My job is to protect the interests of the people of Minnesota. Now, how are they to trust you, when you come in and to my face say something that either you know wasn’t true, or you didn’t know, and I don’t know which is worse. How are the people of Minnesota supposed to trust you?

As you can see, Al Franken is not happy about the proposed merger of NBC and Comcast. I can’t really blame him. After all, Comcast, as one of our very few cable companies, is responsible for the fair distribution of content. But they would also become creators of content with their purchase of NBC. It’s hard to see how that wouldn’t become a conflict of interest.

And I would get even more nervous, as Al clearly has, if the CEO of Comcast gave me a reassurance that was the exact opposite of what his lawyers had just argued in front of the FCC.

The whole video (after the break) is well worth a watch. Al Franken is steaming mad at Comcast, and he’s mad because he thinks Comcast is going to take advantage of us here in Minnesota. To be honest, I wish all of our public servants would get so serious about things they think are threats to their constituents.

[via Greg Laden]

President Obama made a dramatic attempt to jump-start the stalled health care debate Sunday, inviting Republicans in Congress to a half-day summit on the subject to be televised live later this month.

No doubt, by the time the summit is over, Republicans will be ready to move forward on health reform. After all, I think the only problem is that we haven’t discussed this enough yet.

In all honesty, though, I’m starting to wonder if Obama is watching the same scene unfold in Washington that I am. Because, from where I’m sitting, I’ve barely seen a single Republican vote for any significant Democratic proposal since he took office. What in the world would make him think that this particular summit is going to change anything?

There’s only one word in the article announcing the health care summit that gives me a bit of hope, and that is televised. Let’s get Republicans on camera offering no solutions and refusing to participate in the process, and show the American people why the Democrats had to do it themselves through reconciliation. To do that, though, Obama will have to really come on strong, demanding concessions from Republicans and asking them on camera whether they will support his proposals. He needs to make a number of “hard asks” and make the Republicans tell him in front of a national audience that they won’t cooperate. I have my doubts as to whether he’s willing to do that.

If he’s not willing to, then all he’ll be accomplishing will be pushing health reform back yet another few weeks. I wonder if we can stretch it out all the way to the November elections.

The Speaker of the House’s office posted the graph below, showing just how far we’ve come. It’s taken two years, but it looks like things are finally stabilizing.

“That brings me to the second thing I want to tell you. In 2008, America elects a black man President.”

“What? Really? Like Morgan Freeman in ‘Deep Impact’?”

“No, you anachronistic goober. That movie doesn’t even come out until 1998.”

“So, he’s like Disraeli or Thatcher, right? Only Nixon can go to China? He’s really conservative? Please tell me you don’t elect Alan Keyes President.”

“No, no. His name is Barack Hussein Obama.”

“OK, now you’re just screwing with me.”

“No. Totally serious. He’s liberal, intelligent, deliberative, pretty much everything the country needs after Bush.”

“Bush? But Bush is President now. Please don’t tell me that he’s still around in 2008!”

“Oh, no. You’ve got the good Bush. The other one is who Obama is cleaning up after.”

“Wow! That’s awesome. That’s wonderful to hear. People must be really— Oh. You’re going to do that thing again, aren’t you?”

“Yes, I am. A lot of his supporters are disappointed.”

“With what? A liberal black guy got elected President!”

“And in his first year, he prevented a second Great Depression, has stopped torture as official policy, is winding down an unnecessary war, has dramatically opened up the transparency of government and has gone a good way towards restoring America’s place in the world.”

“And people are disappointed?”

“They want more.”

“Like the people disappointed with the computer?”

“Yes.”

“So people in 2010 are dicks?”

“They’re cynics.”

Well, of course they will. Because it’s a bill proposed by a Democrats; that’s what they do. Forget about jobs; they have a duty to force the Senate into complete and utter inaction.

Here’s the gist of the story:

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) has put an extraordinary “blanket hold” on at least 70 nominations President Obama has sent to the Senate, according to multiple reports this evening. The hold means no nominations can move forward unless Senate Democrats can secure a 60-member cloture vote to break it, or until Shelby lifts the hold.
…
According to the report, Shelby is holding Obama’s nominees hostage until a pair of lucrative programs that would send billions in taxpayer dollars to his home state get back on track [get more details at Talking Points Memo].

There’s a word for this: extortion. It’s not just unacceptable — it’s downright criminal.

In a strange way, though, I’m glad he did it. His move is so completely outrageous that maybe it will finally get people talking about the minority party’s use of arcane procedures to take over a body that is supposed to be democratic. At first, they were simply stalling and keeping the Senate from its business. Now, Shelby has taken it far beyond that and is actually using Senate procedure to commit extortion. This has to stop.

Because it is spread out over 15 to 20 years, the annual cost of a larger bonding bill would be relatively small. Even a very large increase in the size of the bonding bill costs relatively little on an annual basis. This isn’t just financial sleight-of-hand, though; it is a well-accepted budgeting practice to spread the cost of large infrastructure projects over many years, so they are paid for by the people who use them throughout their life span.

In addition, we’ll be getting more bang for our buck on everything we build this year. Right now, interest rates are down, making bonding cheaper, and contractors’ bids are likely to be significantly lower. We can fund critical infrastructure needs more cheaply today than we could in a couple of years. That’s why spending the money today, instead of in two years, will save us money in the long run.

Given the small difference in annual payments, we should spend more on bonding when it’s the most affordable. It would be extremely unfortunate to allow our budget deficit today to stop us from saving money over the next 20 years.

MINNEAPOLIS, Minn. (February 4, 2010)—Steve Kelley, who formally announced his run for Governor in October, 2009, has decided to end his campaign.

The full text of his email to supporters is as follows:

Thank you for being part of my campaign to transform Minnesota. I have been continually grateful for your words of encouragement, your advice, volunteer work and financial support over the last year. I am one of the fortunate Minnesotans who has had the opportunity to see firsthand the spirit of involvement that thrives in our state.

Even with your support, and the amazingly hard work of a dedicated and talented campaign team, I have not been as successful as we had hoped when the campaign began. As a result, I have decided to withdraw from the race for governor.

My wife Sophie has been a perfect partner in this campaign and in my public service. Our children Paul and Eleanor and our son-in-law Corey Orehek have worked hard and inspired me to work hard for them and for the future. And my parents and brothers and sisters have given me their support in ways beyond measure.

You have been generous in your support. One of the sad outcomes of this decision is that I will have fewer opportunities to work with you to make Minnesota the kind of place we see in our best dreams. I intend to return to my work at the Humphrey Institute where I have been privileged to be able to serve Minnesota.

I also intend to support the DFL-endorsed candidate for governor. To repair the damage done to our state, we must endorse a candidate in April, unite behind that candidate and win in November. Our fellow citizens deserve a DFL Governor in January 2011.

During the campaign I had the pleasure of getting to know better the other dedicated public servants who are seeking the DFL nomination. Through innumerable candidate forums and other visits with Minnesotans, I learned new insights from them about the challenges we face together and the solutions we must pursue.

I am immensely proud of my campaign team. Over many months they applied energy, intelligence and dedication to a challenging goal. It is has been a privilege to work with them.

I am confident that with the right leadership that engages the amazing Minnesotans that I met on the campaign trail, we can build a better home for our children.”

###

Kelley served in the Minnesota Legislature from 1992 to 2006. He is currently a teacher and senior fellow at the Humphrey Institute and the director of the Center for Science, Technology, and Public Policy.

2. We’re hearing that EdMN will be endorsing MAK sometime soon.

3. We’re hearing that SEIU will endorse Rybak before the convention.

That is all.  Thank you for your time.

In an age when political and policy discussions are often crammed into soundbites, President Obama and the House Republicans advanced transparency and honest debate with their unprecedented live, televised question-and-answer session on January 29. Since then, people of all political persuasions have been talking about the value of what’s being called “Question Time.” It’s time to start a new American political tradition. We, the undersigned, call on President Obama and the leaders of the Republican Party in Congress to hold regular, frequent, and public Question Time sessions between the President and the opposition party.

Sign the petition at DemandQuestionTime.com

If you haven’t yet watched Barack Obama’s question and answer session with the House GOP caucus, you definitely should. I’m embedding the video below, so make sure to check it out.

So far, the White House has been resistant to turning this into a regular event, and I’m not really sure why. It would do a lot for Obama’s image as a more open politician. What’s more, last week’s session went great for him; if anything, you would think he’d be calling for more of these “question times.”

The White House’s main objection seems to be that the sessions would devolve into political theater. But let’s not kid ourselves: last week’s session was already political theater. The session was contentious, it probably raised more questions than it answered, and I’m sure that both Democrats and Republicans will accuse each other of not debating in good faith. The Democrats will (rightfully) say that the Republicans’ questions were mostly talking points disguised as questions, while the Republicans will (again, rightfully) say that Obama frequently shifted the discussion away from the specific question he had been asked.

Nevertheless, it was one of the most effective political dialogs this country has had in a very long time. Though there were pointed disagreements, it was civil and constructive, and it actually focused on policy issues. It’s about time a dialog like this became a national tradition.