In response to the news that Kit Bond was apparently unable to stay awake during an intelligence briefing yesterday – after while later claiming on MSNBC that Attorney General Eric Holder had kept important intelligence information from his committee – I’m proposing that he adopt this endearing little ditty as his signature theme music :

Soft kitty, warm kitty, little ball of fur ; Happy kitty, sleepy kitty, purr, purr, purr

Any doubts left that Bond’s decision to retire was a wise one?

What do Claire McCaskill and Kit Bond have in common? They were both part of the 61 member majority in the Senate that voted down the SAFE Banking Act (S.AMDT. 3733).  This proposed amendment to Senator Dodd’s financial regulatory legislation (S. 3217) was intended to guarantee that there would be no more too-big-to-fail bank catastrophes in our future – a good thing, right?  

According to the Americans for Financial Reform (AFR), a consortium of 250 organizations concerned with financial regulatory reform, the Safe Banking Act would have imposed size limits that would have given:

… the largest banks three years to transform themselves into leaner, more sustainable institutions – while maximizing shareholder value and without sacrificing any of the economies of scale. Importantly, a hard cap will also prevent new financial services firms from growing too large in the future.

Michael Tomasky notes that this amendment “was considered by liberal activists and economists to be the element that would add real teeth”  to Dodd’s reform package.

I will be very interested to learn just why McCaskill joined with 27 Senate Democrats and all but three Republicans to defeat this legislation. Wasn’t it Claire “Carry Nation” McCaskill who postured for the cameras just a week or so ago, waving a metaphorical hatchet at the malefactors who head up the too-big-to-fail Goldman Sachs?  If the financiers’ bad behavior gets her so riled up, why did she vote against making it just that much more difficult for these greedy clowns and the rest of their wall street pals to make our economy go crash again?  How can she scold the big bankers and financiers and then turn around and help them to a great big victory?

Maybe McCaskill had good reasons – but I want to hear something other than hemming, hawing and the usual temporizing before I am convinced. Until then, I am afraid that Tomasky might be correct about what the behavior of timid centrists like McCaskill means:

This vote should demonstrate to liberals that the conditions for rapid change just don’t exist in this country and that part of the task is to create those conditions

Yesterday, I wrote about Claire McCaskill’s war on the secret holds that Senate Republicans have placed on President Obama’s nominees for judicial and government positions – just one of the ways these petty thugs are trying to hinder the administration from achieving its goals. True to her promise, McCaskill, joined by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), returned to the floor of the Senate last night to ask for unanimous consent to vote on 75 more stalled nominations.

The upshot? Egregious Republican stalling. Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz) came to the floor and objected to the request for votes on behalf of unnamed, presumably Republican colleagues.

Since a motion for unanimous consent to vote on a nominee requires the Senator who placed the hold to identify him or herself, and send a letter justifying the hold to be published in the Congressional Record, Senator McCaskill promised that:

… she would be watching the Congressional Record and contacting both parties’ leadership offices to track which Members come forward to reveal their holds in accordance with the 2007 rule. McCaskill said she hopes to either reveal the sources of anonymous holds – or end them all together.

“Hopefully by the end of the week we’ll learn who it is in the Senate that doesn’t want them to be nominated, who it is that doesn’t want them to be confirmed,” she said.

Her goal:

… to pressure Senators “to speak out about their objections so that we can answer them and move forward and get these people to work.”

How effective this will be remains to be seen – what we have now may well be a “let the games begin” scenario. According to Ryan Grim and Ben Craw of The Huffington Post, the Republicans who placed the holds:

…may be able to wiggle out of going public by dropping their holds and picking them right back up, or teaming up with other Republicans and swapping the holds back and forth. It’s never been tried before, so where this is heading is anybody’s guess.

At least in Senator McCaskill we’ve got a dogged participant in the game representing our interests. And perhaps we can exert a little pressure too – phone calls to Senator Bond to express our displeasure with this type of obstructionism perhaps? Some letters to the editors of Missouri papers recognizing Senator McCaskill’s efforts to keep government running, and giving a thumbs down to the Republican performance? Just asking …  

So how can Missourians celebrate Earth Day tomorrow in a way that will have real impact? The answer is easy if you live in or near St. Louis or Kansas City: join Repower America and other “clean energy patriots” at a rally outside Claire McCaskill’s offices in those two cities (find information about St. Louis rally here; Kansas City information is here). Alternatively, Repower America will also host call-in events in Kansas City and St. Louis  (click on the cities to volunteer or get information).

At the call-in events, you can volunteer to do outreach to other Missourians and enlist them to, in turn, contact Senators McCaskill and Bond, and tell them how much they want them to support strong clean energy legislation. If you just want to contact one of our senators to deliver the message yourself, you can phone this Repower America number and ask to be patched through to either senator: 1-877-9-REPOWER (9-737-6937).

Why are these events important? We can take it as a given that Senator Bond is unlikely to change his stripes and support meaningful clean energy legislation any time soon, but it is still important for him to hear that many of his constituents do want congress to limit carbon emissions and invest in clean-energy jobs for Missouri.

As for Senator McCaskill, we have recently seen that she may be beginning to get the message that clean energy can mean growth and jobs for Missouri, as well as being essential to continued American competitiveness since other countries are rapidly jumping on the band-wagon. Nevertheless, she needs to know that we support her shifting position, and that we will have her back if she follows through and does what’s right – which includes measures to restrict carbon emissions.

In case you yourself want more reasons about why clean energy is important to Missourians specifically – apart from the general “save the world” issues involved with climate change – just take a look at any of these three fact sheet prepared by Repower America, “Clean Energy Potential in Missouri,” “Clean Energy Jobs in Missouri,” and “How Clean Energy Will Help Missouri’s Farmers.” And then, if you are able, make it on over to one of the Repower America rallies tomorrow or volunteer for one of the phone-in events right away.  Happy Earth Day!

“…we’re going to put in place new rules so that big banks and financial institutions will pay for the bad decisions they make – not taxpayers.  Simply put, this means no more taxpayer bailouts….” – President Barack Obama

Senator Kit Bond (r – lame duck) and all of the republicans in the Senate signed on [pdf] to block that financial regulatory reform (you know, the lack thereof which allowed a wealthy few to almost collapse our economy by virtue of their high risk and other behaviors).

Steve Benen at the Washington Monthly:

…Just the other day, in fact, the Leader of the Senate Republicans and the Chair of the Republican Senate campaign committee met with two dozen top Wall Street executives to talk about how to block progress on this issue…

…[republican Senate Leader] McConnell’s Wall Street meeting, in other words, is quickly becoming one of the central aspects of the debate. Perhaps the Minority Leader would be willing to shed some additional light on what transpired? Who, exactly, did he meet with? How much money did he collect? What did the Wall Street elites demand, specifically, and what did he promise?

I wonder what the reaction might be if Senate Dems raised the prospect of some kind of investigation into the meeting, complete with subpoenas for attendees….

President Obama called out the republican obstructionists in today’s address:

“….Now, unsurprisingly, these reforms have not exactly been welcomed by the people who profit from the status quo – as well their allies in Washington.  This is probably why the special interests have spent a lot of time and money lobbying to kill or weaken the bill.  Just the other day, in fact, the Leader of the Senate Republicans and the Chair of the Republican Senate campaign committee met with two dozen top Wall Street executives to talk about how to block progress on this issue.

Lo and behold, when he returned to Washington, the Senate Republican Leader came out against the common-sense reforms we’ve proposed.  In doing so, he made the cynical and deceptive assertion that reform would somehow enable future bailouts – when he knows that it would do just the opposite.  Every day we don’t act, the same system that led to bailouts remains in place – with the exact same loopholes and the exact same liabilities.  And if we don’t change what led to the crisis, we’ll doom ourselves to repeat it.  That’s the truth.  Opposing reform will leave taxpayers on the hook if a crisis like this ever happens again….”

The full transcript of the President’s address:

Remarks of

President Barack Obama

As Prepared for Delivery

The White House

April 17, 2010

There were many causes of the turmoil that ripped through our economy over the past two years.  But above all, this crisis was caused by failures in the financial industry.  What is clear is that this crisis could have been avoided if Wall Street firms were more accountable, if financial dealings were more transparent, and if consumers and shareholders were given more information and authority to make decisions.

But that did not happen.  And that’s because special interests have waged a relentless campaign to thwart even basic, common-sense rules – rules to prevent abuse and protect consumers.  In fact, the financial industry and its powerful lobby have opposed modest safeguards against the kinds of reckless risks and bad practices that led to this very crisis.

The consequences of this failure of responsibility – from Wall Street to Washington – are all around us: 8 million jobs lost, trillions in savings erased, countless dreams diminished or denied.  I believe we have to do everything we can to ensure that no crisis like this ever happens again.  That’s why I’m fighting so hard to pass a set of Wall Street reforms and consumer protections.  A plan for reform is currently moving through Congress.

Here’s what this plan would do.  First, it would enact the strongest consumer financial protections ever.  It would put consumers back in the driver’s seat by forcing big banks and credit card companies to provide clear, understandable information so that Americans can make financial decisions that work best for them.

Next, these reforms would bring new transparency to financial dealings.  Part of what led to this crisis was firms like AIG and others making huge and risky bets – using things like derivatives – without accountability.  Warren Buffett himself once described derivatives bought and sold with little oversight as “financial weapons of mass destruction.”  That’s why through reform we’d help ensure that these kinds of complicated financial transactions take place on an open market.  Because, ultimately, it is a marketplace that is open, free, and fair that will allow our economy to flourish.

We would also close loopholes to stop the kind of recklessness and irresponsibility we’ve seen.  It’s these loopholes that allowed executives to take risks that not only endangered their companies, but also our entire economy.  And we’re going to put in place new rules so that big banks and financial institutions will pay for the bad decisions they make – not taxpayers.  Simply put, this means no more taxpayer bailouts.  Never again will taxpayers be on the hook because a financial company is deemed “too big to fail.”

Finally, these reforms hold Wall Street accountable by giving shareholders new power in the financial system.  They’ll get a say on pay: a vote on the salaries and bonuses awarded to top executives.  And the SEC will ensure that shareholders have more power in corporate elections, so that investors and pension holders have a stronger voice in determining what happens with their life savings.

Now, unsurprisingly, these reforms have not exactly been welcomed by the people who profit from the status quo – as well their allies in Washington.  This is probably why the special interests have spent a lot of time and money lobbying to kill or weaken the bill.  Just the other day, in fact, the Leader of the Senate Republicans and the Chair of the Republican Senate campaign committee met with two dozen top Wall Street executives to talk about how to block progress on this issue.

Lo and behold, when he returned to Washington, the Senate Republican Leader came out against the common-sense reforms we’ve proposed.  In doing so, he made the cynical and deceptive assertion that reform would somehow enable future bailouts – when he knows that it would do just the opposite.  Every day we don’t act, the same system that led to bailouts remains in place – with the exact same loopholes and the exact same liabilities.  And if we don’t change what led to the crisis, we’ll doom ourselves to repeat it.  That’s the truth.  Opposing reform will leave taxpayers on the hook if a crisis like this ever happens again.

So my hope is that we can put this kind of politics aside.  My hope is that Democrats and Republicans can find common ground and move forward together.  But this is certain: one way or another, we will move forward.  This issue is too important.  The costs of inaction are too great.  We will hold Wall Street accountable.  We will protect and empower consumers in our financial system. That’s what reform is all about. That’s what we’re fighting for.  And that’s exactly what we’re going to achieve.

Thank you.

So, does Kit Bond have a bridge in Kansas City that he’d like to sell us, too?

Two recent posts over at FiredUp! strike me as telling. One draws our attention to Kit Bond’s assertion that the actions of our Democratic controlled congress to craft and pass health care insurance reform is comparable to suicide:

I think it may be more accurate to say they [i.e., Democrats] put red bandanas on their head, took a drink of sake, and went out on what I believe to be a Kamikaze mission.

The other posting describes Bond’s and Roy Blunt’s willingness to put their names to a hasty, Republican-sponsored measure designed to repeal the health care reform package lock-stock-and barrel. In view of today’s USAToday/Gallup poll that shows that Americans favor the reform bill 49% to 40% against, they and their buddies may have just blundered onto the Kamikaze plane by mistake – because that margin can only get better as their erstwhile followers begin to notice that the legislation did not bring about the Armageddon these fearless leaders have been frantically predicting.

Via Think Progress, the usual suspects:

…Senator Kit Bond: The Constitution says nothing of the subject of filibuster and it says nothing of the power of a minority to defeat the president’s judicial nomination….

….It is the product of a rule of the Senate, passed many years after the ratification of the Constitution. This rule does not derive from the authority of the Constitution….

“…This rule does not derive from the authority of the Constitution….”

The United States Constitution, Article I, Section 5, Paragraph 2:

…Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member….

[emphasis added]

Hack.

Previously:

Senator Kit Bond (r): “Apologize, who me?”

Senator Kit Bond (r): “Respect my @&%$in’ authoritayyy!”

At Thursday’s White House press briefing Robert Gibbs took a question about Senator Kit Bond’s (r) continuing temper tantrum over briefings concerning the underwear bomber. The White House is not curling up in the corner and saying, “Please. Don’t. Hurt. Me.” on this one:

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

February 11, 2010

Briefing by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and CEA Chair Christina Romer, 2/11/10

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

….1:05 P.M. EST

….Q    Senator Bond accused the White House of using JohnmBrennan for political purposes, saying that he was being — doing the role, your role.  This economic report —

MR. GIBBS:  Let me just address that.  Let’s understand this:  John Brennan has been working in counterterrorism for more than 25 years — right?  First as a CIA agent hired by President George W. Bush to work at the CIA, and then to stand up the National Counterterrorism Center.  Okay?  We asked him to stay on.  I don’t have the slightest idea what political party John Brennan is a member of.  I’ve never had a political conversation with John.  I know this:  John is there each and every day working in his office to try to do everything he can to keep the American people safe.

And I would suggest, whether it’s to Senator Bond or others on Capitol Hill, that these are decisions best left to people that have an understanding of counterterrorism, experience in counterterrorism and law enforcement, rather than to politicians on Capitol Hill.

Q    But his specific accusation was that he was being used in a way that a press secretary is supposed to — I mean, that he was enunciating Obama’s policy.

MR. GIBBS:  I think Kit Bond didn’t — I don’t think Kit Bond liked to hear what he already knew, which was he’d been told that Abdulmutallab was in FBI custody after what happened on Christmas Day.

Now, I’ll let you, Jonathan, ask Kit Bond whether he understands the protocols of how the FBI deals with suspects enough to understand that at that point it would have been obvious he would have been read his Miranda rights.  I don’t know whether Kit Bond was confused or whether he just doesn’t want to admit the facts….

[emphasis added]

I vote for “C”, both of the above.

The Eric Cartman of lame duck republican senators is continuing to petulantly pitch a fit and is escalating his rhetoric. The White House is pushing back:

White House: Kit Bond’s Call For Brennan’s Resignation Is “Pathetic”

As you may have heard, Senator Kit Bond is calling for Obama counter-terror chief John Brennan to step down, largely because Brennan has taken the lead in pushing back against GOP efforts to paint Obama as weak on terror.

The White House is now dismissing Bond’s efforts as “pathetic,” and pointing to Brennan’s lifetime of professional intelligence experience as proof that Bond is putting politics over our national security. Asked for comment on Bond’s broadside, White House spokesman Nick Shapiro emails over a brief and dismissive comment:

“Through his pathetic attack on a counter-terrorism professional like John Brennan who has spent his lifetime protecting this country under multiple Administrations, Senator Bond sinks to new depths in his efforts to put politics over our national security.”

The conventions of political journalism for some reason discourage doing this, but it’s worth pointing out that the White House is right….

I wonder if there’s a podium around that he can pound on while he’s at it.