Massachusetts Poll For Presidential And Senate Primary

These charts reflect the results of the newest Boston Globe / Suffolk University Poll -- done between September 3rd and 5th of 500 registered Massachusetts voters who will vote in the Democratic Primary. The margin of error is 4.4 points.

The presidential primary in Massachusetts looks like a race between Joe Biden (25.8%) and Elizabeth Warren (23.6%). Warren is within the poll's margin of error with Biden. Sanders (8.4%), Buttigieg (5%), and Harris (2.8%) are far behind.

If Joe Kennedy runs against incumbent senator Ed Markey, this poll shows he would have a good chance of winning. Currently, he is 14.2 points ahead.

Biden Leads With Warren Second In Massachusetts

This chart reflects the results of the most recent Suffolk University / Boston Globe Poll -- done between April 25th and 28th of 429 Democratic primary voters in Massachusetts, with a margin of error of 4.7 points.

It shows Elizabeth Warren trails Joe Biden in her home state by about 11 points. Buttigieg is third and Sanders fourth. That's disappointing for Sanders, since his home state borders Massachusetts.

Democratic Presidential Polls For California & Massachusetts

This chart reflects the results of a recent Quinnipiac University Poll -- done between April 3rd and 8th of a sample of 482 California voters who are Democrats/Leaners. It has a margin of error of 5.9 points.

This chart reflects the results of a recent Emerson College Poll -- done between April 4th and 7th of a sample of 371 Democratic primary voters in Massachusetts. It has a 5 point margin of error.

Both of these polls have a fairly small sample, but they do show that a couple of home-state candidates are not doing as well as they had hoped. It is generally considered that a candidate should be able to carry their home state to win. Right now, Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren are not doing that.

In California, Kamala Harris is currently third -- trailing Joe Biden by 9 points and Bernie Sanders by 1 point.

In Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren is also in third -- trailing Bernie Sanders by 12 points and Joe Biden by 9 points.

This does not mean these women won't win in their home state. It's still very early, and the numbers will likely change many times before primary day rolls around. But it does mean that both have some work to do.

Nevada Becomes The 5th State For Legal Marijuana

(This map on legal marijuana is from governing.com.)

Yesterday (July 1st), Nevada became the fifth state where the sale and possession of small amounts of marijuana is legal. After passing the legalization initiative in the last election, Nevada joined four other states (Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and Alaska) in implementing that legalization. They expect the tax on marijuana sales to bring the state about $60 million in revenue in the next two years. I think that's probably a very low estimate.

By early next year, the number of states with legal marijuana will climb to eight states. Massachusetts, California, and Maine have all voted to legalize the gentle herb. The legalization will actually go into effect in Massachusetts on December 15th, in California on January 1st, and in Maine next February.

The genie is now out of the bottle -- and I expect several more states to jump on the legalization bandwagon in the next few years.

Four More States Legalize Marijuana Possession And Use

(This image is from opensecrets.org.)

Not all of the news fromTuesday night's election was bad news. Four more states have legalized the possession and use of small amounts of marijuana for recreational use. The states are California, Massachusetts, Nevada, and Maine. The results of the first three states are final, and while Maine is very close it looks like it is also going to pass. Here are the results for all four states:

CALIFORNIA (100% reporting)
For...............4,957,215 (56.04%)
Against...............3,889,080 (43.96%)

MASSACHUSETTS (99.9% reporting)
For...............3,491,808 (53.6%)
Against...............3,024,360 (46.4%)

NEVADA (100% reporting)
For...............602,400 (54.5%)
Against...............503,615 (46.5%)

MAINE (98% reporting)
For...............752,246 (50.2%)
Against...............745,872 (49.8%)

Assuming the yes vote in Maine holds up, there are now eight states that have legalized the recreational use of marijuana.

Latest Polls Show The Blue States Solidly Behind Clinton

Donald Trump is having trouble trying to keep some of his red states in the fold (Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina). Hillary Clinton doesn't have that kind of problem with states normally considered blue states.

The chart above reflects the latest polls in 10 blue states -- California, Virginia, Oregon, Maryland, Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maine, Rhode Island. Clinton leads in all of them, and is expected to carry them rather easily in November. That's good, because it allows her to put more emphasis on the swing states.

NOTE -- You can click on the state name to get the poll dates, sample size, and margin of error.

Super Tuesday Chances And Predictions From Nate Silver

(The photo above of Clinton/Sanders is from leftfootforward.org.)

Today is Super Tuesday, and 11 states will go to the polls to choose their preference for the Democratic presidential nominee. America's best poll analyst, Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com, has released his chances of winning and predictions of voting percentages for nine of the Super Tuesday states. The other two (Colorado and Minnesota) have caucuses (which depend mostly on turnout, and not the will of most people). Mr. Silver says:

ALABAMA

Chance of winning
Clinton...............99%
Sanders...............1%

Prediction
Clinton...............73.6%
Sanders...............23.5%

ARKANSAS

Chance of winning
Clinton...............98%
Sanders...............2%

Prediction
Clinton...............64.1%
Sanders...............32.5%

GEORGIA

Chance of winning
Clinton...............99%
Sanders...............1%

Prediction
Clinton...............69.9%
Sanders...............26.9%

MASSACHUSETTS

Chance of winning
Clinton...............87%
Sanders...............13%

Prediction
Clinton...............51.7%
Sanders...............45.2%

OKLAHOMA

Chance of winning
Clinton...............17%
Sanders...............83%

Prediction
Clinton...............45.1%
Sanders...............51.5%

TENNESSEE

Chance of winning
Clinton...............99%
Sanders...............1%

Prediction
Clinton...............64.9%
Sanders...............31.8%

TEXAS

Chance of winning
Clinton...............99%
Sanders...............1%

Prediction
Clinton...............65.2%
Sanders...............31.9%

VERMONT

Chance of winning
Clinton...............1%
Sanders...............99%

Prediction
Clinton...............10.8%
Sanders...............86.9%

VIRGINIA

Chance of winning
Clinton...............99%
Sanders...............1%

Prediction
Clinton...............62.5%
Sanders...............34.5%

New Dem Polls For Massachusetts, Alabama, & Oklahoma

Today is Super Tuesday, and as the voters in several states go to the polls, I bring you these latest polls of three of those states -- Massachusetts, Alabama, and Oklahoma.

The University of Massachusetts at Amherst / WBZ Poll was done between February 19th and 25th of a random sample of 400 likely Massachusetts Democratic voters, and has a 6.5 point margin of error.

The Monmouth University Poll was done between February 25th and 28th of a random sample of 300 likely Alabama Democratic voters, and 300 likely Oklahoma Democratic voters. The margin of error for both states is 5.7 points.

Eleven states will have primaries/caucuses today (plus American Samoa and Democrats Abroad). Bernie Sanders best chances are in Vermont (his home state), Oklahoma, Minnesota, Massachusetts, and Colorado. He will undoubtably take Vermont, and I expect him to take one or two of the others. But they will be close -- with Sanders and Clinton pretty much splitting the delegates offered by these states.

But Hillary Clinton is strong in the Southern states (Arkansas, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia). She will take a significant majority of the delegates in those states -- and which will help her to extend her lead in overall delegates.

New Dem Polls: Georgia, Massachusetts, Virginia, & Florida

Georgia, Massachusetts, and Virginia will all vote in three days (March 1st). Florida will vote two weeks later (March 15). These are the latest polls on the Democratic presidential nominating race in those four states.

Georgia - WABE Poll (Feb 22-24) 400 likely voters (4.1 point moe).

Massachusetts - WBUR Poll (Feb 21-23) 418 likely voters (4.9 point moe).

Virginia - Roanoke College Poll (Feb 16-24) 415 likely voters (4.8 point moe).

Florida - Quinnipiac University Poll (Feb 21-24) 476 likely voters (4.5 point moe).

Florida - Public Policy Polling (Feb 24-25) 388 likely voters (5.0 point moe).

Massachusetts is the real surprise. Hillary Clinton has had large leads in Georgia, Virginia, and Florida for quite a while. But a couple of weeks ago, Bernie Sanders was leading Massachusetts. It now looks like Clinton may be turning the tide in that state. It would be devastating for Sanders to lose Massachusetts.

U.S. House Gains A Democrat And Loses A Democrat On Thursday

Yesterday, a new Democratic representative was sworn in and assumed her duties in the House of Representatives. The new representative is Katherine Clark (pictured above), who now represents the 5th Congressional District of Massachusetts. Rep. Clark replaces Edward Markey, who was recently elected to the United States Senate (filling the senate seat vacated by John Kerry when he became Secretary of State).

The special election in the 5th District of Massachusetts had a poor turnout, with only about 13% of the registered voters bothering to cast a ballot -- but that turnout heavily favored Clark, who more than doubled the vote of her Republican opponent. Here are the vote totals:

Katherine Clark (D)...............40,172 (66%)
Frank Addivinola (R)...............19,319 (32%)
Two Independent candidates, James Hall and James Aulenti, split the other 2% of votes.

----------------------------------------

But the number of Democrats stayed the same as it was in the House of Representatives, because Thursady was the last day in the House for Rep. Mel Watt (pictured below), who represented the 12th Congressional District of North Carolina. Mr. Watt resigned to become the new head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (which oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac).

Watt was nominated for the post back in May, but his confirmation had been blocked since then by Senate Republicans. He was just one of several executive nominees and judges the Republicans were blocking in an effort to either embarrass the president, or to try and force Senate Democrats to meet their demands on other issues. But after the Senate Democrats initiated the so-called "nuclear option" (which meant a filibuster of judicial and executive nominees could be stopped with only 51 votes), they were able to bring Watt's nomination to the floor for a vote -- and he was approved by a 57 to 41 vote.

Warren Blasts GOP Government Shutdown

The Republican Party in the House of Representatives, bowing to the wishes of a small group of House teabaggers, have shut down the United States government. The reason they have done this is because they have lost repeatedly in their efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, both in Congress and at the ballot box.

One of the most intelligent responses to this ridiculous Republican shutdown that I have read is the one by Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts). Senator Warren says:

Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to solve a real, honest-to-God problem. 

Our health care system was broken. 48 million people in this country had no health insurance.  Women couldn't get access to cancer screenings. People with diabetes were denied health insurance because of pre-existing conditions. People with cancer hit the caps on their health insurance spending. And health spending in this country was growing far too fast.   

So we worked hard, we compromised, and we came up with a solution. A solution that will substantially improve the lives of millions of Americans – because that's the way a democracy works.

It's time to end the debate about whether the Affordable Care Act should exist and whether it should be funded. 

Congress voted for this law. President Obama signed this law. The Supreme Court upheld this law. The President ran for reelection on this law. His opponent said he would repeal it – and his opponent lost by five million votes.  

Right now, Republicans are taking the government and the economy hostage, threatening serious damage to both unless the President agrees to gut the Affordable Care Act. For days, they even tried to change the law so that employers can deny women access to birth control coverage. 

I am the mother of a daughter and the grandmother of granddaughters. I will never vote to let a group of backward-looking ideologues cut women's access to birth control. We have lived in that world, and we are not going back. Not ever.

I see things like this and I wonder what alternate reality some of my colleagues are living in. 

So let me be very clear about what is happening in the real world: The Affordable Care Act is the law of the land. Millions of people are counting on it – people who need health care coverage, people who need insurance policies that don't disappear just when they are sickest. 

The law is here to stay, and it will stay. 

Now the government is shut down. We haven't fixed the sequester because of all the obstruction. We haven't finished a budget because of all the obstruction. We haven't even passed a single appropriations bill because of all the obstruction. 

The least we can do – the bare minimum we can do – would be to pass a "continuing resolution" to open the doors back up and turn the lights back on. We could ensure that over a million federal workers aren't staying home for no reason. We could end the government shutdown. 

But the Republicans have refused to do even that. They have continued to shutter the government unless the President agreed to de-fund the Affordable Care Act. 

The threats may continue, but they are not working and they never will. In a democracy, hostage tactics are the last resort for those who can't win their fights through elections, can't win their fights in Congress, can't win their fights for the Presidency, and can't win their fights in Courts.  
For this right-wing minority, hostage-taking is all they have left – a last gasp of those who cannot cope with the realities of our democracy.

The time has come for those legislators who cannot cope with the reality of our democracy to get out of the way – so that those of us in BOTH parties can get back to working on solving the real problems faced by the American people.  

We have real work to do.

Markey Wins In Massachusetts !

It's official now. The Democrats hold on to the seat in the Senate vacated by John Kerry when he accepted the nomination for Secretary of State. The new senator from Massachusetts is Ed Markey. Here are the results of the election (with 99% reporting):

Ed Markey (Democrat)...............639,734 (54.9%)
Gabriel Gomez (Republican)...............520,884 (44.7%)

Markey Has Solid Lead In Massachusetts

(The above caricature of Rep. Ed Markey is by DonkeyHotey.)

Last week, the Massachusetts GOP released a poll conducted for the Gomez campaign (an internal poll) that showed Gomez only a couple of points behind Rep. Ed Markey (the Democrat in the race). That poll caused a lot of celebration by the right-wingers, and a lot of hand-wringing by Democrats (although I think most of that was just to boost campaign donations).

The truth is that the poll was an outlier, and disagreed with all other polls taken on the race (especially the polls taken by neutral organizations, not connected with either campaign). It was like those internal polls of the Romney campaign in 2012, which had him believing he was leading President Obama. It's made up more of wishful thinking than solid polling techniques.

Now a new poll has been released. It is the Boston Globe Poll (and not connected to any campaign). It was conducted between June 11th and 14th of 508 likely voters -- and has a 4.3 point margin of error. The poll shows Rep. Markey with a double-digit lead, well beyond the margin of error, and that is true even when the "leaners" are included (those who have not conclusively made up their minds, but are leaning toward a candidate). Here are the numbers:

BOSTON GLOBE POLL
Ed Markey...............54%
Gabriel Gomez...............41%

BOSTON GLOBE POLL (with leaners)
Ed Markey...............54%
Gabriel Gomez...............43%

This poll, unlike the GOP internal poll, shows that Markey is actually increasing the lead he already had. Karl Rove was inspired by the GOP internal poll, and in this last week of the special election campaign, is pouring over $700,000 in new money into the Gomez campaign. I doubt it will make much difference though. The Boston Globe Poll found that at least 3/4 of voters have already definitely decided who they will vote for, and it would take a fair-sized miracle to overcome Markey's double-digit lead (which is not likely in a blue state like Massachusetts).

Democrat Looks Strong In Massachusetts

When the President appointed John Kerry to be Secretary of State, some people (including me) thought it might be an opportunity for the GOP to snatch Kerry's senate seat in a special election (as they were able to do when Ted Kennedy's seat was vacant). But it's starting to look like those worries were unfounded. Two new polls show Democrat Ed Markey with a comfortable lead over Republican Gabriel Gomez -- with only a couple of weeks to go before the election. Here are the latest numbers:

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS POLL
Likely Voters
Markey...............51%
Gomez...............40%

Registered Voters
Markey...............47%
Gomez...............37%

PUBLIC POLICY POLLING
Markey...............47%
Gomez...............39%

Massachusetts Chooses Senate Candidates

(This caricature of Ed Markey is by the inimitable DonkeyHotey.)

Last night was primary night in Massachusetts, as the voters of both parties went to the polls to select their candidates for the Senate special election -- being held to fill the seat that was vacated by Secretary of State John Kerry.

For the Democrats, it was a race between progressive Rep. Ed Markey and the more conservative Rep. Stephen Lynch. Markey had led in all the polls, and coasted to a pretty easy win -- getting more than 300,000 votes. On the Republican side, the winner was private equity investor (Romney clone?) Gabriel Gomez -- who got slightly less than 100,000 votes. He was opposed by former U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan and state Rep. Daniel Winslow.

Here are the numbers with 99% of the vote in:

DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY
Ed Markey...............306,860 (58%)
Stephen Lynch...............226,253 (42%)

REPUBLICAN PRIMARY
Gabriel Gomez...............93,819 (51%)
Michael Sullivan...............66,302 (36%)
Daniel Winslow...............24,099 (13%)

Markey and Gomez will now meet in the June 25th special election, and the winner will become the junior senator from Massachusetts. Markey has to be considered the prohibitive favorite.

Suspects Caught & The Road To Justice Begins

The men pictured above are Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his younger brother Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. It took the combined police agencies of the federal, state, and local governments less than a week to identify them as the suspects in the Boston marathon bombings. Both have now been apprehended -- with Tamerlan being killed during his stand-off with the police, and Dzhokhar is in the hospital with serious injuries. This is a good thing, and I join the people of Boston and America in applauding the way the various police agencies worked together to catch the suspected culprits.

But I have to disagree with the spokesman for the state police who said that justice has been done. While the suspects are no longer at large, the road to true justice is just getting started. I hope Dzhokhar does survive his wounds, because there needs to be a trial -- so the victims of the disaster can get a bit of closure, and so it can be demonstrated to the world that the right men were apprehended and given a fair trial.

And a fair trial is required. It bothers me some that the president has invoked the "public safety" exemption to the Miranda warning -- giving policing agencies the right to question Dzhokhar without reading him the Miranda warning. There doesn't seem to be any real question of public safety here, since it is pretty obvious the two brothers acted alone -- and without financial or other help from outside sources (since they had to try to rob a convenience store and steal a car to try to escape, and their bombs were not sophisticated).

It seems to me that it is now far more important to rigidly adhere to the rule of law, to show the world that even terrorists are treated fairly in American courts -- by giving the Miranda warning, providing the suspect an attorney, and insuring that he gets a fair trial (with all the rights that anyone else in this country would get). It may feel good for many in this country to deny this suspect his basic constitutional rights, but that's not justice -- it's retribution or revenge.

Don't get me wrong. If Dzhokhar is guilty (and I believe he probably is), then I hope he is convicted and punished as severely as possible. But we must do it the right way. The rule of law is too important to every American to be tossed away because a suspect is hated by nearly everyone. That is just the kind of defendant the constitutional amendments were designed to protect from government malfeasance (the popular people will always get their rights respected and protected). And if any right can be withheld from this defendant, then it can also be withheld from anyone else in this country, anytime the government wants to do it.

The world is watching. Will we uphold the rule of law and give this defendant a fair trial, or will we embarrass ourselves (and jeopardize our own rights) -- the way we have treated the inmates at Guantanamo (who have been denied lawyers, charges, or fair trails)? Labeling someone as a terrorist should not make them any different from any other criminal suspect. The people of this country need to realize that rights are either for everyone or they are not for anyone. Those who wrote the Constitution knew that, and it is up to us to re-affirm it.

Has Sen. Collins Read The Constitution ?

Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) is usually thought of in the mainstream media as a "moderate" Republican. That's because every now and then (but not too often) she will part with her right-wing colleagues on senate votes. But don't let that fool you. The truth is that her heart rests with her right-wing party members -- those who are willing to disregard the Constitution when it prevents them from doing what they want to do (while loudly trumpeting their belief in that document when running for re-election).

Senator Collins felt the need to speak on the Boston bombing tragedy a couple of days ago -- and she had every right to do that. But her public statement shows she has a contempt for the Constitution (especially the Fifth Amendment) and the rule of law. Here is her rather shocking statement:

“It’s a very important question, whether it’s a plot that originated overseas or whether it’s a lone wolf. The question is: What do we do once we do capture the individual? How’s he treated? If he’s an American, obviously, then the constitutional protections pertain. If he is a foreign national, in my view, then he should be held by a military tribunal and he should not be read his Miranda rights as [the Christmas Day Bomber] was.”

Maybe I am wrong that she is showing contempt for the Constitution. Maybe it's been so long since she read that document that she has forgotten what is in it. Here is the text of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution (bold is mine):

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Note that the amendment does not say these rights apply only to citizens. Instead, it uses the word "person", which would include anyone in this country -- even foreigners (whether in this country legally or illegally). Anyone accused of a crime in the United States has the protections of the Fifth Amendment, and the rule of law (based on the Constitution).

We do not single out people because of the horror of the particular crime they are accused of committing, and deny them the rights afforded to all other persons in this country. Murderers, rapists, and even terrorists have been afforded these same rights in the past, and convicted only after receiving a fair trial based on those rights. Why should we change that now? It has worked for over 200 years, and there is no reason why it wouldn't continue to work for many more years.

These rights are to prevent the government from unjustly singling out any person for special and unfair treatment, simply because they don't like that person (because of race, ethnicity, country of origin or citizenship, political ideas, religion, etc.). We should not want to start down the road of denying rights now, because when constitutional rights can be denied to one person they can then be denied to anyone by the government. Rights must be absolute to have any value at all.

Don't get me wrong. I hope the perpetrator of the Boston bombings is caught, charged, convicted, and severely punished -- but only after upholding their rights, including the reading of Miranda rights, and the guarantee of a fair trial. Failing to do that would do more serious damage to this country than any terrorist (homegrown or foreign) could ever do.

Senator Collins should be ashamed of herself.

Random Thoughts On Boston

Just a couple of things I've been thinking:

* Patton Oswalt, in the comment above, is exactly right. There are far more good people in this world than evil people. This was illustrated by the wonderful people who immediately ran to help the bombing victims in Boston -- the first responders, the race volunteers, and the spectators (from Boston and other places).

* There are other evil people in the world -- people who are almost as disgusting as the bomber. I am referring, of course, to the creeps of the Westboro Baptist Church. Once again they are using a tragedy and the suffering of others to push their own agenda of hate -- and they have said they will be picketing the funerals of the innocent bombing victims. I would like to be able to stop these vile people, but I am not willing to give up our freedom of speech to do so.

* I am personally troubled by all the people who are so quick to find someone to blame for this tragedy -- usually a group they personally don't like. Some right-wingers have already decided that islamic fundamentalists are to blame, while some on the left are ready to blame right-wing militia types, and at least one nut is calling it a government conspiracy. The truth is that all of these people are just using this tragedy to further their own positions -- and it is wrong. We simply don't have enough evidence to put the blame in any direction, and we should put off the blaming until there is some evidence.

* The Boston Marathon is one of the world's great sporting events -- both for the athletes and for those ordinary people who are just trying to prove something to themselves, or those who are running to honor someone else or some charity or cause. One of the best posts I have read recently was written by a runner in Monday's marathon named Dave Munger. I urge you to read what he has written. You'll be very glad you did.

It IS A Terrorist Act

By now, you have to know about the tragedy that was perpetrated by some evil person (or persons) in Boston. As the annual Boston Marathon was winding down, two bombs were set off among the crowds near the finish line. As I write this, at least three people are dead and well over a hundred more injured -- with at least 17 of those critically injured (meaning the death toll could still rise even higher). So far, it is not known who made and placed those bombs.

President Obama made a short speech to the nation, and made two important statements in that speech -- "On days like this there are no Republicans or Democrats, we are Americans united in concern for our fellow citizens" and "Any responsible individuals, any responsible groups will feel the full weight of justice". I could not agree more with both statements, and I sincerely hope the person (or persons) who did this are soon apprehended and severely punished.

But what I really wanted to discuss was a question from a journalist(?) at the first news briefing Boston officials held. That person asked, "Is this a terrorist act?" I think what she was trying to ask was did foreign (perhaps islamic) people do this as a political act, but even that is a silly question. It doesn't matter at all whether the criminal(s) who did this was from the islamic fundamentalists, from home-grown right-wingers, or some other individual or group. It was a terrorist act!

Anyone who places one or more bombs to go off among a group of innocent and unsuspecting citizens is committing a terrorist act, and the reason for doing it doesn't really matter at all. It should be investigated as a terrorist act, charged as a terrorist act, and convicted as a terrorist act -- and those who would excuse it because it might come from someone of a similar political persuasion are as depraved as the perpetrator(s).

----------------------------------------

I have no idea who did this terrible thing, but it looks like some of the far-right-wing are afraid it might have come from home-grown terrorists. Ultra-right-wing radio host Alex Jones has already accused the FBI of planning and carrying out the bombings, so they can blame it on the teabaggers. It's a ludicrous and rather insane idea, but it shows he is already trying to provide some cover just in case it was done by his fellow right-wingers.

Warren Blasts GOP Over Obstruction

This lady is fast becoming one of my favorite senators. She wanted to become the head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), so she could protect American consumers from being taken advantage of by the giant banks. The Republicans blocked that to protect the Wall Street moguls they worship. So she went back to Massachusetts and defeated Republican Senator Scott Brown. Now she's back in Washington in a much more powerful position -- and still determined to do what's best for American citizens.

And believe it or not, the Republicans are still blocking the appointment of anyone to be the head of the CFPB. This time it's Richard Cordray (who was nominated by President Obama after it became clear that Professor Warren could not be approved). It's been over a year now, and the GOP is treating Cordray just like they did Warren. They are blocking his nomination, and they say they will continue to block it until the CFPB is weakened by rewriting the law that created it. They are still trying to protect the giant banks instead of the citizens they were elected to protect.

But this time there's something different. Senator Elizabeth Warren is not only in the Senate, she's on the Senate Banking Committee (a nightmare for the Wall Street moguls). And that committee is the one where the Republicans are trying to hold up Cordray's nomination to head the CFPB. This week that committee is once again questioning Mr. Cordray for the umpteenth time -- and Senator Warren has had enough of it. When it was her turn, she didn't bother to question Cordray. Instead, she aimed her remarks at the Republican senators trying to weaken the CFPB protections by delaying Cordray's nomination. Here is some of what she had to say:

"I see nothing here but a filibuster threat against Director Cordray as an attempt to weaken the consumer agency. I think the delay in getting him confirmed is bad for consumers, it's bad for small banks, bad for credit unions, for anyone trying to offer an honest product in an honest market."

"The American people deserve a Congress that worries less about helping big banks, and more about helping regular people who have been cheated on mortgages, on credit cards, on student loans and on credit reports."

"What I want to know is why, since the 1800s, have there been agencies all over Washington with a single director, including the [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency], but unlike the consumer agency, no one in the U.S. Senate has held up confirmation of their directors demanding that the agency be redesigned."

"What I want to know, is why every banking regulator since the Civil War has been funded outside the appropriations process -- but unlike the consumer agency, no one in the U.S. Senate has held up confirmation of their directors demanding that that agency or those agencies be redesigned."

"And what I want to know is why there are agencies all over Washington whose rules are final subject to ordinary reviews and oversight, while the CFPB is the only agency in government subject to a veto by other agencies -- but unlike the CFPB, no one in the U.S. Senate holds up confirmation of their directors demanding that those agencies be redesigned."

Thank you Massachusetts, for sending this wonderful woman to Washington! Ted Kennedy would be very proud to have Elizabeth Warren holding the senate seat that he had held for many illustrious years.