short time on the job plus the revelation of rather fierce Democratic whip tactics have only stirred the pot some more.

Stay right here as we look into the Sarmento nomination and hear from both sides about the cabinet nominee confirmation that has unexpectedly ended the Democratic supermajority and continues to divide the Senate on harsh partisan lines. We'll be right back.

[ADVERTISEMENT]

NARRATOR: We care about our environment. This is our planet too. From the snow-capped mountaintops of the Himalayas to the jungles of the Amazon, we all share this world. Together, we'll achieve the dream of clean, renewable energy that doesn't hurt our irreplaceable planet. Because all of us at British Petroleum hope you will be duped by this silly commercial. There are no subliminal messages drive your car more in this advertisement use more gasoline.

HART: Welcome back to the William T. Hart Show. Joining us now to discuss the Sarmento case is a man right in the eye of this political hurricane. Please welcome Senator Edward Wyatt of Texas.

WYATT: Good to be with you, William.

HART: Senator, you've said that you aren't exactly thrilled with former Speaker Sarmento, and yet you've left the Democrats and have become a Republican as a result of this confirmation process. Did you ever have any intention of changing party affiliation before this showdown over Marcos Sarmento?

WYATT: I've had my share of disagreements with my fellow Democrats over the many years I've been a Senator, and even before then as a Representative, but I never considered leaving. As I've said in the past, I disagree largely with Mr. Sarmento's policies - but to say that he's not qualified or that he would not serve well in the capacity of Secretary of State is downright wrong, and the Democratic Leadership knew this.

HART: Let's talk a little bit about the memo the Democratic Senate Whip sent you that said, and I'm quoting now, "Voting aye is not an option". The memo explicitly talks about not giving Republicans a victory, about how much political capital the Democrats have invested in this fight, and so on. SML Rockefeller has admitted that the memo might have been "a bit much". Your thoughts?

WYATT: "A bit much" would be an understatement, in my opinion. Mr. Bradshaw has been our whip for a while, but never in my memory has a whip been so heavily partisan and never before have we been told that "Voting aye is not an option". The reasons for why we should vote against Sarmento were even more ridiculous, as you mentioned, about how we've vested a lot of political capital and we could not look weak or hand President Pizzuto a victory. I knew how I was going to vote before I received the whip message, but after reading it, I just couldn't continue to represent my constituents in a party that so blatantly engaged in these partisan politics of revenge over the loss of the White House.

HART: You know, if I were the Democrats, and if I saw the unfavorable polls, the negative reaction to the whip memo, the growing feeling among Americans that the objections to Sarmento were more political than practical, and finally the loss of a supermajority because of this issue, I'd be cutting my losses and saving up what political capital is left for the next fight. Why do you think SML Rockefeller and others are still determined to see this through to the very bitter end?

WYATT: I think Senators Rockefeller and Bradshaw are under the impression that with a Senate supermajority, they could flex their large Congressional majorities against the Pizzuto White House and get whatever they wanted. Instead, they lost two of their Senators because they could not get over the fact that they were fighting a losing battle by trashing Pizzuto's nominees. Many Democrats have said that I was never loyal to the party, despite the fact I've been consistently in line with their agenda. I think that goes to show you exactly what they think of those who can't toe the party line one hundred percent of the time.

HART: Do you think the Democrats in the Senate are going to modify their approach to dealing with President Pizzuto as a result of this?

WYATT: I wish they would, William, but I don't think they will. But they no longer have a supermajority anymore, and I think that is going to be a great weakness for them. They have looked millions of Americans straight in the face and told them they are more concerned about a political victory than the will of the American people. And I think President Pizzuto is going to have a lot more people behind him now than Leader Rockefeller or the other Democrats.

HART: Any final thoughts?

WYATT: Senator Rockefeller ignored the will of his constituents by voting against Mr. Sarmento. My own junior partner, Senator Taylor, ignored his constituents in this decision as well. Senate Democrats across America - even when polls showed that their approach was too partisan and they were being too heavy-handed - continued to spin their opposition to Sarmento and make themselves look like heroes. Yet, they have lost their supermajority and they have lost their credibility as they now move forward with an agenda that has neither the backing nor the respect of the American people. Despite having majorities in both chambers of Congress, I think that Democrats are going to have an uphill battle from here with their constituencies back home. Thank you, William, for inviting me here today.

HART: Well Senator, that's a strong opinion and I suppose it's left to be seen if angry constituencies will remember who this Sarmento fellow was come elections two years from now. Thank you Senator Wyatt. I'm sure we'll speak again soon.

HART: Don't go away, folks, because after the break we're going to have Senator Basil Taylor of Texas on the show, with probably a different perspective on the Sarmento nomination. We'll be right back.

[ADVERTISEMENT]

NARRATOR: From the makers of Meet the Spartans comes an all new blockbuster event of the year. Get ready for.... LAWRENCE OF ARABIA II -- THE SANDS OF TIME. Just when you thought the deserts of Arabia were free from the Turks... a new general arrives to unleash a secret weapon that had been lost in the endless sands for centuries. Until now. Brace yourself. LAWRENCE OF ARABIA II, in theaters everywhere.

HART: Welcome back to the William T. Hart Show, as we continue our discussion of the Democrats' loss of their supermajority and the continuing fallout over the failed nomination of former Speaker of the House Marcos Sarmento. For those of you just joining us, we've just heard from independent Senator Edward Wyatt of Texas, who has galvanized himself as a controversial figure with his strong opinions. Now we'll consider the opposite perspective with Senator Basil Taylor of Texas.

HART: Senator Taylor, welcome to the show.

TAYLOR: Thank you, sir.

HART: Marcos Sarmento was voted down narrowly during his confirmation for Secretary of State, and I'll be blunt about this; the whole episode hasn't been that great for the Democrats, especially the Senate caucus. What happened?

TAYLOR: Honestly, it’s hard to tell. Our objection was never about the impeachment itself. It was about whether or not a man so obviously partisan with such questionable honesty could serve competently. However, that message got lost as the Republicans successfully spun their attacks of partisanship. The Democratic Party, for reasons I am unaware of, was not ready for that attack, and we have paid the price for it.

HART: Polling in critical battleground regions like Mid-Atlantic and the Heartland is pretty consistently showing that the average citizen believes that Senate opposition to Sarmento was based on partisan politics, and not his qualifications or lack thereof. What would you say to those individuals who, right now, hold this opinion?

TAYLOR: I would say that I disagree. The political aspects of the nomination were entirely related to the public relations side of things - not towards the policy decisions. Most people simply don't have the time to study the hearing transcripts or sift through mounds of paperwork detailing the situation's history. I do - it's my job, after all - and my opinion is that Sarmento, while intelligent and successful, has flip-flopped on important issues for political reasons. There are probably senators who voted based on partisan politics - on both sides - but I know that every single Democrat that I talked to that voted against Sarmento did so because they doubted his integrity. If a man can't be relied upon to tell the truth, he can't be relied upon to serve ably in the Cabinet. I think that most people would agree with that.

HART: You, of course, voted with the prevailing side against Mr. Sarmento. Some people are applauding your resolve and your dedication to vote your conscience in Washington D.C., while others are claiming you've sold out your constituents. Any thoughts on this?

TAYLOR: My constituents are, as a whole, a moral people of high ideals. They deserve a man who will actually abide by his conscience, which is what I've done. If they disagree with my assessment, that's their prerogative. I won't pretend to have a monopoly on being right. But I can't have sold out Texas by voting for the great Texas values I was raised to believe in.

HART: So no regrets, then? Now that you have seen the polling data, and Texans seem to have made up their minds on this issue, would you vote the same way again?

TAYLOR: Unless Sarmento gave me reason to trust him, I most certainly would. You have to stick by your principles, no matter how politically unpopular they may be. I couldn't look my hometown neighbors in the eye and ask them to put their faith in me for another term if I were to give up my values for cheap publicity points.

HART: Well Senator, it's good to know there's somebody in Congress not afraid to stand up for what he believes is right, no matter what. This country could probably use more of that Alamo spirit of sticking to one's guns despite all the rhetoric and spin. Thanks for joining us, Senator Taylor, it's been a pleasure, come back again soon.

TAYLOR: My pleasure, sir.

HART: That was Senator Basil Taylor of Texas, who recently joined most of his Democratic colleagues in voting against the confirmation of Marcos Sarmento for Secretary of State. While you may disagree with Senator Taylor's reasons for opposing Sarmento, I certainly can't fault his honesty, and I'm sure we can all appreciate his forthright willingness to tackle this subject head on. Breaking through the rhetoric is what we do here.

Next time on the William T. Hart Show we'll talk to more key players in Washington D.C. today and follow up on all the breaking stories. Unfortunately we're out of time for this episode of the William T. Hart Show. I'm your host, William T. Hart, and until next time, good night.

[Summy]

Aired during daytime

The William T. Hart Show

(IMG:http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/4315/wmhart.jpg)

HART: Good afternoon and welcome back to the William T. Hart Show. Of course, this is the show that digs a little deeper and takes a more serious approach to the issues America is concerned with. We've got a packed program coming up.

HART: Years ago, on the day after the 9/11 terror attacks, the guard at Buckingham Palace in England broke tradition -- and that's a hard thing for the guard at Buckingham Palace to do -- and their band did not play God Save the Queen. Instead, they played the Star Spangled Banner before a crowd of American tourists trapped abroad because of canceled flights. It was a deeply moving moment, and a priceless gesture. So what does Democratic Representative James Phelps of Illinois go and do? He writes a bill to strike the Star Spangled Banner as our national anthem. The bill reads, in part:

(IMG:http://sourcewatch.org/images/8/87/Aaronschock.jpg)

Rep. James Phelps (D-IL)

SECTION 2. FINDINGS
A)The current National Anthem, ‘The Star-Spangled Banner’ was written in 1814 as a poem by Francis Scott Key.

B) Whereas the lyrics of The Star-Spangled Banner glorify war.

C) Whereas the United States of America has a known abhorrence of war and seeks peace for all time.

HART: Excuse me, Congressman Phelps? A revered poem about our country's flag still waving in triumph is glorifying war? The Star Spangled Banner isn't about war, Congressman, it's about our flag surviving and, literally, rising above war. It's something almost transcendent, representing our freedom, which is above the pitiful power of bombs and rockets to destroy. I guess I should take comfort in knowing that this bill has absolutely no chance of becoming law. Ironically, the bill wants to replace the war-glorifying Star Spangled Banner with America the Beautiful. I wonder if Congressman Phelps knows that America the Beautiful also glorifies war? Do you know that America the Beautiful also mentions God in every stanza? If we're gunning for political correctness, it seems to be that America the Beautiful is a step in the wrong direction. Here's the lyrics, Jimmy:

O beautiful, for heroes proved
In liberating strife,
Who more than self their country loved
And mercy more than life!
America! America! May God thy gold refine,
Till all success be nobleness, and ev'ry gain divine

HART: A beautiful song, certainly, but should we get rid of the Star Spangled Banner because it "glorifies war", like Congressman Phelps claims? I don't think so. We'll be right back.

[ADVERTISEMENT]

NARRATOR: Are you sick and tired of sensitive documents slipping away, and into the hands of your competitors and opposition? Need a way to protect your privacy? Introducing the Memo Shredder from Bradshaw Paper Shredders, Inc. This patented device will chew up all your embarrassing, revealing documents before traitors, turncoats, and thieves can snatch them away to the other side. Endorsed by several U.S. Senators, the Bradshaw Memo Shredder will leave your competitors with nothing but confetti. But that's not all! Call now, and we'll include this 5 gallon jar of disappearing ink from the OOC Letter Company, absolutely free! Operators are standing by. Call now!

HART: Welcome back. After many quiet years, the issue of guns is coming back to the Congress with a bang, pardon the pun, as a deluge of new gun-related legislation is being introduced and the Senate is hotly debating the "Citizens' Self-Defense Act", sponsored by Senator Alex Sanchez, Republican from Florida. Joining us this afternoon is Senator Ken MacLeod, Republican from the Big Sky Country, and Senator Basil Taylor, Democrat of Texas. Both Senators are sticking to their guns when it comes to several key issues in the "Citizens' Self-Defense Act" debate. Senators, welcome.

(IMG:http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_2tggLZ2rGkg/R_7iVp_TJTI/AAAAAAAACto/bq6ypY4mkOA/s400/pptaylor100408.jpg)

BASIL TAYLOR: Thank you, sir.

(IMG:http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/4940/mikepence.jpg)

KEN MACLEOD: It's good to be here, Bill.

HART: To start us off, Senator Taylor, you've supported several amendments proposed by Senator Lincoln Winters, a Democrat from the Wabash Valley, that many say are designed to limit the rights of gun owners and people who defend themselves. Like it sounds, the "Citizens' Self-Defense Act" seeks to establish the right of American citizens to defend themselves in a broad spectrum of circumstances, specifically with guns. What are these amendments and why are you supporting them?

TAYLOR: There are three amendments. The first would strike a provision allowing deadly force in the defense of property alone. The right to use guns implies the right to lethal force - they are designed to kill, after all. The common law system has long held that to be unacceptable, and I see no reason to change that now.

The second amendment would merely clarify a point regarding the regulation of firearms. The original bill entitled anyone who complies with federal gun ownership laws to the protection of the act, while ignoring the fact that many local authorities had more severe gun restrictions. Now, I personally believe that many local authorities are far too strict in their gun control policies, but the simple fact of the matter is that unless we declare such policies unconstitutional, we have to respect them. The second amendment merely clarified that point - it certainly did not increase gun control policy at any level whatsoever.

The third and final amendment is the most interesting, and most worthy of debate in my book. It would allow Regions to decide whether or not a situation, in case over which it had control, met the criteria for lawful self-defense that the act in question laid forth. Essentially, it would allow Regions to use their own definitions of terms like 'reasonably perceived threat'. Now, that may seem somewhat peculiar at first, but it has numerous interesting aspects. For one, it demonstrates an appropriate respect for the rights of Regions to govern their own affairs, within the guidelines of the Federal government and the Constitution. Beyond that, however, it would effectively require all Regions to accept the self-defense doctrine. Although some Regions might have looser standards, even the most pro-gun control Region would be forced to acknowledge that some circumstances demand they accept that citizens have the right to use guns in self-defense. Those two reasons are why I supported that final amendment.

HART: That's an elaborate explanation, and certainly highlights the nature of the gun debate today. Senator MacLeod, you've been quite vocal on the Senate Floor objecting to these amendments and the argument offered by Senator Taylor. You're also probably the most easily identified "pro-gun" senator in office today. Do you agree that these amendments simply clarify the law, and make the "Citizens' Self-Defense Act" legally consistent?

MACLEOD: Unfortunately, Bill, that's just not the case. This isn't about the use of deadly force in defense of mere property. No one has claimed a right to use deadly force merely to prevent the theft of property - although, I should point out, that is in fact legal under the penal code of my colleague's own region. It is about defense of home and family. And the English common law tradition, at least by the time of William Blackstone in the 18th century, recognized the legal principle that a man has a right to absolute security in his own home. This bill, as it is written, is absolutely consistent with that principle, and with the principles espoused by our Constitution. The proposed amendment would create a standard far more restrictive than that in force in the Northwest, in the Heartland, and indeed in almost every region of the country.

As for the second proposed amendment, keep in mind that what this bill is about is declaring our understanding of certain legal rights. And keep in mind that the basis of all of this is, primarily the Second Amendment. And I absolutely believe that the gun control laws in places like the Northeast, and California, and Chicago, are unconstitutional. That's why I opposed that amendment. A person has a right, as this bill declares, to own a gun, and that right exists regardless of what the city government of Chicago says.

HART: Interesting points.

MACLEOD: Now, I actually supported the third proposed amendment. There's a federalism issue there, obviously, and, as I said during debate on the Senate floor, I was concerned about the legal consequences if a claim were made under the auspices of this bill by a resident of, say, Virginia. In California, in Montana, in Texas, even in Illinois, if someone breaks through the front door of your house at night, you are either legally justified in immediately shooting that person, under the statue law in those states, or you are presumed to be legally justified in doing so - which amounts to the same thing.

That's not the case in Virginia. So what would happen is the courts would decide whether Congress was correct in claiming an inherent Constitutional right to use lethal force in the defense of one's home. And that uncertainty is going to be to the severe disadvantage of people in regions which do not fully recognize the right to self-defense. So I would prefer that regions like the Mid-Atlantic amend their laws to bring them in line with the rest of the country.

TAYLOR: I'm glad that Ken and I agree on that point, as I think it shows that this is about creating good laws, not just scoring political points. I would, however, say that the original bill would leave open the door for excessive force, something that we obviously can't endorse. As far as the second Winters amendment goes, I'd have to say I agree with you on principle: many gun control policies are unconstitutional. But instead of creating laws that merely confuse the issue, we should try to overturn those policies through the courts. In the meantime, let's keep the legal messes to a minimum.

HART: Senator Taylor, would you agree with Senator MacLeod that a person has a right to self-defense with a firearm in his or her own home, even if the person is unsure whether or not an intruder poses an imminent threat of bodily harm?

TAYLOR: Yes, I would. However, such a circumstance would be covered by another provision of the bill. I think that the first Winters amendment would have prevented a potentially confusing legal circumstance while still allowing citizens to defend themselves.

HART: You know, Senator MacLeod, the National Rifle Association has opposed all of the Winters amendments, and the NRA says in a press release that "The potential for abuse of the Winters amendments by local governments is extreme". You, of course, voted in favor of the third amendment, which did ultimately fail. Is the NRA wrong in this respect?

MACLEOD: The NRA is a great organization, a group I'm proud to be a member of. But this is a point that we have to understand very clearly. We can't simply invalidate the laws of the Mid-Atlantic and Appalachia, and we can't just declare that something is an inherent Constitutional right. The courts are going to decide it, and yes, they would take this into consideration but the fact is that Virginia, for instance, has a lot of case history that says you can't use deadly force against an intruder simply because they've broken into your home. And that's still the precedent in Appalachia. My concern is that gun owners in those regions are going to rely on this and that the courts may not vindicate them. And that's why we also need to pass better laws at the regional level.

HART: Back to you, Senator Taylor. We all know Texans love their guns, and it's NRA country down there. What do you have to say to your constituents in Texas who see the NRA accusing you of "opening the door to a new resurgence of gun bans and restrictions in states, cities, counties, and even small towns", and voting alongside unashamedly anti-gun senators like Santos-Carter and Devereaux?

TAYLOR: I'd have to say that the NRA, as wonderful as its aims are, doesn't know what it's talking about in this case. The original bill did nothing to change the role of local authorities in gun control, and neither did the amendments. I'm a Texan, and I pride myself on my state's loyalty to the Second Amendment. If they worry about the votes of the other senators, I would just have to say that I guess even liberals like legally sound bills.

HART: I wish we had more time together to discuss this, but this segment's coming to a close. Real briefly, any final thoughts?

TAYLOR: This bill has fine goals, but its best achievement may be in how it has opened up both sides to talking about these important domestic issues.

MACLEOD: If anyone wants to come visit me at my house in Montana, make sure to knock.

HART: Ken, I absolutely will. In fact, I might even send somebody to knock for me. Senators, thank you very much. Once again, we've examined the issues a little deeper here on the William T. Hart Show. We'll be right back after this obscene profit break.

[ADVERTISEMENT]

NARRATOR: Tonight on The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, continued coverage of the lead story in the slowest news cycle anybody can remember: the honeymoon of newlyweds Alex Jameson and Kevin Santos-Carter. Standing by: CNN reporters across the United States and around the world to bring you the latest on Alex and Kevin, wherever they may go. Don't miss the exciting updates. Tonight at seven.

HART: We're back on the William T. Hart Show. We just had Senators MacLeod and Taylor on the show to talk about the new era of the gun debate, which is less about banning handguns and assault weapons, and more about subtle and, frankly, confusing back-and-forth sparring over the finer points of gun politics. "Can you shoot somebody in your house?" "Can you shoot somebody hauling away your TV?" These are the new questions, instead of "Can you own a handgun?" That doesn't mean the arguments are any more civil, however. I'm glad they don't let guns into the U.S. Senate. This leads into a new segment of our show, where I give Thumbs Up and Thumbs Down to political figures who either do good, or make idiots of themselves.

(IMG:http://www.ihsi.com/Innovative%20Blog/E1BDF86B-8E4C-43B4-B122-EC8AEAAFC4F1_files/Thumbs%20Up%20-%20Thumbs%20Down.jpg)

THUMBS DOWN: Senator Lincoln Winters (D-Wabash) was called to order by Vice President Pooty after he launched into a tirade during the "Citizens' Self-Defense Act". After Senator Jackson Watkiss (R-CA) accused him of trying to "yank the teeth" from the bill, Winters responded scathingly, demanding that the California senator be called to order for "impugning of motives upon a member of this body". If Winters would have stopped there it might have ended, but he continued on to accuse Watkiss of being "whipped into a foaming lather about any word I say", and told the California Senator to "please exit the chambers to get himself under control". Winters even impugned a few motives himself, claiming the opponents of the controversial amendments he proposed were "more focused on pleasing the NRA" than doing their jobs as Senators. So, thumbs down, Senator Winters. Way to make the Senate needlessly more partisan.

THUMBS UP: Senator Jimmy Kennedy (D-Wabash) should give his Wabash colleague a lesson in civility. Senator Kennedy has turned the Senate Government Regulations and Commerce Committee into a model for the whole Congress, especially the House Judiciary Committee, which could sure do well to copy Kennedy's leadership style. I keep checking up on the Senate GRAC Committee, waiting for the partisan bickering to break out, but all I see are members, both Majority and Minority, sitting down and while not necessarily agreeing with each other, they're debating and expressing opinions without reaching out to throttle each other. So, credit where credit is due. Way to go, Chairman Kennedy. You're proving that the system really does work, when done right.

HART: Unfortunately we're out of time for this segment of the William T. Hart Show. Tune in again next time, when we will tell you that "elections have consequences", and so do whip memos. Until then, I'm your host, William T. Hart. Thanks for watching.

[Summy]

Aired during prime time

The William T. Hart Show

(IMG:http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/4315/wmhart.jpg)

HART: Good afternoon and welcome aboard the William T. Hart Show. As always I am your host, William T. Hart, and today we're going to jump right into discussing the top political issues of the day. At the top of our list we have President Pizzuto already wielding the veto pen to send a couple bills back to Congress, which has left Americans asking, what's an uptick and can you kill them with ant spray? Also on the show will be Senator Kevin Santos Carter, original sponsor of the Equal Pay for Equal Work amendment that's weaving its way through the ratification process. Then we'll talk to the Chairman of the Republican Party, Senator Braxton Morrison, about recovery for California and what the Federal government is trying to do for Californians who hate the Federal government.

ANNOUNCER: Live from Alexandria, Virginia, this is the William T. Hart Show, with your host, William T. Hart. Ideologues, hide your partisanship; Politicians, hide your hackery; it's the William T. Hart Show, and the rhetoric stops here.

HART: On Capitol Hill the Democrat-controlled Senate is battling down with President Pizzuto over his recent vetoes of two bills. One in particular, the "Uptick Renewal Act", has raised the most attention and is confusingly named because it actually reinstates a rule, which lapsed in 2007 during the George W. Bush administration, that would prohibit the practice of "short selling". This is where the seller sells borrowed securities in hopes that the price will actually drop, in order to buy them again and return them to the original lender, making a profit in the meanwhile. The "Uptick Renewal Act", simply enough, prohibits short selling unless the price of the security increases.

(IMG:http://www.blindbatbrewery.com/Brewhouse/files/page10_blog_entry49_1.jpg)

HART: So who do we have to blame for this whole confusing mess of upticks and downticks? President Franklin D. Roosevelt's newfangled SEC established the rule during the deepest hours of the Great Depression, because short sellers were banking on securities losing value to make their profits, as opposed to the more traditional approach of buying a security and hoping it increases in value. From 1938, short selling was permitted by SEC only on the uptick, and just when folks thought the good old days of classic cutthroat short selling were behind us, the rule lapsed in 2007.

(IMG:http://www.inquisitr.com/wp-content/george-w-bush-quotes.jpg)

HART: The SEC lifted the short selling ban in 2007, as the Bush administration pursued a policy of deregulation to let the free market solve its own problems, as it were. Ever since then, increasingly complex economic arguments have been made for and against reinstating the uptick rule. Folks left of center usually argue for SEC to regulate short selling once again, arguing that the tactic is unhealthy for the economy, retards economic growth, and "turns the markets into casinos". Those right of center aren't as unanimous as the left in their opposition of the uptick rule, but in general the argument is very similar to President Pizzuto's veto message:

(IMG:http://www.shockya.com/news/wp-content/uploads/the_rock_black_tie.jpg)

President Pizzuto: But short sellers actually provide a valuable service: they make market prices more efficient, by pricing in the expectation that prices will fall. The way this Administration sees it, if we don't have a downtick rule, we don't need an uptick rule. While I understand that it is currently popular to call for the reinstitution of the uptick rule, I happen to disagree. At the end of the day, this veto errs on the side of the free market.

HART: Not surprisingly, pro-regulation Democrats almost had apoplectic fits when they heard the President praise short sellers for providing a "valuable service", while small-government conservatives rejoiced. And quickly short sold some securities and made a tidy profit on somebody else's loss. Ultimately, however, the jury is still out on just what damage, if any, short selling really does to the markets. Just because we've done pretty well without short selling throughout most of the 20th century isn't a real argument against it, and short sellers have been exploiting losses since 2007. Conservatives laud the President for keeping the free market "free", they say, and the uptick rule's opponents are quick to point out that you can't have a market at all without risk and losses. So, are short sellers heartless exploiters who conduct a form of legal market robbery? Or do they keep the market healthy by eking out profits on the negative side of things? Time may tell, but the way things are looking now, President Pizzuto's veto will probably stand. I'm William T. Hart, and we'll be right back.

[ADVERTISEMENT]

HART: You're back with the William T. Hart Show. Right now supporters and opponents of the "Equal Pay for Equal Work Amendment" are lining up in their states, urging their delegations to either ratify or reject this controversial amendment that has seen some surprises already. Alaska, New Mexico, and Nevada are among several conservative-leaning states that have ratified the amendment, which has greatly encouraged the "yes" side. Joining us this afternoon to discuss this issue further is New York Senator Kevin Santos Carter, author of the Equal Pay for Equal Work Amendment that came as a surprise to many when it passed in Congress last year. Senator, welcome.

(IMG:http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/5423/vanhansise.jpg)

SANTOS CARTER: Welcome William. Glad to be here.

HART: A lot of Americans, including myself, are a little skeptical over whether or not this amendment is needed. Aren't there laws already on the books that prevent the sort of blatant discrimination in wages that this amendment would address?

SANTOS CARTER: There are some laws, yes, however not all the laws prevent such blatant discrimination from happening. This amendment would make it clear and unequivocal that equal pay is the law of the land and that there is no wiggle room for blatant wage discrimination.

HART: We like to think we're living in a pretty progressive era. Is there this widespread discrimination that laws on the books can't stop but that a constitutional amendment will?

SANTOS CARTER: Unfortunately, there are still thousands of claims filed each year, with many more cases going unreported, and the story of Lilly Ledbetter shows how difficult it can be, even with the current laws, to win your case when there is blatant wage discrimination. The constitutional amendment will make it clear that wage discrimination will not be tolerated and will have the fullest weight of the law against it. It'll make sure that cases like Ledbetter's will be resolved swiftly and never happen again.

HART: Other versions of this amendment didn't specifically mention race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and gender identity, etcetera, yet you chose to include these groups specifically by name in the amendment text. Why did you choose to include these groups, even knowing that it could be the difference between the amendment being ratified or not?

SANTOS CARTER: Well, the goal was to make the amendment as clear and concise as possible.

HART: Any reason why you mentioned some groups, like race, age, and sexual orientation, but not other groups, like immigrants, veterans, people with disabilities, and so on? Don't these people deserve equal pay for equal work as well?

SANTOS CARTER: Those people absolutely do and in retrospect they should have been added. It was neither my nor Lt. Governor Renzetti's intent to leave them out.

HART: Doesn't that lend at least a little credence to the opponents of the amendment? A lot of people are saying this amendment is more about a left-wing agenda than an actual real, pressing, legitimate need. They raise some of the points we've just discussed to make this claim. Why should the average American in, say, Tulsa, Oklahoma urge his state to ratify this amendment?

SANTOS CARTER: Well the fact is that the Lt. Governor and I introduced this amendment out of the concerns and stories of people we talked to, and never because of some partisan agenda. The fact is that millions of Americans are wrongly discriminated against in their pay. Unfortunately the current bills we have aren't adequate enough to address this persisting problem and thus it's imperative to make sure the full extent of the law stands behind the American value of equality and justice.

HART: Senator, thanks for taking time out to be here today. Any final thoughts?

SANTOS CARTER: Well, I hope all those watching your show and all Americans urge their regional representatives to vote for the Equal Pay for Equal Work amendment so that none of our family, friends, and colleagues ever have to suffer the scourge of wage discrimination. I believe that our American values of equality and justice will win in this debate. Thank you again for having me.

HART: My pleasure, Kevin. You're welcome on the show anytime. As the results of state ratifications are coming out we'll continue to closely follow the progress of the Equal Pay amendment. Stay right here on the William T. Hart Show. We'll be right back.

[ADVERTISEMENT]

HART: Welcome back. For several months, and going back into the tail end of the Cullen administration, there has been a raging debate in Washington D.C. about how best to help California recover from the devastating Los Angeles earthquake that killed hundreds, shattered already overwhelmed infrastructure, and sent shockwaves across the global economy. Unfortunately for California, Congress couldn't get its act together and so Federal relief was long in coming and encumbered by legalese-generated bureaucracy. Except maybe for right wing militia members in the Idaho panhandle, nobody hates the Federal government more right now than your average Californian. So how does the Federal government help folks who don't want their "help"? Here with us now is Senator and Chairman of the Republican Party Braxton Morrison. Good to have you, Senator.

(IMG:http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d99/detroitbasketball/Bob_Barker_lo.jpg)

MORRISON: Good to be here, William.

HART: It seems California has been kicked in one knee by Mother Nature, and then Congress came up and kicked California in the other knee. Worse, instead of doing something about it, everyone in Washington jumped right into the blame game. After California went for Pizzuto in the recent election, and now has two Republican senators, there's a lot of potential for the GOP in the Golden State, but the earthquake response is an albatross around your necks. What are Republicans doing to improve their image in California?

MORRISON: Well, I think the most important fact is that California's representatives at the federal level have an understanding of what that state needs right now. They understand that after the feds failed them before last election, and they don't want the feds telling them how to rebuild here either. Senator Watkiss and Senator Hennessey both understand that. Our party's California Republicans have shown a tremendous ability to rise above partisan games and put everything they've got towards getting California the relief it needs, and I think that their constituents recognize that.

HART: If recent polling is any indicator, Californians seem to have rather quickly decided that they're almost better off without the Federal government's "help", though. There's been something of what I'd call a gut reaction against the President's executive order divvying up the earthquake relief money that Congress finally appropriated. They're mad at everyone, and I can't say I blame them.

MORRISON: There's no shortage of blame to go around here. For California, I think what they think is quite simple: they want the necessary amount of money appropriated and they want to get to work right now getting back on track. They have a right to be angry after everything the feds have put them through dating back to last year.

HART: Let's shift our focus to Congress's big proposed answer, the "California Relief and Reconstruction Act" sponsored by Senator Jackson Rockefeller (D-MID). Frankly, Californians don't really seem too excited about this one, and many seem to be hurrying to fix up their own personal affairs before, and I quote, the Feds show up to "muck things up" all over again. If the assistance in this bill isn't even worth all the morass of bureaucratic nightmares that comes with it, in the eyes of Californians, why are the Democrats pushing so fervently to bring it to a vote?

MORRISON: Well, in their eyes, federal regulations and overbearing bureaucratic oversight is the solution here. They think the only way that California can be rebuilt is if the feds keep an eagle eye on the rebuilding efforts with endless federal commissions and departments and programs and who knows what else. They want to bring it to a vote because one, there's no denying California needs aid, and two, they think it's the best solution. The Democrats just don't seem to realize that it's not, and Californians know it - they see it as more red tape to prevent them from piecing their lives back together.

HART: One more question before we move on, Mr. Chairman. Many people in your party believe that the approximately $300 billion already appropriated for California's recovery under the "Emergency Earthquake Relief Act" is enough to get the Golden State back on her feet again. While it's true that this appropriation roughly matches the damage estimates, the Democrats have been arguing that additional Federal assistance is still needed, with all the bureaucracy and Federal intervention Californians seem to loathe the most right now. My question to you is, is $300 billion enough, or are Republicans interested in more California relief legislation?

MORRISON: At this time, $300 billion looks to be enough to do the job. As you alluded to, extra money would just go to the numerous federal programs that we don't need in this situation. Let's target that $300 billion to Californians, not federal programs that will have Californians tripping over red tape.

HART: Braxton, thanks for your time and insights. Come back again soon.

MORRISON: Anytime, William. Thanks for having me.

HART: That's all the time we've got for this episode of the William T. Hart Show. I'm glad you've chosen CNN and I hope to see you right here on the next show. Thanks for watching.

[Summy]

Aired during late night

The William T. Hart Show

(IMG:http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/4315/wmhart.jpg)

HART: Welcome once again to the William T. Hart Show, right here on CNN. There's no shortage of stuff to talk about today as the House of Representatives demonstrates how progressive they are by voting on a bill to ban animal fighting even though... well... it's already banned. House Minority Leader Steve Rayburn will be on to discuss this ongoing issue in the House. And then we'll talk about The Big One. No, not the Los Angeles Earthquake, but the Federal budget, which has a deficit projected to soar beyond $400 billion. Both sides have promised to approach the budget in an "open and bipartisan" process. Well, are they? All this, and more, is coming right up.

ANNOUNCER: Live from Alexandria, Virginia, this is the William T. Hart Show, with your host, William T. Hart. Ideologues, hide your partisanship; Politicians, hide your hackery; it's the William T. Hart Show, and the rhetoric stops here.

HART: Our first stop today is the House of Representatives, where a feisty debate over H.R. 28 the "Animal Fighting Prohibition Act", by House Majority Leader Champ Afry (D-CA) has concluded. The proposed legislation would make it illegal to sponsor or create any animal fighting venue, if any animal was moved in interstate or foreign commerce. Many people think this is a worthy and noble idea, myself included, which is probably why nearly every single word of H.R. 28 the "Animal Fighting Prohibition Act" is already U.S. law. You can look it up for yourself in the current U.S. Code.

(IMG:http://puppydogweb.com/gallery/dachshunds/dachshund_darci.jpg)
Your cuddly pet; another's vicious animal-fighting beast?

HART: Well then, you'd think that once this fact was pointed out in the debate by Representative David R. Jefferson Jr. (R-NC), the obvious thing to do would be to pull the bill or, at the very least, not pass another entirely redundant, useless piece of legislation that will then have to go to the Senate and waste their time, too. I think it's a no-brainer that our Congress has more important things to do than kick around legislation that is already law in verbatim, word for word form. Right?

(IMG:http://jamie-online.com/random-jamz/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/facepalm.jpg)

HART: WRONG! Of course not! This is Congress we're talking about, remember! Not sane people! After Representative Jefferson offered pretty darn compelling evidence that H.R. 28 was simply lifted wholesale from existing U.S. code, only one congressman had the guts to pipe up. Here's the sound bite:

(IMG:http://worldsikhnews.com/21%20January%202009/Image/David%20Miliband.jpg)
Rep. Evan McCloud (D-IN)

REP. McCLOUD: Madame Speaker, why is it too much to ask that members of the other party cease in their attacks of Majority Leader Afry and actually debate the merits and shortcomings of this bill? These political games are becoming out of control. I yield.

HART: Now I will say this much. Majority Leader Afry, who "sponsored" H.R. 28 word for word from the U.S. code, was being pretty ruthlessly attacked by House Republicans in a typical, business as usual partisan mudslinging fest. I can't say I was really impressed with the way Republicans went after the Majority Leader, but honestly, if you're a Representative in Congress from either party, and you introduce legislation that you copied entirely from the existing U.S. law, what do you expect? The fact that Majority Leader Afry was the one who decided to "recycle" some U.S. code in a new bill doesn't change anything. That's something Indiana Democrat Evan McCloud should consider, before he asks Republicans to stop bickering over unimportant things like, oh, I don't know, the fact that the bill is already U.S. law.

HART: We've got to take a commercial break, but don't go anywhere because we'll be right back to discuss Majority Leader Champ Afry's latest bill that will ban slavery in the United States. Just kidding. But we will have House Minority Leader Steve Rayburn on the show, so don't go away.

[ADVERTISEMENT]

HART: We're back on the William T. Hart Show. If you're just joining us, we've been discussing a bill in the House of Representatives that would redundantly ban certain animal fighting, even though identical text is already standing U.S. law. With me now to comment on this is House Minority Leader Steve Rayburn of Idaho. Representative Rayburn, welcome to the show.

(IMG:http://www.southcarolinaradionetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/senator-jim-demint1.jpg)

RAYBURN: Thanks, William. It's great to be on.

HART: First of all, I've seen many members of Congress from both parties borrow, or copy, or recycle, or whatever you want to call it, old legislation that was originally introduced by other members of Congress but never which actually passed the House and Senate to become law. This is quite common. I have never seen anyone copy text from the current U.S. code and introduce it as new legislation, though. If a Republican in your House caucus copied text of a current law and introduced it as a new bill, would the House GOP rally behind it like we're seeing Democrats do with H.R. 28?

RAYBURN: I would certainly hope not. I absolutely wouldn't be putting my name on the line as our conference leader to defend such a bill. But unfortunately, at least with this animal fighting bill, the majority leadership is hiding behind good politics. They can go back to their districts and talk about how Republicans hate animals and watching animals get killed for money, even though Republicans in every single state in the Union have backed this exact same kind of legislation and in Congress. It's cowardly, it's shameless and dishonest, but that's the one hope they're clinging to here, and they just hope that's enough to get their membership to support the bill. We've seen this strongarming before in this chamber this session, where members of the majority have closed ranks in support of bad legislation just to protect the image of their leaders. It's an unfortunate pattern that is being mimicked on the other side of the Capitol building, and it's certainly not something the American people should expect to see in their Congress. And I myself would not force my fellow Republicans to vote in lockstep behind bad bills just to protect my approval ratings. That's not what the American people elect their Representatives to do, and it's not how Republicans will do business in the House, now or in the future.

HART: But if the House Democratic leadership want to protect their image, why all the rigmarole of urging others to support a bill that has been absolutely demonstrated to already be current U.S. law? Wouldn't the bad PR about "Democrats pass redundant bill, waste Congress's time" be more damage to their image than just saying, Oops, we've made a clerical mistake, we're not supporting this bill?

RAYBURN: You would think so, but I've found that this town can breed a lot of fear of being wrong. A lot of typical politicians would rather try to pass blame on somebody else or just ignore their mistake and hope it goes away rather than try to make things right. It's a really bad atmosphere, and not productive to making good legislation. And in this case, it's forced us to waste a lot of taxpayer time and taxpayer money that could have been used talking about ways to balance our budget or keep California on track to recovery. But unfortunately, we're stuck debating and now voting on what might be the most ignorant and time-consuming use of Ctrl-V in American political history.

HART: Several Republicans opined during the debate for H.R. 28 that animal fighting should be legal, and that the Federal government shouldn't be regulating this "sport". Of course, animal fighting is illegal in most states anyways, and the only legal bloodsports are usually found in Louisiana and other places where they have a deep cultural heritage. So why are Republicans like Rep. Buford Justice from Texas, just to name one, arguing that the Federal government should allow interstate trafficking of fighting animals?

RAYBURN: While there are certainly constitutional interpretations supporting that viewpoint, that's not the policy discussion that this bill was about. The bottom line is that every state in the Union has either banned or very severely restricted animal fighting, and the government has banned the interstate commerce of animal fighting. This bill doesn't change anything about that; hell, it repeats what we're already doing. I don't think the views of a single member or two ought to justify the consideration of a bill that did not merit consideration. I'm sure Representative Justice is more than happy to debate his Democratic colleagues on his ideas, but this bill was neither the time or place for that.

HART: Minority Leader Rayburn, thanks for taking time out of your busy schedule to be here. I'm sure you'll be back again soon. We've got to take a break but when we come back we'll talk about the partisan gridlock over earthquake recovery that has both parties claiming to represent the wants and needs of California and the nation. Don't go anywhere, we'll be right back.

[ADVERTISEMENT]

HART: We're almost out of time on this episode of the William T. Hart Show, but in the time we've got left I'd like to give you a sneak preview of what promises to be one of the most vicious, partisan fights ever seen in Washington D.C. this century. What else could it be other than the Federal budget? What's different about this budget process, however, is that both sides have at least paid lip service to their promise of being "bipartisan" about it. Cue the canned laugh track, right?

[Canned laugh track .... hahahahahahaha]

HART: Thank you, I'm here all week. Now the window to pass the budget on time is shrinking by the day. Democrats have already come out shaking their fists at the President, including Senator Jackson Rockefeller. The Senate Majority Leader has sent out a press release calling on President Pizzuto to "live up to its promises of a timely, bipartisan federal budget proposal." So far, so good. But then Senator Rockefeller went even further, boldly asserting that the President has failed to keep his promises. Part of Senator Rockefeller's press release read as follows, and we've highlighted the important parts for you:

MAJORITY LEADER ROCKEFELLER: But, to date, no outreach from the White House to the Senate Democratic Leader has occurred. "Both the President and the Treasury [Secretary] promised Americans a timely budget submission," stated the Senate Majority Leader "but, it looks more and more likely that it will not happen." In his confirmation hearings, Treasury Secretary Cole assured the U.S. Senate that he would hold bipartisan negotiations to construct the President's federal budget proposal. But, according to Senator Rockefeller, no discussions have occurred and the deadline for a federal government shutdown looms mere weeks away. "Either the White House is preparing to renig on its promise of bipartisanship or its submission will be late," added Rockefeller noting that President Pizzuto was a frequent critic of both the Marguder and Cullen Administrations' late budget submissions.

HART: However, our sources have provided CNN with a copy of a certified letter sent out to several Senators and Congressmen. Senate Majority Leader Rockefeller's name was at the top of the list.

Secretary McKenas Cole

MEMORANDUM

To: Senate Majority Leader Jackson Rockefeller
Senate Minority Leader Peter Fossil
GRAC Chairman James Kennedy
GRAC Ranking Member Kitty Khula
Senator Jackson Watkiss
Speaker of the House Leah Henderson
House Majority Leader Champ Afry
House Minority Leader Steve Rayburn
BELI Chairman Gorgas Connally
BELI Ranking Member Jackson Carnes

Date: July 20, 2017

HART: So, has President Pizzuto kept his promise so far to have an "open and bipartisan" budget process? Here's more from the certified memorandum sent by Secretary of the Treasury McKenas Cole to Senator Rockefeller and all other Democrat Senate leaders. We've highlighted some of the important parts for you:

SECRETARY McKENAS COLE: I am writing to you today as part of fulfilling my promise to make the process of making this years' Federal Budget more transparent and bipartisan. Given the fact that different parties control the Congress and White House, cooperation and productive dialogue is essential to making sure we pass a good budget this year. [...] I want to ask you all -- in the positions you have that affect the passage of the Budget -- to offer to me your own ideas that can reduce the projected deficit and what you think your caucus and the opposing party's caucus can accept in the budget.

HART: Of course, the dates reveal Senator Rockefeller received this memo days before his press release, where he claimed "no outreach" from the White House had occurred. Now, either Majority Leader Rockefeller is legitimately mistaken and might be expected at any time to issue a correction, or he is indeed aware that Secretary Cole, on behalf of the President, has reached out to him and other Congressional leaders of both parties, asking for bipartisan input. Which is it? Time will tell.

HART: That having been said, is there any hope for a budget passed even remotely on time? Regardless of whether or not the SML deliberately or mistakenly missed Secretary Cole's memo, this episode can only bode ill fortune for the rest of the process. CNN will be closely covering the unfolding budget process with perspectives and interviews from the politicians involved on both sides. All I can say to America is that you’d better sit back, buckle up, and hold on to something, because the partisan politics roller coaster ride over the Federal budget is just starting to accelerate.

HART: And we're out of time for today. Tune in again next time for the latest commentary, analysis, and discussion on the Federal budget and other issues at the top of the news cycle. I'm William T. Hart. Thank you, and good night.

[Summy]

Aired during late night

The camera pans around the studio. The skyline of Phoenix is visible in the background through the glass walls of the studio. After a few seconds, it focuses in on the host, Matt Berryhill.

Berryhill: Hello America! Tonight it is my great pleasure to bring you another edition of the Matt Berryhill Show. And in this edition, I am welcome back Senate Majority Leader Jackson Rockefeller to our show.

Berryhill turns to Rockefeller

Berryhill: Since you stepped off the campaign trail, it seems you've become the main target for the Republicans and the right-leaning media.

Rockefeller: It's almost like I won, isn't it? *laughs* However, it does come with the job of Senate Majority Leader.

Berryhill: Let's talk about the budget. Specifically, first, this elusive Treasury memo which seems to becoming more infamous within various circles. When did you first receive this memo from Secretary Cole?

Rockefeller: I still have not received it.

Berryhill: But, Mr. Hart of the William T. Hart show claims you did receive it....

Rockefeller: I never received the memo. Mr. Hart seems to have assumed that since my name was on the letter that I got it. That's not correct and Mr. Hart never contacted me to verify any information about the memo. In fact, I wrote to Mr. Hart after he attacked me on-air and gave him the facts.

Berryhill: ...which are?

Rockefeller: I never received the memo. I expressed concerns about the budget process. Then, hours later, the Treasury made the Secretary's memo public which, oddly, had my name as a receipient even though I never received any memo from Mr. Cole. After I saw the Treasury's press release, I wrote to Secretary Cole myself, told him I never received the memo and asked him to forward me a copy. Secretary Cole replied that the memo was public and nothing in it had changed. So, I still haven't received the memo from the Treasury.

Berryhill: But Mr. Hart claims otherwise...

footage rolls of the William T. Hart show

HART: Of course, the dates reveal Senator Rockefeller received this memo days before his press release, where he claimed "no outreach" from the White House had occurred.

Rockefeller: Mr. Hart's accusations stem from my name being on the memo. But, Mr. Hart never asked me if I actually received it. You've got to question a journalists' credibility if he's claiming to be 'balanced' and yet presents such a one-sided story. I don't know who Mr. Hart got his info from, but it certainly wasn't me. The first time I saw the Treasury memo was when the Treasury made it public and that was hours after I made my concerns on the budget public.

Berryhill: And even after requesting one, you still haven't gotten a copy of the memo?

Rockefeller: The problem seems to be a delivery error by the Treasury. And, the fact is, I didn't make an issue of the error. Mr. Hart made this an issue. My concern was bipartisan input on the budget, not some memo that got lost in delivery, and I've given my initial recommendations to Secretary Cole for the federal budget, as he requested.

Berryhill: Let's talk about the budget, itself, then. What did you suggest to Secretary Cole about the budget process?

Rockefeller: First, it is important to understand that an exchange of letters does not replace actual face to face bipartisan negociations, which Mr. Cole committed himself to during his confirmation. We all want a smooth process and face to face bipartisan meetings to construct the budget and work out differences will make a huge, positive difference. With letters, as we can see, miscommunication and misunderstandings can occur, but with face to face talks we can work out the kinks and try to come to an understanding on the budget before its even proposed in Congress.

Berryhill: But, aren't we already pressed for time? With a shutdown looming, won't you want to make this quick?

Rockefeller: That was one of the main concerns Speaker Henderson, GRAC Chair Kennedy, BELI Chair McCloud and I expressed to the Treasury in our letter to Secretary Cole: we're in crunch for time. The White House got off to a late start with the budget and Congress has to deal with parlimentary rules which set many hard time requirements, but the Democratic Congress has passed a continuing resolution that extended the budget deadline. If face to face bipartisan budget negociations work, as I hope they do, then I think we'll see some smooth sailing with the budget in Congress.

Berryhill: So, you're rooting for bipartisan negociations to work?

Rockefeller: Certainly. It's been near a decade of dealing with a rocky budget process. Speaker Henderson, Chairman Kennedy, Chairman McCloud and I have committed ourselves to making the process as smooth as we can from our end. I'm asking the White House and Secretary Cole to do the same. And, half the battle will be understanding where each side is coming from, in regards to the budget, and that's where face to face negociations can help smooth the process. This does not need to be a difficult process, and I am hoping that we can avoid the recent history of strenuous budget battles that end up helping no one, hurting millions of Americans and making Washington look even worse to the rest of the country.

Berryhill: Final word on the budget process?

Rockefeller: I'm hoping for a smooth process. On my end, I'm asking the Senate to keep cool, calm and collected. I'm asking the White House to do the same and help me, from their end, establish a new precedent for a smooth, bipartisan budget process. I know folks will have their niches on the budget. In my caucus, folks don't always agree and I expect there will be major differences between what the White House wants to see in the budget and what the Democratic Congress wants to see. But, if we can work out the kinks early on, I think the entire process will become smoother and the nation will benefit from it.

Berryhill: Thank you Senator Rockefeller for joining us. And there you have it, America. I'm Matt Berryhill and this has been the Matt Berryhill Show.

[Summy]

Aired during prime time

The William T. Hart Show

(IMG:http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/4315/wmhart.jpg)

HART: Good evening everyone, I'm William T. Hart and this is my show, right here on CNN, thanks for joining us. There's a lot of stuff we've got to cover today so let's get right to it.

ANNOUNCER: Live from Alexandria, Virginia, this is the William T. Hart Show, with your host, William T. Hart.

HART: Thank you, nameless announcer dude. Today we're going to talk to Senator Hunter Rose of Colorado, who is one of only a few members of Congress whose legislation is actually moving rapidly through the bureaucratic jungle and landing on the President's desk. Later on we'll have Senate Majority Leader Jackson Rockefeller on the show to discuss the ever-contentious California relief bill that he sponsored. All this, and more, coming right up.

HART: On the last show we spent this segment in the House of Representatives talking about the "Animal Fighting Prohibition Act", by House Majority Leader Champ Afry (D-CA), which, to get right to the point, is lifted word from word from existing U.S. law code. I promised to keep you updated about the progress of this bill. Well, it came up for a vote in the House but we're waiting on the Speaker of the House to announce the result. And we've been waiting for quite some time now.

(IMG:http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2009/01/31/2008693406.jpg)
Speaker of the House Leah Henderson

HART: The current Speaker of the House, Leah Henderson of Maine, assumed her role presiding over the House when the Democrats swept Republicans from the House Majority in the last election cycle. Democrats successfully latched onto the anger and frustration among many Americans who felt that the Republicans wasted too much time and energy on the partisan-supercharged impeachment of President Cullen, while letting key committees grind to a halt.

HART: Speaker Henderson, while campaigning for Democratic candidates for Congress, was very effective on the campaign trail in whipping up resentment against the "inactive" Republicans. Here's part of an address she gave that set the tone for the ultimately successful Democratic campaign to gain the House Majority. We've highlighted the important parts:

LEAH HENDERSON: Republican "leaders" in top committees have failed to maintain activity. In [SHEE], the chairman has not been heard of for months, the committee has ground to a halt. [...] On [FRAS], Republicans have stopped showing up for work - endangering America's national security. On the House floor itself, Speaker Sarmento has delayed the legislative process, held votes open in order to twist arms and make his side prevail - even when the majority is against him. Republican [sic] are the essence of failed leadership.

(IMG:http://blog.nj.com/entertainment_impact_music/2008/09/large_73-TheWho-Quad.jpg)

HART: Americans agreed and in the 2016 elections, Speaker Sarmento and the Republican Majority was thrown out on their ear. Well, like The Who sang a few decades ago, America, "meet the new boss, same as the old boss". House Republicans have been throwing pitched tantrums in morning comments and press office tirades against Speaker Henderson and the Democratic Majority whom they claim are repeating the same cycle of "failed leadership" that the Democrats accused the Republicans of.

HART: Sure enough, Speaker Henderson has held votes open on the House floor, including the "Animal Fighting Prohibition Act", long after they've ended. Democrats have stopped showing up for work in the House FRAS committee. The only Democrat showing up in FRAS is the lone, tenacious Rep. Bobby Chang (D-TX), who isn't even the committee chair. SHEE has ground to a halt due to an AWOL chair. JUD is practically closed. Republicans are also claiming that Speaker Henderson isn't even considering their points of order. Here's what Rep. Thomas Jackson (R-MI) had to say:

THOMAS JACKSON: Committees have fallen silent, and now the Speaker of the House of Representatives has presided over a failure of historic proportions, waiting weeks to conduct even the most basic functions with which she has been charged. Madame Speaker, if you cannot conduct the duties of your office, then I challenge you to step aside.

HART: In a cruel twist of irony, the House Democrats are suffering from the very same things they accused Republicans of in the past: a Speaker failing to preside promptly and fairly over the House, inactive committee chairmen, and inactive Majority committee members. Will the Democratic House Majority survive this low tide and recover its activity and direction? Or will Americans go to the polls in 2018 shouting, "we won't get fooled again"? Time will tell. We'll be right back.

[ADVERTISEMENT]

HART: We're back on the William T. Hart Show, thanks so much for joining us. With me today is Senator Hunter Rose of Colorado. He might not be a household name but lately he's been accomplishing what most others in Congress can't seem to do, and that's get their agenda passed. Senator Rose just had one bill signed into law by President Pizzuto, and others have just been endorsed by the House of Representatives. It's great to have you on the show, Senator.

(IMG:http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb249/craverguy/Rose.jpg)

ROSE: Great to be here, Bill.

HART: So, tell us, what's so great about the legislation you've sponsored, and why is it practically dashing through the Congress as quickly as it is, with a remarkable level of bipartisan support? You're obviously a Democrat and it always helps to be on the Majority, but it takes more than that to get an agenda through.

ROSE: Well, Bill, I think the reason my bills have been passing like this lately is that they're the sort of basic, common sense reforms that most people can get behind, regardless of affiliation. For example, the Improved Aid for Homeless Veterans Act, which was just signed by President Pizzuto, allows taxpayers to designate a portion of their income taxes to go toward a special fund for programs to help homeless veterans. With one in four homeless people on our streets a veteran, it's hard to see a downside to that, and I think that's why it passed Congress unanimously.

HART: One bill you sponsored, S.19 the "No More Secret Meetings Act", will require every member of congress to record every meeting with registered lobbyists and list their visits for the public. This bill just passed in the Senate by nearly a 4 to 1 vote. Are lobbyists really so powerful now that we've got to keep tabs on each time they meet with the people they're being paid to lobby?

ROSE: I wouldn't say it's a question of power, Bill. I'd say it's one of transparency. I think people have a right to know who's being paid by special interests to spin their representatives, and on what issues.

HART: The token opponents of this legislation claimed it was a violation of free speech, and asserted that lobbyists would just resort to calling members of congress on the telephone, or by correspondence, and use other ways to circumvent the bill. All this begs the question, are politicians really being pulled this way and that by lobbyists today? To me it seems like "K Street" has been quieter than they've been in decades.

ROSE: Perhaps they've merely decided to heed the words of President Theodore Roosevelt: "Speak softly and carry a big stick."

HART: On a more practical level, have any lobbyists contacted you lately? I didn't plan to go here, but while we're discussing lobbyists it kind of fits in.

ROSE: As a matter of fact, Bill, I was contacted by representatives of the National Rifle Association just recently, during the debate over the Citizens' Self-Defense Act. They wanted to urge me to vote against a series of amendments made by one of my colleagues.

HART: OK, now I'm curious. How did you vote?

ROSE: I voted against the amendments.

HART: Well, if the NRA says to do something, it's probably smart to do what they say. Maybe you're right, we better do something about these lobbyists! Were the NRA lobbyists packing heat? Heheh just kidding. We're almost out of time but I wanted to touch on this real quick, if we can. The Federal budget is coming out soon and we're already seeing some partisan lines drawn in the sand, but both sides have promised to go into this with intentions of bipartisanship and, don't laugh, open minds. Your thoughts?

ROSE: Well, Bill, as hard as it may be for you to believe, I do intend to keep an open mind on the budget, and hopefully Secretary Cole will keep his promise to make the negotiations as bipartisan as possible. I will say, however, that I won't hesitate to make any changes to the final product I deem necessary once it comes to the Senate floor. That is, after all, Congress's constitutional role.

HART: My last question. Do you think Secretary Cole's kept his promise of open bipartisanship so far?

ROSE: I'm not entirely sure, Bill. I can only say that, I, personally, have not received any communication from him on the subject, but I didn't really expect to at this stage. Asking the House and Senate leaderships for their contributions was, however, a step in the right direction.

HART: It's been great having you on the show, Senator, and I'm sure you'll join us again someday soon. Senator Hunter Rose of Colorado, ladies and gentlemen. We'll be right back.

[ADVERTISEMENT]

HART: Welcome back to the William T. Hart Show. One of the most bizarre and politically supercharged issues I've ever seen in my years as a commentator and journalist is only getting deeper and more complex. This is, of course, the ongoing debate about California, and whether or not the Federal government needs to send more money to the Golden State to aid in recovery. Since California's received nearly $300 billion already, which experts say is enough to cover earthquake damages, Americans and Californians are wondering why the Federal government needs to spend more money in another West Coast intervention. With me now is Senate Majority Leader and author of the "California Relief and Reconstruction Act", Senator Jackson Rockefeller. Welcome to the show.

(IMG:http://mostlymedia.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/jfk_jr.jpg)

ROCKEFELLER: Thank you for having me. It's true the federal government has put tons of efforts into the relief operations in California. But, that's only part of the challenge ahead. The second part of a full recovery for California is the longterm reconstruction, and that is the bill I worked with Lt. Governor Renzetti and, before she left office, President Cullen.

HART: To start off, we've seen the latest polls suggest that a majority of Americans seem to think California's gotten enough Federal money already. Californians, in fact, seem to be open to receiving more Federal money only if it comes with absolutely no Federal strings attached. What would you say to our viewers who might think that California's gotten enough help, or our viewers in California who are skeptical of more Federal involvement in the recovery process?

ROCKEFELLER: California is a big piece of our national economy. When California hurts, my constituents feel it in the Alleghenies and so do tens of millions of Americans. That said, a successful and strong recovery for California is a national interest. I won't argue with folks who feel Washington has disappointed them in the past, especially Californians last year. However, as I said, California's recovery is essential for our nation's economy and its important to do it well. As for opposing excessive federal involvement, I can understand that, but, as news reports have shown, California's local governments have fallen into severe debt and cannot afford the burden of reconstruction. While the Southwest can help, even Lt. Governor Renzetti will tell you that California needs the resources of the federal government for a successful and strong recovery. That's why my proposal mandates coordinated efforts with local communities, rather than sole federal control or 'strings' as you say. The California Relief and Reconstruction Commission would work directly with local governments, using their redevelopment plans backed with federal resources. My proposal isn't about federal control, it's about putting strong resources and the right people together for long-term reconstruction.

HART: Now obviously, Republicans in the Senate are in absolute lockstep against giving the "California Relief and Reconstruction Act" cloture. They've made no secret that they're obstructing this bill in debate to keep it from going to a vote, which would probably pass easily with strong Democratic support. GOP Chairman and Senator Braxton Morrison was on our last show and said -- and I'm paraphrasing here -- he said that this was because Americans and Californians oppose the legislation. Is this just partisan obstructionism of a bitter minority, or do you think Chairman Morrison has a point?

ROCKEFELLER: I don't think the minority is 'bitter', but I don't think they're right either. A successful recovery in California is necessary for our national economy. The further we get from the day of earthquake in 2016, it seems the less folks in Washington seem willing to commit resources to a full, successful recovery. While the White House and the minority seem focused on the short-term relief operations, which are coming to a close and have used up the majority of earthquake relief funds, Democrats and I are focused on California's long-term reconstruction.

HART: Hypothetically speaking, if new data was released tomorrow, let's say, and it showed that considerable majorities of Americans and Californians are against more Federal money or programs going for earthquake reconstruction, would you consider pulling your bill, or at least modifying it to address the changing concerns?

ROCKEFELLER: I'm certainly open to constructive suggestions to the bill on the floor. When folks expressed concerns about the bill's pricetag, I opened the floor for amendments. We considered a few, too....some of which were a bit extreme such as forcing California to drill its way out of its federal debt. So, I am certainly open to modifying the bill as new information comes forward. As I said, this bill is about the longterm recovery of California and doing it well is very important for the entire country.

HART: My last question. Both of California's senators say that neither yourself nor Lt. Governor Renzetti consulted them at any point during the drafting and the debate so far on the "California Relief and Reconstruction Act". Incidentally, Senator Hennessy co-sponsored the bill originally and voted for cloture, and Senator Watkiss voted to suspend the rules to bring the bill up for debate. Since then, however, they've done a 180-degree turn, and now both oppose cloture. Senator Watkiss is calling outright for the bill's defeat, calling it, quote, "unwanted, unsolicited, and unnecessary", unquote. Your thoughts?

ROCKEFELLER: As I said earlier, I worked with Southwest Lt. Governor Renzetti to craft the bill and had advice from President Cullen. Both were some of the only officials who actually did provide relief to California in its time of need and they were well aware of the challenges facing California's longterm recovery. Mostly, I think both California's Senators are moving against federal control, which is understandable; however, my bill incorporates local communities' plans rather than federal control on resources. However, their opposition is block insurance guarantees and mortgage relief for homeowners who've lost, basically, everything and securing a longterm strategy for a successful reconstruction, which will take years, not months. On the other hand, it's been President Pizzuto's policies that have implimented major federal controls and attached those strings onto federal resources going into California whereas my bill would make a commission that bases its resources on local plans, works with local governments and helps local businesses and families to get back on their feet.

HART: The mike's all yours, Senator. Anything else you'd like to say?

ROCKEFELLER: My concern is the long-term recovery of California, an necessity for our national economy. It's a concern for all Americans, not just Californians and I know many of us realize this and support it. I do hope many in the Senate take a second look at the bill on the floor. It's not about dominant federal control; rather, I've proposed a commission to oversee federal resources going into local redevelopment plans, local community reconstruction and to create local jobs in areas of California affected by the earthquake. I'm open to other ideas and I've made that clear, but sometimes politics and preconceptions can cloud the minds of those in Washington. All I can say is that the United States needs a full, successful and strong recovery in California and that means a longterm commitment of federal resources to the Southwest and California's local communities, but it does not mean direct federal control or 'strings'. I do think there have been mistakes made in regards to earthquake response, and I don't shy from any blame, but I do think the White House needs to rethink their recovery strategy for California. I certainly extend my hand to help, in any way I can, for a successful long-term recovery for California. This should never be a partisan issue. It's a humanitarian issue as well as an economic recovery one.

HART: Senator Rockefeller, thank you very much for your time and I look forward to having you on the show again soon. Unfortunately that's all the time we have . Tune in next time for the latest commentary, interviews, and insights into our nation's politics, without the partisan rhetoric. Until then, I'm your host, William T. Hart. Thank you, and good night.

[Summy]

Aired during prime time

The William T. Hart Show

(IMG:http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/4315/wmhart.jpg)

HART: Good evening everyone, I'm William T. Hart and you're watching the William T. Hart Show on CNN. A packed show is coming right up. I've been getting lots of e-mails from viewers wondering why there have only been Democrats appearing on the show lately, so we'll shuffle things a little bit today by having the Vice President join us here in the studio. All this and more is coming right up.

ANNOUNCER: Live from Alexandria, Virginia, this is the William T. Hart Show, with your host, William T. Hart.

HART: That's right. Let's get right to it. House Majority Leader Champ Afry has very quietly resigned, after taking plenty of flak from me and other media outlets over his stealing of U.S. law and introducing it as "new legislation". In his resignation address, Afry said that he hopes he "can make this place a better world by returning back to making art instead of making laws." Well, if his art is anything like his proposed laws, I expect Champ Afry to be stealing the Mona Lisa and calling it his own work... and probably condemning people who say it isn't by calling them "partisan". So long, Champ!

HART: Meanwhile, freshman Senator Luke Lockwood (D-GL) has caused plenty of outrage by his controversial remarks on the Senate Floor during the debate on the "United Nations Accountability Act". As the debate boiled down to whether or not the United Nations should hire employees who hold openly anti-Semitic views or make anti-Semitic statements, Senator Lockwood made a motion -- which has not received a second -- to delete part of the bill that would oppose anti-Semites holding U.N. jobs. Senator Lockwood said this in defense of her proposal:

SENATOR LUKE LOCKWOOD: "I don't think an immediate firing of that person is the right idea. However, I'd be open to adding a provision that held the same punishment for violent anti-Semitic remarks."

HART: Whoa! Somebody's going to be getting a phone call from the ADL! Apparently Senator Lockwood thinks it's fine for a U.N. employee to openly declare their fervent hatred of Jewish people, but as long as they aren't calling for violence against Jewish people, they can keep their jobs. Earlier in the debate, Senator Lockwood tried to get Vice President Pooty to call her critics to order for "remarks which I feel violate the rules of decorum of this chamber", and then went on to invoke Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. in her subsequent arguments. Gee, Mr. Lockwood, I kind of think Gandhi and MLK Jr would have been against hate-spewing bigots working for the United Nations...

HART: Finally, we’ve got some business to take care of. A few episodes ago the show covered Senate Majority Leader Jackson Rockefeller’s press release where he claimed that, quote, “no outreach” had been made by the Pizzuto administration to either himself or others in Congress. He accused the President of “preparing to renig” on his promise for a bipartisan budget process. Of course, Treasury Secretary Cole did reach out in the now well-known memo, which named Senator Rockefeller at the top of the recipients list.

(IMG:http://mostlymedia.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/jfk_jr.jpg)
Senator Jackson Rockefeller
“Didn’t Get the Memo?”

HART: Well, Senator Rockefeller has informed the William T. Hart Show that he did not receive this memo, which was recently thereafter made public. There’s no way we can verify whether or not the Senator received the memo, but we have verified that everyone else on the recipients list did receive it. Senator Rockefeller has claimed my show isn’t “balanced” and even “questioned the credibility” of my coverage, which is something we take very, very seriously here.

HART: Ironically, Senator Rockefeller questions my credibility on the Matt Berryhill Show just a few hours after he considered me credible enough to show up on my show for an interview. Instead of speculating on who received or didn’t receive what, I leave it to our viewers to decide for themselves. We value our credibility and balanced reporting very much on CNN, and that’s why we are “The most trusted name in news”. We’ll be right back.

[ADVERTISEMENT]

HART: Welcome back to the show. There have been some unusual things happening in the Senate lately, including an unparliamentary attempt to force the "California Relief and Reconstruction Act" to a vote and a brisk debate over the "Teach For Our Future Act", which some say might cause more harm than good. Joining us now to discuss these issues further is the Vice President of the United States of America, Jefferson Pooty. Thanks for being here, Mr. Vice President.

(IMG:http://images.civicheraldry.com/119/vicepresident_seal_n7586.gif)

POOTY: Great to be here William.

HART: Now we've been following the "California Relief and Reconstruction Act" on the show for quite a while now, and we had the bill's sponsor, Senate Majority Leader Rockefeller, here to talk about it last time. Basically, enough Republicans oppose the bill to prevent it from moving to a vote, and the Senate Democrats have been trying to bring it to a vote for months now. Tell us what happened recently when President Pro Tempore John Kent of Ohio opened voting on this bill.

POOTY: Well, Will I recently had to step away from presiding over the Senate for a couple of days to attend to other matters that the President wanted me for. I assumed that the President Pro Tempore, Senator Kent, would have no problem with presiding over the Senate for a day or two. I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost immediately Senator Kent decided that cloture had been reached and moved the California Relief and Reconstruction Act to a final vote - even though enough Senators opposed moving it to a final vote. Luckily, I was able to return to shut the vote down and return the bill to debate, where it rightly belonged.

HART: Was this an honest mistake by the President Pro Tempore or something else, in your opinion?

POOTY: The bill was at least 2 votes away from achieving cloture - only 17 Senators had voted in favor of ending debate and 19 votes were needed. I don't think that Senator Kent could make a 2 vote mistake like that. So I do think that it was an intentional attempt to move this very contentious bill to a final vote in hopes that no one would notice

More Money and Federal Aid Needed for California? You decide! By the Numbers:

California Earthquake Government Spending*
· Emergency Earthquake Relief Act (Federal): $276.259 billion
· Emergency Relief Act (Southwest Region): $3.207 billion
· California Relief Act (Gulf Coast Region): $35 million
· California Relief Act (Mid-Atlantic Region): $50 million
· Foreign Relief from Mexico: $300 million
· Foreign Relief from Canada, Brazil, France, the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, and China: $2 billion
TOTAL: $281.851 billion

Latest Total Earthquake Damage Estimate: $253 billion

*Does not include contributions from individuals, charity, or FEMA or other non-appropriated government aid

HART: Senator Rockefeller said that he "thinks the White House needs to rethink their recovery strategy for California", and of course says that his "California Relief and Reconstruction Act" is just the vehicle for long-term recovery. Now to date, California's gotten almost $300 billion from the Feds, hundreds of millions in non-Southwest regional assistance, millions from Mexico and other countries, plus the Southwest's own recovery funding. California's senators even oppose the bill, and call it "unsolicited, unwanted, and unnecessary". Where does the White House fall on this issue? Is more Federal money and oversight needed, as Senator Rockefeller says?

POOTY: The White House is firmly committed to helping those in California recover and rebuild their lives. In fact, of that nearly $300 billion that has been sent to help rebuild $200 billion of it is to be appropriated through President Pizzuto's controversial Executive Order. But contrary to popular belief that Executive Order did not actually put a lot of federal strings on the relief money or demand it be spent a certain way. Instead it created a commission of 15 members, with 5 to be appointed by Governor Cavalier of the Southwest. Now it does recommend some points of emphasis but the commission is free to spend the money how they see best. For that reason the White House feels that the current bill before the Senate is unnecessary and would add too many federal strings, with minimal regional voice, to a program that isn't overly regulated at the moment.

HART: Let's leave California for a moment if we can, Mr. Vice President. You've really risen to the task of your constitutional role as President of the Senate, and in that light let's look at a bill in the Senate now. For sake of our viewers, S. 32 the "Teach For Our Future Act" by Senator Obediah Maysfield (D-Bluegrass) would forgive teacher loans, a worthy goal, except some are saying there's a problem with this bill. Can you explain briefly why many Republicans, and some Democrats, aren't enthusiastic about the "Teach for our Future Act"?

POOTY: Well Will, the reason is really quite simple. Senator Maysfield's bill, which was originally written in 2008, is redundant to a law we passed a couple years ago that already forgave teachers loans. Those Democrats that support this bill, like Senator Maysfield and Senate Majority Leader Rockefeller, claim that we haven't forgiven these loans already. It really is too bad that they are gonna stand in the Senate and claim that this act is something brand new when they haven't even seemed to read the "Teacher Excellence for All Children Act of 2013". This "new" bill is a waste of the Senate's time. Plain and simple, and iIm glad that we have Senators like Jackson Watkiss fighting against it.

HART: There's another bill that just passed in the House, the "Animal Fighting Prohibition Act", that's similar to the "Teach for our Future Act" because the animal bill was lifted directly from existing U.S. law. Yet, we're seeing Democrats argung in favor of both of these bills, even though they're redundant and harmful. Why are they doing this? That's an honest question. I can't figure it out for the life of me.

POOTY: Politics. The Democrats in Washington want to be able to go on the campaign trail in 2018 and talk about how Republicans are voting against prohibiting animal fighting and against forgiving our teachers loans and they simply don't care that these things are already law.

HART: Mr. Vice President, thanks for taking the time to be with us today. We'll be sure to have you back on the show again soon.

POOTY: I had a wonderful time and I look forward to being here with you again

HART: Ladies and gentlemen, the Vice President of the United States. We're out of time on this segment but we'll be right back with some news from Capitol Hill that's sure to raise your blood pressure... and maybe do more than that. Don't go away.

[ADVERTISEMENT]

HART: And we’re back on the William T. Hart Show. This time we’re going to do something new, and kick off a segment of the show that features the most shameless, pointless, and stupid antics in politics. Believe me, I’ve got no shortage of material for this segment. Get out the defibrillator paddles and start popping some aspirins, because this is HART ATTACK on the William T. Hart Show.

HART ATTACK #1 -- POINTS OF DISORDER

HART: We’ve been covering the ugly situation in the House of Representatives for a while now on the show. Basically, Speaker of the House Leah Henderson has been, well, lazy in her new job and has decided to just ignore pesky things like, say, closing votes and announcing the results. So how do House Republicans respond in this situation? By going absolutely bananas and making huge fools of themselves, of course.

(IMG:http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_HliWiZ0TUx0/SGzqC064tvI/AAAAAAAABtQ/YonMgb49Ptw/s320-R/george-washington-pi.jpg)
Rep. Dan Ballentyne, batting 1 for 17 in points of order

HART: Two House Republicans, Representatives Dan Ballentyne (R-PA) and freshman Michael Andrews (R-NY) have taken it upon themselves to wage a parliamentary procedure war against Speaker Henderson. Our two Republicans ran around raising points of order on everything, and our dear Speaker simply ignored them. Granted, Speaker Henderson wasn’t doing her job and probably should have addressed the first few points of order instead of ignoring them… but that’s no excuse for Republicans to go off the deep end. In the end, Speaker Henderson and House Republicans have come out of this looking like dirt. Way to go and squander a great opportunity to highlight Speaker Henderson’s shortcomings, guys.

HART ATTACK #2 -- I'LL HAVE PARTY LINE WITH EXTRA REDUNDANCY, PLEASE

HART: I think I might need a quadruple bypass for this Hart Attack. Remember the Animal Fighting Prohibition Act? The bill by former House Majority Leader Champ Afry (D-CA) that was stolen word for word from the current U.S. law code? Yeah? Well, it passed narrowly on a mostly party-line vote in the House. I’ve got two words for you blind, partisan windbags who voted for this waste of congressional time and taxpayer money:

WAKE UP!!!

This bill, word for word, in identical form, is already the law of the United States. But since when have facts and reality influenced anything in the House of Representatives? Here’s a few choice words for some people in the House.

(IMG:http://pjbottoms.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/pomeranian-0533.jpg)
Even cute pomeranians hate Congress wasting time!

HART: Champ Afry: if you were in one of my journalism classes I’d flunk you out for plagiarism but apparently, as former House Majority Leader, you can get away with repackaging current, existing U.S. law and introducing it as a new piece of legislation. I hope you’re proud of yourself.

HART: House Democrats: we the people gave you the House Majority because you promised change and reform. How is wasting the Congress’s time ramming through bills that are already law going to help the people of this country? Don’t you have real issues the Congress should be discussing? Wake up and stop following stupid people like lemmings.

HART: Finally... House Republicans: if you weren’t obsessed with scoring cheap, momentary political points that usually seem to backfire, you might actually use this opportunity to contrast these sort of stupid, stupid situations the Democrats keep bringing upon themselves with your leadership and maturity. That is, if you’d only just show some leadership and maturity. Unfortunately that's all the time we have . Tune in next time for the latest commentary, interviews, and insights into our nation's politics, without the partisan rhetoric. Until then, I'm your host, William T. Hart. Thank you, and good night.

[Summy]

Aired during prime time

The camera pans around the studio. The skyline of Phoenix is visible in the background through the glass walls of the studio. After a few seconds, it focuses in on the host, Matt Berryhill.

(IMG:http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm312/Krispy37/TVShow/244fraserbrendan092706.jpg)

Berryhill:

Berryhill: And so once again, for the third time in three presidencies, we are seeing substantial delays in getting a budget passed. And while President Pizzutto has promised a bipartisan budget in good time, we have yet to see any activity on this front. Well, no activity other then the President asking Republican, but not Democratic, Senate leadership for budget input. Now, fortunately, swift bipartisan action has prevented a shutdown by passing a continuing resolution.

Berryhill: And here to talk to us today are BELI Ranking Member Thomas Jackson and Senate Democratic Leader Jackson Rockefeller. First on the hot seat is Representative Jackson, the freshman representative out of Michigan. Representative Jackson, we both know that to say that Americans have not been thrilled with the budget process this last half-decade would be a tremendous understatement. As Ranking Member of one of the two budget committees, what exactly can America expect from Congress this time around?

(IMG:http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm312/Krispy37/TVShow/tdjakes1.jpg)

Jackson: Well, Matt, going back to the Magruder Administration, both sides of the aisle have engaged in what I call sandbox politics. By that, I mean we argue so much over the process that by the time the discussion finally turns to legitimate differences of opinion on policy, both sides have spent so much time demonizing each other that it becomes that much more difficult to find a way forward. This time around, I've been in personal contact with Secretary Cole and the White House as well as Evan McCloud, the Chairman of the committee to talk about ways that we can have a constructive process that has three goals. Number one, we avoidd the kind of acrimony we saw during both the Magruder and Cullen Administrations. The second goal, it seems to me, is to foster a process where we can have a constructive debate about our very honest and sincerely felt differences of opinion on the matter of Federal spending.The reality is that there are many of us, myself included, who feel very strongly that we have to begin making serious inroads in terms of reducing our deficit and engaging in real fiscal responsibility, and we need a process that allows for an honest, civil and constructive discussion about those issues. A third goal that we share is avoiding the kind of government shutdown we saw by agreeing on the end point and how to get there. So, I think the biggest difference the people can expect is having a framework that accomplishes those objectives and that avoids the mistakes of the past decade.

Berryhill: Now, I have been informed that Senator Rockefeller has helped set up a series of bipartisan talks to try and reach a compromise acceptable to everyone. Is this information accurate? If so, what do you hope to get out of these talks? Do you think you could reach a budget with bipartisan support? And what will you do to avoid the failure of the Renzetti-Watkiss-Cullen budget summit in 2011, which ended in a compromise budget accepted by virtually no one outside that room?

Jackson: Yes, that is correct, Senator Rockefeller has been trying to get together a working budget group to address the process so we can get this done as quickly as possible. Now, let me answer the last part of your question first. What we learned, I think, from the Renzetti-Watkiss- Cullen experience in 2011 was that it's important to make sure that you have two conditions present. The first is that you have to have representation from both parties in both houses of Congress as a part of the negotiating process. That guarantees that you're going to have advocates for whatever process emerges in both houses of Congress and on both sides of the aisle. In 2011, without House Republicans having been addequately represented at the table, the feeling was that Senate Republicans at the time were trying to dictate to the House caucus, so it's important to make sure everyone on both sides of Capitol Hill are represented.

Now, in terms of what we hope to get accomplished and what we can achieve, I think, is a process where we can achieve a more cohesive budget process for the future, one that sets out the benchmarks that I spoke about a moment ago. As for the possibility of a bipartisan process, I think that is entirely possible. The one concern I have is the frankly arrogant approach we've seen under the present House majority. This whole session, we've seen members of our caucus reach out and offer specific amendments designed to achieve progress so that we could pass major reforms on a bipartisan basis. At every turn, we've seen members of the majority either vote en masse against any sort of compromise or they insist on removing those compromises once thr bill goes to the conference committee, as we saw with the Employee Free Choice Act. Having said that, I have some hope that, as a result of these meetings, that we won't see a similiar level of hubris on the budget, and that we'll be able to get something bipartisan passed and onto the President's desk as soon as possible.

Berryhill: Well, I would like to point out that Speaker of the House Reynard was involved in those budget meetings in 2011 too. Are you saying that having the Speaker present in negotiations was not sufficient representation? And you have pointed out the attitude of the House Democrats as a potential problem for these meetings. Are there any other potential obstacles you can forsee? Are you absolutely committed to reaching a bipartisan budget agreement?

Jackon: Well, Matt, I am absolutely committed to reaching a bipartisan accord on the budgt, and I think we're all committed to that goal. Now, in terms of the former Speaker being involved in the process, I think it's important to recognize that the budget has to be able to make it's way through the committee on which I serve. Unfortunately, there was little representation from the committee's membership, and that lack of involvement by the members of the BELI committee's membership led to a regrettable process where the first time the committee's membership, and even the committee chairman at the time, Eric Cohen of California, the first time they got to be heard on the budget was after it had been introduced. That meant that their disagreements were not part of the formulaic process whereby the budget was arrived at. Had Chairman Cohen and his Democratic counterpart been involved in the negotiations, then you would have had two ready-made advocates at the local level, and that would have done the work of ten people in terms of avoiding the kind of chaos we saw in 2011.

Now, in terms of obstacles, I know that we're committed to a bipartisan process, but the biggest challenge is going to be both the level of active involvement and bipartisan commitment. In addition to the excessive arrogance we've seen in the House so far this session, we've also been witness to the Speaker leaving votes untallied for weeks at a time after voting has ended. If we see that kind of lackluster attitude on the budget once we get to the point of getting it to the Floor, then that could be another obstacle to overcome.

Now, again, I think that the fact that we're talking means we can overcome those obstacles, but they are of significant concern, to me at least, as we start on this process.

Berryhill: I do find it interesting that we are still at the starting point of this process, to be honest. Frankly, it does not seem that getting the budget out the door and ready to go has been a priority of the Department of Treasury or the White House. Congress did manage to pass a continuing resolution, yes, but even with that the deadline is creeping closer every day. Do you think Congress and the White House are going to be able to get their acts together and get a budget passed in time?

Jackson: Matt, let's take a step back and remember something. We're now in 2018 and both the President and the Treasury Department have been working to make sure that the budget that is presented is done the right way. Remember something - the budget wasn't presented to Congress until 2014 by the Cullen Administration until 2014 - two years after Esther Cullen was first elected to the White House, so for anyone to criticize President Pizzuto and Secretary Cole for being slow on the budget when they didn't have one word of criticism for the two year process of the Cullen Administration simply reeks of hypocrisy.

The reality is that the President and the Treasury Secretary have been in consultation with me and with others. The folks who are complaining, I have to ask, how many times have they tried to contact the Treasury Secretary privately to get answers to their concerns? The reality is that I'd be willing to bet that more than 90% of these folks have made these complaints are issuing a press release and never once trying to find out, as I have, what the Treasury Secretary and the White House are working on. Frankly, that's the kind of arrogant partisanship I was talking about a minute ago, the kind of attitude that is epitomized by the Bradshaw whip memo that drove two members of the Democratic party out the door, the kind of arrogance that assumes because the Treasury Secretary doesn't have their number on speed dial and isn't asking their approval for every move that he makes, that a press release is needed. Frankly, Matt, bipartisanship is a two-way street, but we've seen precious little of that from the folks on the other side of the aisle up to this point.

Now, I absolutely do think Congress and the White House can get something done and that we can work together to get the budget passed. We've already gotten a continuing resolution passed, and I'm confident that the forthcoming budget proposal will be submitted in short order. Once that is done, then we can move beyond a lot of the excessive dramatics we've seen in the current debate. However, a major difficulty in getting to that point is, frankly, in telling the truth when it comes to the process that has unfolded over the last several years. If we continue to see that, then it could make the process very difficult. If we see a process where we focus our attention on moving forward and keeping these baseless attacks to a minimum, then I think there's tremendous potential for progress and getting a long term budget agreement passed sooner rather than later.

Berryhill: Do you have a comment on the executive branch's failure to solicit ideas from Senator Rockefeller? And how do you think the late, even by Cullen and Magruder standards, start to budget negotiations will effect their content and progression?

Jackson: Well, I would argue that Senator Rockefeller is one member of the Congress - one out of many. Matt, if I stepped in front of the cameras and lambasted the White House because they didn't call me personally, I would be accused of having an ego the size of Texas, and that accusation would be correct. Just because the White House isn't calling Senator Rockefeller doesn't mean that they're not working with other members of Congress. If Senator Rockefeller has ideas for the White House, why is he not picking up a phone and speaking to the Treasury Department and the White House? Again, this process ought not to devolve into the vagaries of bruised egos or hurt feelings. We should be keeping this as a policy discussion, not a contest of who did or did not call who. That kind of behavior is beneath the dignity of the work the people sent us here to do.

As for when the process is starting, I think that the negotiations will proceed in due course. I've got some definite ideas on how to proceed, as I am sure others do as well. It is important for us to have a dialogue, and I think we're going to. If we can use that dialogue as a means of prompting a productive discussion, I firmly believe we'll be able to find a way forward - we may not get everything that we want, but the end product will be one that is in the best interests of our country.

Now, I'm going to challenge you on one thing directly, Matt...because you keep talking about how late this is in the process. Again, are we two years in? Because that is the standard that President Cullen set, so this idea that you keep trying to reinforce that President Pizzuto is somehow more late than his predecessors is flatly wrong, and I think you do a disservice to those watching this program when you try to perpetuate a myth as though it's fact.

Berryhill: Well, for starters, I am not defending the way things were run under the Cullen administration, as there were clearly deep problems with it. I have not at any point said they are running things better or worse then the Cullen administration did. Incompetence is incompetence any way you cut it. However, the fact remains that by this stage of the game there were at least signs of life from the Cullen administration in getting a budget passed. There were active bipartisan negotiations involving leadership of both houses. However, the current administration has not even gotten to that point yet. Either they are lagging way behind, or they are deliberately keeping the American People in the dark as to the progress being made. Either way, that cannot be good.

Jackson: Again, Matt, I think any comparison, either explicit or implicit, is false on it's face and probably something we should stay away from. The reality is that there have been numerous members of Congress, myself included, who have been speaking with the President, his Chief of Staff, and others at the White House and the Treasury Department to talk to them about the process, both good and bad. One thing I've shared with the President are my concerns about the process. I've told both the President and Secretary Cole that this is not the process that I would have followed, and I think you're going to see a much different process moving forward from this point. That's how you get things accomplished - not always with press conference and attack ads, but with conversations that we don't stop to have nearly often enough. We need to do more of this, to change the one and bring down the temperature, because that's what will translate bipartisan rhetoric into bipartisan achievement.

Matt, in this day and age of the 24 hour news cycle, there's this idea in Washington that unless you pass a group of reporters who see you going into a room, that somehow these discussions are not happening. The plain truth of the matter is that these discussions are happening, and they will be. We'll meet and we'll discuss these things on an individual basis, and that will form the basis for progress on the budget. Senator Rockefeller has proposed one such series of discussions, and that is a valid one. I've talked about ongoing discussions with both the White House and the Treasury Department that I have had. All of these discussions are equally valid, and I think if you take them and put them together, they form the framework for us to achieve something significant, not just on the budget, but also on a whole host of policy initiatives.


Berryhill: Unfortunately, we are about out of time. I would like to thank you for coming on, and I must say I appreciate your enthusiasm for government. Do you have any final thoughts you would like to share, about anything, before you go?


Jackson: Well, Matt, at the end of the day, I think it's going to be conversations like this one that are part of the debate that help us to get a budget deal passed. Ultimately, that's going to be not only good for the nation as we stand now, but good for the future, and I appreciate the chance to be with you today.

The show cuts to commercials.

Berryhill: And now, for his perspective, I would like to welcome Senate Majority Leader and former presidential candidate Jackson Rockefeller. Senator Rockefeller, we both know that the budget process these last few times around has been anything but smooth, and it is clear that the American people are not really all too pleased about that. What exactly do you think we can expect from you, and from Congress at large, as this budget standoff starts?

(IMG:http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm312/Krispy37/TVShow/JFK_Jr_001_072006.jpg)

Rockefeller: I've started paving the way for a budget process that includes both sides of the aisle from both houses. I'd like to start off thanking Congressman Jackson for joining the bipartisan budget talks I've opened up. As Ranking Member in the House BELI Committee, his input is important. I really am hoping the federal budget, even before the White House issues its proposal, incorporates bipartisan ideas, concerns and the realities before us. In the Senate, both GRAC Chairman Kennedy and I realize that the deadline is fast approaching. I told President Cullen that pushing the deadline is not good and I'll tell President Pizzuto that too. So, Senator Kennedy and I are preparing to keep the budget process moving as swiftly through the Senate as we can, but the White House needs to be aware that rules in Congress set real time requirements that could pose significant barriers. Speaker Henderson and I already extended the budget deadline to give the White House and the Treasury more time to work, but the deadline again looms. I'm hoping that both parties, including the Treasury Secretary, comes to these talks because ironing out the budget face to face now could provide for a much more swift process and ease any concerns or problems before they become an issue in Congress.

Berryhill: My previous guest made the point that a major factor in the 2011 budget compromise failure was a failure to adequately represent all interested parties in negotiations. With that in mind, has the Treasury Secretary committed to any sort of talks with you at any point in time, or asked for your input in the budget making process? If not, what effect do you think this will have on the budgetmaking process if he continues to not communicate with Senate Democatic leadership?

Rockefeller: Speaker Henderson, GRAC Chairman Kennedy, BELI Chairman McCloud and I sent Secretary Cole a letter outlining our early thoughts on the federal budget. The Secretary promised us "quick feedback", but we haven't received anything from him about the budget since his initial request. I'm concerned. Frankly, we're too close to the deadline to let the budget issue sit dormant, which is why I took action and invited folks to bipartisan budget talks. I feel uneasy about the silence from the White House on the budget, with less than two weeks until the deadline. But, I am hopeful that if folks from both sides come to these talks, like Congressman Jackson and I are doing, we can make this the smoothest budget process Washington has seen in over a decade.

Berryhill: Now that would certainly be a tremendous feat at this point. Assuming all goes well, what exactly are the key objectives you are looking to accomplish in these negotiations? Representative Jackson mentioned bringing the federal debt under control; do you have any specific plans to accomplish that? Are there any programs you would say are off limits to cuts?

Rockefeller: I have my thoughts on the budget, specifically in regards to being very cautious with any dangerous across the board cuts to education or our national security. But, I am open to bipartisan discussion too. My hope is to find general agreement on an outline for the federal budget before Congress starts debatting it. If we have a bipartisan outline, then the budget can move swiftly towards passage with members of Congress understanding pretty much where we're headed with it. Without face to face bipartisan negociations and the White House simply submitting its own proposal, I can see the budget process becoming much more heated than would have been necessary.

Berryhill: And that certainly would not be a good result. Now, why do you think the white houses hasn't been more proactive in initiating these talks, and has not been responsive to your ideas? Do you think that, given the obvious delays going on, we will have a budget in time? Or will you have to pass another continuing resolution?

Rockefeller: I'm truly hoping the nation doesn't have to live on life support. I didn't like it under the Cullen Administration and I don't like it now. Honestly, I'm not exactly sure why the White House has been so late regarding negociations or the budget itself. Communication from the White House to leaders in Congress has been minimal to nil so far this session. I truly do hope we'll have not only a budget on-time, but one built from face to face bipartisan negociations and with a framework that we can pass swiftly through Congress. At this point, I don't have any plans to pass another continuing resolution. The Speaker and I passed one hoping to provide the President and Treasury Secretary with more time to open bipartisan budget talks. Now that I've opened bipartisan budget talks, I think we can move forward on-time if both sides in Congress and Secretary Cole participate in these talks.

Berryhill: Now, it is easy to remain bipartisan when the pressure is lessened to a continuing resolution. Do you think that, if the clock really starts to tick, bipartisanship will be the first thing out the window?

Rockefeller: Honestly, I hope not. I'm working to make sure that doesn't happen. But, the fate of the budget is in the hands of the White House. The first question is whether they'll come to the negociating table to help us make this budget process as bipartisan and smooth as possible.

Berryhill: Well, I think this is about all the time we have, unfortunately. Any last words for America?

Rockefeller: Over the past decade, we've had a series of very difficult and politically-charged budget battles in Washington. I'm ready and willing to avoid that this time, but I need the minority and the White House to join me. It's going to take some serious work, open minds and determination for bipartisanship on all sides to make this year's budget process a smooth one, instead of the battles we've witnessed in years past. I'm ready. I thank Congressman Jackson for his willingness too. I just hope other leaders in Washington are ready and willing too.

The show cuts to commercials.

Berryhill: Next, we welcome James Kennedy, journalist and contributor to the Politico, to our show. You've covered the recent nomination of Dr. Warren for Secretary of Homeland Security, specifically the accusations of partisan games. Now, the Warren nomination has passed the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support. Could you explain how this would, in any sense, relate to the accusations of a partisan atmosphere in the Senate?

Kennedy: It doesn't, Matt, and that's the issue here. The Senate Republicans did their best to spin the Democrats' treatment of Warren nomination as an exact replica of the Sarmento nomination. From the get-go, Republicans like Senators Watkiss and Sorenson lambasted the Senate Majority trying to frame the consideration of Dr. Warren as hyper-partisan.

Berryhill: Senator Kent did object to unanimous consent, so obviously there was opposition to the nomination.

Kennedy: ....which is not unusual and Senator Kent explained his reasons for opposing the nomination. Yet, it was the Senate Majority that insisted on an up or down vote on the Warren nomination....

Berryhill: ...but, the majority even gave Sarmento a vote and then killed the nomination. So, I would say that doesn't prove much.

Kennedy: The vote itself proves it wasn't partisan, and so do the statements of numerous prominent Democrats during debate, including Senate Majority Leader Jackson Rockefeller who expressed his support for the Warren nomination. Even after such declarations of support, the Senate Republicans tried to stir up the public outrage that erupted during the Sarmento confirmation battle. But, this wasn't Sarmento the sequel.

Berryhill: Then, what was the angst over the Warren nomination all about?

Kennedy: It was, simply put, the Senate minority trying to make the Democrats look bad. But, to any observer, this clearly backfired because there was no justification for the attacks. In fact, the Warren nomination passed the Senate with only one vote against it. That doesn't seem very partisan to me.

Berryhill: So, you're saying the attacks were hackish media spin?

Kennedy: A very blatant attempt, yes. Say what you will about the Democrats during the Sarmento battle, a number of Senate Republicans have come out of the Warren confirmation not looking any better than the Democrats did after Sarmento.

Berryhill: Have any of those who were so vocal in their accusations apologized, now seeing that they were wrong?

Kennedy: Publicly? Not to my knowledge. This is Washington, so just because someone was wrong doesn't mean they'll apologized. Thus, the partisan hackery continues and, clearly, both sides have dirty hands. But, these are mere confirmation battles and, since they have little direct and visible impact on the quality of life in America, they have little impact on elections. But still, its worth it to see the bigger picture here.

Berryhill: That is certainly true. Thank you for your time and insight.

The show cuts to commercials.

Berryhill: I am afraid we are almost out of time today, but before I go, I would like to comment on the current controversy surrounding the bill known as S.6. By now, I am sure you have seen Senator Rockefeller talking about this bill on both my show, as well as Mr. Heart's show. This bill has been in stalemate for a good year now, and there have been calls from the Republicans to pull it from the floor.

Berryhill: Perhaps to gauge more accurately where the public really stood on the bill, a public official of the Southwest who I will not name commissioned a poll on S.6, the contents and results of which were in turn handed over to me. In a scientific poll of Californians, when the effects of S.6 were described to the poll responder in detail, 76% of Californians supported passage of the bill, compared to 10% opposed. Furthermore, when asked whether the blocking of S.6 would make Califonrians less likely to vote for Senators Watkiss and Hennessey's re-election bids, 51% of Californians polled said yes.

Would you support federal legislation to provide federal money to help Californians buy new houses in earthquake effected zones, keep the Los Angeles credit market stable and fluid, help individuals displaced by the Los Angeles earthquake find their families, provide tax cuts on economic activity related to rebuilding earthquake effected areas, and set up disaster funds and infrastructure overhauls to prepare California for the next major earthquake to hit?

76% Yes
10% No
14% unsure/no answer

Would knowing that Senators Watkiss and Hennessey, by not voting for cloture, are single-handedly preventing this federal stimulus from reaching California make you less likely to vote for them in the future?

51% Yes
32% No
17% unsure/no answer

Berryhill: Now, the entire thrust of Watkiss's opposition to S.6 in the Senate thus far has been the claim that the people of California do not support S.6. Now that polling has conclusively shown that, yes, Californians do in fact want S.6 to pass, as well as the Southwest Legislature passing a bipartisan resolution calling for the passage of S.6, one has to wonder how he will respond. Will he continue to perpetuate the baseless myth that this bill would add more strings to reconstruction, an argument that has been debunked time and time again? But that is an issue for another day. Goodnight.

[Summy]

Aired during daytime

The William T. Hart Show

(IMG:http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/4315/wmhart.jpg)

HART: It's another packed show tonight, don't go anywhere because you'll miss out on insanity on the southern border, a nitty-gritty dissection of the Federal budget, a look at what the hell is happening -- or isn't happening, I should say -- in the House of Representatives, and I think I might even be having a HART ATTACK later on. All this and more is right around the corner.

ANNOUNCER: Live from Alexandria, Virginia, this is the William T. Hart Show, with your host, William T. Hart.

HART: President Pizzuto recently addressed the nation following a deadly attack by insurgent Mexican military forces in Texas, marking the first time since Japanese submarines fired on California in 1942 that a foreign military power has attacked the mainland United States, and only the second time since the War of 1812. Well... that's if you don't count Confederates.

(IMG:http://www.utexas.edu/features/2007/cinema/graphics/cinema3.jpg)
Mexican Army fires on United States

HART: In the past few weeks we've seen an absolutely insane Mexican president run out of Dodge, a whole bunch of hostages released, a new government established in Mexico that might actually talk to us, and a potentially very bloody war averted... but nobody's talking about it. Now President Pizzuto is promising a renewed diplomatic relationship with Mexico and, with a strange twist, has told the Mexican people that "you have won". With me tonight to discuss this major unfolding event is Congressman Charles Herbert Porter of Illinois, a Republican member of the House Foreign Relations and Armed Services Committee. Congressman, welcome to the show.

PORTER: Thanks for having me, William.

HART: You've been following this situation in Mexico pretty closely as a member of FRAS. What do you think we've done right so far with Mexico, and where do you think we might have done better?

PORTER: I think the President and his cabinet have done the right thing. I got to talk to all the differing secretaries who were involved in managing the conflict. I believe President Pizzuto did the right thing not allowing President Villaobos to dictate the terms of the ordeal. President Pizzuto kept his calm, which allowed the United States to keep an upper hand. My one criticism on the whole situation in Mexico is that we didn't handle this problem twenty years ago. Mexico has had a problem with corruption and cartels for quite some time now.

HART: There hasn't been much discussion about Mexico in the media, but what little coverage there has been seems to be urging "comprehensive immigration reform" and a "Marshall Plan for Mexico". I think it's safe to say they're referring to what some conservatives would call an "amnesty" program and major Federal funding assistance to Mexico. Are any of these plans feasible right now, especially as we face a considerable budget deficit?

PORTER: We have to remember that our first allegiance is to the American people. The people we serve, but we also have to remember to practice compassion. The people of Mexico have suffered for quite some time due to a corrupt government. The government of Mexico did not have the interests of its people at heart, which was part of the problem. We do need comprehensive immigration reform, immigration reform which rewards people that obey the law, and punishes those who do not. My family came over here from Berlin in the nineteen twenties. My family entered here legally, like countless naturalized Americans. I am apprehensive about a Marshall Plan for Mexico for a few reasons. First off, Mexico does not have a good history of using funds given to it. How do we know these funds will be used for what they are intended? Second of all, where are we going to get the money? We can't just keep creating more out of thin air, that's what leads to deficit problems we have experienced.

HART: As a journalist, I can't help but notice that several Democrats issued press releases or made statements in Congress or elsewhere criticizing the President's handling of the situation in Mexico, but that not one -- not a single Democrat -- has made any press release or statement about Mexico since Villalobos was run out of town and the hostages were rescued. Your thoughts on this?

PORTER: The Democratic Party right now is staring down the political abyss, and seem to be unable to focus on what needs to be done. They seem to be disconnected from the realities of the situation. I will say that I am proud of the Republicans on FRAS, and the thoughtful questions they asked. I believe the Democratic Party is stuck in a rut, and because of that, their members seem to be unable to grasp the seriousness of the current political climate.

HART: We've got to take a break but before we go, what can we expect to see from you in the future?

PORTER: Well, right now I am the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in the Wabash Valley. I am looking forward to the race, and hope to have a high level of debate. However, I am also focused on my current endeavors in the house to reduce spending, promote economic growth, and protect the freedoms of all Americans.

HART: Good luck with that, Charles, and I hope to have you back on the show again soon. Ladies and gentlemen, Congressman Charles Porter. We'll be right back on the William T. Hart Show.

[ADVERTISEMENT]

HART: We're back on the William T. Hart Show. An issue we've been covering for quite some time now is the absolutely unbelievable situation in the House of Representatives, where the Speaker of the House and the Democratic Majority just can't seem to keep the place running, let alone run it well. Votes have been waiting literally for months to be tallied and sent on to the Senate or the President. In other words... the House of Representatives has for all practical purposes ceased to function in its Constitutional capacity. Here with me now to talk about this exasperating situation is House Minority Leader Steve Rayburn. Steve, it's great to have you back on the show.

RAYBURN: Great to be back, William. Thanks for having me.

HART: So tell me, Steve, I don't know how you keep from pulling your hair out over there. Is it correct to say that Speaker of the House Leah Henderson or Majority Leader Stephen Frye (D-FL) have not even announced the results of routine floor votes for months now, literally?

RAYBURN: It's been a while since they've done those things, yes. In fact, it's become so frustrating for our conference to see such simple, routine tasks fall by the wayside that I just had to speak up today and announce the vote tallies for just a few of nearly a dozen bills that still await action by either the Speaker or the Majority Leader. So yes, needless to say, it's extremely frustrating and I think the American taxpayers deserve a whole lot better.

(IMG:http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/2988/leahf.jpg)
Somebody should file a missing persons report

HART: Even though you have taken the initiative to announce the vote tallies, we still have to wait for the Majority to accept them to make them official, right? You can't just grab the gavel, take over, and restore sanity, so we're still waiting on them to react?

RAYBURN: That's correct, William. I cannot and frankly am not inclined to just hop up to the rostrum and do the job that the American people asked the Democratic majority to do. That's not within the realm of my authority as Minority Leader, and even if it were, I don't want to be responsible for making a circus out of this. At the end of the day, the majority leadership needs to prove that it can do the job that the voters asked them to do, and that's manage America's House with honor, integrity and punctuality. Right now they're not living up to that charge, and that's a shame.

HART: Now I don't see this as a partisan issue, and I think most Americans can agree that it doesn't matter if you're Republican or Democrat: if you are the Speaker of the House, you and your Majority Party have got to rise to the task of administrating your half of the American Congress. How much longer is this going to continue before the Democrats agree that there's a problem here, and it's up to them to fix it?

RAYBURN: No idea, William. If their past actions this session are any indication, the majority leadership would rather just stay quiet and hope their critics go away. It certainly seems like the easier path than actually leading and fixing a problem that they alone caused. Taking responsibility is part of the job in House leadership, and unfortunately, all we can do is wait out the rest of the session in the hope that the majority leadership turns things around. Ball's in their court as far as I'm concerned.

HART: Well, I think I speak for almost every American when I say that I hope you're successful in getting the House of Representatives back on track, and working on the people's business. It's been great having you on the show again.

RAYBURN: I appreciate that, William. Thanks for having me, and best of luck to you.

HART: That was House Minority Leader Steve Rayburn, ladies and gentlemen. Stick around, don't go anywhere, because... uh oh... I think I feel a couple HART ATTACK'S coming on... We'll be right back.

[ADVERTISEMENT]

HART: You know, there are just some politicians running around out there doing and saying things that make my blood pressure rise, my heart beat faster, and my ears turn red. Not just the ordinary boilerplate partisan rhetoric that we're all used to, mind you, but real jaw-droppers that makes you wonder, how do these people stay in office? It's even worse when they're in prominent leadership positions. Somebody call an ambulance, break out the EKG, and start doing CPR, because this is another HART ATTACK.

HART ATTACK #1 -- ATTACK FIRST, DO RESEARCH LATER

HART: From the land of gender-segregated schools, Rebel flags, and deep fried comfort food comes a-riding high Representative Gorgas P. Connally, Democrat from Mobile, who is also the House Majority Whip. Remember, folks, this is the guy who tells the Majority Party in the House of Representatives how to vote.

(IMG:http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2007/scorecard/02/01/truth.rumors.college/p1_saban.jpg)
Rep. Gorgas P. Connally (D-AL)

HART: Now if the simple fact that the guy telling the Democrats how to vote is from Mobile, Alabama isn't scary enough, Congressman Connally shot off a press release immediately after the Pizzuto Administration released the Federal Budget. Finally released the budget, I might add. Representative Connelly said, and we quote:

HOUSE MAJORITY WHIP GORGAS CONNALLY: I am disappointed that President Pizzuto has proposed [...] a dramatic decrease to the Homeland Security Budget. At a time when the worldwide situation is becoming more tenuous than ever we need to be assured that we are doing all that we can to ensure that our homeland security is being properly provided for.

HART: There we have it, a dramatic decrease for Homeland Security, according to the House Majority Whip. Unfortunately, Rep. Connally simply read the current budget figures and decided not to do any fact-checking or research. Had he done so, he would have seen that the Homeland Security budget from the last Federal budget was $276.6 billion a year. The "Emergency Earthquake Relief Act", we'll recall, sent more than $250 billion to California, which was distributed through FEMA, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security, which... is why the DHS budget is an artificially-inflated $534.8 billion for 2018.

HART: Then guess what? In 2019, Pizzuto's proposed budget increases the DHS budget by $200 million bucks, to $276.8 billion. Majority Whip Connally just read the numbers, saw what appeared to be a "dramatic decrease", and scrambled to his press office to fire off a scathing criticism of President Pizzuto for slashing the Homeland Security budget. And this is the guy telling the Democrats how to vote? Somebody bring me some aspirins!

HART ATTACK #2 -- OH YEAH? YOUR MOM'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

HART: This really congests my arteries. Newly-appointed Senator Buford Justice of Texas thinks FEMA, the Department of Education, and government help during disasters are all unconstitutional. These, among other things, are Federal initiatives Senator Justice would like to stamp out, since they are apparently abhorrent to his idea of what the Constitution says.

(IMG:http://www.grudge-match.com/Images/justice.gif)
Senator Buford T. Justice (R-TX)

HART: Just one example is Senator Justice's remarks while debating the "School and Library Recovery Act", which would help seriously damaged schools and libraries in California re-open their door. "Yet another unconstitutional bill", Justice declared. "Where are schools and libraries mentioned in the Constitution?" Senator Justice is the sole member currently opposing cloture for the "unconstitutional" grant funding for damaged schools and libraries.

(IMG:http://thebsreport.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/john_adams.jpg)
John Adams, Father of his Country Savage Violator of the Constitution

HART: Guess what, Senator Justice? The oldest Federal institution is the Library of Congress, established in the year 1800 when President John Adams savagely violated the Constitution by signing a bill into law appropriating $5,000 for a bunch of books and "for fitting up a suitable apartment for containing them". Curse that big-spending Constitution-trampling fiscally-irresponsible liberal welfare activist John Adams! Didn't he know that libraries aren't mentioned in the Constitution? All John Adams ever did was sign that silly old Declaration of Independence, which Buford Justice would probably call unconstitutional, except that it happened before the Constitution was written.

HART: Unfortunately we've run out of time. I'll see you all next time, same Hart time, same Hart channel, right here on CNN, the most trusted name in news.

[Summy]

Aired during daytime

The William T. Hart Show

(IMG:http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/4315/wmhart.jpg)

HART: It's another packed show tonight, don't go anywhere because you'll miss out on insanity on the southern border, a nitty-gritty dissection of the Federal budget, a look at what the hell is happening -- or isn't happening, I should say -- in the House of Representatives, and I think I might even be having a HART ATTACK later on. All this and more is right around the corner.

ANNOUNCER: Live from Alexandria, Virginia, this is the William T. Hart Show, with your host, William T. Hart.

HART: President Pizzuto recently addressed the nation following a deadly attack by insurgent Mexican military forces in Texas, marking the first time since Japanese submarines fired on California in 1942 that a foreign military power has attacked the mainland United States, and only the second time since the War of 1812. Well... that's if you don't count Confederates.

(IMG:http://www.utexas.edu/features/2007/cinema/graphics/cinema3.jpg)
Mexican Army fires on United States

HART: In the past few weeks we've seen an absolutely insane Mexican president run out of Dodge, a whole bunch of hostages released, a new government established in Mexico that might actually talk to us, and a potentially very bloody war averted... but nobody's talking about it. Now President Pizzuto is promising a renewed diplomatic relationship with Mexico and, with a strange twist, has told the Mexican people that "you have won". With me tonight to discuss this major unfolding event is Congressman Charles Herbert Porter of Illinois, a Republican member of the House Foreign Relations and Armed Services Committee. Congressman, welcome to the show.

PORTER: Thanks for having me, William.

HART: You've been following this situation in Mexico pretty closely as a member of FRAS. What do you think we've done right so far with Mexico, and where do you think we might have done better?

PORTER: I think the President and his cabinet have done the right thing. I got to talk to all the differing secretaries who were involved in managing the conflict. I believe President Pizzuto did the right thing not allowing President Villaobos to dictate the terms of the ordeal. President Pizzuto kept his calm, which allowed the United States to keep an upper hand. My one criticism on the whole situation in Mexico is that we didn't handle this problem twenty years ago. Mexico has had a problem with corruption and cartels for quite some time now.

HART: There hasn't been much discussion about Mexico in the media, but what little coverage there has been seems to be urging "comprehensive immigration reform" and a "Marshall Plan for Mexico". I think it's safe to say they're referring to what some conservatives would call an "amnesty" program and major Federal funding assistance to Mexico. Are any of these plans feasible right now, especially as we face a considerable budget deficit?

PORTER: We have to remember that our first allegiance is to the American people. The people we serve, but we also have to remember to practice compassion. The people of Mexico have suffered for quite some time due to a corrupt government. The government of Mexico did not have the interests of its people at heart, which was part of the problem. We do need comprehensive immigration reform, immigration reform which rewards people that obey the law, and punishes those who do not. My family came over here from Berlin in the nineteen twenties. My family entered here legally, like countless naturalized Americans. I am apprehensive about a Marshall Plan for Mexico for a few reasons. First off, Mexico does not have a good history of using funds given to it. How do we know these funds will be used for what they are intended? Second of all, where are we going to get the money? We can't just keep creating more out of thin air, that's what leads to deficit problems we have experienced.

HART: As a journalist, I can't help but notice that several Democrats issued press releases or made statements in Congress or elsewhere criticizing the President's handling of the situation in Mexico, but that not one -- not a single Democrat -- has made any press release or statement about Mexico since Villalobos was run out of town and the hostages were rescued. Your thoughts on this?

PORTER: The Democratic Party right now is staring down the political abyss, and seem to be unable to focus on what needs to be done. They seem to be disconnected from the realities of the situation. I will say that I am proud of the Republicans on FRAS, and the thoughtful questions they asked. I believe the Democratic Party is stuck in a rut, and because of that, their members seem to be unable to grasp the seriousness of the current political climate.

HART: We've got to take a break but before we go, what can we expect to see from you in the future?

PORTER: Well, right now I am the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in the Wabash Valley. I am looking forward to the race, and hope to have a high level of debate. However, I am also focused on my current endeavors in the house to reduce spending, promote economic growth, and protect the freedoms of all Americans.

HART: Good luck with that, Charles, and I hope to have you back on the show again soon. Ladies and gentlemen, Congressman Charles Porter. We'll be right back on the William T. Hart Show.

[ADVERTISEMENT]

HART: We're back on the William T. Hart Show. An issue we've been covering for quite some time now is the absolutely unbelievable situation in the House of Representatives, where the Speaker of the House and the Democratic Majority just can't seem to keep the place running, let alone run it well. Votes have been waiting literally for months to be tallied and sent on to the Senate or the President. In other words... the House of Representatives has for all practical purposes ceased to function in its Constitutional capacity. Here with me now to talk about this exasperating situation is House Minority Leader Steve Rayburn. Steve, it's great to have you back on the show.

RAYBURN: Great to be back, William. Thanks for having me.

HART: So tell me, Steve, I don't know how you keep from pulling your hair out over there. Is it correct to say that Speaker of the House Leah Henderson or Majority Leader Stephen Frye (D-FL) have not even announced the results of routine floor votes for months now, literally?

RAYBURN: It's been a while since they've done those things, yes. In fact, it's become so frustrating for our conference to see such simple, routine tasks fall by the wayside that I just had to speak up today and announce the vote tallies for just a few of nearly a dozen bills that still await action by either the Speaker or the Majority Leader. So yes, needless to say, it's extremely frustrating and I think the American taxpayers deserve a whole lot better.

(IMG:http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/2988/leahf.jpg)
Somebody should file a missing persons report

HART: Even though you have taken the initiative to announce the vote tallies, we still have to wait for the Majority to accept them to make them official, right? You can't just grab the gavel, take over, and restore sanity, so we're still waiting on them to react?

RAYBURN: That's correct, William. I cannot and frankly am not inclined to just hop up to the rostrum and do the job that the American people asked the Democratic majority to do. That's not within the realm of my authority as Minority Leader, and even if it were, I don't want to be responsible for making a circus out of this. At the end of the day, the majority leadership needs to prove that it can do the job that the voters asked them to do, and that's manage America's House with honor, integrity and punctuality. Right now they're not living up to that charge, and that's a shame.

HART: Now I don't see this as a partisan issue, and I think most Americans can agree that it doesn't matter if you're Republican or Democrat: if you are the Speaker of the House, you and your Majority Party have got to rise to the task of administrating your half of the American Congress. How much longer is this going to continue before the Democrats agree that there's a problem here, and it's up to them to fix it?

RAYBURN: No idea, William. If their past actions this session are any indication, the majority leadership would rather just stay quiet and hope their critics go away. It certainly seems like the easier path than actually leading and fixing a problem that they alone caused. Taking responsibility is part of the job in House leadership, and unfortunately, all we can do is wait out the rest of the session in the hope that the majority leadership turns things around. Ball's in their court as far as I'm concerned.

HART: Well, I think I speak for almost every American when I say that I hope you're successful in getting the House of Representatives back on track, and working on the people's business. It's been great having you on the show again.

RAYBURN: I appreciate that, William. Thanks for having me, and best of luck to you.

HART: That was House Minority Leader Steve Rayburn, ladies and gentlemen. Stick around, don't go anywhere, because... uh oh... I think I feel a couple HART ATTACK'S coming on... We'll be right back.

[ADVERTISEMENT]

HART: You know, there are just some politicians running around out there doing and saying things that make my blood pressure rise, my heart beat faster, and my ears turn red. Not just the ordinary boilerplate partisan rhetoric that we're all used to, mind you, but real jaw-droppers that makes you wonder, how do these people stay in office? It's even worse when they're in prominent leadership positions. Somebody call an ambulance, break out the EKG, and start doing CPR, because this is another HART ATTACK.

HART ATTACK #1 -- ATTACK FIRST, DO RESEARCH LATER

HART: From the land of gender-segregated schools, Rebel flags, and deep fried comfort food comes a-riding high Representative Gorgas P. Connally, Democrat from Mobile, who is also the House Majority Whip. Remember, folks, this is the guy who tells the Majority Party in the House of Representatives how to vote.

(IMG:http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2007/scorecard/02/01/truth.rumors.college/p1_saban.jpg)
Rep. Gorgas P. Connally (D-AL)

HART: Now if the simple fact that the guy telling the Democrats how to vote is from Mobile, Alabama isn't scary enough, Congressman Connally shot off a press release immediately after the Pizzuto Administration released the Federal Budget. Finally released the budget, I might add. Representative Connelly said, and we quote:

HOUSE MAJORITY WHIP GORGAS CONNALLY: I am disappointed that President Pizzuto has proposed [...] a dramatic decrease to the Homeland Security Budget. At a time when the worldwide situation is becoming more tenuous than ever we need to be assured that we are doing all that we can to ensure that our homeland security is being properly provided for.

HART: There we have it, a dramatic decrease for Homeland Security, according to the House Majority Whip. Unfortunately, Rep. Connally simply read the current budget figures and decided not to do any fact-checking or research. Had he done so, he would have seen that the Homeland Security budget from the last Federal budget was $276.6 billion a year. The "Emergency Earthquake Relief Act", we'll recall, sent more than $250 billion to California, which was distributed through FEMA, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security, which... is why the DHS budget is an artificially-inflated $534.8 billion for 2018.

HART: Then guess what? In 2019, Pizzuto's proposed budget increases the DHS budget by $200 million bucks, to $276.8 billion. Majority Whip Connally just read the numbers, saw what appeared to be a "dramatic decrease", and scrambled to his press office to fire off a scathing criticism of President Pizzuto for slashing the Homeland Security budget. And this is the guy telling the Democrats how to vote? Somebody bring me some aspirins!

HART ATTACK #2 -- OH YEAH? YOUR MOM'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

HART: This really congests my arteries. Newly-appointed Senator Buford Justice of Texas thinks FEMA, the Department of Education, and government help during disasters are all unconstitutional. These, among other things, are Federal initiatives Senator Justice would like to stamp out, since they are apparently abhorrent to his idea of what the Constitution says.

(IMG:http://www.grudge-match.com/Images/justice.gif)
Senator Buford T. Justice (R-TX)

HART: Just one example is Senator Justice's remarks while debating the "School and Library Recovery Act", which would help seriously damaged schools and libraries in California re-open their door. "Yet another unconstitutional bill", Justice declared. "Where are schools and libraries mentioned in the Constitution?" Senator Justice is the sole member currently opposing cloture for the "unconstitutional" grant funding for damaged schools and libraries.

(IMG:http://thebsreport.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/john_adams.jpg)
John Adams, Father of his Country Savage Violator of the Constitution

HART: Guess what, Senator Justice? The oldest Federal institution is the Library of Congress, established in the year 1800 when President John Adams savagely violated the Constitution by signing a bill into law appropriating $5,000 for a bunch of books and "for fitting up a suitable apartment for containing them". Curse that big-spending Constitution-trampling fiscally-irresponsible liberal welfare activist John Adams! Didn't he know that libraries aren't mentioned in the Constitution? All John Adams ever did was sign that silly old Declaration of Independence, which Buford Justice would probably call unconstitutional, except that it happened before the Constitution was written.

HART: Unfortunately we've run out of time. I'll see you all next time, same Hart time, same Hart channel, right here on CNN, the most trusted name in news.

[Summy]

Aired late night

(IMG:http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/6061/cronkitebanner.jpg)

ANNOUNCER: Welcome back to the Hill Report with your host, Doug Hill, reporting live from Washington, D.C.

The Briefing Room: America's Top Stories
THE LEAK FILE AFFAIR

WHITE HOUSE AGENDA TO "EXPOSE DEMS" WITH FAULTY INFORMATION

Presidential Use or Abuse of Power? You Decide! on The Hill Report

(IMG:http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2009/news/090629/walter-cronkite.jpg)

HILL: With the accidental leak of a White House memo, the President's Press Secretary revealed an internal political agenda to exact political vegence upon the Democratic party by using, and I quote, "back channel communications which are BS." The ramifications of this 'leak file' are, as yet, uncertain. But, it is certainly raising questions in Washington about the President's agenda and, upon taking control of Congress, the President's use or abuse of power. I'd like to welcome Larry Gold, the Hill Report's legal consultant, and Becky Train, our political analyst. I want to know, both legally and politically, is this an acceptable use of Presidential power?

TRAIN: Politically, no. And this one stings hard coming from a President who told America he would work bipartisanly in Washington to change it, to remake it and to make us trust it again. Not only did President Pizzuto fail to work with the Democratic-controlled Congress, but now that the Republicans have taken control of Washington, the Pizzuto Administration has set an agenda for political vengence that the public hasn't seen from the White House in decades. This is not merely a question of ethics, but one of legality, too.

HILL: That's my next question. Is this type of politics from the White House actually legal? Can the President feed Congress, and I quote, "back channel communications which are BS" to purposefully use it against the political opposition?

GOLD: The leak itself is not illegal. While the leaked memo is not illegal itself, the White House has provided evidence that the Pizzuto administration is using corruption to its advantage. Therefore, this could and probably should spark an investigation into the President and his administration's backroom activities. If the White House is engaging in corrupt political activities then it would face legal charges.

HILL: So, you're saying we can't charge the White House today, but the public revelation of this leak file provides enough reason to open an investigation into the administration's activities?

GOLD: Yes. In regards to this leak file and, in general, political corruption in the White House, Congress and the Department of Justice should be asking questions about what is going on, subpeona documents and witnesses for testimony? What are they doing in there? Who is party to these activities and how deep does it go? And once an investigation uncovers the full extent of this White House's activities, the legality of the actions will be clear and prosecutors will be able to go from there.

HILL: The President's Press Secretary has taken the fall, so what happens now? Does an investigation go forward?

TRAIN: If recent scandals are any indiciation, an investigation has to move forward now to determine the facts of this White House leak file. With examples ranging from the recent Clinton and Bush administrations, an investigation is necessary whether it was the President himself, the Press Secretary working alone or working with internal support. But no matter what the President does now, even an investigation clearing him personally, he'll likely suffer long-term distrust issues like those Presidents him before had to deal with in the wake of scandals such as this.

From the Hill: Top Stories in Congress
CONGRESS REACTS TO THE LEAK FILE AFFAIR

HILL: Reaction from the Hill has varied from outrage to others shrugging this off as mere politics. Let's get a taste of the mood....

SENATOR JACKSON ROCKEFELLER (D-ALL)
"this certainly warrants further scrutiny"

HILL: While cautious, the Senate Minority Leader does open the door for an investigation into the White House's leak file. Will the new Republican majority back an investigation? They should, but whatever they do it will be at the expense of the White House.

SENATOR BASIL LOUIS TAYLOR (D-TX)
"the individual responsible must either resign or be fired immediately"

HILL: Senator Taylor offered the first direct and prominent call for a head to roll over the leak file scandal. And then the axe came down on the President's Press Secretary!

CONGRESSMAN SAM PRESCOTT (R-HI)
"Whatever the situation, some explanation is needed..."

HILL: While calling for an explaination for the leak file, Congressman Prescott hoped this was the, and I quote, "work of some misguided junior staffer." Unfortunately, I wouldn't call the President's Press Secretary a "junior staffer", but he wasn't off in calling the President's advisors' misguided.

SPEAKER STEVE RAYBURN (R-ID)
"it puts the President and many other Republicans in a rough position right now."

HILL: No kidding. Republicans should be enjoying their newfound control of Washington. But that honeymoon was forcefully drowned out before it even began! This is not the tight spot the President or Congressional Republicans want to be in right now. If I was Speaker Rayburn, I wouldn't be too happy with the White House right now.

Commercial break

HILL: With us this evening to discuss his thoughts on the White House's leak file is Senator Dan Morey from the Great Lakes and Samuel Wells, the new Senator from the Alleghenies. Gentlemen, you both have offered some tough words for the President and his staff. Let's talk about your reaction to this leak file. Is it an abuse of power, a use of power or is this 'politics as usual' strikes again in Washington?

MOREY: Let me say that I am still shocked about the content of this memo. To sum it up in a few words: that is why I left the Republican party in the first place. I have said again and again that the party has changed and it changed not for the better. More and more the Republican party leadership turned the party I was once a proud member of into a purely partisan element of Washington politics seemingly less interested in the good of the people but driven by an immense greed for power. As you know, I had my reservations about this Presidency from its very beginning that's why I endorsed Jackson Rockefeller for President. To answer your question, in my eyes it is clearly an abuse of power and a scandal with the potential to reach as much deeper. The White House is an institution that, from the very beginning, was designed as a non-partisan institution. The purpose of the White House, and ultimately the President, is to serve all the people of the United States. Using the White House, even worse, using taxpayer money to further a party political agenda with the simple goal of feeding ones own greed for power is inexcusable, highly immoral and possibly illegal. We'll have to see what else is discovered from now to judge what comes next. But yes, we're clearly looking at an abuse of power here.

WELLS: Without a doubt, this an abuse of power. The President and his entire Administration are to blame for this leak, even after the resignation of the Press Secretary. The fact remains that, had this file not been leaked, the President and his team could have been active participants without us ever knowing about it! President Pizzuto holds the most powerful office in the world. When he messes up --or anyone surrounding him does-- it casts a shadow over our entire nation. How are we to know, now, when the President and his Administration are offering factual information or erroneous ones? Simply put, this is a serious breach of trust.

HILL: The released memo claims the administration uses the leak file with "back channel communications which are BS", provide that faulty information to Democrats and then use it against them. You've claimed this makes you question the information provided to Congress and the public, in general, from this White House, correct?

MOREY: It most certainly does. Firstly, I would like to express my grave concern with the statement in this memo concerning the spirit of bi-partisanship. The President, who is known to enjoy being called the "People's President" by his friends, has campaigned on a platform condemning the Democratic party for what he called "partisan" behavior. He hit the Democratic party over and over again claiming their policies were purely partisan and would prevent real solutions and bi-partisan work. This President promised to be a bi-partisan President. And now we see this memo, written by a Senior White House official close to the President, which talks about "back channel communications which are BS." Now what does this mean? Clearly the intent here is to use any information of informal, bi-partisan talks and to even to provide false information in order to further the partisan interest of the President and his party. This memo has greatly damaged the relationship between the White House and Congressional Democrats. Now to the second point. Seeing how this White House seems to actively spin news in a way designed to further its partisan interest rather than to provide credible information, I understand why many people in this country now question whether they can trust the White House with the information it provides to the public or whether it is just another partisan spin designed to tighten the President's grip on power. The White House abused its power and overstepped its authority which ultimately led to a loss of confidence among the general public and Washington lawmakers alike. I most certainly wouldn't feel comfortable talking to any White House official at the moment knowing I have to watch my every word, no matter how informal the setting and always having to question every word they say to me. Now, that is unethical and it is in violation of every gentleman's rule ever devised for a noble government. It is shameful and, despite the President's statements, it's going to be a very difficult process for anyone in Washington or citizens across America to trust this White House here on out.

WELLS: It's fair to say that I now have to be constantly looking over my shoulder when I am in the midst of Pizzuto's Administration. Who am I to say that the President and his Cabinet have been lying to us this whole time? It's not for me to say. However, I can say that the most recent factual evidence suggests that we have already been given some untruths. This entire Administration could be serving up a buffet of fallacies for all we know. However, I am going to forge on and do what is right. I am going to continue to work for the people of the Alleghenies and this great nation. If this Administration decides to interfere with that, then they will have to deal with the consequences with me and my region.

HILL: Do you think laws have been broken or is this simply a case of bad ethics in the White House used for political gain?

MOREY: At the current point we really cannot say for sure. I am certain that the White House broke ethical boundries and overstepped its authority, but we need to uncover the full details behind this memo to really understand what has happened here. Beyond the Press Secretary, the big question is how many people knew about this and did the President know about this? Are there more such memos, more such plans and highly questionable actions by this White House? Is this leak file new or has the White House been carrying out activities like this for years now without our knowledge? All these are questions that need to be answered and the American public deserves an answer.

WELLS: I think that this most definitely warrants further scrutiny. This behavior is not becoming of the White House --our White House. If this is how the Pizzuto Administration wish to have their legacy remembered, then so be it. It's time for the White House to come clean, so the public can get all the facts on this.

HILL: What's the next step in this scenario? You both, along with other prominent Democrats have called for further scrutiny of this leak, but what does that mean? And where does Congress go from here, considering the President's party controls it now?

MOREY: I believe that there are many questions to be answered. I actually believe that in the interest of transparency and fairness we should think about a real inquiry into this incident and to investigate whether laws were broken and to what extent this leak file, or similar activities, had roots in the White House. Firstly, it of course all comes down to how much the President is willing to accept responsibility and co-operate in order to clear this situation up. While the Press Secretary is gone, this isn't over and I truly hope the President does not ignore this issue. The buck stops in the Oval Office, but accountability and transparency does not end with one fired staffer. After all, we are not just talking about a small, meaningless memo written by just any employee but this is a memo designed to willingly overstep the authority of the White House written by, at least, one Senior White House official. As for Congress, this scandal has seriously damaged the working relationship between Democrats and the White House. I am, however, happy to see that many in my party still put the good of the American people above all this. Take Senator Wells, for example, who has made it clear he will continue to work with Secretary Kellogg for the good of the country and, speaking for myself, I will continue to work with Republicans like Senator Jackson on subjects possible for the Great Lakes. In general, however, I think it is safe to say that the trust between the White House and Congressional Democrats is pretty much slim to none. It now depends on how fast we can clear this up and how extensive this scandal is in the end.

WELLS: Again, we need the facts and all of them. While it is good that the Press Secretary is gone, there are many more questions about this leak file left unanswered. When actions such as these are taken, there are most definitely consequences. As I've said, it's time for us to get back to work. Congress does not need to stop it's proceedings only to start arguing about the validity of each side's claims. Congress needs to continue working, while at the same time, looking into the legality of these actions. The Republican Party in Congress cannot afford to be tarnished by the actions of this Administration. If it wishes to escape this incident with only bruises instead of wounds, it needs to join us in the call for all the facts on this scandal.

HILL: Thank you gentlemen!

From the Oval: Top Stories in the White House
PIZZUTO FIRES PRESS SECRETARY OVER SCANDAL. IS THAT THE END?

HILL: Following the release of the leak file memo, the President said the Press Secretary resigned. Let's turn to our White House correspondent, Jane Emery. Jane?

Split screen with Jane on White House front lawn

EMERY: All eyes are on the White House, wondering why this information was leaked and what the consequences will be for this White House and for the President himself. At this time, it looks as if the leak itself was accidental and was never meant for public release. However, it only damages the administration that has said it came to Washington with the intent to foster bipartisanship. Yet, as the Republicans takeover Congress, this leak proves to damage those bipartisan claims almost entirely.

HILL: Jane, will the departure of the Press Secretary quell this scandal? Some in Washington are suggesting an official inquiry into these revelations of a White House with a highly-charged political vengence agenda.

EMERY: It's too early to tell, Doug. But, this certainly isn't the position this Republican President wants to be in after winning back Congress for the first time since George W. Bush.

HILL: While no one specific target was mentioned in the leak, do you think the White House has specific intentions with it?

EMERY: The President gave no more specifics about the leak file itself, and that's the only statement the White House has made on the scandal as of now. As this scenario unravels, I think everyone can agree this will be an issue most Americans pay attention to as well as becoming nationally divisive, depending upon how the White House handles calls for a formal inquiry. When Washington reveals an agenda focused on using the power of Presidency for the political vengence, the nation generally recalls the dark days of major scandals past. And despite the President's claims, this has really made people both in and outside of Washington question what's going on inside this White House.

HILL: I'd say the President's Press Secretary is pretty far up the ladder to be accused of concocting this leak file alone.

EMERY: That's why I think this could get pretty deep and divisive. Despite the President's statement, it would be unusual for a senior advisor, like the Press Secretary, to be doing this as a secret project on his own.

HILL: Do you think we'll get word from the White House about further actions regarding this scandal?

EMERY: The President's speech this afternoon had a hint of finality. With the departure of the Press Secretary, it seems the President is attempting to sweep this scandal under the rug without further investigation.

HILL: I got that feeling too, but I'm not sure that's going to pass the smell test for the American people. Now that it's out in the open, this isn't the type of dirt that you can sweep back under and ignore it. Now that we now this leak file existed, I think the American people will want to know the facts about what's going on behind this White House's closed doors.

The Hill Report :: Final Word
SCANDAL CANNOT BE SWEPT UNDER THE RUG

HILL: The use of power in the Oval Office has been documented, measured and categorized for decades. Even great men like Washington, Lincoln and both Roosevelts struggled with it and were critized for their exercise of it. But as we watch the Russian government break down the ability for the country's minority to engage in political debate and dissent, what becomes of America when our White House purposefully deceives its political opposition in order to trap them, call them stupid and claim political victory? Is this not one step away from our ideal of a free society? Is this not a step towards the democratic decay we've watched happen elsewhere in the world? While that may sound strange to most Americans, I don't believe it's that far off and, despite who's to blame this time, this is not the first a President's authority has been misguided, whether by the President himself or his senior staff. Americans have seen this before, but we are not desensitized to this breach of trust by the most powerful person in the world. While we must not accuse until we have more facts, we cannot turn a blind eye on these actions and we must demand accountability for it. And, accountability does not stop with the 'fall guy.' Accountability is a process of transparency that this administration will now have to conform to a higher standard of it. Americans tend to give their President a pass until something goes wrong. Now that it has, this White House will have to open its doors to survive. And this has been The Hill Report. I'm Doug Hill live from Washington, D.C. Have a good night.

[Summy]

Aired during daytime

(IMG:http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/6061/cronkitebanner.jpg)

ANNOUNCER: Welcome back to the Hill Report with your host, Doug Hill, reporting live from Washington, D.C.

The Briefing Room: America's Top Stories
THE LEAK FILE AFFAIR

WHITE HOUSE SWEEPS LEAK FILE UNDER THE RUG

Breach of Trust or Dead Issue? You Decide! on The Hill Report

(IMG:http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2009/news/090629/walter-cronkite.jpg)

HILL: Even after the President fired his Press Secretary over the leak file affair, new reports show the President's job approval sinking in the fallout from scandal. So, the question tonight: is this a breach of trust Americans will hold against the President or is this a dead issue? Joining us in the studio is Bob Nally and Becky Train, our political analysts. Let's hear it, guys.

TRAIN: Clearly, this is a breach of trust, Doug. And the longer the White House continues to ignore this scandal and avoid releasing further details or supporting a formal inquiry, the more deep the distrust will be sown. The longer questions about this leak file go unanswered, the more Americans wonder what the President has to hide?

NALLY: Let's not blow this out of proportion. Scandals are second nature to Washington, D.C. I don't think Americans are desenitized to them, especially when its a President who rode in on the white horse to fix these types of problems inherent in the capital, but Americans aren't long-term grudge holders either. Are there questions the White House needs to answer? Yes. In fact, it'd do a lot to help if the President would back an internal investigation that backs up his position that he had nothing to do with this leak file, it was a one man job and there are no other similar activities like that going on in his administration. While I say Americans are forgiving, I must add that Americans do not forget. Do we think better of Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush today than when they first left office? Americans sure do. But, do we forgive their screwups? No, we haven't because most Americans understand that what happens in the White House affects us all for a very long time, including scandals like the leak file.

TRAIN: I think we should keep in mind that Jack Pizzuto was the face of the anti-Cullen movement and comdemned President Cullen's White House for being too partisan. He promised to create a Washington built on bipartisanship, but policy-wise the President has done nothing bipartisanly, so much so that the President's formal rival, Jackson Rockefeller, was the one to make the federal budget process a bipartisan one. Worse, perhaps, is the void of any policy leadership from the White House. Take those issues and tack on the fact that at least one senior White House official created this leak file and the President ignoring questions, concerns and accusations about the scandal, and you've got one uneasy electorate.

NALLY: There is a point when a President gets so lost in the muddy waters of Washington that he starts to drown because he believes in the inherent authority of the Oval Office. We saw both Reagan and Clinton begin to drown and pull themselves back out, but Bush, Magruder and Cullen weren't so lucky. Is President Pizzuto downing yet? No. His head is still above water, but it looks like its sinking to me unless he can do more to calm concerns about this scandal. George W. Bush is a prime example of a President who lost control, not only of the national agenda, but the entire direction of Presidency because he thought he was too noble to confront questions about scandals he thought were minor which, left alone, exploded on their own.

HILL: You both say there are questions the White House needs to answer. But, the President might argue that he's done that with his public statement on the leak file. He's condemned the program and fired the Press Secretary. What more could he do?

TRAIN: In every administration, the President gets leeway until something goes wrong. Now that this leak file is public, we have to question whether this is a one-time incident by one senior staffer or an ongoing program with roots in this White House. For all we know, this leak file could be the tip of the iceberg.

NALLY: While this is mere speculation, the fact is that the President has lost a lot of trust over this scandal. If he plays this off, sweeps it under the rug and ignores this scandal, then the White House's critics are going to hold this over his head for years. The best thing the President could do it back a formal investigation, open up his administration to these lingering questions and prove this leak file was the work of one man and not representative of his Presidency. If the President continues to ignore this issue, it will haunt him. It's bad enough this leak file ever existed, but turning a blind eye to questions about it now will only sow more distrust for this White House.

HILL: Let's see what they're saying now on the hill about the leak file....

SENATOR THOMAS JACKSON (R-GL)
"I have two words that describe my approach when I heard about this - five minutes. You see, that's about how long it took me to call the new White House Chief of Staff to discuss the incident - what happened and what the President did about it."

HILL: Wow. Is this brand new Senator really taking credit for getting the President to take action over the leak file affair? That takes some balls, and I'm still not sure anyone is buying it. I truly hope the President had the good sense to fire his Press Secretary without input from this guy. And he's accusing Democrats of showboating?

SENATOR CHARLES PORTER (R-WAB)
"While it's unfortunate that things like this are said, why don't we focus on securing our border, rebuilding Los Angeles, and bringing honest to God tax relief to people in this Country."

HILL: It's amazing how some politicians try to blow things off, but that is Washington for you. And I know I'd love for the Senate to focus on the borders, LA and tax relief, but Porter really errs in blaming Democrats when Republicans control the agenda.

From the Hill: Top Stories in Congress
SENATE AGENDA FLOP

HILL: I think we can agree that the new Republican Senate Majority's first docket was underwhelming, to say the least. However, by the Senate Majority Leader's own admission, he wasn't trying to impress -- he was just trying to get the Senate moving. So, he filled space. After almost a decade of Democratic-control in the Senate, Majority Leader Foster is likely waiting for his committee chairman to send him Republican bills. Foster took a risk that was strategy-based to avoid passing more Democratic-bills in order to craft a new Republican agenda down the road. Again, it was a risk and it wasn't very smart, losing an opportunity to look bipartisan on major issues like job creation and tax relief. And the Senate Democrats have been nailing Foster on it, too. Let's hear from our political analysts.

TRAIN: The Yale University Resolution? I mean, seriously? Senator Foster and his caucus are making many folks regret giving them the gavel. In Democratic hands, the Senate took the led on passing major reforms like tax relief and green industry promotion. When the Republicans took control, I think Americans had much higher expectations and I think underwhelming would be a mild description of the the new Senate majority.

HILL: By his own admission, Senator Foster called the Yale debate "a waste of time." So, we'll give the Democrats that. But, the Yale Resolution wasn't the only thing on the docket.

NALLY: On the first docket, the Senate Republicans put up a bill to include a donation to education funding on income tax forms, a bill to increase special pay for the soldiers working under stop-loss orders, a bill to provide a tax credit to employers who loose employees during service to the National Guard and a bill to provide citizenship to the immediate family members of those killed in service to the U.S. military. While the Yale Resolution was, indeed, a mistake, you can't say all these bills on the Republican's first Senate docket are worthless. However, there is a point to be made that none of the bills on this session's first docket have any immediate impact on ordinary Americans. So, yes, the Republicans certainly didn't impress us with their first docket or act to improve the quality of life for the citizens who gave them this majority. So, yeah, Senator Foster's first docket was, in most respects, a flop in terms of making a good first impression. But, we can't judge a book by its cover, either.

HILL: But, the feeling of a directionless agenda is taking hold -- not merely because Democrats are pounding the issue, but because Foster has Senate Republicans running in some strange, contradictory directions, for instance....

SENATOR THOMAS JACKSON (R-GL)
"Members of the majority are focused on issues that our fellow citizens are talking about across their dining room tables – better paying jobs, a cleaner environment and better schools."

HILL: While the Senate Majority leader admitted to not putting up bills on specific kitchen table issues on the first docket, Senator Jackson seems lost. I'm not sure whether this guy should amuse or make us cringe. It's kinda clear, by even the most remote observer, that the Senate hasn't broached any important issues that Americans talk about across their dining room tables.

SENATOR SAMUEL WELLS (D-ALL)
"The Republican Party had the chance to make an immediate impact. Instead, they chose to honor Yale University, which just so happens to be a school that the Senate Majority Leader attended."

HILL: Ouch, that one stung. I think we've clearly illustrated that, yeah, the GOP failed to make a good first impression. But, darn, Senator Foster went to Yale and here's a resolution honoring the University on the first docket.

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER FOSTER (R-SUN)
"none of the bills we would like to pursue have gone through the necessary steps to get onto my desk."

HILL: And there you have it. After a decade of Democratic control, the Republicans are waiting for their bills to pass committee before putting together a real docket. It's understandable, but first impressions mean tons and it allowed Senator Foster's critics to frame his agenda before he even put one together. However, this also illustrates the Foster's goal of crafting a Republican agenda which doesn't blend too, too well with his previous statements that his first docket was meant to be an easy, bipartisan one. Instead, we now see he is simply waiting for Republican bills to tackle major issues with partisan solutions.

SENATOR LINCOLN WINTERS (D-WAB)
"I understand that Senator Foster's still trying to get his sea legs, but I'm disappointed on the direction that the Republican majority seems interested in taking us."

HILL: Not a surprising response from the DNC Chairman, but he's not wrong. And as we take in the Republicans newly found control of Washington, coupled with the leak file affair, I think the nation finds itself scratching its head asking: where ARE we going?

The Hill Report :: Final Word
BREACH REQUIRES HIGHER STANDARD OF WHITE HOUSE TRANSPARENCY

HILL: The President clearly wants this leak file scandal to disappear, but as I said before, it's not going away overnight. This can become a blip on the political radar or a nail in the coffin and the choice really does lie with the President himself. As with any scandal, the hype is usually bigger than the issue itself. But when you look at this 'leak file', the whole idea of the White House using its power and its authority to purposefully deceive, trap and demean its political opposition is frightening. This is, afterall, the most powerful man in the world and he needs to open the doors to the White House to clear the air. In the world of political scandal, you're not innocent until proven guilty -- you're guilty until you prove otherwise. That's not written in stone, but its how Americans judge Washington and, like it or not, President Pizzuto is fast becoming just another politician that American's are unsure if they can trust or not. Looking beyond the scandal, the President has done little to help ordinary Americans, so they have little reason to stand in his corner right now. And with the flashly revelations of this leak file, there's more than enough cause to question this White House, its activities and its motives. So, what can the President do to reclaim the trust of the people? He's got to prove this scandal does not define his agenda and that his White House does not, nor ever has, participated in dirty activities like this leak file promoted. The fact is that people do judge harshly and they come down extra hard against Washington politicians. With too many questions and too few answers, the President, whether justified or not, becomes the target of public angst

[Summy]

aired during daytime

(IMG:http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/6061/cronkitebanner.jpg)

ANNOUNCER: Welcome back to the Hill Report with your host, Doug Hill, reporting live from Washington, D.C.

FILIBUSTER AFTER FILIBUSTER IN U.S. SENATE
Senator Justice Brings Senate to a Halt with Two Consecutive Filibusters

Senator Justice has pledged to filibuster the bill in its present form if his filibuster of another bill on the Senate floor, the Rockefeller Green America Act, fails.

So I am forced to take action and I shall shut down the Senate for as long as possible

HILL: That was Senator Buford T. Justice, Republican from Texas, in his infamous promise now carried out. Two consecutive filibusters in the Senate, an effort to end debate in the chamber that has rarely been seen in modern politics. Recently, I caught up with Senate Majority Leader Jackson Rockefeller and President Pro Tempore Samuel Wells to discuss the situation in the Senate.

*footage rolls*

THE HILL EXCLUSIVE
Jackson Rockefeller
SENATE MAJORITY LEADER
SENIOR U.S. SENATOR FOR THE ALLEGHENIES
2016 NOMINEE FOR UNITED STATES PRESIDENT

Samuel Wells
PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE
JUNIOR U.S. SENATOR FOR THE ALLEGHENIES

HILL: Senator Justice made a promise that if his amendment was pulled out of the Green America Act, he would filibuster. And if that one failed, he'd filibuster another bill. Why didn't you just pull the bill?

ROCKEFELLER: First of all, Senator Justice's amendment to give tax breaks carte-blanche to multi-million dollar corporations didn't belong in a bill investing in a greener government and country. And that's one reason why the Senate voted to remove it from the bill. From this, you can see that Senator Justice's motives are purely personal. I can't even call it politics. He's simply angry his amendment was removed. The fact is that not all of my amendments are included in bills, and I'm the Majority Leader. The basic premise of working in the U.S. Senate is open dialogue, debate and consideration. It's the chamber where compromise is possible. But, since arriving in the Senate, Senator Justice's behavior has been inappropriate and, at times, offensive to other members and the American people who elected us to work on their behalf. And Texas has a long history of highly respected, productive and reputable Senators, even when they disagree with the policies passed by the chamber. So, I daresay, Texans won't be very sympathetic to Mr. Justice's antics that have threatened not just a comprehensive border policy, but also tax cuts for middle class Americans as well as their hope to have honorable, reputable and productive elected representatives working for them in the Senate.

WELLS: Senator Justice has time and again proved to me that he's simply incapable of debating, voting, and offering simple feedback to bills that reach the Senate floor. I am sure that if you wanted to, you could roll film after film showing Senator Justice lashing out at his colleagues with disgusting remarks and rude comments. It's this behavior that transcends Senate decorum. The idea of the filibuster is to stop a proposal that is utterly disagreeable. Quite frankly, it should be the final option that a Senator chooses. Instead, we have had two back-to-back filibusters by Senator Justice with the sole purpose of obstructing Senate progress.

ROCKEFELLER: And personal antics, such as Senator Justice's, are no reason to pull a good bill from Senate debate. In fact, the bipartisan effort to invoke cloture proves that Senators on both side of the aisle do not approve of Mr. Justice's behavior. It is unbecoming of a member of the U.S. Senate and one member of the Senate's frivilous behavior isn't productive for the country and it cannot be appeased.

HILL: So, the Senate killed the first Justice filibuster and now we're onto the second one against the much-hyped Cross-Border Drug Violence Deterrence Act. Beyond his apparent hope to close the Senate no matter which bill he's filibustering, Senator Justice also claims you haven't asked the Administration for input.

ROCKEFELLER: As we previously discussed, Doug, a number of Senators - both Sam Wells and myself included - asked the White House for input in constructing a comprehensive strategy for border security and combatting the drug cartels in a public letter months ago. We received no response. Since then, I've written to the Secretary of Homeland Security about the Cross-Border Drug Violence Deterrence Act and received a list of requests from her. Today, many of those requests have already been amended into the bill and, before Senator Justice opened his filibuster, we were still working to imrpove the Cross-Border Drug Violence Deterrence Act. We were in no real rush to send the bill off to a vote and if Mr. Justice hadn't filibustered, we'd still be working on improvements to it. Now, the Senate may be forced to invoke cloture due to Senator Justice's filibuster. So, if the Cross-Border Drug Violence Deterrence Act passes the Senate now with provisions that are objectionable to Texas, then Texans can blame Senator Justice for blocking further improvements that may have eased those concerns.

WELLS: Unfortunately, Senator Justice isn't the only one who has made that claim. Anyone who suggests that the authors of that bill did not request input from the Administration is simply wrong. Jackson, Lincoln Winters, Basil Taylor, and me--just to name a few--all requested that the Administration include us in comprehensive policy discussions, among other things. However, after the San Diego car bombing, it became apparent that the Administration simply had no such policy in the works. After months of silence by the Administration, the Democratic Party took the lead. What the antics of Senator Justice and others suggest to me is that it's not necessarily about the so-called "lack of communication"; it's more about the fact that Democrats have offered a solution before the Republicans. Now, with this filibuster, the Senate will have no other option, unless the filibuster is dropped, to move this bill straight to a vote.

HILL: Isn't using the car bombing a political tactic itself?

WELLS: We're not using the car bombing as a means to get this bill through Congress. The car bombing and subsequent lack of communication from the Administration is what propelled us to write and sponsor the bill. All we've asked for is to be a part of the process which ends in a comprehensive policy. The truth is that there has been no process because there was no comprehensive policy in the works. We waited, and were content with waiting, until the situation proved too serious for us to wait any longer.

ROCKEFELLER: Not political, but factual. Both Sam and I voted for the Treaty. We both agree its a good foundation for US-Mexico relations in cooperatively dealing with border security and the cartels. However, the treaty provides no resources or real authority to actually to the job. Despite our requests, the Administration has not put forth a comprehensive strategy or requested the resources to successfully secure the border, combat the drug cartels, work cooperatively with Mexico or, at the heart of the matter, keep our families safe from danger, like the car bombing in San Diego. In fact, the President hasn't even offered condolences for the deadly car bombing which is the least of which this Administration should have done in response to it.

HILL: Isn't it a bit harsh to blame the Administration for the car bombing?

WELLS: My goodness, no one is blaming the President or anyone in his Administration for this assault. We all understand that the car bombing was planned and carried out by the growing drug cartels in the Southwestern U.S. However, as President of the United States, Jack Pizzuto is tasked with creating unity, reassuring the people, and protecting our citizens at home and abroad. What we have right now is a White House that has become silent. No one took the time to even say "I'm sorry that happened; we're trying our hardest to bring the culprits to justice." That, my friend, is one of the most important aspects of being President. So, take this bill as the Democratic response to the San Diego car bombing and to the silence of President Pizzuto and his Administration. While he's not blame for the attack, he still plays an important function in all of this. Unfortunately, that function has been absent since news of the attack.

ROCKEFELLER: I'm not blaming anyone right now. I don't know anyone who is. I'm expressing my concern with the President's lack of response to it and the lack of a clear, reasonable and workable strategy that takes the recently ratified treaty and puts it on a course to successfully accomplish its goals. We have none of that right now and I won't allow that to continue. So, it makes the Senate's undertaking of a real comprehensive policy a priority for the entire nation and one I've asked the Administration to become an active participant in. And its an undertaking that cannot be obstructed by a filibuster built mainly on personal ego and a record of frivilous behavior.

HILL: Beyond his promise to filibuster again after his first failed, Senator Justice has also expressed his opposition to the legalization of marijuana that was amended into the border bill. Even if you both support those your efforts, don't you think that's its reasonable for Senator Justice to filibuster if he opposes it?

WELLS: As I've said, the right to filibuster should only be used as a last resort mechanism. Senator Justice could have offered a compromise amendment. He could have spoken to his Republican colleagues about his concerns with the amendment. In fact, he could have discussed his qualms with Jackson and other Democrats. Instead, he chose the low road. Senator Justice decided it would be best to put all bipartisan progress at risk. All progress on this bill has been made possible because of efforts on both sides of aisle. Republicans and Democrats both believe that this bill is more important than the Party and much more important than politics. Senator Justice, however, would rather play politics than promote progress.

ROCKEFELLER: First, the amendment does not legalize recreational marijuana use, period. The amendment would allow the states to have greater authority on the use of marijuana within their borders and, frankly, this could be argued as a states' rights issue which Senator Justice has claimed to support states' rights before -- he's often demanding less federal gun control, fewer federal mandates and less federal education funding; all in the name of states' rights. Secondly, the amendment was offered by Big Sky Republican Senator MacLeod, and gather support in the Senate. Now, if Senator Justice and others in the chamber have a serious issue with the amendment, I'd be happy to discuss it and, if need be, find a compromise that ensures we pass a successful policy rather than get entrenched in politics and fail to pass one. However, again, the Justice filibuster prevents any Senate floor discussion on it and blocks any attempt to fix those concerns or, for that matter, any other concerns with the bill. The fact of the matter is that Senator Justice is, indeed, forcing the Senate's hand to invoke cloture despite Senator Winter's, Senator Taylor's, Sam's and my own willingness to address further concerns with the legislation. Senator Justice's antics may actually bring the bill to a vote, despite his opposition or the bill's contents, faster than any of us expected or desired.

HILL: You both are saying that Senator Justice is actually forcing the bill to a vote in the Senate via his filibuster?

ROCKEFELLER: Yes, he certainly is. Senator Justice and his antics have found little respect in the U.S. Senate. Not only has he prevented further improvements to the Cross-Border Drug Violence Deterrence Act, but he has also blocked progress on bringing the healthcare debate back to the Senate floor, something both Senate Minority Leader Foster and I want to see happen this session. Beyond health care, Senator Justice's antics have also caused delays in passing tax cuts, new educational funding and green energy reforms.

WELLS: However, Jackson and I understand those things--tax cuts, educational funding, and green energy reforms--are all things that Senator Justice just isn't fond of. He's made that abundantly clear on the Senate floor. Now it's time for the entire Senate, both Democrats and Republicans, to join together and send a clear and direct message to Buford Justice: these foolish acts have no place in the United States Senate.

ROCKEFELLER: The American people have a sensitive stomach when it comes to filibusters and Senator Justice has proved that his have little to do with policy and more to do with his own ego. One person does not control the U.S. Senate, no matter what party they belong to, their seniority in the chamber or their position in leadership. And that's coming from me, the Majority Leader and the chamber's most senior member. Senator Justice's hijacking of and closing down of the U.S. Senate isn't sitting well with most of our colleages or the American people.

HILL: If Senator Justice were to drop his filibuster, would you continue debate on the Cross-Border Drug Violence Deterrence Act or rush it off to a vote?

ROCKEFELLER: Like I said before, there is still work to be done on the Cross-Border Drug Violence Deterrence Act. We would not rush it to a vote, nor did we intend to before the filibuster opened. The fact is that we want to pass a successful policy that works well which is what I told Secretary Warren in my letter to her about the bill. She, in turn, agreed and forwarded me suggestions, many of which the Senate amended into the bill before the filibuster began. I expect the House would also have changes to the bill, too. But, obviously, Sam and I are focused on the Senate's consideration of the bill right now.

WELLS: While the provisions of the Act go beyond the word "important", it is necessary for the Congress to take its time in preparing this bill. If we rush into passing it, then we may overlook key policy decisions and necessary provisions that will help us succeed in this operation. If we fail in passing it, then we are accepting an open-door policy along our Southern Border. It's agreed that neither of these options are acceptable outcomes. So, this bill should not -- and will not -- be rushed off to a vote. The House of Representatives will, hopefully, debate the bill soon. And, after Senator Justice ends his ridiculous filibuster, the Senate can get back to making bipartisan progress.

HILL: A final word from you both?

WELLS: The silly games of Senator Justice must stop. There is not a reasonable person in the Senate who can agree with the purpose behind the filibuster. The Senate's work is too valuable and too great for it to come to a a complete halt in the name of partisan obstructionism. Democrats and Republicans alike are working for a common purpose and, in my opinion, are attempting to achieve the same goal. The unfortunate circumstance is that there are a few amongst us who find it worthy of our time to recite recipes and deliver personal strikes rather than propose amendments and deliver worthy results. This circumstance must change.

ROCKEFELLER: These antics in the Senate must cease, and that has been made clear from members on both sides of the aisle. Senator Justice's brand of obstructionism is not productive. Instead, we should be focused on reasonable improvements and I welcome them. Fruthermore, there are other issues, like healthcare reform, that deserve to be debated. It's time for the Senate to prove that, despite the roadblocks, both sides of the aisle can work beyond these antics and do our job.

HILLS: Thank you gentleman. This has been Doug Hill with the Hill Report. Until next time!

[Summy]

Aired during daytime

(IMG:http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/6061/cronkitebanner.jpg)

ANNOUNCER: Welcome back to the Hill Report with your host, Doug Hill, reporting live from Washington, D.C.

ROUND 2: HEALTH CARE REFORM BACK ON THE TABLE
With Bipartisan Compromise, Can Health Care Reform Survive This Time?

HILL: After both Democrats and Republicans cast the President's healthcare bill out from the Senate floor, many thought it was gone for good. But, upon taking control of the U.S. Senate and now standing 19 seats strong, the new Democratic majority has breathed new life into healthcare reform. While that may not be surprising since Democrats have long championed the issue, what is surprising is the Senate Democrats' focus on the President's CHOICE legislation and using it as the main vehicle for reform. I met up with Senate Majority Leader Jackson Rockefeller and Senate Domestic Affairs Chairwoman Karen Devereaux, the two key figures in the majority, to talk about this surprising turn of events.

*footage rolls*

THE HILL EXCLUSIVE
Jackson Rockefeller
SENATE MAJORITY LEADER
SENIOR U.S. SENATOR FOR THE ALLEGHENIES
2016 NOMINEE FOR UNITED STATES PRESIDENT

Karen Devereaux
CHAIR, DOMESTIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
SENIOR U.S. SENATOR FOR THE PACIFIC COAST

HILL: Welcome Senators. My first question is -- why the President's bill titled CHOICE? You've both expressed concerns with the bill previously, so why bring it up again? And wouldn't it be more politically advantageous to push through a bill written, supported and pushed by Democrats?

ROCKEFELLER: Healthcare reform has been stalled decades due to partisan tactics. Since the President brought healthcare reform into the national spotlight, its smarter to work bipartisanly with a chance to actually get reform accomplished, finally. Yes, most Senate Democrats and many Senate Republicans had major issues with the President's bill. However, working with Senator Foster and others, Karen and I are trying to do this with a bipartisan approach as best we can.

DEVEREAUX: America has been waiting for meaningful health care reform for decades. Previous Presidents have attempted to overhaul the system and have failed. So when the President asks for reform, it is something that we all want. It would be irresponsible for us not to take up this opportunity to enact reforms.

HILL: So, what's the first step as we begin round two of health care reform in the U.S. Senate?

ROCKEFELLER: It all started with Senator Devereaux in the Senate Domestic Affairs Committee.

DEVEREAUX: When CHOICE first appeared in my committee under a different chair person, it was obvious that there was little attempt to find common ground. The plan was just to force it through committee. That approach quickly failed once it hit the senate floor as it became clear that this bill would not be passed without some bipartisan support. It is unfortunate that not everyone was on board with a bipartisan approach at the start but that is behind us. But, now, we successfully passed compromise changes to the bill and, with the mix of senators we have on my committee, we passed the bipartisan changes to CHOICE with unanimous consent sending to the Senator Rockefeller's office.

HILL: So what are the compromises you're asking for?

DEVEREAUX: This bill will not pass if it does not include some alternative to for-profit insurance. That was clear when the senate put in place a public option. It also became clear that the bill won't pass with a public option either. It is now incumbent upon us to forge a compromise. We believe we have achieved that with a nonprofit co-op plan. In addition, we are also trying to fix the tort reform section in the original bill. I and most of our caucus do not support hard caps on medical malpractice suits and for some senators, that could be a deal killer. Still, we recognize the need for reform in that area. I prefer creating health care tribunals which would create a new special court where the judges hear only malpractice suits and thus become experts in the field, allowing them to fairly reach decisions. I think that would be a good way to root out frivolous law suits without hard caps. There are other options and we are considering some also.

ROCKEFELLER: We understand that support for federal government-controlled and run healthcare for all is thin in the Senate. But, we find it necessary to support a not-for-profit alternative to spur greater competition and reduce costs in the insurance industry. Therefore, we're proposing a cooperative program that supports nonprofit healthcare efforts across the country with federal grants and loans. Furthermore, we're calling for the creation of regional insurance exchanges to help small businesses to provide affordable healthcare to their employees. With these programs in place, we can drastically reduce healthcare costs, make the insurance industry more accountable and provide affordable coverage to tens of millions more Americans than before.

HILL: And the Republicans are on board?

ROCKEFELLER: Senator Foster and the Republicans in the Domestic Affairs Committee understood the desperate need for reform and were willing to compromise, and both Karen and I do appreciate the Senate Minority Leaders' efforts to reach out to us. I hope the President joins our efforts as well, but his interest in healthcare reform seems to have ended after introducing his legislation into Congress.

HILL: There are some serious nuts to crack in your own caucus, too. And, as we saw last time, the public option can be a poison pill.

DEVEREAUX: Neither caucus will see unanimous support. We all know that. That is why we are trying to mend the more controversial portions of the bill so that CHOICE has the greatest chance of passing.

ROCKEFELLER: It's not going to be easy. It's going to take time, too. But, most importantly, it's going to take real leadership from the Oval Office. The CHOICE Act is the President's first and only major initiative that he's personally spotlighted. He didn't do much for it the first time around, and it got thrown off the Senate floor. This time, he needs to be an active participant and work hard if he seriously wants health care reform to pass.

HILL: Do you think healthcare reform can pass or is this all hot-air, much like reform promises of the past thirty years?

ROCKEFELLER: We're certainly going to need Presidential leadership to bring both Republicans and Democrats together to pass reform. And, frankly, it's going to be very difficult as it stands. There are folks on both sides of the aisle who are lukewarm, or worse, on the compromise. Even the President's own party members weren't thrilled with his original proposal. So, like I said, the President's active involvement throughout the process and his personal emphasis in pushing reform forward will be necessary.

DEVEREAUX: It could pass. I'll certainly got compromise forged in committee. But, neither party stood up and cheered when they first saw the bill. But, the President is the real determining factor on whether or not this bill will pass. I think some of the toughest nuts to crack are in the President's own party, meaning we need him to step up.

HILL: With the most recent failure of the President's bill in the Senate, what makes round two different than before?

ROCKEFELLER: It's compromise, plain and simple. Karen and I, along with many Democrats and some Republicans, realize that healthcare is too important for partisanship. We're taking little steps to make big progress, and if the President and Congress can come together under it, we'll finally make big strides in expanding affordable health coverage to millions more Americans. Granted, this bill will not be the end all, be all of reform, but it will be progress after decades of failure and my Senate Democratic colleagues and I intend to continue fighting for stronger, better and more advanced reforms down the line, too.

DEVEREAUX: Like Jackson said, it is all about compromise. The first time around there was none and now there is. As long as we think we can trust each other, this bill can pass.

HILL: A final word from both of you?

DEVEREAUX: With all the games that are played in Washington, it is important to know for myself and Jackson and others, we are only interesting in finally passing a bill that will improve this nation's health care system. Has this process had its ups and downs? You bet but that happens with any major piece of legislation. These things take time and we are getting there. The final thing to remember is that with elections around the corner, the window to getting this thing passed will close at some point. I do not know exactly when that window will close but it will and we all know it. It is therefore imperative that we get this thing moving. I hope this time next year we will be discussing how this landmark bipartisan legislation has changed this country.

ROCKEFELLER: It all depends on leadership. Karen and I did everything we could to forge a compromise on a controversial piece of legislation so Americans can finally see health care reform. If we can get some compromise on the CHOICE Act out of the Domestic Affairs Committee, I'll send it to the Senate floor. Once on the floor, the ball is in the President's court. Will it fail, like it did last time, or will we find common ground for progress? The Senate is going to debate health care reform, again, and there is no doubt about that. This time I'm hoping the White House provides the leadership necessary to get the job done.

HILL: Thank you both.

*footage ends

HILL: Let's turn to our political analysts. Joining us in the studio is Bob Nally and Becky Train, our political analysts. Let's hear it, folks.

NALLY: I don't think Democrats are going to be happy without the federal public option and I don't think Republicans are going to be any happier with this bill than they were from the start. Compromise may sound good, but it tends to send partisans screaming into their fringe corners. The fact is that this health care bill still spends billions of dollars, perhaps more now than with the President's original proposal.

TRAIN: And that spending now will help insure millions more Americans and pay off in lower health care costs over the next decade. It's an investment.

NALLY: It's an unproven investment and one that could end up costing us a trillion dollars without any positive results. It's also adding tons of new regulations, such as no preconditions, onto an already overburdened system -- plus, removing tax exemptions on health insurers could end up increasing premiums.

TRAIN: But removing interstate barriers and inserting nonprofit compeition should force those premiums down.

NALLY: That's the plan, yes, plans and results don't always come together just right. I think the President and Congress may not hit the mark.

HILL: We may not know the real results from this bill for years. My immediate question, however, is -- does this even make it to the Oval Office?

TRAIN: Senators Rockefeller and Devereaux were right: if President Pizzuto steps up to the plate, it has a chance. If he continues to ignore his one and only policy proposal, then why should anyone pass it?

NALLY: It's too much, too fast. If the President was smart, he'd have done this in bits and pieces and not pin his own political hopes and the future of health care on one huge bill. It could pass with the compromises, and you have to give credit to those who put in the effort which is always rare in Washington, but after decades of failed attempts I remain skeptical that one grand reform proposal can make it out of Washington alive.

TRAIN: I'm not as negative, but I admit it will be difficult. There are many factions in the Senate that are vying for 'their way or the highway' and many of those include folks the President should be dealing with personally, and he simply isn't doing it. Others may wait and see how the debate goes. On the back of successful bipartisan negociations, the compromises made it out of DAC with unanimous support, which bodes well as an early indicator. But, in the Senate, one member can determine the fate of even the most important policies. So, I think we're all in a 'wait and see' mode right now.

NALLY: I'm not sure that either caucus will get fully behind this. Like I said earlier -- this bill doesn't include a federally-run public option, so many Democrats may not like it, and it spends tens of billions of dollars on an issue many Republicans believe is not a job of the federal government. I think a health care bill of this magnitude is doomed, just like we saw in the Senate earlier this year.

TRAIN: But, that leaves many Senators will an opening, too. Even if the far right and far left elements don't support the bill, you only need twenty in the middle to come together. It's tough, but possible. But, again, I think it's going to take pressure from the Oval Office to make it happen this time.

HILL: That's all the time we have. This has been Doug Hill with the Hill Report. Until next time!

[Summy]

Aired during primetime

(IMG:http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/6061/cronkitebanner.jpg)

ANNOUNCER: Welcome back to the Hill Report with your host, Doug Hill, reporting live from Washington, D.C.

PRESIDENT'S HEALTH CARE REFORM FAILS, AGAIN
Lacking Presidential Leadership, Round Two of Health Care Reform Dies

HILL: In an effort led by Texas Republican Buford Justice and Big Sky Republican Ken MacLeod, Democrats and Republicans joined together in casting the President's healthcare bill out of the Senate for a second time. Upon taking control of the U.S. Senate, the new Democratic majority breathed new life into healthcare reform, but despite bipartisan efforts from leaders on both sides of the aisle, the bill gained an overwhelming number of detractors from both parties, too. From the get-go, Democratic leaders said pushing the President's bill was an uphill battle, especially without any assistance from the President, and they weren't kidding. Again, I met up with Senate Majority Leader Jackson Rockefeller and Senate Domestic Affairs Chairwoman Karen Devereaux, the two key figures in the majority, to talk about the failure of the President's CHOICE Act.

*footage rolls*

THE HILL EXCLUSIVE
Jackson Rockefeller
SENATE MAJORITY LEADER
SENIOR U.S. SENATOR FOR THE ALLEGHENIES
2016 NOMINEE FOR UNITED STATES PRESIDENT

Karen Devereaux
CHAIR, DOMESTIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
SENIOR U.S. SENATOR FOR THE PACIFIC COAST

HILL: Welcome Senators. The President's healthcare bill has met its second and final defeat for this session. The first came under Senate Republicans' control and the second under Senate Democrats' control. And so, my first question is -- what happened? Last time we talked, things seemed tentatively optimistic.

ROCKEFELLER: First, let's go back to the beginning. The President rolled out his healthcare bill without any bipartisan input and the Republicans, who controlled the Senate at the time, tried to push it through and failed. After the Senate control changed hands, Senators Devereaux, Foster and I tried to piece together a bipartisan compromise from the original bill that could attract enough support to reach a vote in the Senate. However, the President's bill simply didn't work for the Senate despite the changes we made. And, the final nail in the coffin has been the President's unwillingness to do anything to push the bill through the Senate.

DEVEREAUX: I think it is telling that the bill's toughest critics were in the president's party. It was unlikely that Democrats as a whole would support this bill and it was unlikely that a simple majority of Democrats would vote for it. The idea was that with some Democratic support combined with Republicans rallying around the president that this bill would pass. Bipartisanship is fine but when the President is not capable of getting solid support from his own party, it was doomed.

HILL: The Senate officially sent the bill back to Domestic Affairs Committee. Some Republicans argue this was partisan politics against the President's bill while Democrats say this is the end result of a bad bill filled with bad politics under a bad process. So, which is it?

ROCKEFELLER: In regards to sending the bill back to DAC, this wasn't partisan politics since the motion itself was made by Senator Justice, a Republican from Texas, and seconded by Senator MacLeod, a Republican from the Big Sky Country followed with bipartisan support. Furthermore, opposition to the bill wasn't one-sided at all. Both times this bill hit the Senate floor, Republicans and Democrats expressed their unease, dislike or outright opposition to it. While Senator Devereaux, Senator Foster and I tried to put bandaids on the bill, the Senate still wouldn't support it and the President's silence did nothing to help his own cause.

DEVEREAUX: The idea that we are playing politics with this is ridiculous. After the bill failed the first time we had the chance in DAC to make sure it never saw the light of day again but we did not do that. Instead we tried to revive the bill and ultimately it was Republicans that led the charge against the bill. I think it is worth nothing that Senator Rockefeller and myself put ourselves out there for this bill. We got flack from within the party and we put a lot on the line so to say that this is somehow partisan is outrageous.


HILL: Let's step back for one second. In the first round, Democrats added a public option into the bill and did it again in the second round. There are plenty of politicians who would mark this as a poison pill.

ROCKEFELLER: But you already gave away the biggest reason why that's not true, Doug. The public option amendment passed twice, under two seperate debates, and with bipartisan support, too. Despite my personal concerns about a federally-run version, the public option is not the reason the bill failed. The bill failed because there was no political weight from the President behind it, and both Republicans and Democrats realized it and decided that if the President didn't feel like fighting for it, why should they?

DEVEREAUX: Jackson and I knew that a bill with a public option would not become law. However, it did pass both times so what were we supposed to do? I support a public option but also I want healthcare reform to become law. Once again, we really put ourselves out there and for the President not to fight for his bill at all, well maybe he deserves to go into this election as a domestic policy joke.

HILL: The silence from the President on his one and only major domestic initiative has been a shocker, I'll admit. But, how much blame really lies with the White House? What could he have done to help the bill pass?

ROCKEFELLER: He's the President. It's his bill and, like you said, this has been President Pizzuto's one and only major domestic initiative in four years. Now that the bill has died in the Senate, I'd like to know where was the President? He should have been criss-crossing the country in support of healthcare reform or, at the very least, using the bully pulpit from the Oval Office to place pressure on members of the Senate. I knew the healthcare debate deserved a second chance and I was counting on President Pizzuto to finally step up and help the Senate push his bill through, but we didn't hear a peep from him and the President's healthcare bill died. Now, after CHOICE was kicked out from the Senate floor for a second time, the President opens his mouth? Where was he for the past few months when his words could have actually helped his bill pass? It's incredulous.

DEVEREAUX: As chair of DAC I will always look for ways to craft positive legislation, if that means working in a bipartisan fashion then that is great. However, bipartisanship is a two way street and for it to really work each side has to put themselves out there. No pun intended but we did not do all this work for our health. We made efforts to pass the bill and he couldn't even do the same for his very own bill. I am really baffled. Let me just say that as far as the president's domestic ambition, put a fork in it.

HILL: Even though it was too late to help, the President did speak up earlier today, specifically citing the both of you for your bipartisanship.

ROCKEFELLER: While I'm grateful, as any American would be, the President's speech today did nothing to help anyone. He had months to speak up, but did not. Instead, his speech further polarized the issue rather than apologizing for his lack of leadership on the one and only item on his domestic agenda.

HILL: Senator Rockefeller, you brought the bill back to the Senate floor. Do you feel you shoulder any of the blame?

ROCKEFELLER: Senator Devereaux and I went out of our way to work bipartisanly on healthcare reform, and I don't regret a second of it. Along with Senator Foster, we gave the healthcare debate a second chance. If there's an issue that's been tried and tried again, but deserves to keep coming back - it's healthcare reform. But, for the life of me, I don't understand why the President failed to step up. With so many in the Senate on the fence, Senator Deveraux and I made it clear that President Pizzuto was the lynchpin for the success of the CHOICE Act. If anyone wants to blame me for giving healthcare reform a second chance, they can blame me. But, with over forty million Americans without healthcare coverage, I'd do it again in a heartbeat. By bringing the bill back again, we did more for the healthcare debate than the President did for his own bill and that's really sad to say.

HILL: So, where does healthcare reform go from here?

ROCKEFELLER: It heads back to the capable hands of Senator Devereaux and the Domestic Affairs Committee. Under Karen's leadership, DAC worked bipartisanly on healthcare. Knowing how deeply she cares about reform, I expect nothing less from her in the future.

DEVEREAUX: As chair of DAC I will always look for ways to craft positive legislation, if that means working in a bipartisan fashion then that is great. However, bipartisanship is a two way street and for it to really work each side has to put themselves out there. No pun intended but we did not do all this work for our health. We made efforts to pass the bill and he couldn't even do the same for his very own bill. I am really baffled. Let me just say that as far as the president's domestic ambition, put a fork in it.

HILL: Much like reform promises of the past thirty years, healthcare reform had died a dramatic death. Will we ever see the healthcare debate again?

ROCKEFELLER: Under Democratic leadership, you can count on renewed healthcare debate again. It may take on different forms, but despite our differences the Democratic majority as a whole is committed to keeping the debate for reform alive.

DEVEREAUX: Well, you don't need a magic 8 ball to tell you that if the president doesn't push for his own health care bill then it will fail. I am sure the next president will try for health care reform but the policies will be different as will the legislative approach. Put this down as a swing and a miss but I think we have a few more chances.

HILL: Since folks on both sides of the aisle didn't seem to care much for the bipartisan compromises on the President's healthcare bill, I'm assuming you take a different route next time?

ROCKEFELLER: If you mean ramming a partisan healthcare bill down the chamber's throat? No, that's not a smart strategy in the Senate. The upper chamber was designed for lengthy debate and bipartisan efforts. Despite their failures this session, you don't simply give up on working together to achieve something as important as healthcare reform. But, there are a few things I would change next time. First, I think next time the President introduces a major bill, he should include bipartisan input from the start. Second, the President needs to work with the Senate throughout the process. Finally, the President needs to use his office, the bullypulpit and his political clout to stump for its passage.

DEVEREAUX: Jackson is absolutely right. It has to start with bipartisanship and promoting the bill from within the White House. Hindsight is 20/20 but had the Republicans reached out the first time instead of only doing it after it intially failed, you might have seen some Democrats more accommodating.

HILL: A final word from both of you?

DEVEREAUX: This is highly disappointing for both sides really. There isn't much more to say that the person that had the most riding on this, President Pizzuto, did the least to make anything happen.

ROCKEFELLER: With the silence from the Oval Office throughout the entire healthcare debate, I wasn't surprised to see so much opposition in the Senate against the President's bill. I said it early on -- the President would need to take an active role in the process and he did not. The Senate gave the President a second chance to pass his healthcare bill, but he didn't do anything to help it and, now, the bill has died for a second time. Disappointment would be a serious understatement of my feelings towards this process. Despite these setbacks, we've got to come back next session with a renewed commitment to the healthcare debate and an understanding that, perhaps, President Pizzuto is not the one to carry the torch for healthcare reform.

HILL: Thank you both.

*footage ends

HILL: Let's turn to our political analysts. Joining us in the studio is Bob Nally and Becky Train, our political analysts. Let's hear it, folks.

NALLY: For the second time, the Senate said 'no thank you' to the President's healthcare bill. Remember, I said it wouldn't pass the Senate and I was right.

TRAIN: It's a shame, but true. After Senate Democrats give him a second shot at passing his bill, President Pizzuto doesn't fumble the ball -- he never even showed up at the field. This is the only bill on the President's domestic agenda and it dies, making the President zero for one in four years.

NALLY: You can't paint the White House as ineffective over one bill.

TRAIN: After two openings, the second which is handed to you by your political opponents, and the President fails to do anything about it? I think you could call Mr. Pizzuto worse things than ineffective.

NALLY: Well, you can't say the public option helped turn the tide of support.

TRAIN: It was clear the bill wasn't moving even before anyone mentioned the public option. Many of those who opposed the public option also opposed the bill's original form as well as the bipartisan compromises. The only salvation for CHOICE would have been Presidential pressure, and none came.

HILL: What do you guys make of his speech today, after the death of CHOICE?

TRAIN: The one where he recaps the entire process of CHOICE and, throughout the timeline the President himself proves, we realize that the President did nothing for his own healthcare bill? And at the end he asks the 32 million still uninsured to trust him to reform healthcare? I almost have to laugh.

NALLY: Not his finest hour, but I think he was trying to showcase that, while maybe not himself, his administration had worked on the legislation and left it in Congress' hands to pass.

TRAIN: And since when has a President refused to get involved with Congress to make sure his legislation is successful? With the tragic history of failed healthcare reform in this country, why in the world would the President leave it in Congress' hands to pass his one and only domestic agenda item? That makes no sense and spells failure for the President's agenda. President Pizzuto dropped the ball on this one and I think he looks silly trying to deny it.

HILL: On the eve of his re-election campaign, the President doesn't stump for his one and only major domestic issue? That is pretty darn bad. With little to no improvement in the economy after four years, what's he got to show the American people?

TRAIN: Nothing.

NALLY: Yes, the President screwed himself over on the healthcare front. But, he deserves credit in helping to shrink the deficit and in foreign policy.

TRAIN: What has shrinking the deficit done to help American families in a tangible way? It hasn't, and the President hasn't even tried to make the argument that it has. Does the President deserve credit for helping turn the tide in Mexico? Maybe. But with China and Russia falling apart, I'm not sure this White Hosue can claim broad positive reviews for keeping the world in one piece.

HILL: Four years ago, President Pizzuto made us alot of promises. If you go down the list, from tax cuts to healthcare reform, it looks pretty bleak for him.

TRAIN: With his healthcare proposal dying a very tragic, public death right before elections, that'll weigh heavy on him. Except for healthcare, which he failed to reform, the President hasn't articulated anything more of a domestic agenda.

NALLY: Again, you're talking domestic issues and I think its clear the President's focus has been on foreign policy. However, I should add, the President did promise to reduce the deficit, then proposed and signed a budget that reduced the deficit.

TRAIN: If that's all he's got, I wouldn't want to be him. Americans want a President who can keep the world from blowing up, but foreign policy doesn't win elections and with the failure of the President's only domestic agenda item, I think we're watching a ship with a very large hole in its bottom.

HILL: And that's all the time we've got. This has been Doug Hill with the Hill Report. Until next time!

[Summy]

Aired on daytime
Title: The Lone Star Report
Author: Bill McCoy

THE LONE
STAR REPORT

(IMG:http://www.artisticmetalart.com/files/1672165/uploaded/texas-star-solid-texas-flag.JPG) (IMG:http://www.buzzflash.com/store/images//1507_supp.jpg)

McCoy: Howdy folks and welcome to the Lone Star Report. I'm Bill McCoy.

The megaregional conventions have begun and I’ve been holed up here at the Middle America convention. “Middle America”. Can’t we come up with a better name than that? Personally, I’m partial to “Texas and Friends”.

The most striking thing about our Middle America convention is that in a region so renowned for its colorful characters and inspired insanity there has been such a calm and cordial convention. To our representatives I can only say, I’m very disappointed in you.

I would like to thank Senator Justice for his efforts to secure Austin as the Megaregional capitol. It is the best choice. It is the Texan choice. One thing I don’t get though—we all know that everything’s bigger in Texas. Is “bigger” really the kind of government Buford T. Justice wants for us?

Meanwhile, the South convention is running smoothly with the participants behaving, by and large, like Southern Gentlemen. The North, on the other hand…

Dixon: I’m sure the people of Alabama didn’t like the fact they were forced to give up “preserving segregation.
Walsh: God agrees with me.
Dixon: God forbid our Governor suffer a misfortune…
Bradshaw: Are you seriously saying what you are saying?
Cameron: Yankees suck.
Kudrov: Heterosexual marriage
Trent: appalling
Markovich: outlandish
Trent: discrimination
Kudrov: slavery
Friedman: socialism
Schmidt: sex
Brennan: fornication
Trent: We are the representatives of the people.

McCoy: God help us.

This convention too argued over capitols. Congressman Friedman bravely suggested that there was no need to attract terrorists to New York. Well, of course we don’t need to. Markovich, however, defended a New York City capitol, suggesting that there were plenty of good reasons why terrorists should attack New York. Remind me never to let him stick up for Austin.

Amid all the chaos and arguments over abortion and health care, gay rights and the all-important choosing of a flag where pictures of trees don’t bother people; Governor Kudrov found it expedient to call for a vote. Senator Dixon seconded. Then Senator Kessler second. So did congressman Trent, Senator Maximulliano, Senator Santos-Carter and Senator Bradshaw. <pause> They do teach math in Northern schools, don’t they?

In the west, arguments circled about senate appointments. An apparent backroom deal surfaced whereby certain senators would be retained and others rejected. Not everyone was kept in the loop, however.

Rose: What apple cart? I have been made aware of no apple cart. I, in fact, only have the Senator’s word that there is an apple cart.

McCoy: Clearly, Senator Rose didn’t get the “apple cart” memo.

It is chilling, though, the way that all four conventions have seemed very much to lay out decisions made behind closed doors by party insiders. It is telling that Congresswoman Barrett declared it unfortunate Senator rose had not been informed of the agreement. These are conventions of representatives of the people chosen to make these decisions, not to rubber-stamp the dictates of a self-selected elite.

Disagreements circled around regional names. From Frontierland to Pacifica to simply “The West” discussion cirlcled. Yeah, I know—who do they think they are claiming the name “West” and leaving Texas out? In defense of “The West”, Governor Renzetti asserted that there is a fine line between reflecting something and hitting people over the head with it.
*holds up mirror*
*mimes hitting someone with mirror.*
No, I think that line’s pretty clear.

Majority Leader Reiber declared it “cold” to ask that 2/3 of the region supply 2/3 of the supreme court justices, objecting to making it a matter of mathematical formulas. His solution: reducing it to a different mathematical formula.

There has also been argument over whether to require mega-majorities for budgets and perpetuate the bloated pork that’s drug California down in the past or to pass budgets by a simple majority and risk letting a single party have too much power. Resolutions to come.

Mr. Reiber also discussed the union of these two superregions. Clearly, this is onea them civil unions we hear so much about.

We have recently reached the end of a congressional session and reports show that the Senators we elect to serve for 6 years serve, on average, about three. For Great Lakes Senators that number is actually less than 2. For our part, Texas is the closest to that average of 3 years. Most average. Friends—once again Texas is number 1.

Based on the results of this session we have a new Freedometer reading. Once again, the higher the ranking the more consistently pro-freedom. Under zero is bad.

The Freedometer:
5: Adcock-Carson, Bradshaw, Rose

4: Sorenson, Valerian, Winters
3: Devereaux, Santos-Carter
2: Morrison, Richardson, Sarmento
1: Fitzgerald, Foster, Kessler, Khula, Maxamilliano, Payne, Porter, Rockefeller, Taylor
0: Auriol, Everhardt, Henessy, Jackson, Johnston, Lincoln
-1: Casy, Hood, Wells
-2: Justice, MacLeod
-3: Mabe

We recommend megaregional conventions use these scores to secure the most pro-freedom senators possible. And in the upcoming elections, The Lone Star Report officially endorses Senator Hunter Rose for President of these United States. Failing that, we hope he is retained as a Senator. Failing that, we hope someone hires him as dog catcher.

<commercial break>

McCoy: Welcome back. I’m here today with the Chair of the Odessa area Republic of Texas party and former Congressional Chair of the Appropriations and Government Regulation committee, Randi Indiana Norton. Welcome, Congresswoman.

Norton: Thanks for havin’ me.

McCoy: So, it’s been a few years since you left Congress. What have you been up to?

Norton: Well, first thing I rejoined the Republic of Texas. It’s pretty near impossible to get elected without swearing allegiance to one of the major parties, and I’ve found myself in agreement with the Republicans as often as not. But in my heart I have always been a daughter of the Lone Star state. So I’m back home in the Republic of Texas where I belong. We’ve been holding voter drives and spreading awareness about important issues like the viability of secession and Texas-first prioritizing.

McCoy: Is secession really viable?

Norton: We’re Texans. We’re industrious. We’re resourceful. We can handle ourselves. And I’ll tell you one thing, it’s a bushel full of more viable than this megaregion nonsense.

McCoy: I’ve noticed the relative absence of Republic of Texas representation at the Middle-American convention. Don’t you feel you would be in a stronger position to fix the problems with the new setup by working within the system?

Norton: The problems with reregionalization are irreparable and we will not dignify this atrocity with our presence. I mean it was bad enough in 2010 when they set out to dilute Texan greatness with the Farmbelt. Now they want to drag us even farther down by mixing in all them Northerners. But it’s more than that. It isn’t just about Texas. It’s about local control. It’s about Michigan thinking it knows what’s best for Kansas and Oklahoma thinking it knows what’s best for Minnesota. I understand what life’s like in Odessa. I understand what we need in Odessa. And some Springfield bureaucrat who’s never set foot in Odessa has no business telling me how to live my life. We’re just moving control farther and farther out of the hands of the local communities that are in the position to make the best choices for their communities.

McCoy: Acknowledging for the moment that megaregionalization is happening whether we like it or not. Do you have any recommendations or requests to the delegates?

Norton: You mean besides armed revolt?

McCoy: Yeah, other than that.

Norton: Well, I would ask any delegates to apply the same priorities that I did in Congress. It is an undeserved privilege that these other states get to align themselves with Texas and Texas deserves every advantage our delegates can wheedle out of the situation. That’s priority one. Texas laws should take priority and Texas interests should be served.

McCoy: As far as Senate appointments go, the Lone Star Report is recommending retention of Winters, Taylor and Fitzgerald. Did you have any thoughts on that?

Norton: Well, Taylor has expressed no interest in retaining his seat, even votes for plans that leave him out. If he’s tired of the senate, I’m thinking we’re better off with him elsewhere. If we made him Governor he’d have a new and different set of challenges. His liberal leanings might help appease somea them Northerners and it is, after all, high time we replaced that Missouri pretender.

As for the Senate, we need to keep Justice obviously. He does a phenomenal job of fighting for our core values while at the same time making sure Texas comes first. For the other Heartland seat—Jack Johnson’s done some excellent work in Congress. I think he’s worth a shot. As for the Midwest—ain’t no law against carpet bagging. Maybe we could get Winchester or Wyatt to come back into the limelight. Or you even.

McCoy: Heh. You know, I was born in Missouri myself.

Norton: Really? Well that’s okay, you’ve reformed.

McCoy: Do you have any thoughts on the presidential race?

Norton: Well, I suppose that of the declared candidates, Senator Rose wins the Randi’s Rules proximity-to-Texas test. But I would prefer an actual Texan. Or at least someone more conservative. For the moment I’m undecided.

McCoy: All right. And the most important question of the evening: Longhorns or Aggies?

Norton: <laughs> Aggies. Definitely Aggies. Although the Longhorn mascot is hot.

McCoy: …well. On that note… It’s been an honor having you here Congresswoman.

Norton: Thank you.

McCoy: And that’s it for this week’s Lone Star Report. Until next time: if you can find someplace you like better than Tuna—move.

[Summy]

Aired primetime

Title: The Lone Star Report
Author: Bill McCoy

THE LONE
STAR REPORT

(IMG:http://www.artisticmetalart.com/files/1672165/uploaded/texas-star-solid-texas-flag.JPG) (IMG:http://www.buzzflash.com/store/images//1507_supp.jpg)



McCoy:
A hearty howdy and welcome to the Lone Star Report. I’m Bill McCoy.

American executive Darius Graham was found dead in Mexico City’s central plaza this week, having apparently been beaten and tortured. This appears to be a response by a group calling itself “Heirs of Chapultepec” to what they consider an invasion of Mexico. My heart goes out to Graham’s family and friends. I lost my brother in Vietnam and I never… Anything we can help with, let me know.

President Pizzuto has been quick to send the family his regards, and to explain to the American people that this is all the more reason to support his Mexican adventurism. Meanwhile, Vice President Pooty went to the airwaves to demonize how the evil democrats have been politicizing the death. <pause> Yeah, I see what ya did there.

Governor Kudrov was shocked to learn this week that many republicans are actually not in favor of universal health care. Having made this incredible new discovery she promptly left the party. <sound of a printer running> Oh, and we have a news report coming in from the future. Says here Governor Kudrov, who had left the church, the Northeast, her family and all societal organizations because they didn’t always agree with her and become a hermit is now going to abandon that, citing “philosophical differences” with other hermits.

Back at the Middle America convention, it has been decided to name the Region of… <laughs> I’m sorry, The Region of Jefferson. <dun dun dun music in background> Personally, I love Jefferson. Even if he was a Virginian and not a Texan. But “Region of Jefferson”? <dun dun dun> In other news, The West will be known as the “Region of Tutankhamun”, the South will be the “Region of Smith” and the North is considering the name “Region of That Guy, You Know The Guy We Saw In The Elevator?”

It has come to my attention that Governor Kennedy was not mentioned in our last Lone Star Report. And so, Governor Kennedy: hello.

Down south in the Region of Smith <dun dun dun> Vice President Pooty has being angling to strip Appalachian workers of the power to effectively band together and stick up for their rights. Democrats, meanwhile, are defending Governor Forestal’s policies and trying to strip Gulf Coast workers of the power to avoid banding together and choose to be trodden on by unscrupulous employers. This, my friends, is because the Democrats hate our freedom.

A relatively popular motion is circling to adopt “Dixie” as the name of the new South megaregion. Motions to reinstate lynching and to become a Right to Be a Slave region have not been as well received.

Up North in the Region of Elevator <dun dun dun> Congressman Trent has asserted that “Nobody WANTS to be forcibly merged into a single megaregion.” I’ve got to wonder, if there is literally nobody that wants megaregionalization, how did even get suggested in the first place? We’ve scoured the country and found one guy who actually wants Megaregions. Welcome, Joe.

Joe:
Hi there Bill.

McCoy:
So Joe, you like the way we’re combining into Megaregions?

Joe:
Oh yeah, see I live in New Mexico, but I work in El Paso. So it just seems easier to have them both joined up into the same governing body.

McCoy:
Uh… Joe, you do realize that New Mexico and Texas are still in different Megaregions?

Joe:
Oh. Well in that case never mind, I don’t like megaregions.

McCoy:
Thank you for being with us.

Out west… well, west of Texas, Faux West, in the Region of Tutankhamun <dun dun dun> my niece was so excited when Governor Renzetti came into office. She was painfully aware of California’s ongoing budget woes. She was sick of the fall from the days when California ranked among the top of the nation’s education centers to a far more mediocre standing. She had seen firsthand the region’s treatment of its gay citizens, the high taxes funding pork projects while vital services were repeatedly cut. And she was thrilled with the advent of a governor that would finally do something about it. So now the opportunity has come to scrap the clunky old constitution and institute positive change what has my niece’s pet governor proposed? The same unwieldy budget process that has caused California trouble for decades. The same old government policies of outlining who you can and can’t marry. In her defense, Renzetti has fought for concealed carry rights. In case any authorities are watching my niece is not, repeat NOT carrying a gun and following the Governor around waiting for an opportunity.

Senator Hennessy has had the courage to speak up about the need for budgetary sanity, arguing:

Hennessy:
I'm from California. I lived during the Schwarzenegger years, when it impossible to get a workable, fair budget simply due to a 2/3 requirement.

Hennessy:
I just don't want a return to California in 2008. And that was caused, in part, by the high budget acceptance threshold.

Hennessy:
you have a soon-to-be recession on our hands (just look at Shanghai, will you?), and on the other hand, we won't have the fiscal flexibility to deal with the crisis - the legislature would be infinitely bogged down in special interests. The reason the Southwest didn't collapse as California did is because, in effect, the rest of the region bailed California out, and because there were signs of recovery.

McCoy:
So naturally, Hennessy voted to fix the problem, right?

Hennessy:
present

Mccoy: <facepalms>

And finally, I would like to bring you, the Freedom Draft. As most of the conventions have made their preliminary selections, we have calculated the number of “Freedom Points” they have selected.

In first place with 8 points we have the South. And this with only 2 senators picked to the other regions’ 3.

Tied for second with 3 points each we have the North and the Region of Jefferson <dun dun dun>.

And pending final vote in the Faux West we have what appears to be a last place finish with a total of negative one point. This, incidentally, in the only region that had the picks available to amass 11 points had they so chosen.

And breaking news—my producers inform me that they have decided to rename the Lone Star Report. Henceforth, this program shall be referred to as “The Region of Bob”. <dun dun dun>

<commercial break>

McCoy:
Tonight we are joined by Sunbelt Senator and Presidential Candidate Hunter Rose of Colorado. Welcome, Senator.
Rose:
Thank you for having me, Bill.

McCoy:
We’ve been following the Megaregional Conventions. I’ve been attending the Middle America, my niece has been at the South, my daughter’s actually a delegate out West. And the most profound common theme we’re seeing is one of how many major decisions seem to have been made by party insiders before the delegates that were sent to make these calls even showed up. Senator, you have long been an advocate for transparency and broadened political access. How much of a problem is this political collusion? And what can be done about it?
Rose:
Well, I really don't think there is anything to be done about it. This is politics, after all, and any time you have important political decisions being made be a select group of people sitting in a room somewhere, you're going to have collusion. It was for that reason that I was opposed to these conventions, and it is for that reason that I hope that we will never see their like in this country again. Political decisions ought to rest with the people.

McCoy:
You have referred to campaign finance reform as a Rosetta Stone for fixing our political system. Texas’ own Molly Ivins has suggested that President Clinton might have had more success with his agenda, including health care, if he had passed campaign finance reform first. Why is campaign finance reform so important? What would a good campaign finance policy look like? And how do you feel about McCain/Feingold?
Rose:
It's important because power is never relinquised willingly, and in America today, the special-interests have the power. They control the campaign finance system in this country, lock, stock, and barrel, and through it they control the Congress and the President. Real change, in a whole host of arenas, from health care to trade, from equal rights to immigration, can only come when their hold is removed from politics entirely, and that means public financing of all federal elections. It means that every candidate for federal office should be able to compete on a level playing field by being able to draw on matching funds of clean money, removing any incentive to take from the special interests. McCain-Feingold was an excellent start, Bill, but dirty money is a lot like water: it finds the cracks. It must be eliminated from the equation in the only way possible: by taking away the demand.

McCoy:
Throughout your career, you have been a phenomenal civil rights leader, and for that I salute you. You have suggested, and I passionately agree, that our freedom is far too important to sacrifice in the name of regional pandering. Immigration policy, however, seems to be a major blemish on your otherwise resplendent civil rights record. Is that just a compromise that a democrat has to make to be electable in the Sunbelt? How do you reconcile your defense of freedom for just about everyone else with your opposition to amnesty and your more militant border rhetoric?
Rose:
I know that it's not exactly a popular view in my party, but I honestly do not feel that illegal immigration is a civil rights issue. There is no right to violate the laws of this country and the sanctity of our borders, and there certainly is no right to be rewarded for cutting in line ahead of the literally millions of people who wait patiently to legally enjoy the fruits that America has to offer. Just as importantly, perhaps, a policy of uncontrolled illegal immigration may sound nice for the immigrants, but make no mistake: it's a weapon, a weapon aimed at the working people of this country. When these immigrants come here illegally, and take jobs at illegally low wages and for no benefits, that is just another lever that corporate America can use to force down the wages and benefits of American workers and keep the immigrants enmeshed in a web of debt and poverty from which there is no escape. It's a con, Bill, a sham. It's just another example of those with the power in this country playing those without any power against each other.

McCoy:
You have shown a willingness to place your love of freedom ahead of the party line—in particular defending the rights of gun owners. How much of a problem will this be for you in the Democratic primary?
Rose:
None at all. The issue of our Second Amendment freedoms may break down along party lines in Washington and the big cities, but in the rest of America, gun ownership is not merely a right, it is also a tradition, and support for the right to keep and bear arms can be found among Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike.

McCoy:
As election season heats up there will plenty of opportunities to point out differences and deficiencies of your opponents. I’d like to hear one thing each that you genuinely respect and admire about Senator Winters and President Pizzuto.
Rose:
Senator Winters and I have been friends for years. We like, respect, and, I believe, admire one another, and I know that any policy differences I might have with him are based on good-faith differences of opinion. I know that he has the best interest of America at heart. President Pizzuto, I do not know as well, but while I have many criticisms of his leadership since entering the White House, I will concede that he has signed many fine pieces of legislation into law.

McCoy:
As we progress through the Democratic Primary, the obvious question of the hour: Why should the party vote for you over Senator Winters?
Rose:
While I like and respect Senator Winters and believe that he has America's best interests at heart, I simply believe that I represent the spirit of what the Democratic Party wants for America a bit better than he does. I believe that my support for single-payer health care, for national marriage equality, for new, fair trade deals, for a living wage, for a bold policy of energy independence, and for a foreign policy of peace and nonintervention represent the best that the Democratic Party has to offer, and the best hope for a better and more progressive America.

McCoy:
Senator Rose, thank you for being with us this evening.
Rose:
Thank you again for having me, Bill. Always a pleasure to talk with you.

McCoy:
And that's it for this evening. Until next time, watch out for the armadillos.

[Summy]

Aired primetime

Title: The Lone Star Report
Author: Bill McCoy

(IMG:http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii134/axfseilf/lonestarreport2.png)

McCoy:
Howdy and welcome to the Lone Star Report. I’m Bill McCoy.

22 Americans and 41 Mexicans are dead in the President’s joint effort to bring Mexican drug lords to heel. Again, my heart goes out to their families. Fortunately, President Pizzuto and Elliot Ness have a secret plan to end the war. Something to do with tax fraud…

The President has asserted that we will not quit in our pursuit of said druglords. Further, he has informed us that it is gut check time. *glances down* Yup, still there.

The White House is dealing with another leak—this time relating to Brooke Winthrop who allegedly isn’t qualified for her job at State and allegedly caused the failure of the summit with Mexican President Villalobos by not being there. Presumably because the summit suffered from a lack of unqualified participants. The White House refutes these charges, declaring Winthrop eminently qualified and outlining the top-secret meeting she was having with Mexican military leaders at the time. In related news the White House will be purchasing some caulking to fix all these leaks.

And now—a quick look at the megaregional conventions. The sub-regions of Jefferson are trying to decide who’s bigger. Dixie has given the thumbs down to a flag that looks like a thumbs-down gesture. The West is still relatively quiet. And the North is babbling incessantly.

Senator Justice has taken the time to complain to the press about his Freedometer rating. Thanks for the attention, Buford. We love you too. You know, in a platonic and manly sort of way.

And finally the presidential primaries are upon us.

Actor on Stage:
Now is the Winters of our discontent made glorious summer by this Sunbelt dork.

McCoy:
Senator Winters made his way to Iowa and told the Iowans that it is good to be in Iowa. Then he went to New Hampshire and said that it is good to be in New Hampshire. We have not yet been able to confirm reports of any plans on the Senator’s part to go to Alkatraz and declare that it is good to be in federal prison.

Senator Rose, meanwhile, has opined over how health care is crippled by insurance giants, fair trade built America to an economic giant and how we need to use renewable energy to create an industrial giant. Clearly, the Senator likes giants.
[momentary clip of giant Rose from commercial]
Yes friends, vote for Senator Rose and you too can be Fifty Feet Tall! Rwar! Rose smash!

Senator Winters has been making his way around speaking to his friends.
[clip montage of Winters saying “friends” to a ton of different audiences]
Clearly, somebody’s spent too much time on myspace.

Senator Rose has pledged to stop trade policies designed to create a race to the bottom between special interests and slave labor. Say, how fast do special interests run anyway?

Discussing health care, Senator Winters has objected that the President has placed ideology ahead of results. Which is why the most ideologically conservative republicans in Congress are the ones opposed to CHOICE?

Senator Rose has declared that he joined the Democratic Party because it is the party of all the people. All races. All creeds. All sexual orientations. Except immigrants.

Senator Winters suggested that the presidency brings with it great power and responsibility. And this nifty web fluid.

Senator Rose has pledged to bring equality to gay immigrants—that’s right, under a Rose administration gay immigrants can be assured of being mistreated just like any other immigrants.

Senator Winters is worried about Americans being forced to make the difficult choice between a better future or harsh realities. Yeah, that’s one tough choice. Winters went on to declare his dedication to fixing healthcare, proclaiming that 32 million being without health care ends today. In other news, he will be ending world hunger next Tuesday.

Senator Rose has declared his bold new position on special interests.

Rose:
I am running for president to run the corruption and cronyism

McCoy:
Wait, what?

Rose:
…out of town

McCoy:
Oh I see. Never mind.

Senator Winters stood up for women’s rights and declared that sex is no barrier to democracy. And that’s true. For democracy, you need people. And without sex…

Senator Rose has declared that the Founding Fathers wouldn’t have wanted electoral success to be about who has the most money. Prominent commentators, meanwhile, have suggested that one reason that the Senator may have a shot in this race because he has more money.

Senator Winters declared that Senator Rose was an honorable man. He went on to note that Brutus says he is ambitious.

Senator Rose proclaimed that Americans need a friend in the White House.
[image: myspace page for Lincoln Winters]

Senator Winters stressed the need for renewable energy—you know, like the Solar panels bill Senator Rose wrote which has been signed into law.

Senator Rose claimed to be the only candidate to be there for workers on every issue, in every fight, every time. Except, presumably, for the votes on overseas patriots, immigration reform, congressional pension reform and reclaiming American communities, all of which he missed.

And finally, a final word from Senator Winters:

Winters:
We need to make work harder for the Americans that work the hardest.

McCoy:
Sometimes, the jokes just write themselves.

(IMG:http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii134/axfseilf/lonestarreport1.png)

<commercial break>

(IMG:http://www.inquisitr.com/wp-content/cindy-mccain-dancing-with-the-stars-150x150.jpg)

McCoy:
We are joined today by Senate Minority Whip Patricia Marie Sorenson. Welcome to the show and congratulations on your retention.

Sorenson:
Thank you Bill. Its a pleasure to be here today with you and the folks watching or listening at home.

McCoy:
People are still abuzz about the Kudrov party switch—at least up north where they don’t have anything more interesting to talk about. Speaking as the only so prominent successful politician in the last decade to execute a party switch and remain successful, having retained your senate seat through both re-election and regional constriction, how much will this hurt her with republican voters? How much will it help with independents and liberals? And without the Northern republican establishment will she, as she suggested, be in a stronger position to bring a more efficient, stable government?

Sorenson:
Well, let me first say that I have the greatest respect for Governor Kudrov and her tenure as NOR Governor. While I may disagree with nearly everything she has done as governor, I do respect her for sticking by her guns, so to speak, on issue after issue, even if it was politically unwise for her to do so.

With that said, I don't think this will hurt her much at all with independents and democrats. Governor Kudrov always had and still does have a independent streak - a streak that ensured her election back in 2018 with the support of a large swath of independent voters. And while Democrats may have preferred for one of their own to be in office, they have certainly more than tolerated Governor Kurdov's center-left governance these past two years. With her party-switch now official, I don't see Governor Kudrov having too much trouble working with Democrats in the future...and I wouldn't be suprised if she made a full transition to the Democratic party.

However, I think with her switch, Governor Kudrov has effectively burnt her last remaining bridge with the GOP. Its no small fact that Governor Kudrov governed decidedly left of center on a host of issues ranging from healthcare to same sex marriage; and in doing so, cast a wedge between her and her Republican supporters. While your average Northeastern Republican may be more mainstream than the rest of the GOP, they still hold true to certain core values all republicans hold dear. When Governor Kudrov began to step away from those core values, many Northeastern Republicans began to question her loyalty to the party. And now, I fear there is no returning to her former high grace for Governor Kudrov in the eyes of her old GOP caucus-mates and supporters across the Northeast. A sad truth, but the truth nonetheless.

Hopefully she can show she is true to her words and remain independent in spirit and mind and governance, though her recent endorsements of Representative Trent and Senator Wells - both democrats - questions that so-called "independence".

McCoy:
In your service on the Government Regulation and Commerce committee, you voted for passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, but then voted “present” on the same bill before the Senate. What changed?

Sorenson:
I'm glad you brought that up, Bill. As you and your audience may know, I've been a firm supporter of our workers rights ever since I was first elected to the House of Representatives in 2011. However, when the Employee Free Choice Act, or EFCA, came around to a vote I couldn't quite find myself to support a bill that wasn't as strong in its efforts to protect and preserve workers rights than what it tried to present itself to be. Fortunately, we have made wonderful strides forward since the passage of the EFCA in granting better working conditions and greater access to collective bargaining for the American worker and I plan on continuing to improve those rights in the coming session of the Senate.


McCoy:
Following up on workers’ rights, you’ve voted to repeal the Truman-era Taft-Hartley Act which allows states to declare themselves “Right to Work States” and opt out of worker protection laws. Your very first legislative motion at the megaregional convention, however, was to strip Appalachian workers of exactly those protections. Again, what’s changed?

Sorenson:
I come from a historically right-to-work region that has consistently opposed on a local, state, and regional level too much change in the current right to work laws on the books. It would not be fair to my constituents back home in the Gulf Coast not to stand up for what they have consistently supported even if it means I must put aside what I personally and politically feel is necessary for the American worker.

McCoy:
So... are you saying that in Washington your principles trumped your constituents' position, but at the conention your constituents' position trumped your principles?

Sorenson:
No, not at all. On a federal level, my constituents in the Gulf Coast expect a certain standard of representation that I have given to them these past six and a half years, and one of those expectations has been to support greater workers rights on a federal level. However, on a regional level, those same constituents of mine have expected common sense compromises between the current right to work laws and those proposed laws that would expand the right to unionize. Again, it would be unfair to my constituents to not back the laws they have chosen to support on a regional level, especially at a convention - that some would say is not necessary and goes beyond the scope of what state and local governance was all about - that would seek to merge two regions with different political and economic backgrounds .

McCoy:
President Pizzuto has sent American troops into Mexico to help it deal with drug-related crime. With the apparent murder of Darius Graham, American saber-rattling has intensified. Isn’t this the kind of gradual commitment that got us involved in Vietnam? How confident can we be that we aren’t accelerating towards war in Mexico?

Sorenson:
Bill, Mexico and Vietnam are two completely different situations that were started by completely different factions with different motivations in mind. But to answer your question, we can be completely confident that we aren't accelerating towards war in Mexico for the simple fact that the Mexican people and the Mexican government do not, I repeat, do not want to go to war with the United States of America.

We've been working alongside the Mexican government for months now to prevent the escalation of tensions like they were just a short while ago, and I'd like to believe that we have been successful in that area thanks to the diplomatic skills of the folks at the State Department and Secretary of State Kellogg.

Also, I'd just like to note that the Pizzuto administration has noted that the American troops currently in place in Mexico will be replaced by civilian police and anti-terror agents as soon as humanly possible once they are ready to go. So there is no need to fear that the ongoing situation in Mexico is a Vietnam-redux, Bill.

McCoy:
In the past, you have prolifically introduced legislation to restrict gay rights, expand gun rights, demand fiscal responsibility and accountability and expend numerous dollars on numerous projects. Is there any particular issue or belief that you feel defines your political philosophy? And what do you have in store for us in the coming session?

Sorenson:
Is there any particular issue or belief that I feel defines my political philosophy? Well, I guess I'd say that I'm the epitome of a compassionate conservative. Yes, I am conservative in the fact that I believe in being responsible stewards of our taxpayer dollars, protecting the sanctity of marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and defending our blood-bought right to keep and bear arms; but at the same time, I am compassionate enough to know that just because some conservative principles work, it doesn't mean that all of them work to help the American people in their time of need. I guess that comes from years of service and working with people of all creeds and backgrounds back home in Alabama and the rest of the Gulf Coast.

As for what's coming next session, I plan to tackle the great crucible of every Congress: Healthcare reform. Hopefully this year will be the year we achieve healthcare reform once and for all.

McCoy:
Senator Sorenson, thank you for being with us.

Sorenson:
Its been a pleasure. Hopefully I can come back soon. God Bless.

McCoy:
And that’s it for this edition of the Lone Star Report. See ya.

(IMG:http://i852.photobucket.com/albums/ab90/Knuckle_Curve/seal-1-1.gif)

[Summy]

Aired daytime

(IMG:http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/6061/cronkitebanner.jpg)

ANNOUNCER: Welcome back to the Hill Report with your host, Doug Hill, reporting live from Washington, D.C.

THE RACE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE
Exclusive insight into the 2010 Presidential Campaign

HILL: Welcome to The Hill Report's special edition on the 2010 Presidential race. I'm Doug Hill, your host. Tonight I'll be airing my interviews of the two candidates for the Democratic Presidential nomination. I also extended an invitation to President Pizzuto, who is running for re-election. The President received my invitation, but he did not respond to it. Despite the absence of the incumbent, we'll take an inside look at Lincoln Winters and Hunter Rose, the two Democratic contenders seeking to defeat President Pizzuto this November. Both U.S. Senators, Mr. Winters and Mr. Rose bring many of the similarities to the table, but each with his own idea, style and viewpoint. Let's watch!

*footage with Winters rolls*

THE HILL EXCLUSIVE
Lincoln Winters
SENIOR U.S. SENATOR FOR WABASH VALLEY
VICE CHAIRMAN, FOREIGN RELATIONS, INTELLIGENCE & DEFENSE COMMITTEE
FORMER CHAIRMAN, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE

HILL: Senator Winters, my first question is - why are you running for President? And why should Americans vote for you?

WINTERS: I have always been inspired, Doug, by the inscription that rests on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty. Right there on the front doorstep of the country, we put forth the ideal of our country. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore." That's the ideal America has set for herself. The American Dream; the opportunity to make your life the way you wanted it to be. That a nation formed of outcasts from the Old World would prove that any person could achieve greatness, no matter how humble their beginnings.

America hasn't been perfect, not by a long shot - but it has never been doubted that it can be perfected, made better by each generation. It is that idea, the promise of a better future, of renewal and rebirth that has made our country so unique and so successful. That is why I'm running for President. Because that idea is one that has to be allowed to flourish, to expand that opportunity to people who in America have seen it curbed, the glow of our great promise diminished. I want to restore that ideal to the highest levels of our government.

When I was in the Army serving in Afghanistan, I met a woman serving in the Navy Reserve as a field hospital corpsman. She had been serving in the armed forces for 21 years, joined up in her early 30s to help pay for her family. Her husband had been unemployed for a few years and she had a pair of kids that were going to be heading to college so she had volunteered for active duty for the benefits that were given - health care coverage, of which her family had none, and better pay. A mother, putting her life on the line to not only defend her country, but to make sure her kids had a shot at achieving their dreams.

I'm running for President because there are people like her all over America, parents and siblings who sacrifice and go the extra mile to make their future or their childrens' future a brighter one, and our leaders should do the same. That's why when I got out of the Army, I dedicated myself to public service. It was the least I could do to help people like that woman - not to take away all her problems, but to make them a little easier, to make the promise of opportunity more real.

HILL: What makes you the ideal person to sit in the Oval Office?

WINTERS: For starters, the work ethic and attitude I'd bring to the White House is one that is results-oriented. The American people will know I'm doing everything I can to work on their behalf and I will hold my Cabinet to the same standards. Wherever a good idea may come from - Republican, Democrat, or otherwise - it will be pursued. Programs that have worked will be learned from and expanded, while bad programs will be improved - and if they can't be, they'll be ended. That's been my philosophy from when I first entered public service - that instead of being satisfied with minimal progress, we have to keep pushing the boundaries, asking how we can do better every day.

My track record in the Senate has shown that well: my education plan, one that will put more highly-qualified teachers in schools and additional resources into needy schools, is the only real solution proposed by any of the candidates in this race and passed the Senate with strong bipartisan support. I successfully pushed policies on health care that would cut costs and extend coverage to millions of Americans without health care through in the CHOICE debates that received bipartisan support - all while the President failed to do anything to help the cause of health care reform.

And as I have said before, I am the only candidate with real plans to deal with a multitude of issues - from education and health care, to renewing our economy and stabilizing Mexico. That focused outline for America, my proven record for crafting smart, consensus-based policies, and my drive to go the extra mile is what makes be the best candidate for President of the United States.

HILL: The Presidency a tough job. As we've seen, modern Presidents have had difficulty living up to the expectations of the American people and fulfilling their campaign promises. And, many times, the public can be unforgiving on these failures.

WINTERS: Rightfully so, Doug. Presidents need to be held accountable for what they're promising to the American people. The high bar that they set for any person running for President is one they've earned, especially after the last four years. I know that I'm disappointed in how lackluster and politically-driven this Administration has been and I believe the American people share that sentiment. A part-time President isn't worthy of America and that's one thing I'll change to be successful in the White House.

That's why my Administration is going to be built from the ground up around one concept: governing. I'm going to take the best ideas and put the best people around me to get results. That work ethic I mentioned earlier is going to be what keeps me focused on the problems of the American people, not politics. I'm not going to get bogged down in arguments about whether government should be bigger or smaller, but how we can make it smarter and more effective.

As for my agenda, it's one that's built first and foremost around doing what's best for America, not any particular ideology or small slice of the populace. Our country deserves nothing less than our best - and if elected, that's what I'll give them.

HILL: Senator Winters, you are the clear favorite in the Democratic primary with almost, if not all, major players vocally endorsing your campaign including the last Democratic ticket of Senator Rockefeller and Governor Kennedy, as well as 2016's other primary contenders Senators Santos-Carter and Merrlin. Despite this, Senator Rose is still putting up a spirited opposition in the primary. Why do you think you're the better candidate to face President Pizzuto in November?

WINTERS: First, let me start by saying I have great respect for Senator Hunter Rose and the work he's done in office. He has been a strong voice for equality, for workers, and a more progressive America and that cannot - nor should be - diminished by anyone, especially someone who seeks to be President of the United States.

Now, that said - despite our agreements on several issues, there are key differences between us. I disagree with his assertion on returning our trade policies to the World War II era will help America or that the only way to fix health care is with single-payer. Besides our differences in operation in the Senate - where I've had more of a history of working across the aisle for results - I have a more firm plan for where our country is going and where we need to go.

As I mentioned before on education, my plan is a broad-based set of policies that seek to address the wide range of problems faced by our education system. That's something Senator Rose hasn't offered in much detail, while President Pizzuto's attempts at reform are lacking in every sense of the word. On Mexico, I coauthored the only policy proposed that would deal with the crisis on both sides of the border, one that will make the Treaty we signed with Mexio much more effective in stabilizing our borders.

And with health care, I did more work to pass reform legislation in the Senate than President Pizzuto did during his entire Presidency. By pushing cost control and accessbility expansion programs, with bipartisan support, I helped to get CHOICE closer to something that would have made a real difference for American. I'll do what President Pizzuto couldn't - take health care across the finish line, with a plan that will pass Congress and give coverage to millions of Americans.

HILL: With the overwhelming majority of the Democratic party supporting you, the bar is set pretty high. And when there are high expectations, it's a bigger drop down if something goes wrong and I'm sure Senator Rose will be waiting for his chance to take the upperhand. So, tell me how you're going to keep your momentum?

WINTERS: Well, I'm not taking anything for granted, Doug. The Democratic Party as a whole - not the establishment or a list of endorsements - will be what decides who our nominee is. I'm going to be campaigning across the country and telling voters of all kinds about my vision for America, one with more affordable and higher quality health care, a more vibrant and secure economy, and a safer border with Mexico. And if I do that well enough, I know I'll gain their trust - and together we can take back the White House next November. There's no shortcut for hardwork, especially when it comes to democracy.

HILL: If you win the primary, many think you could pose a real threat to President Pizzuto. Despite mixed opinions on the President's administration, he's still the incumbent President; therefore, the Democratic nominee will need to convince Americans that its time for a fresh start, and that's not an easy task. So, how will you do it?

WINTERS: If the last four years have taught us anything, it's that leadership in America needs to embody a cause, not a man. The office and the responsibilities that come with it are about more than just one man or one woman's - it is about putting the concerns of others, of an entire nation and all those who look up to it on your back. That is what I have to offer America. During the Pizzuto Administration, we have seen a President more interested in political success than in the our citizens' prosperity.

Instead of a strong voice for reform and a change from partisan division that we were promised, this President has put forth lackluster ideas, insufficient policies, and been virtually invisible when he was needed the most. It's not enough to be President of the United States and keep us treading water. It's not enough to protect the interests of the few at the expense of the needs of the many. The person who sits in the Oval Office has a responsibility higher than any other leader in the world - to inspire, to motivate, to take us beyond where we are now and point us to a time when thigns are better.

We need someone who will fight for the whole country, not sections of it. Because when you hold that office, you are not a Democratic President or a Republican President, but the American President. And when I am the President of the United States, the people of this nation will know that I'll be doing everything I can to give them shot at a better life.

HILL: Thank you for your time, Senator Winters.

WINTERS:


*footage with Rose rolls*

THE HILL EXCLUSIVE
Hunter Rose
SENIOR U.S. SENATOR FOR THE SUNBELT
CHAIRMAN, JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

HILL: Senator Rose, why are you running for President? And why should Americans vote for you?

ROSE: I'm running for President, quite simply, to make America a better place: to pass a real universal health care bill, to end the unfair trade deals that have decimated the American economy, to bring about a true living wage for all American workers, to make equal justice before the law for all Americans a reality, and to clean out the special-interest control of our politics with a clean money law. I believe that the time has come for a President with a bold, progressive vision for what America could be, and I believe I will be that President.

HILL: What makes you the ideal person to sit in the Oval Office?

ROSE: I don't know if there is any such thing as an ideal person to serve as President, and I would be wary of anyone so arrogant as to claim they were. The office shapes the man every bit as much as the man shapes the office. That being said, I believe that I am the best candidate to serve at this time because I am the only candidate who combines a progressive vision for a better America with a record of legislative success.

HILL: Senator Rose, you seem to be the underdog in the race for the Democratic nomination against Senator Lincoln Winters. Why do you think you are the better choice for the DNC nomination?

ROSE: First of all, let me say that I hold Senator Winters in the highest personal regard. He's my friend, he's my colleague, and I am honored to have known him and worked with him in the Senate. My candidacy is not about running against him. It's about running for an ideal, the ideal of a fairer, freer, more equal America. That's the ideal that has informed my entire career in public life, that has informed this campaign, and that makes me the best candidate running for President of the United States.

HILL: With the overwhelming majority of the Democratic party supporting Senator Winters, some would say that you are running against the party. Others say you're merely anti-establishment. So, Senator Rose, what would you classify yourself as and why do you feel your campaign is worth it?

ROSE: I like to leave labels to folks who are concerned with that sort of thing. I feel this campaign is worth it because someone has to take a stand. Someone has to stand up in this race for single-payer universal health care, for a living wage, for clean elections, for marriage equality, for fair trade, for a foreign policy of peace, and for all the other progressive ideals that might otherwise go unheard. I believe that I am going to win this race, but even if I don't, if I can inspire my fellow Americans to believe that a better, more progressive America is possible and within our grasp, then it will all be worth it.

HILL: If you win the primary, some say you'd have difficulty defeating incumbent President Jack Pizzuto in the general election. And, you have to admit, you've taken some fringe positions during your tenure in Washington that have worried your own constituents in the Southwest. At the end of the day, what makes you think you can beat President Pizzuto?

ROSE: Well, first of all, I most emphatically do not admit that I have taken any so-called "fringe positions." If I believed that, I would not be running for the presidency. But to address your question, I believe that I can beat President Pizzuto because the American people are ready for a change. They're tired of the leadership black hole he has created in Washington. They want a President who is ready to lead on the issues that matter to them, who is not afraid to take tough stands and defend them, to make real change for them and for their families. That's what my campaign represents, and that's why I'm going to win this election.

HILL: Thank you Senator Rose.

*footage ends*

HILL: Now we turn to our analysts in the studio for their commentary.

TRAIN: It's liberal vs. liberal this year in the Democratic primary, so the base must be thrilled. But, moderate Dems are probably wondering where in the world do they go? If the DNC isn't careful, they could lose them to the GOP.

NALLY: I don't think the DNC needs to worry about moderates, when party moderates like Rockefeller and Kowalchuk are content with making endorsements, and for Senator Winters I might add.

HILL: Speaking of internal politics, Senator Rose seemed a bit unsettled when I called some of his positions "fringe." Was I off on that remark?

NALLY: No. Senator Rose's economic plan is to hike taxes on everyone under the sun while exempting those making less than 100k from paying taxes -- that's not mainstream, that's called bankrupting the nation, the markets and sending the entire economy into collapse. And if Rose gets his way, businesses will have to lay off millions so, in the end, its not even a win for the working class. And don't get me started on his plan to withdraw from all trade agreements on the first day of his Presidency -- talk about a suckerpunch on our own economy, not to mention the entire global economy.

TRAIN: Well, we do need reform in our trade agreements because American workers aren't the winners in most cases.

NALLY: But withdrawing from them all on day one? Senator Rose is not talking 'reform', he's promising to end them and that'll cause chaos and our economy, which those trade deals are not a part of, will suffer and a willy-nilly withdrawal will cause havoc, major job loss and our markets will freak out.

TRAIN: But Senator Rose has passed bills with his name on them during his tenure in the Senate, many with bipartisan support.

NALLY: Sure, we can all agree on ending business for contracts with bad reputations. But, the focus is the meaty issues. And when we compare Senator Rose against Senator Winters, both are liberals, but one is fringe and the other tends to be more mainstream.

TRAIN: Well, from the interview, it seems both Senators have a cordial and respectful relationship, despite their competition in the primary against each other.

HILL: Backroom chatter says that many Republicans are giddy with the idea that Senator Rose could gets the nomination because they think his positions won't win over the country and that Senator Winters has a good shot against President Pizzuto.

TRAIN: As far as grabbing independents, Senator Winters is likely more able to compete with the President whereas Senator Rose would have difficulty. However, both Senator Winters and Senator Rose would likely pull the entire Democratic party together.

NALLY: There's something to be said for Senator Rose's pure idealism, sure. I think a lot of Democrats identify with that kind of politics. But, as we saw with President Obama, idealism doesn't always create results. With President Clinton, Democrats didn't always like what they saw in his moderate tendencies, but they got results and a legacy of eight successful years at the nation's helm. Niether Democratic candidate as moderate as Clinton, but I think the example is one of pragmatism vs idealism. Do Democrats want to elect an idealist, like Hunter Rose, who probably can't live up to his own promises? Or will Democrats elect a realist, like Lincoln Winters, who can work pragmatically for realistic achievements towards Democrats' idealistic goals. 'Change' is a great word, but it makes for great expectations that are often unrealistic, at least in the short-term sense.

TRAIN: But will voters be able to make those types of comparisons between the two candidates? I suspect Howard Dean would have been the nominee, and eventually defeated by George Bush in 2004 maybe worse than Kerry, if not for the infamous post-Iowa speech.

NALLY: If we go by endorsements, I'd say Senator Winters already has the party unified behind him and that Senator Rose may find difficulty in pulling the party behind him, much like Howard Dean eventually saw.

HILL: Are you suggesting the DNC would abandon Senator Rose, if he won the nomination?

NALLY: Senator Rose, oddly, reminds me much of Howard Dean. At times, he was fringe and off the wall, which I can imagine the DNC would be wary of, while at other times Dean seemed to be a more statesman-like figure which, as we saw from his tenure as DNC Chairman, proved beneficial for the party. So, I think it's hard to say honestly.

TRAIN: I think Democrats are hungry to defeat President Pizzuto, and they'll nominate the candidate who has the best chance of defeating him whether they're very liberal or not.

HILL: I think its a shame the President didn't accept my invitation. There are many things I'd love to talk to him about, specifically why he's running for re-election after neglecting to do so much during his first.

NALLY: Perhaps he wants another shot at it, and this time taking on Congress.

TRAIN: I suspect it has more to do with ego, and his desire to validate himself.

HILL: No matter what it is, its a shame we couldn't have the conversation. And that's all the time we have for tonight. I'm Doug Hill and I'll see you next time.