Ms. Giffords is leaving Congress to continue her recovery from wounds she received during the tragic Tucson mass shooting just over a year ago, but before she goes, she has introduced HR 3801, a bill that targets the use of ultralight aircraft in drug smuggling, a key issue in Giffords’ home state.

Levin’s salute was simple and brief, but the grief and affection in his eyes, and in the softness of his delivery, were powerful. “I guess we’ll wrap up,” he began. “I do so, as I look about and think of this institution, it sometimes can be quite impersonal. I think for all of us today this is a very personal moment, and I think all of us join in saluting Gabby and Mark. I yield back the balance of my time.”

Immediately following Levin’s remarks, the House voted to pass the bill, but the chamber recessed pending a recorded vote on the measure.

Here’s the clip, from C-Span:

RELATED: Rep. Gabrielle Giffords Returns To Congress To Vote For Passing Debt Deal

“I will return and we will work together for Arizona and this great country.” Giffords earlier promised in a video to her constituents. “A lot has happened over the past year. We cannot change that. But I know on the issues we fought for, we can change things for the better.”

Watch the House of Representatives give Rep. Giffords a standing ovation below:

The Romney campaign sent out a press release earlier in the day marking the occasion, entitled “Happy 15th Anniversary, Mr. Speaker” that listed a series of articles from the time explaining what Gingrich had done. The press release also notes that Gingrich called the ethics investigation partisan, and that it was rated “Pants of Fire,” as far as accuracy is concerned, by Politifact. Had that been the end of it, it would’ve been a witheringly comical example of how much Romney and Gingrich– and their camps– can’t stand to look at each other. But Romney HQ wants to make sure they get their message across, so they’re bearing gifts:

Not to be outdone, Romney’s campaign later put out a statement celebrating the “15th anniversary” of the House decision to reprimand Gingrich for ethics violations, during his days as speaker. The Romney campaign plans to deliver an anniversary cake to Gingrich’s South Carolina headquarters to mark the occasion on Saturday.

No word on whether the cake has been delivered or just who in Romney’s campaign is going to show up at Gingrich HQ, so it is as yet unclear whether this will result in a failed publicity stunt of a West Side Story-esque rumble. Either way, we can’t wait to hear what food item Gingrich will order to respond to such generosity from Romney’s camp.

[Photo via]

RELATED: Lt. Dan Choi Weighs In On Consequences For Soldier Who Spoke Out At Ron Paul Rally

While his concern on the House floor in 1984 appeared to be far from the threat of regular Americans having their privacy violated in the name of fighting terror, Rep. Paul proposes a similar premise to that which he does now against the PATRIOT Act: that government computers were used to keep records of Americans and compare lists to make sure that young folks register for the draft. That latter part is no longer an issue, but Rep. Paul appears to have some prescient words. “Computer surveillance seems appropriate for 1984 and, unfortunately, the wave of the future,” he notes in this speech, adding that surveillance was “a disgusting procedure for a professed free society” and lamenting that “it is so difficult to defend consistency across the board” for many.

With the Cold War in its waning years and the economic situation in 1984, for Rep. Paul to take the time to rail against computers is as typically Rep. Paul as it is interesting for another reason: by targeting the federal government, he was implicitly (or maybe not so much so) attacking President Ronald Reagan, something he has exhibited little fear of doing before. Either way, an insightful look into what Rep. Paul had been doing all these years in Congress, when, his opponents like to note, he hadn’t passed many bills himself.

The clip (via the wonderful and wonderfully organized C-SPAN archives) below:

According to The Daily, the report shows Congress has been doing increasingly better over the years despite the floundering economy, which could partly be attributable to legal insider trading deals for which Congress has been under fire recently. More details from the report:

That said, some members of Congress do considerably better than others. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., topped the list with an estimated net worth of somewhere between $195 million and $700 million, for example, while Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., is apparently the poorest member of Congress, with estimated total net debt of between $2 million and $7 million. According to the study, though, 110 Democrats and 140 Republicans in Congress are millionaires.

What’s more, the numbers are conservative, since the top income bracket for their spouses is listed as “$1 million or more,” and the financial disclosure forms don’t include assets like the personal home of a member of Congress.

Of the top ten, six are Democrats and four Republicans, six Congressman and four Senators. In the bottom ten, all ten are in the House of Representatives, and seven are Democrats, including Rep. John Conyers and Republican Louie Gohmert. Meanwhile, the average American family lost 23% of its net worth between 2007 and 2009 according to the Federal Reserve. The Daily also notes, however, that even within Congress there is significant income inequality, as the difference between the wealthiest and least wealthy member of Congress proves. The Daily report suggests that this disconnect in between Congressional representatives and their constituents could have had an impact on their approval in Congress on top of the perceived continual dysfunction of the legislative body, noting that Congress’s approval rating hit an all-time low this year at 9%.

Find your Congressman or peruse the Center for Responsive Politics report here.

While Wurzelbacher has mostly remained out of the spotlight for the past several years, it appears the Lucas County Republican Party in Ohio has its eye on him to take out the incumbent, who won reelection with 59% of the vote in 2010 and has been in her seat since 1983. The chairman of the county party, Jon Stainbrook, had nothing but effusive praise for Wurzelbacher, noting that the national party had a “high-level interest” in the former unlicensed plumber, but that he had not made any decision on the matter. According to the paper, one source gave Wurzelbacher a 90% chance of throwing his hat into the ring. Meanwhile, the candidate himself said only that it was an “interesting idea.”

So what has made Wurzelbacher, a media obsession during the last election cycle, so attractive to a segment of his local Republican Party? Stainbrook argued that it was his star power that made him a “fantastic candidate.” “He goes hunting with Sarah Palin. He’s friends with Ann Coulter,” Stainbrook argued, making the point that such connections would guarantee him a good place in fundraising. As Wurzelbacher has remained as coy about a Congressional run as his hunting buddy has been on a presidential bid, this one is still in the works, though could offer some entertaining political theater in the months to come.

[h/t]

We have great appreciation for the unique role that Pages have played in the history and traditions of the House of Representatives. This decision was not easy, but it is necessary due to the prohibitive cost of the program and advances in technology that have rendered most Page-provided services no longer essential to the smooth functioning of the House.

Although the traditional mission of the Page Program has diminished, we will work with Members of the House to carry on the tradition of engaging young people in the work of the Congress.

That “prohibitive cost” of which they speak? It’s something like $69,000 to $80,000 per page.

Maybe all that money is needed because there’s just something about dangling ambitious young people in front of morally corrupt politicians like so much catnip before a flatulent and impotent old tomcat that renders things… complicated? Roll Call reminds us that, sometimes, people with power do icky things and people with youth do stupid things:

In 2006, Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) resigned after it was revealed that he had sent lewd Internet and text messages to pages. In 1983, ex.-Reps. Dan Crane (R-Ill.) and Gerry Studds (D-Mass.) were reprimanded for engaging in sexual conduct with teenage pages.

There have also been numerous instances in which pages were caught drinking alcohol or using other substances.

Instances of inappropriate sexting and cuddling are expected to drop 20 – 60 percent now that human pages have been replaced with those aforementioned robots. The silver lining is that, although job prospects continue to be mostly abysmal, bright-eyed young things can still learn to become corrupt, conniving, selfish adults with the one sector still desperately seeking job applicants: Reality television.

h/t Roll Call

Rep. Lamborn was, in fact, talking about the economy on AM 630 [update this post originally stated the clip was from David Sirota on AM 730, as he uploaded the clip to his site and was the first to criticize the interview-- but it is from Colorado's AM 630] and arguing that to be associated with the President would do harm to any politicians image. He used an unfortunate idiom to call the President a pariah:

“Even if some people say, ‘Well, the Republicans should have done this or they should have done that,’ they will hold the President responsible. Now, I don’t want to even have to be associated with him. It’s like touching a tar baby and you get, you get it, you know, you get in and you are stuck and you are part of the problem now and you can’t get away. I don’t want that to happen to us, but if it does, or not, he’ll still get, properly so, the blame because his policies for four years will have failed the American people. Look at the economic numbers.”

According to CNN, Rep. Lamborn’s office has released a statement saying the Congressman has sent a letter to the White House apologizing for the epithet and explaining why he used it. “Lamborn was attempting to tell a radio audience last week that the President’s policies have created an economic quagmire for the nation and are responsible for the dismal economic conditions our country faces,” the statement notes, and that while the Congressman regrets the choice of words, he is “confident” the President will accept the apology. He notes he should have used the term “quagmire” instead of “tar baby,” which is a bit of a grammatical stretch, but an improvement.

Listen to Rep. Lamborn’s comments via AM 760 below:

Despite being interrupted by protesters earlier today, Speaker of the House John Boehner announced the passing of the bill by a vote of 269-161 today amid a standing ovation given to Rep. Giffords, whose return was mostly kept secret until moments before she arrived on the floor and voted Yea on the bill. It is her first vote since the shooting, and the first time since many of her colleagues have seen her in person since the tragedy. She was greeted by several members of Congress, including her party leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi, officially and stayed to shake hands and wave hello to her colleagues as she voted. Rep. Giffords also tweeted shortly before entering the chamber, “The #Capitol looks beautiful and I am honored to be at work tonight.”

Watch the tally– and Rep. Giffords’ entrance and vote in the chamber– via C-SPAN below:

Ingraham moderated the debate between Webb and commentator Cathy Areu, who had nothing positive to say about the movement. “Some of the people in the Republican Party are acting like children,” she chided, though Ingraham countered that “there is no doubt that the Tea Party is responsible for the current debate.” Ingraham also took issue with several comparisons of the Tea Party in the media to various radical groups, suicide bombers, and Hezbollah. Webb wasn’t surprised. “According to the left, I have Stockholm Syndrome, I’m the house n-word, I’m the Uncle Tom,” he argued, “I mean, it’s nothing new.”

Ingraham lamented the tone, especially since, “after Gabby Giffords and after this Tuscon shooting, I thought there was a new era of civility.” She also didn’t understand why the left would be upset with the Tea Party: “I’d be kind of really upset with Geithner, Obama, Biden and the whole crew who seem to have basically shuffled off the responsibility to come up with any type of plan.” Areu disagreed vehemently, claiming the Tea Party “made a fool out of themselves” and “don’t even know what they stand for.” Here Webb once again countered that it was the Democrats who were acting childish, and Tea Partiers who were in charge.

The segment via Fox News below:

Introducing to the debt crisis lexicon what is perhaps its catchiest potential meme yet, Rep. Ryan explained that much of the “spending” cuts proposed were counting money not yet necessary to spend. Many of the assumptions, Rep. Ryan explained, in the proposed cuts were, to him, complete fiction:

We assume we’re going to be fighting this war for 10 more years, with over 100,000 troops in Afghanistan and oh, gosh, wait, we’re going to withdraw our troops in 2014. $1 trillion in savings. I’ve got a better idea. Let’s pass a bill to cover the moon with yogurt that will cost $5 trillion today. and then let’s pass a bill the next day to cancel that bill. We could save $5 trillion. Wait, I’ve got a better idea. Our debt is $14 trillion. Let’s come up with a new plan to spend $14 trillion, then rescind it the next day and let’s save $14 trillion. This stuff is fiscal fantasy. You can’t make this stuff up, Mr. Speaker. 

“We can’t keep spending money we can’t have,” he continued, emphasizing that the money that the proposal on the floor claimed to save was not money that anyone should expect to be spent at any time. “Why on earth do we want to give the President a blank check to keep doing that, giving our sovereignty and self-determination to other countries to loan us money to fund our government? Those days have got to end,” he concluded. The point may be a serious one of Congressional contention, but expect that “cover the moon with yogurt” analogy to take the express route into GOP talking points.

Rep. Ryan’s statements via C-SPAN below:

Host Don Imus opened by noting that he was entirely skeptical of the idea that Congress was negotiating on anything at all in earnest, telling him “I always think you guys are jerking our chain, anyway,” and admitting to not really paying attention to anything the Congressman was saying throughout the interview, which added to the conversation the charm of feeling entirely disposable. Rep. Issa made his points anyway, comparing the talks to something “like a garbage strike in New York” (Imus had compared them to doorman strikes) and explaining the frustration facing Republicans in the talks.

“He [President Obama] signed a funding through September months ago… the truth is, we don’t have to have an August 2 deadline,” he argued. He noted that “the question here was… are we serious about cutting spending this year?” Aside from that question, Rep. Issa argued, “there’s all kinds of pejoratives, but it’s just crap– it’s absolute crap to think that promises over ten years mean anything.”

Imus’ response to this was some sort of non sequitur insult to Sen. John Kerry for calling him “The I-Man” on his show, “which made him sound like an idiot.” Again, Imus made a concerted effort to give whatever Rep. Issa was saying the minimum amount of respect, confessing, “the rest of what you said, I wasn’t paying that much attention.” He then shifted gears somewhat to the theory being tossed around in certain circles– notably some circles on Fox Business– that “Moody’s was in cahoots with Obama” to downgrade the nation. Rep. Issa didn’t seem to pay too much mind to the conspiracy theory. “You can find a conspiracy theory before or after 10 AM in Washington any day of the week,” he noted, adding that America should be downgraded if it can’t keep up with its debts. “If America can, in fact, pay it’s bills, it’s AAA, and if we can’t pay our bills, it doesn’t matter what rating they give us,” he concluded.

Imus returns to the bizarre side plot that is “how members of Congress should address Don Imus” before asking about the current investigation under Rep. Issa’s purview, the “fast and furious” case, which gave Imus an opening to note that he though Iran-Contra was a “great idea.”

The discussion via Fox Business below:

The news was broken by the Portland Oregonian, which reported the girl left a voicemail on the Congressman’s account. The Washington Post explains:

The woman, whom the Portland Oregonian did not name, reportedly left a distraught voicemail accusing Wu of aggressive sexual behavior last fall.

The Oregonian, citing anonymous sources in the Congressman’s office, said Wu has acknowledged a sexual encounter with the woman but denied that it was unwanted.

In a statement late Friday, Wu did not directly address his own actions in the matter.

“This is very serious, and I have absolutely no desire to bring unwanted publicity, attention, or stress to a young woman and her family,” Wu said.

Fox News also reports that Rep. Wu may not deny the encounter– only whether it was consensual. Rep. Wu has also been questioned in the past for erratic behavior and sending inappropriate emails to his staff, like one including the photo of him in a tiger suit shown above. He has openly admitted to mental health issues and been counseled and encouraged by those close to him to seek medical help in the past. No word on whether he will face any legal action, but the Post has reported that Rep. Wu, a Democrat, has discussed the issue with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

The Fox News report on Rep. Wu’s woes below:

Maddow explained how President Obama’s proposed concession, while stunning to her, was “a central part of how Democrats operate”– which Republicans “kowtow” to their base, Democrats “aggravate” it. Social Security and Medicare, Maddow argued, were never Republican darlings: “the Republicans fought them from the beginning, and Republicans have long tried to get rid of those programs.” The antagonism, as well as their foundation, have made “nothing more fundamental to Democratic politics than Social Security and Medicare,” she argued, “two of America’s most popular and successful programs.”

By putting the two programs on the table, Maddow concluded, “President Obama is offering up a significant slice of the Democratic soul and he still can’t get a deal from Republicans… they appear to be getting nothing in return.” What’s more, she continued, “Social Security does not contribute to the deficit,” so cutting it would only serve to benefit Republicans without having much to do with the topic at hand. Maddow did leave room for the political move to have been a “test” of Republicans, but taking it at face value, there was one word Maddow attributed to it repeatedly, in all its senses: “No.”

The segment via MSNBC below:

The New York Times reported the New York Democrats’ announcement today, noting that, given the 2010 census, the Congressional seat may not even exist in the near future. “As a result of the 2010 census, New York must lose two Congressional seats, and some political observers believe that the Ninth District, which includes parts of Brooklyn and Queens, could be eliminated,” the Times reports. But for now, Weprin is going to campaign for the seat, based on his experience as an assemblyman and city councilman. The Times also notes that Weprin is an attorney from “a member of a prominent Queens political family.” Weprin also gave a statement to the New York Daily News:

“This is an exciting opportunity and I’m looking forward to the campaign,” he said, adding: “I’ve never tweeted in my life and I don’t spend any time in the gym.” [...]

“I read the same things you read,” he said. “I’m not going in with any preconceived notion. I’m going to do the best job I can for as long as I can do it… The bottom line is I feel strongly that I can make a contribution now and now is the opportunity that may never arise ever again and sometimes you have to seize the opportunities when they arise. But more than that, I really feel that the district needs representation, whether for a short period of time or a long period of time.”

The other tidbit of information out there is that Weprin has been known to do some public dancing– specifically, this YouTube video of Weprin getting down at a street festival. Not bad for a politician!



[h/t]

At first, the ad appears like it may morph into a silly NMA news parody, but it quickly turns into a serious Chinese newscast from the future, detailing how America continued to spend money until the Red Army took over and because prosperous feeding on the carcass of our once great nation. Among the more cringe-worthy elements of the ad are the “translator’s” intentionally shoddy English, the classical Maoist imagery, and the cameo appearance towards the end by the candidate himself, promising to “stop this nightmare” and “never vote to raise Obama’s debt limit and risk our independence.”

The ad is, in essence, banking on the hope that constituents haven’t been following the debt ceiling debate or current events enough to quickly dismiss this Amodei’s “nightmare” as not possible for at least the next 100 years or so. China may still be communist, but it hasn’t been in full-speed-ahead Great Leap Forward mode for quite some time– in fact, it’s been heading towards capitalism more than anything else, keeping the especially disgusting elements of communism (political repression, lack of individual freedoms) but dispensing with much of the economic issues. What’s more, Amodei can’t technically do much to stop China from being communist, and the problems with the debt ceiling are so complicated, various, and generally headache-inducing that it seems at least slightly disingenuous to reduce the entire debt ceiling debate to “your kids will be speaking Mandarin if you don’t vote for me.” That said, campaign ads aren’t meant to make people think– they’re meant to make people curious enough to arrive at venues of thought, a candidate’s website, a debate or political function. Oversimplification of ideas– when ideas are present at all– is the nature of the beast.

Watch the ad below:

[h/t Gawker]

Boehner found himself at an emotional crossroads several times during his appearance at the ceremony, particularly when receiving his honorary degree and telling stories of how he rose in the ranks in Congress. ABC News reports that, while his appearance sparked some controversy from those who believed he had not done enough for the needy, he worked to highlight his legislative successes in the war on poverty, as well as giving religious advice:

“One of the students asked me, ‘Well, what prayer do you say before you go to a meeting at the White House with the president?’” Boehner said. “Well, I always ask God for the courage and wisdom to do His will and not mine. Serving others — that’s not just how I lead in Congress, it’s how I lead my life.”

A recap of Boehner’s speech (with teary highlights!) via ABC below:

And now, this new version of the bill has passed the House. And that is where it will die.

First of all, it’s nice to know the GOP has their priorities in order. The birther movement is still “a valid question” for some high-profile Republicans, despite President Obama releasing his birth certificate. They still condemn marriage equality while cheating on their second wife with their third. And now, they are still going after women’s reproductive health. Still. So, Obama finds and kills the most wanted terrorist in the world, the guy who masterminded 9/11, which gave the GOP fuel for their 2004 Campaign of Fear. (Well, that and the gays. Those scary, scary gays.) And now, they’re like, “Meh. Whatever. We’d rather stick to the abortion thing.” Not jobs, not gas prices, and apparently, not even terrorism. Just fringe conspiracies and the private health decisions of women they will never, ever know.

Which is so ironic, considering how much they go on about “Big Goverment,” the “Nanny State,” “government staying out of our business.” Um, how about staying out of everyone’s crotch, please?

They say this movement is about saving children, but they’d rather dismantle the schools those children will be attending. And what about jobs for their parents? And healthcare for their parents? Are these children getting healthcare? Oh, they’re still trying to repeal that? Okay then … I’m sorry, what have you done for us lately, GOP? Anything worthwhile? No?

But right now, losing funding for abortion in extreme circumstances should not be an issue. Because it will never make it past the Senate. And even if it did and even if it passed (which it wouldn’t), Obama has vowed to veto it. It is not going to happen. Our right to choose is not going anywhere. It is being attacked, but it is the law of the land. People are trying to forget that, and states are trying to dismantle it and limit it. But it is not going away.

This is also further proof of what the GOP wants: the soapbox. They want attention. So they pander, and they get their money, and they offer nothing in return. They don’t care about the children. They care about money and power, and nobody having sex anywhere ever unless a baby is the result. Maybe the Democratic party isn’t offering us much, but maybe that’s because they have to deal with these other brats and their whining first. If this is indicative of what 2012 is going to look like, I have more reason to believe that the guy who passed healthcare and killed Osama Bin Laden is going to do better than the people who just want to complain about it all.

The GOP, right now, are the Dursleys from Harry Potter. Bloated, greedy, scared of losing their influence, completely oblivious to the true problems of the world. That is not to say that President Obama is Harry Potter. No. Not at all. But he did just kill our equivalent of Voldemort.

His creative take on the common “wag the dog” aphorism (and creative take on Article I of the Constitution, interpreting some Republicans as colonizing parasites rather than actual members of Congress) came yesterday afternoon, in the heat of the budget battle that ended when both parties agreed on significantly cutting the national budget. Sen. Schumer, to his credit, was not describing the entire party as such– only those on the far right that sought the night to culminate in a shutdown. Via The Hill:

What we have here is a flea, wagging a tail, wagging a dog,” said Schumer, chairman of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee.

“The flea are the minority of House Republicans who are hard right, the tail is the House Republican caucus, and the dog is the government,” Schumer explained. “That flea is influencing what the dog does … and it is sad.”

He went on to conclude that said “hard right” Congressmen, by sticking to their positions, ultimately “do what is wrong for the country substantively.” Surely those in the House could not have taken the comment particularly well, though it at least highlights one positive (?) aspect of this battle: it brings out the colorful rhetoric on both sides.

Weiner’s oratorical style on the House floor is quickly becoming the stuff of legend (and/or derision depending on one’s political point of view) and yesterday’s effort is likely to only further cement one’s impression of the Representative from Queens.

Perhaps the best part of the speech was Weiner’s listing of Car Talk employees that are going to be put out of work which included the Car Talk customer care rep, Heywood Jabuzov and the Director of Ethics Uly N. Sack before ending as follows:

The Republican party, no one can say they’re not in touch. They get it. They understand where the American people are. The American people are not concerned about jobs or the economy or what’s going on around the world. They’re staring at their radio station saying, get rid of Click And Clack. Finally my Republican friends are getting rid of them. Kudos to you.

Watch the video courtesy of C-Span below (partial transcript followsvia):

Crisis averted, ladies and gentleman. What a relief. What a relief. I’m glad we got the economy back going. I’m glad we’ve secured our nuclear power plants. I’m so glad the Americans are back to work. We finally found out our problem. We discovered a target that we can all agree on. It’s these guys [holding up a cardboard poster]. This is the problem. It’s Click and Clack, the Tappet brothers. We’re finally getting rid of them. Thank god we solved this problem for the country.

I am so relieved that we had this emergency session, that we waived the rules of the House that require 72 hours so we finally get these guys off my radio.

I’m glad the Republican party finally said enough of Click and Clack the Tappet brothers. That clearly was what the American people said in Campaign 2010. It’s clearly in their contract with America or something: Get rid of Click and Clack.

It’s about time. I have to tell you something because the last thing we want is informative solutions to how we fix our cars and the Cartalk Puzzler.

The Republican party, no one can say they’re not in touch. They get it. They understand where the American people are. The American people are not concerned about jobs or the economy or what’s going on around the world. They’re staring at their radio station saying, get rid of Click And Clack. Finally my Republican friends are getting rid of them. Kudos to you.

(H/T TPM)

Reporting for Washington Post‘s blog The Plum Line, Greg Sargent opines “It’s a reminder that the battle lines on this issue remain as sharply drawn as ever. It’s not TV on a par with Alan Grayson or Steve King, but let’s hope it gets a bit of cable play, anyway.”

Speier opens her comment:

“I really planned to speak about something else. But the gentleman from New Jersey just put my stomach in knots. Because I’m one of those women he spoke about just now. I had a procedure at 17 weeks pregnant with a child who moved from the vagina into the cervix. And that procedure that you just described is a procedure that I endured.

“I lost the baby. And for you to stand on this floor and suggest that somehow this is a procedure that is either welcomed or done cavalierly or done without any thought, is preposterous.”

Watch the clip below courtesy of CSPAN:

(H/T The Plum Line, via)

It’s far from the first time O’Reilly mentions the subject– he admits to being “fascinated” by the Speaker’s leadership-through-tears strategy– but while he had brushed the subject playfully in the past, it now appears to be a growing concern that the role of Speaker seems not to have quelled the waterworks in the former House Minority Leader. O’Reilly had previously predicted that Speaker Boehner wouldn’t “govern” the way he had lead the Republicans through the Pelosi era, though it is beginning to seem now that little has changed in the Speaker. “I think he’s got to get his emotions under control,” O’Reilly tells Wallace, apparently surprised that the behavior has continued. He also hinted at the fact that his political opponents may be onto the weakness, even accusing President Obama of trying to make Boehner cry during the State of the Union Address by discussing the latter’s bootstraps rise to the top (a surefire way of seeing some tears, though that time Boehner “held it together”).

Wallace notes that, while he wasn’t entirely sure he would bring up the emotional question, he had received so many questions about it during interviews leading up to his talk tomorrow that he found it impossible to resist. He also added that, with Speaker Boehner, “what you see is what you get,” and that the emotions were genuine, making them a subject of even more chatter because of both their frequency and sincerity.

For O’Reilly, the emotional question is one of leadership, and in a world where “perception is reality,” he has his concerns that Boehner may not come off as the kind of “General Patton” leader he needs to be to pull things off in Congress. Boehner will be on Fox News Sunday tomorrow and, it appears, will have some explaining to do about the tears– it will be interesting to note whether O’Reilly’s repeated questions about the behavior will surface specifically.

The segment via Fox News below:

Check out Pelosi’s polite rejection through Twitter:

Although this is unlikely to result in anything more than an awkward conversation between the two leaders the next time they interact, it will still be fun to witness who Cantor’s back-up date will be, and what other unexpected couples might result.

Watch Megyn Kelly and Brit Hume laugh about Cantor possibly having no “date” for the night in the clip below from Fox News:

Bachmann continued, “this is why we were sent here and we will not stop until we repeal a President and put a President in the position of the White House who will repeal this bill.” In case you were confused what Bachmann’s ultimate intentions are, she repeats the phrase “repeal this bill” so many times that all members of Congress might go along with her simply to stop hearing her say it. Though at least she does raise one point worthy of debate, that the rising costs of healthcare associated with the bill are likely to “break the bank.”

Despite Congressman Steve Cohen being worried about Republican lies related to healthcare, Bachmann is not one to back down from passionately defending her position and using whatever hyperbole necessary in the process.

Watch the clip from C-SPAN below:

(h/t Real Clear Politics)

King brought up Rep. Issa’s previous comments almost immediately at the start of the interview, asking whether, given that he has not yet had the opportunity to investigate as chairman, he owed the Obama administration an apology for calling them corrupt. Rep. Issa replied that it was not just the administration, but the previous Congresses which had “handed out huge amounts of money for this administration that were misused,” and that “I’ve always said that Congress is more to blame.”

King then asked his question more directly a second time: “Was it wrong to use the word corrupt?” Issa didn’t give a yes or no, but defined “corrupt” so as to clarify his statement, lashing out at CNN in the process:

“I think people misunderstand the meaning of the word corrupt, and obviously CNN does. ‘Corrupt’ or ‘corrupted’ or ‘failure’– it’s no different than a disk drive thats giving you some bits that are wrong. I’ve never said it’s illegal, I’ve never made any of the statements that are often said on CNN that imply wrongdoing of the president on a criminal level.”

The conversation continued with more detail into what Issa was preparing to investigate, going as far back as the beginning of the Bush administration, but King added an epilogue to the interview afterwards live on the program: “don’t worry about” the fact that Issa attacked CNN in the interview– “the chairman was smartly retreating… but doesn’t want to say so.”

The discussion via CNN below:

“I’ve never seen such casualness,” Matthews remarked to Andrea Mitchell and John Harris. Mitchell, whom Matthews interrupted, pointed out that “that’s always been the rule,” as far as former members of Congress are concerned, and Harris diplomatically suggested that Matthews and Scarborough work out their differences on their own, before someone gets casually impaled with an MSNBC logo pen.

Matthews instead chose to observe that his colleague was “table-hopping with abandon.”

Watch the clip from MSNBC below:

(h/t Newsbusters)

Once there, he delivered a heartfelt and humbling speech stating “the people voted to end business as usual and today we begin to carry out their instructions.” Boehner also stressed that “this is the people’s House” and vowed to “give this government back to the American people.” Requiring at least three days for reading time before a proposed bill could be passed and promising to cut Congress’ own budget, Boehner discussed some of his ideas for the new Congress. Surprisingly though, no tears from Boehner during the speech or when he accepted the oath of office.

Watch the video below of Boehner’s swearing-in via C-SPAN:

The footage of Rep. Boehner in dispute comes from a clip from an interview with CBS, where Rep. Boehner explains that he finds it difficult to discuss children at this point in his career and that he “can’t go to schools anymore” because “all these kids running around… can’t talk about it.” With that declaration, his throat tightens and his eyes gloss over, the emotional episode ending with Boehner noting that his job is “making sure these kids have a shot at the American dream.”

“What is that?” asks an incredulous (but respectful) O’Reilly, adding with a shadow of a shrug that “I think he’s sincere,” to which his body language analyst, Tonya Reiman agrees. “We can’t talk about the kids?” O’Reilly continues, wondering what’s left to talk about if “the kids” are off the table.

Reiman helpfully adds that “there’s not much he can talk about,” and O’Reilly later lessens the blow by added that, while he finds the whole thing bizarre, he doesn’t “think he’ll govern that way.” “You hope,” Reiman adds helpfully.

Compare O’Reilly’s handling of Boehner’s tears whilst holding his nose at the entire ordeal to a supportive (?) Rachel Maddow– and, of course, to the outright disgust with him on The View. Seems that O’Reilly falls somewhere in the middle of the men-who-cry spectrum, something we could probably tell you just by looking at his friends.

Tonight’s discussion on Boehner’s tears via Fox News below:

Nancy Pelosi presided over the most effective Congress in my lifetime and, arguably, in generations. Don’t just take my word for it. Conservative congressional scholar Norman Ornstein called Congress under Pelosi’s leadership “one of the most productive Congresses in history.” And if you believe in the invaluable and irreplaceable role of our nation’s government to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare—as did our Founders—then you should welcome that news. For no matter how much greedy and bloated big business try to dominate every aspect of our economic, social and political life, Speaker Pelosi ensured government was a steadfast ballast for the public interest.

What did she do? Speaker Pelosi passed historic health care reform legislation that will provide insurance for 32 million uninsured Americans and, by doing so, reduce the costs passed on to all of us of providing care for the uninsured. Young people can now stay on their parents’ health insurance longer, and the insurance industry can no longer deny care due to pre-existing conditions. Pelosi also passed a vital stimulus package that independent economists agree has saved millions of jobs while staving off an even worse recession. The stimulus legislation also gave tax cuts to 95% of American families (though most Americans still don’t know that Pelosi and Obama cut their taxes). She ushered through financial reform to curb future economic crises, SCHIP legislation to provide health insurance to 11 million children, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to give women and other workers greater access to courts to fight workplace discrimination, and groundbreaking student loan reform that saves the government money while also streamlining loan access for millions of students. Not bad for 21 months of work. And really, those are just the highlights.

I’m not saying I don’t wish, like many progressives, that health care reform had included a public option, that the stimulus package would have been bigger and included more infrastructure jobs and that financial reform would have been even tougher. But considering what she did pass—and certainly compared with decades of destructive conservative policies that preceded her—it’s certainly possible to celebrate Pelosi’s great accomplishments while at the same time wishing they had been even greater.

And notably, Pelosi managed to achieve this historic legislation in the face of a historically divided Democratic caucus. Pelosi’s greatest obstacles in achieving some of the above victories came not from obstructionist Republicans but from conservative Democrats (barely) within her own party. With Democrats like Blue Dogs, who needs Republicans? Perhaps the shiniest of silver linings from the 2010 mid-term elections is that over half of the Blue Dogs, who were nothing but a thorn in the side of the progressive agenda in Congress and made a point of blatantly running against that agenda during the campaigns, lost their re-election bids. Despite the fact that the health care reform law would unquestionably help working class and rural poor folks in South Dakota, eastern Ohio and upstate New York, Blue Dog Democrats like Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (SD-at-large), Zachary Space (OH-18) and Michael Arcuri (NY-24) voted against the bill.

It remains deeply mysterious to me why candidates from so-called red states and even red parts of blue states, all of which disproportionately benefit the most from federal policies that redistribute taxes and public infrastructure from the wealthier urban coasts, persistently grandstand against government assistance. There wouldn’t be any jobs in South Dakota without the taxes people pay in San Francisco. But rather than articulating the case for government, Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin played the parasite. In turn, she was voted out of office. Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi was re-elected by her constituents—most of whom shoulder a disproportionate share of progressive taxation. In a generally gloomy election cycle for liberals, the gutting of the Blue Dog caucus was a pleasant bit of karma. Good riddance.

Of course, sometimes you can’t teach old dogs new tricks. Conservative Democrats who are now focusing their own crosshairs on Nancy Pelosi’s back should realize that Pelosi is the perennial target of the Tea Party right not because she has failed in her leadership, but because she has succeeded. Wobbly-spined Democrats should remember that the enemy of your enemy is your friend. Amidst fears that the disproportionately old, white and rich men that make up the Tea Party are not in fact a small fringe but represent conclusive evidence that liberal ideals are dead within the larger political mainstream, it’s worth noting that reactionary movements don’t arise in a bubble. They are by definition a reaction to progress.

The fundamentalist Christian anti-gay extremism surged in the 1990s in the wake of Will and Grace, Ellen Degeneres and men wearing more spandex in public. The Minutemen paramilitary border patrol groups and arch-nationalist anti-immigrant extremism surged in the last three years in response to historic marches by millions of undocumented immigrants and their allies and the near-passage of a path to citizenship. Despite all their rhetoric, the Tea Party did not emerge because Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi were bungling their job leading the nation. The Tea Party emerged precisely because Obama and Pelosi were doing their job too damn well and elite, status quo interests were threatened. Democrats who now also turn their ire on Pelosi are helping the Tea Party win its narrative fight.

By comparison, someone like Blue Dog Health Shuler (NC-11) would NOT be a target of the Tea Party in part because he would be their lapdog, quarterbacking conservative economic policies that got us into this mess in the first place but whose repeated failure somehow eludes both conservative Democrats and Republicans who drank the same neo-liberal Kool-Aid—which was the only thing trickling down for the last few decades. The way to defuse the power of the Tea Party is not to dismantle the progressive opposition and further capitulate to Right wing ideas—just as, we now know, the best way to secure a governing Democratic majority in response to decades of Right wing onslaught was not to elect Democrat-In-Name-Only pragmatists willing to bend whichever the polls blow. I love Nancy Pelosi precisely because she stands for what is right, not necessarily what is universally popular.

Nancy Pelosi is a strong woman leader—never easy, certainly not in the old boys club of Washington—guided by the courage of her convictions that government is a necessary and beneficial force in our individual lives and the lives of our families, businesses and communities. History books will be more kind to Nancy Pelosi than mid-term voters have been. In the meantime, unlike John Boehner—who always looks like he just swallowed something bitter (foreshadowing the bitter future he’s bringing to America?)—I suspect Nancy Pelosi will keep smiling. And if she uses her new position as minority leader not to worry about wooing conservative votes in either party but instead stand even more firmly against corporate special interests and on the side of the best interests of all Americans, we’ll all have reason to smile. Her party and our nation will be better off. And in two years, she’ll be Speaker again.

Sally Kohn is a community organizer and political commentator focused on making the world safe for progressive ideas. She is a regular contributor to the Huffington Post, Fox News and AlterNet, among other outlets. Her writing and videos can be found at movementvision.org or on Twitter.