"We will forcefully resist people imposing their will on us through the strength of the majority with a vote."
Last I checked that's called Democracy.
We won. You lost. Deal.
Oh, you have a gun. Well that makes all the difference. I'll change my position right now...
Why isn't this sack of @#$% in jail? This has nothing to do with Arizona's conceal laws, or the guns he's carrying. He's advocating for the armed overthrow of the lawfully elected United States Government.
And no, I'm not linking to their video. I'm not helping them get any more hits. If you want to see the video so bad, go to TPM.
And just because this Terrorist (let's call him what he is) is black doesn't mean that it this isn't about race. It still is. He may think he's giving this Domestic Terrorist organization racial cover, but these guys didn't feel the need to bring out their gats when the last few white guys were in charge at the Oval Office.
This is about a few Terrorist Douchebags responding to the worst stereotypes of African-American men, and resorting to threats of violence when they don't get their political way.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Monday, August 17, 2009
Obama's speech before the VFW
At least a portion. The rest can be found here.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
TPM: Republicans...care to explain this to me??
Twelve people carry guns (including one AR-15) to an Obama event outside Phoenix.
UPDATE: 4:40pm Pacific August 18th: The YouTube video I had posed has been since taken down.
UPDATE: 4:40pm Pacific August 18th: The YouTube video I had posed has been since taken down.
Do Progressives understand Governing, or was that all stuff being better than the Republicans at doing it from 2008 Campaign just bull#$%#???
I don’t like Max Baucus.
I don’t trust Max Baucus.
But my fellow Progressives, the rest of you are driving me friggin' crazy today.
The Republicans are the ones who are supposed to suck at Governance. Not us.
But listening to the debate today…you have to wonder.
But there’s a reason why why we lost the Single Payer and/or maybe the Public Option. (At least that one's obvious, there weren't the votes.)
There’s a reason why bi-partisianship is a matter of Governance as opposed to Politics, which a lot of y’all seem to think it is.
Now, my understanding is that the reason Max Baucus has as much power in the Health Care Debate, is that Health Care/Health Insurance Reform falls under the purview of the Senate Finance Committee, and not the Senate HELP Committee (believe it or not).
Yes, I know its called Health Care Reform, and the HELP Committee actually has the word “Health” in its title, but because this reform involves such a reworking of the Economy, it belongs to Senate Finance.
As much work as HELP has done, their bill really comes in as a suggestion. HELP will be a part of any merging fo the bills, but the real work, thus the real bill, will have to come out of Senate Finance.
I wish this wasn’t true. I got this from an actual expert, Lawrence O’Donnell, who…when he wasn’t writing for the West Wing, acting on Big Love, or subbing for Chris Matthews or Ed Schultz, was the Chief of Staff for the Chair of the Senate Finance Committee.
In some respects, the Senate Finance Chair is more powerful (again…believe it or not) than the Senate Majority Leader since virtually all legislation has to pass through that Committee before it sees the floor. (Then again, Laurence may just have a thing for his old home team, because Harry Reid still controls the calendar, what gets to the floor after Committee, and what doesn’t.)
Now, the choice of having the Gang of Six rework Health Care Reform into a state of near worthlessness is bad, don't get me wrong. It's also a matter of governance, rather than politics, despite what you may have read or heard.
First off, scumbag Republican Senator Michael B. Enzi...happens to be a member of both Senate Finance and is the ranking member of Senate HELP. This at least explains his presence in the so-called Gang of Six talks.
Now, a lot of my fellow Liberals are fond of saying “just ram Health Care Reform through reconciliation”, but the problem with doing that is a little thing called the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (I've heard it called the Byrd Rule, but he's been around so long, there are quite a number of Byrd Amendments out there, so...)
In short, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 restricts any bill going through reconciliation strictly to budgetary matters only.
Thus, before our dream Health Care Bill hits the floor for a vote, it will pass into the hands of the unelected, non-partisan (but highly, highly trained) Parliamentarian of the Senate, who will…without hesitation or prejudice cut out anything from the bill that doesn’t have to do with the budget, as per the Byrd rule.
Significant parts of Health Care Reform, good and ill alike, will be cut out, and instead of passing a watered down bill (as we now face) we will face the prospect of an ineffectual Swiss Cheese bill, which in a lot of cases won’t do what we need it to do, and in some cases won’t even make any sense.
I get where it may, in the end, be a good idea to do this. I also get where this is a valuable tool to threaten Republicans with...
...but don't go fooling yourself into believing that we won't incur serious losses (reformwise) if we resort to budget reconciliation.
Added to that, there's will be a sunset clause in anything coming out of reconciliation, a time limit. Much like Bush’s Tax Cuts for the Rich, Health Care Reform will wind up EXPIRING, and in ten years or so, we’ll have to start this crap all over again.
This is why Obama and Senate Democrats are very interested in a “bi-partisan bill”. Older than dirt Senate Tradition, 5-7 squishy Democrats, a solid block of Republican "NO!" have made this a necessity.
It has nothing to do with him being a wimp. It has nothing to do with him being too generous. These are the rules of the Senate, however idiotic they may be. These are rules that we have used against Republicans in the past, and when we're in the minority again in the future, we're going to want to see our Senators use them again.
As much as I loathe the Senate (in that they're a club, and they get too wrapped up in what the club needs, as opposed to what Country needs) at times, this is why they're the saucer than cools the drink, or whatever the hell that old saying is. This where the House is the passion and the emotion of the people, the Senate is supposed to be a calming influence. This is why House members are forced to turn to their public every two years, and the Senate gets a more reflective six. The six years is supposed to make them a little more immune to the passions of the people, and thus allegedly more statesman like.
Say what you will about being statesmen or not, they certainly have been immune to our demands.
This also how some of the more insane things that Bush and Rove wanted to do, even they couldn't do; because in the Senate you have to deal with the minority party.
I remain pissed off about losing Public Option. But it was the rules of the Senate that did us in way more than anything else.
Though Kent Conrad, his wuss-ass self...really helped.
If Progressives are are going to crack on the Senate, they better understand why they do what they do. Just screaming at them makes you sound like Republicans.
By which I mean total, and complete idiots.
I don’t trust Max Baucus.
But my fellow Progressives, the rest of you are driving me friggin' crazy today.
The Republicans are the ones who are supposed to suck at Governance. Not us.
But listening to the debate today…you have to wonder.
But there’s a reason why why we lost the Single Payer and/or maybe the Public Option. (At least that one's obvious, there weren't the votes.)
There’s a reason why bi-partisianship is a matter of Governance as opposed to Politics, which a lot of y’all seem to think it is.
Now, my understanding is that the reason Max Baucus has as much power in the Health Care Debate, is that Health Care/Health Insurance Reform falls under the purview of the Senate Finance Committee, and not the Senate HELP Committee (believe it or not).
Yes, I know its called Health Care Reform, and the HELP Committee actually has the word “Health” in its title, but because this reform involves such a reworking of the Economy, it belongs to Senate Finance.
As much work as HELP has done, their bill really comes in as a suggestion. HELP will be a part of any merging fo the bills, but the real work, thus the real bill, will have to come out of Senate Finance.
I wish this wasn’t true. I got this from an actual expert, Lawrence O’Donnell, who…when he wasn’t writing for the West Wing, acting on Big Love, or subbing for Chris Matthews or Ed Schultz, was the Chief of Staff for the Chair of the Senate Finance Committee.
In some respects, the Senate Finance Chair is more powerful (again…believe it or not) than the Senate Majority Leader since virtually all legislation has to pass through that Committee before it sees the floor. (Then again, Laurence may just have a thing for his old home team, because Harry Reid still controls the calendar, what gets to the floor after Committee, and what doesn’t.)
Now, the choice of having the Gang of Six rework Health Care Reform into a state of near worthlessness is bad, don't get me wrong. It's also a matter of governance, rather than politics, despite what you may have read or heard.
First off, scumbag Republican Senator Michael B. Enzi...happens to be a member of both Senate Finance and is the ranking member of Senate HELP. This at least explains his presence in the so-called Gang of Six talks.
Now, a lot of my fellow Liberals are fond of saying “just ram Health Care Reform through reconciliation”, but the problem with doing that is a little thing called the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (I've heard it called the Byrd Rule, but he's been around so long, there are quite a number of Byrd Amendments out there, so...)
In short, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 restricts any bill going through reconciliation strictly to budgetary matters only.
Thus, before our dream Health Care Bill hits the floor for a vote, it will pass into the hands of the unelected, non-partisan (but highly, highly trained) Parliamentarian of the Senate, who will…without hesitation or prejudice cut out anything from the bill that doesn’t have to do with the budget, as per the Byrd rule.
Significant parts of Health Care Reform, good and ill alike, will be cut out, and instead of passing a watered down bill (as we now face) we will face the prospect of an ineffectual Swiss Cheese bill, which in a lot of cases won’t do what we need it to do, and in some cases won’t even make any sense.
I get where it may, in the end, be a good idea to do this. I also get where this is a valuable tool to threaten Republicans with...
...but don't go fooling yourself into believing that we won't incur serious losses (reformwise) if we resort to budget reconciliation.
Added to that, there's will be a sunset clause in anything coming out of reconciliation, a time limit. Much like Bush’s Tax Cuts for the Rich, Health Care Reform will wind up EXPIRING, and in ten years or so, we’ll have to start this crap all over again.
This is why Obama and Senate Democrats are very interested in a “bi-partisan bill”. Older than dirt Senate Tradition, 5-7 squishy Democrats, a solid block of Republican "NO!" have made this a necessity.
It has nothing to do with him being a wimp. It has nothing to do with him being too generous. These are the rules of the Senate, however idiotic they may be. These are rules that we have used against Republicans in the past, and when we're in the minority again in the future, we're going to want to see our Senators use them again.
As much as I loathe the Senate (in that they're a club, and they get too wrapped up in what the club needs, as opposed to what Country needs) at times, this is why they're the saucer than cools the drink, or whatever the hell that old saying is. This where the House is the passion and the emotion of the people, the Senate is supposed to be a calming influence. This is why House members are forced to turn to their public every two years, and the Senate gets a more reflective six. The six years is supposed to make them a little more immune to the passions of the people, and thus allegedly more statesman like.
Say what you will about being statesmen or not, they certainly have been immune to our demands.
This also how some of the more insane things that Bush and Rove wanted to do, even they couldn't do; because in the Senate you have to deal with the minority party.
I remain pissed off about losing Public Option. But it was the rules of the Senate that did us in way more than anything else.
Though Kent Conrad, his wuss-ass self...really helped.
If Progressives are are going to crack on the Senate, they better understand why they do what they do. Just screaming at them makes you sound like Republicans.
By which I mean total, and complete idiots.
Frank Schaffer: "The right is irredeemably sick. The left is just silly."
From Frank Schaffer at the Huffington Post:
The Left Is Also Obama's Problem
Can the left learn to keep its mouth shut once in a while? Does the American left know how to win wars or just skirmishes? Does the left want change or does it demand perfection? You can't have both in this life.
No one has been a tougher critic of the Republican Party, the Religious Right and various wing nuts out to destroy the Obama presidency than me. Few ordinary Americans (that I know of) have taken more heat (and hate) for their support of the President than me either. Former right wing religious right leaders like me are never forgiven for joining the reality-based community!
Believe me, with my old "friends" on the right I don't need more enemies! (Just check out Fox News smearing of me last week with insanely out-of-context clips on the O'Reilly Factor lifted and edited from Maddow interviewing me.) So I'm hesitant to knock the left. I guess I don't like the idea of all sides pissed off with me at once. But in the light of how and why the debate over health care is being dominated by the loony right maybe the left is partly to blame for the stalemate on health care reform.
Last week the New York Times noted a lack of enthusiasm on the part of Obama's former foot soldiers when it comes to rising to the occasion and pouring on the support for health care reform. Why the lack of enthusiasm?
It's because the left has made the classic mistake of going for a whole loaf and therefore risking getting nothing. The left has proved itself as impatient as the right and just as shortsighted, given that the lefty sniping at the Obama administration started almost from day one. And now after barely six months in office the people who worked so hard to get him elected have seemingly lost their enthusiasm for another fight on behalf of Obama.
What sapped the yes-we-can optimistic, hope-filled bedrock supporters' will? Who sapped it?
There is a connection between sniping from the left -- the drip, drip, drip of criticism, the demand for instant perfection, be it from those taking shots Obama's economic policy and claiming that the President is in the hip pocket of Wall Street -- and those saying he cut some sort of evil deal with pharmaceutical companies, and the lop-sided "debate" on health care. The right didn't sap anyone's will who voted for Obama. The left shot itself in the foot.
It seems to me that Obama's critics on the left just don't understand governing. If Franklin Roosevelt had had this quality of "support" from his bedrock constituency there would have been no New Deal and we would have never entered the war to defeat fascism. In fact today's left seems to have a death wish of exercising the "right" to snarky frivolity when it's time to get serious.
The American left has a choice: follow our moderately progressive Democrat president and support him when he most needs it most, or allow our whole project to be derailed by the far (increasingly fascist) right. If it is derailed, sure -- the Republicans played a part. But so did the know-it-all left, all because the left's pontificators -- including those right here in the Huffington Post -- would rather be heard than humbly offer their support to our President (or anyone else) and see change actually happen.
Why?
It strikes me that the left suffers from a sort of crazy First Amendment knee-jerk twitch comparable the the right's sick Second Amendment twitch! The right thinks it must collect guns, the left thinks it must express opinions, and damn the real world consequences. Hey, so Obama fails! Well at least I got my say!
The right is irredeemably sick. The left is just silly. Together the silly and the sick may just do us in. If Limbaugh gets his Obama-must-fail wish, look in the mirror.
On the right the election literally broke their racist brains. This is now the day of the old angry white men once again. And how has the left responded? Did we circle the wagons and hang tough with our young black president? No everyone waded in.
The open question is this: Is the left going to be dominated by its talkers or get on with governance that can only happen with near infinite patience and loyal support? Does the left know how to follow a leader and get something done?
Q: "You mean I have to behave like a regular citizen once in a while and let the people I elect do their job?!"
A: If our self-styled free thinkers decide loyalty is beneath them and have forgotten how to compromise and live in the real world, a few election cycles from now the left is going to find itself reduced to screaming down their far right opposition at town hall meetings.
We have a great president. We have a chance for real change and we'd better use it. Sarah Palin and company are waiting in the wings.
My old friends on the far right are counting on the stupidity of right wing white America to believe their lies. They are also counting on the left being so in love with the sound of its own voice that the left can't govern.
How different things would be right now had everyone who voted for President Obama stuck by him and his administration with total determination, and waited until he had a chance to implement -- and test -- his programs, before wading in with the nit-picking.
The left faces the implacable and loony right. The chips are down. Support the President.
The Inherent Selfishness of our National Health Care Debate...
Doing the water cooler ting, and talking to other people (friends, co-workers) about Health Care Reform, has been a horrifying experience. In short, it's been a pain in the ass. All anyone can think about is themselves. Doesn't matter if they're liberal or conservative: "What am I going to lose", "I don't want to lose this", "I don't want to lose that", "I shouldn't have to give up my gold-plated Health Care for someone else", "I don't want anything to change for me."
Jesus.
Me, I'm different. I got Health Care. My workplace is loaded. I can even choose a "gold plated" option should I choose.
Let's be honest, if the Congress puts a Bill containing Public Option in front of the President, he will sign it. Hell, if they put a bill with Single Payer in front of the President, he'll sign that, too.
But neither is going to hit his desk. Why?
It's not the House. The House going to pass real reform. Its not even all the Senate, where the HELP Committee at least voted out the real deal.
It's the Senate Finance Committee, more specifically the gang of six, maybe five Senators from piss-ant small States that are going to dictate what my girl in California can get as far as Health Insurance.
This is Kent Conrad. This is Max Baucus. This is Charles Grassley, and let's be honest, this is my worthless, good for nothing but her own ambitions, Senator Dianne Feinstein (whose office you can't call now to save your life, or even express your opinion.)
I don't think we (and I mean we as progressives) have been honest or fair in this process. On the one hand, we praise President Obama (as a Candidate) for being level and cool headed during the campaign, and then we damn him for not picking more fights when we want him too.
You can't tell me that, because even you don't believe it.
And before anyone says anything about an Independent Uprising, be honest...you and I both know it ain't coming. It's nice to think about. It's nice to threaten. But it's about as likely as Sarah Palin reading a newspaper, or anything else for that matter. Independents need organization to pull that kind of victory off, and organization kinda belies the name Independent.
Face it, we're trapped.
No one likes to think of themselves as trapped, and sure as hell no one likes to accept being trapped, but I don't much of an alternative here.
There's another problem with Health Care Reform. When the President and everyone else on the Democratic Side says (in effect) there's too much good stuff, aside from the Public Option, that demands its passage...face it, they're right.
Can you really tell me that we should lose out on the Insurance Exchange or the elimination of the Pre-Existing Conditions, or the Medicare Subsidies because we couldn't get the Public Option??
Norman Thomas, the head of the Socialist Party in the 1930s, was also the Dennis Kucinich of his times, running four times for President. He also hated Roosevelt's guts. He called the New Deal, cough syrup for a case of pneumonia. He, and other like minded Liberals/Progressives were constantly attacking, berating (at lot of times with just cause) the New Deal for not going far enough.
But the verdict is in on Norman Thomas. The most he ever got was two percent of the vote. Odds are the only way you've heard of him is the fact I just mentioned him now.
The verdict is certainly in on the New Deal (no matter what conservative wingnuts want to believe). Despite it not being perfect, despite it not going far enough, it certainly put us back on the path to recovery.
Now, Obama isn't Roosevelt. The times we face (as bad as they are) don't measure up to the times Roosevelt faced. Maybe the corrective measures can fall a little short, and still do us a world of good. Even though they piss us off in the process.
This is not the Health Care Reform I want. I want the Health Insurance Companies screwed. This is not the Health Care Reform that's going to do what I need it to, and protect who I need it to protect.
But I don't know if I can be selfish enough to say no. And saying no to this is an act of selfishness.
I'd love to punish the Democrats who screwed me, you and the lot of us over, but I don't know if I can be so selfish as to subject this country to a fate worse than the one we've suffered the last eight years.
Because as bad as Bush was, the next generation of Republicans are going to make him look downright...sane by comparsion.
Like I said, trapped.
Me, I'm different. I got Health Care. My workplace is loaded. I can even choose a "gold plated" option should I choose.
But for once, it's not all about me.
There's this girl. She works at a Restaurant in beautiful downtown Burbank, a local family joint. She's one of the 50 million. She doesn't have Health Insurance. She can't afford to pay the going (insane) rates with what she makes.
These is my bona-fides as a supporter of the Public Option, a real Public Option.
In truth, I'm a Single-Payer guy. The Public Option was merely the compromise I was willing to put up with.
Now, that's looking like it's gone.
A Public Option was the only way I could see my girl affording Health Insurance in the near future. No Public Option, and I don't see how she afford Health Insurance once even if President Obama's plan passes.
I don't like this. I don't like where I am. I don't like where we're at. Like most progressives, I resent over the fact that I voted for Obama and the Democratic Slate. I voted for a Platform, yet my voice isn't the one they're listening to.
At the same time, who should really be at blame here? Because I'm about to hear a lot of blame coming the President's way, and the last I checked, the President doesn't pass legislation. Congress does.
There's this girl. She works at a Restaurant in beautiful downtown Burbank, a local family joint. She's one of the 50 million. She doesn't have Health Insurance. She can't afford to pay the going (insane) rates with what she makes.
These is my bona-fides as a supporter of the Public Option, a real Public Option.
In truth, I'm a Single-Payer guy. The Public Option was merely the compromise I was willing to put up with.
Now, that's looking like it's gone.
A Public Option was the only way I could see my girl affording Health Insurance in the near future. No Public Option, and I don't see how she afford Health Insurance once even if President Obama's plan passes.
I don't like this. I don't like where I am. I don't like where we're at. Like most progressives, I resent over the fact that I voted for Obama and the Democratic Slate. I voted for a Platform, yet my voice isn't the one they're listening to.
At the same time, who should really be at blame here? Because I'm about to hear a lot of blame coming the President's way, and the last I checked, the President doesn't pass legislation. Congress does.
Let's be honest, if the Congress puts a Bill containing Public Option in front of the President, he will sign it. Hell, if they put a bill with Single Payer in front of the President, he'll sign that, too.
But neither is going to hit his desk. Why?
Even I know there aren't the votes for Single Payer. The President is right. We're not ready for Single Payer, for whatever reason. Fear has won the day, even though we have Single Payer already in the form of Medicare, and we have Socialized Medicine in the form of the VA.
It's not the House. The House going to pass real reform. Its not even all the Senate, where the HELP Committee at least voted out the real deal.
It's the Senate Finance Committee, more specifically the gang of six, maybe five Senators from piss-ant small States that are going to dictate what my girl in California can get as far as Health Insurance.
This is Kent Conrad. This is Max Baucus. This is Charles Grassley, and let's be honest, this is my worthless, good for nothing but her own ambitions, Senator Dianne Feinstein (whose office you can't call now to save your life, or even express your opinion.)
I don't think we (and I mean we as progressives) have been honest or fair in this process. On the one hand, we praise President Obama (as a Candidate) for being level and cool headed during the campaign, and then we damn him for not picking more fights when we want him too.
On another hand, we praise President Obama for coming up with a better strategy to get Health Care Reform passed, only to change our minds when it doesn't go our way and we start to lose out on Public Option. (And yeah, I think Co-ops, especially ones that involve the Insurance Industry, are frauds.)
Listen, I'm pissed that we may have lost out on the public option just as I was pissed that we had to let Susan Collins water down the Stimulus, just as I was pissed that Byron Dorgan (and others) voted against Mortgage Cram Downs, or the Blue Dogs stalled the bill coming out of Waxman's Committee.
But do you seriously believe that the more logical alternative to what we have now is to have Republicans in control of the House, or the Senate?
Are my fellow Progressives seriously going to tell me that, no matter how many promises he breaks, that a President Santorum, or a President Romney, or God forbid a President Palin is better alternative to a weak-tea President Obama???
Listen, I'm pissed that we may have lost out on the public option just as I was pissed that we had to let Susan Collins water down the Stimulus, just as I was pissed that Byron Dorgan (and others) voted against Mortgage Cram Downs, or the Blue Dogs stalled the bill coming out of Waxman's Committee.
But do you seriously believe that the more logical alternative to what we have now is to have Republicans in control of the House, or the Senate?
Are my fellow Progressives seriously going to tell me that, no matter how many promises he breaks, that a President Santorum, or a President Romney, or God forbid a President Palin is better alternative to a weak-tea President Obama???
You can't tell me that, because even you don't believe it.
And before anyone says anything about an Independent Uprising, be honest...you and I both know it ain't coming. It's nice to think about. It's nice to threaten. But it's about as likely as Sarah Palin reading a newspaper, or anything else for that matter. Independents need organization to pull that kind of victory off, and organization kinda belies the name Independent.
Face it, we're trapped.
No one likes to think of themselves as trapped, and sure as hell no one likes to accept being trapped, but I don't much of an alternative here.
There's another problem with Health Care Reform. When the President and everyone else on the Democratic Side says (in effect) there's too much good stuff, aside from the Public Option, that demands its passage...face it, they're right.
Can you really tell me that we should lose out on the Insurance Exchange or the elimination of the Pre-Existing Conditions, or the Medicare Subsidies because we couldn't get the Public Option??
Norman Thomas, the head of the Socialist Party in the 1930s, was also the Dennis Kucinich of his times, running four times for President. He also hated Roosevelt's guts. He called the New Deal, cough syrup for a case of pneumonia. He, and other like minded Liberals/Progressives were constantly attacking, berating (at lot of times with just cause) the New Deal for not going far enough.
But the verdict is in on Norman Thomas. The most he ever got was two percent of the vote. Odds are the only way you've heard of him is the fact I just mentioned him now.
The verdict is certainly in on the New Deal (no matter what conservative wingnuts want to believe). Despite it not being perfect, despite it not going far enough, it certainly put us back on the path to recovery.
Now, Obama isn't Roosevelt. The times we face (as bad as they are) don't measure up to the times Roosevelt faced. Maybe the corrective measures can fall a little short, and still do us a world of good. Even though they piss us off in the process.
This is not the Health Care Reform I want. I want the Health Insurance Companies screwed. This is not the Health Care Reform that's going to do what I need it to, and protect who I need it to protect.
But I don't know if I can be selfish enough to say no. And saying no to this is an act of selfishness.
I'd love to punish the Democrats who screwed me, you and the lot of us over, but I don't know if I can be so selfish as to subject this country to a fate worse than the one we've suffered the last eight years.
Because as bad as Bush was, the next generation of Republicans are going to make him look downright...sane by comparsion.
Like I said, trapped.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Flash! HuffPo Headline Writers remain full of !@#%...
HuffPo's Political Page writes the following:
Note: There is no attending article, just a direct link to Nate's analysis.
Nate Silver: There's Ample Reason For Dems To Be 'Deeply' Worried About 2010
Note: There is no attending article, just a direct link to Nate's analysis.
Oh, how I wished the Headline Writers actually...you know...read the damn article. In it, Nate says there is a reason to be worried, but...
Is it possible that the electorate which is voting in November 2010 will be so down on the Democrats that they trust Republicans more on issues like these? Sure, it is possible -- if the enthusiasm gap is wide enough, if Obama's approval is low enough, if the health care debate has been bungled enough, and if the economy is still hemorrhaging jobs. But I'd consider it something of a worst-case scenario. That's probably the best way to regard these Rasmussen polls for the time being.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
The Fireside chat for August 15, 2009
Remarks of President Barack ObamaWeekly AddressSaturday, August 15th, 2009
This week, I’ve been traveling across our country to discuss health insurance reform and to hear directly from folks like you – your questions, your concerns, and your stories.
Now, I know there’s been a lot of attention paid to some of the town hall meetings that are going on around the country, especially those where tempers have flared. You know how TV loves a ruckus.
But what you haven’t seen – because it’s not as exciting – are the many constructive meetings going on all over the country where Americans are airing their hopes and concerns about this very important issue.
I’ve been holding some of my own, and the stories I’ve heard have really underscored why I believe so strongly that health insurance reform is a challenge we can't ignore.
They’re stories like Lori Hitchcock’s, who I met in New Hampshire this week. Lori’s got a pre-existing condition, so no insurance company will cover her. She’s self-employed, and in this economy, she can’t find a job that offers health care, so she’s been uninsured for two years.
Or they’re stories like Katie Gibson’s, who I met in Montana. When Katie tried to change insurance companies, she was sure to list her pre-existing conditions on the application and even called her new company to confirm she’d be covered. Two months later, she was dropped – after she’d already gone off her other insurance.
These are the stories that aren’t being told – stories of a health care system that works better for the insurance industry than it does for the American people. And that’s why we’re going to pass health insurance reform that finally holds the insurance companies accountable.
But now’s the hard part. Because the history is clear – every time we come close to passing health insurance reform, the special interests with a stake in the status quo use their influence and political allies to scare and mislead the American people.
As an example, let’s look at one of the scarier-sounding and more ridiculous rumors out there – that so-called "death panels" would decide whether senior citizens get to live or die. That rumor began with the distortion of one idea in a Congressional bill that would allow Medicare to cover voluntary visits with your doctor to discuss your end-of-life care – if and only if you decide to have those visits. It had nothing to do with putting government in control of your decisions; in fact, it would give you all the information you need – if you want it – to put you in control of your decisions. When a conservative Republican Senator who has long-fought for even more far-reaching proposals found out how folks were twisting the idea, he called their misrepresentation, and I quote, "nuts."
So when folks with a stake in the status quo keep inventing these boogeymen in an effort to scare people, it’s disappointing, but it’s not surprising. We’ve seen it before. When President Roosevelt was working to create Social Security, opponents warned it would open the door to "federal snooping" and force Americans to wear dog tags. When President Kennedy and President Johnson were working to create Medicare, opponents warned of "socialized medicine." Sound familiar? Not only were those fears never realized, but more importantly, those programs have saved the lives of tens of millions of seniors, the disabled, and the disadvantaged.
Those who would stand in the way of reform will say almost anything to scare you about the cost of action. But they won’t say much about the cost of inaction. If you’re worried about rationed care, higher costs, denied coverage, or bureaucrats getting between you and your doctor, then you should know that’s what’s happening right now. In the past three years, over 12 million Americans were discriminated against by insurance companies due to a preexisting condition, or saw their coverage denied or dropped just when they got sick and needed it most. Americans whose jobs and health care are secure today just don’t know if they’ll be next to join the 14,000 who lose their health insurance every single day. And if we don’t act, average family premiums will keep rising to more than $22,000 within a decade.
On the other hand, here’s what reform will mean for you.
First, no matter what you’ve heard, if you like your doctor or health care plan, you can keep it. If you don’t have insurance, you’ll finally be able to afford insurance. And everyone will have the security and stability that’s missing today.
Insurance companies will be prohibited from denying you coverage because of your medical history, dropping your coverage if you get sick, or watering down your coverage when it counts – because there’s no point in having health insurance if it’s not there when you need it.
Insurance companies will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or lifetime, and we will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses – because no one in America should go broke just because they get sick.
Finally, we’ll require insurance companies to cover routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies – because there’s no reason we shouldn’t be saving lives and dollars by catching diseases like breast cancer and prostate cancer on the front end.
That’s what reform means. For all the chatter and the noise out there, what every American needs to know is this: If you don’t have health insurance, you will finally have quality, affordable options once we pass reform. If you do have health insurance, we will make sure that no insurance company or government bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need. And we will deliver this in a fiscally responsible way.
I know there’s plenty of real concern and skepticism out there. I know that in a time of economic upheaval, the idea of change can be unsettling, and I know that there are folks who believe that government should have no role at all in solving our problems. These are legitimate differences worthy of the real discussion that America deserves – one where we lower our voices, listen to one another, and talk about differences that really exist. Because while there may be disagreements over how to go about it, there is widespread agreement on the urgent need to reform a broken system and finally hold insurance companies accountable.
Nearly fifty years ago, in the midst of the noisy early battles to create what would become Medicare, President Kennedy said, "I refuse to see us live on the accomplishments of another generation. I refuse to see this country, and all of us, shrink from these struggles which are our responsibility in our time." Now it falls to us to meet the challenges of our time. And if we can come together, and listen to one another; I believe, as I always have, that we will rise to this moment, we will build something better for our children, and we will secure America’s future in this new century.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Salon: Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) says no to a Public Option??
...or...not.
Between GOP Reps saying possibly saying yes, and Democratic Senator's possibly saying no, it's been a confusing day.
Between GOP Reps saying possibly saying yes, and Democratic Senator's possibly saying no, it's been a confusing day.
There was some excitement on the Internet Friday evening because of a report that Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., told a roomful of his constituents Thursday that he won't vote for a bill with a public option.
If true, that story -- originally published by the Jamestown Sun, a local paper -- would be a big deal. First of all, that's one less Democratic vote for healthcare reform, and with a filibuster almost certainly on the horizon, supporters need all the votes they can get, and would have to pick up a Republican to make up for Conrad's defection. Second, the senator has been the driving force behind a co-op plan as an alternative to the public option, but has thus far explained his position as arising from a sense that the public option simply can't get 60 votes -- this would be a pretty dramatic shift.
Turns out, though, that it's not true. The Sun's story never quoted Conrad directly about the public option, and the senator's communications director, Sean Neary, told Salon that the story was inaccurate. Conrad has been telling his constituents that he won't let the government run their health care, which may be the cause of the confusion, but that language doesn't preclude the public option.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
MSNBC: Katy Abram is a moron...
First off, let me be clear. MSNBC didn't call her a moron.
I did.
MSNBC is just the source of the story.
Doesn't know how much her family makes. Her husband "takes care of the finances".
Prefers a Health Savings Account with a $5000.00 deductible.
Says she wants to keep that choice.
Why is she hell-bent on keeping me from mine??
Why is she hell-bent on keeping 50 Million Americans from getting Health Insurance?
Ed Schultz says these people are dumber than Joe the Plumber.
He's right.
For someone willing to get int he face of her Senator, she seems unwilling to stand by any of her principles. Guess we can add coward to the many adjectives I'd use in describing her.
Let's get rid of Social Security and Medicare since they're things the Founders never intended.
Founders also intended for there to be Slavery. I wonder how Ms. Abrhams feels about that.
I did.
MSNBC is just the source of the story.
Doesn't know how much her family makes. Her husband "takes care of the finances".
Prefers a Health Savings Account with a $5000.00 deductible.
Says she wants to keep that choice.
Why is she hell-bent on keeping me from mine??
Why is she hell-bent on keeping 50 Million Americans from getting Health Insurance?
Ed Schultz says these people are dumber than Joe the Plumber.
He's right.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
For someone willing to get int he face of her Senator, she seems unwilling to stand by any of her principles. Guess we can add coward to the many adjectives I'd use in describing her.
Let's get rid of Social Security and Medicare since they're things the Founders never intended.
Founders also intended for there to be Slavery. I wonder how Ms. Abrhams feels about that.
TPM: Maryland Man detained by the Secret Service...
From TPM (and AP):
The Secret Service is investigating a man who authorities said held a sign reading "Death to Obama" outside a town hall meeting on health-care reform in western Maryland.
The sign also read, "Death to Michelle and her two stupid kids," referring to the first name of President Barack Obama's wife, said Washington County Sheriff's Capt. Peter Lazich.
Lazich said deputies detained the unidentified, 51-year-old man near the entrance to Hagerstown Community College about 1 p.m. Wednesday after getting calls from a number of people attending the meeting held by Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md. Obama was not at the meeting.
TPM: PhRMA and AMA...to the rescue?!!??!
In truth, part of me is glad, part of me is terrified.
It's kinda like in Mummy 3 (which I missed) when the heroes are getting attacked by a horde of Mummies, only to be rescued by another horde of Mummies.
It's kinda like in Mummy 3 (which I missed) when the heroes are getting attacked by a horde of Mummies, only to be rescued by another horde of Mummies.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
The Daily Show: Larry Wilmore let's you know its okay...
Obama is post-racial. We're not.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Reform Madness - White Minority | ||||
| ||||
The Daily Show: Interview with Austan Goolsbee (Complete and Unedited) (VIDEO)
Part 1:
Part 2:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Exclusive - Austan Goolsbee Extended Interview Pt. 1 | ||||
| ||||
Part 2:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Exclusive - Austan Goolsbee Unedited Extended Pt. 2 | ||||
| ||||
CNN: "N---a David Scott" (VIDEO)
Again, where are the Conservatives (all of whom may have real, and honest problems with the Health Care Reform Bill) pushing back against this crap??? I hear drips and drabs, but nothing with any force. Too many seem content with letting this play out for political effect, where you can now this, this is becoming deadly serious.
MSNBC: Carlos Watson has a point.... (VIDEO)
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
I'd like to congratulate the mainstream media for helping to purvey racism... (VIDEO)
Okay, compare and contrast time. You have to watch both videos to get the full, happy effect.
Yesterday at Senator Claire McCaskill's Town Hall, we were shown a Black woman shown being taken away by Police (and the audience cheering happily as it happens) on CNN for all the Nation to see.
Senator McCaskill (D-MO) went so far as to blame the women for "carrying signs that shouldn't have had them."
Problem.
It's not exactly what happened.
Someone was to blame.
It just wasn't those black women.
What you're seeing (and the tiny-tiny caption embedded in the video describes the action) is that one of the Black women in question had her poster out (apparently of Rosa Parks), then put it away
A local Reporter come by to ask about-slash-take a photo of saidposter, and that's when a random White Man from the audience feels its his right to take this woman's property from her, walk back his seat, and crumple it up.
After he sat down, is when CNN started paying attention.
But I didn't see this on CNN, did I?
I didn't see the white man who started it, being taken away by the Cops on CNN. (Now, granted, perhaps there was some cheering for him getting taken away as well, but that's not how CNN presented it.)
I haven't heard a retraction from Senator McCaskill, have I?
UPDATE (10:48am Pacific): I almost forgot. Laura Dean at Huffington Post was the first to spot this, and deserves maximum credit for this story.
Yesterday at Senator Claire McCaskill's Town Hall, we were shown a Black woman shown being taken away by Police (and the audience cheering happily as it happens) on CNN for all the Nation to see.
Senator McCaskill (D-MO) went so far as to blame the women for "carrying signs that shouldn't have had them."
Problem.
It's not exactly what happened.
Someone was to blame.
It just wasn't those black women.
What you're seeing (and the tiny-tiny caption embedded in the video describes the action) is that one of the Black women in question had her poster out (apparently of Rosa Parks), then put it away
A local Reporter come by to ask about-slash-take a photo of saidposter, and that's when a random White Man from the audience feels its his right to take this woman's property from her, walk back his seat, and crumple it up.
After he sat down, is when CNN started paying attention.
But I didn't see this on CNN, did I?
I didn't see the white man who started it, being taken away by the Cops on CNN. (Now, granted, perhaps there was some cheering for him getting taken away as well, but that's not how CNN presented it.)
I haven't heard a retraction from Senator McCaskill, have I?
UPDATE (10:48am Pacific): I almost forgot. Laura Dean at Huffington Post was the first to spot this, and deserves maximum credit for this story.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
The Threat Matrix for August 12, 2009 (VIDEO)
Because if I did nothing but blog about threats related to Health Care Town Halls, I wouldn't have time to do anything else.
Think Progress (August 11, 2009): New Hampshire right-wing protestor suggests sending ‘illegals’ home with a ‘bullet in their head.’
Think Progress (August 12, 2009): Second Congressman gets the Joker Death-threat Fax.
TPM (August 12, 2009): Despite the kook who was packing heat on "Church" grounds, a man was arrested by Portsmouth Police for carrying weapons onto the grounds of the school where Obama held his Town Hall.
TPM (August 12, 2009): Congressman Dennis Moore (D-KS) has gotten two death threats over the Health Care Bill.
The Hill (August 12, 2009): Congressman Gene Greene (D-TX) is going to require I.D. at all his Health Care Town Halls.
Think Progress (August 11, 2009): New Hampshire right-wing protestor suggests sending ‘illegals’ home with a ‘bullet in their head.’
Think Progress (August 12, 2009): Second Congressman gets the Joker Death-threat Fax.
TPM (August 12, 2009): Despite the kook who was packing heat on "Church" grounds, a man was arrested by Portsmouth Police for carrying weapons onto the grounds of the school where Obama held his Town Hall.
Police said a man arrested at the scene of President Barack Obama's visit to the city Tuesday was found to be in possession of an unlicensed loaded gun.
Richard Terry Young, 62, of 821 Ocean Blvd. in Hampton, was arrested around 9:40 a.m., hours before Obama's arrival, and charged with the misdemeanor crimes of criminal trespass and carrying a loaded pistol without a license.
TPM (August 12, 2009): Congressman Dennis Moore (D-KS) has gotten two death threats over the Health Care Bill.
Moore told the Fox affiliate in Kansas City that he has received two separate threats in the last ten days. Moore also said that because of the threats, and because of the examples he's seen from other members' town halls, he won't be hold any town halls himself.
The Hill (August 12, 2009): Congressman Gene Greene (D-TX) is going to require I.D. at all his Health Care Town Halls.
A Texas congressman, worried about disruptions at his town halls, wants to weed out people who want to attend but don't live in his district.
Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas) has announced on his website that he will require attendees to show photo identification to get into his town halls to prove that they're his constituents. He said that he's doing so in response to a "coordinated effort to disrupt our town hall meetings."
MSNBC: "A goddamn gun..." (VIDEO)
Chris Matthews' interview with the whack job who brought a gun to Obama's Town Hall in New Hampshire.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
MSNBC: Someone bought a gun to the Obama Town Hall (VIDEO)
Losing patience.
I want to know more about this alleged church. What the hell are these fools about?
Also, this guy...has an earpiece. (Look at the video). An earpiece in and of itself means nothing, but is MSNBC sure that this guy isn't Secret Service? Amongst the Teabaggers would be a place where I would station an agent.
UPDATE 2:11pm Pacific: Never mind. The guy's on Hardball. He's not Secret Service, he's just a right-wing douchebag.
But if this story is correct, what the hell. At our Code Pink worst, Liberals weren't packing heat to Anti-War Rallies.
A man carried a handgun strapped to his leg to a town hall meeting being held by President Obama in Portsmouth, New Hampshire on Tuesday.
It's legal for him to have the gun as long as it is unconcealed, the police told MSNBC. The man was on private property -- church ground on the roadway leading to the high school where Obama would speak. The church gave the man permission to be there. However, according to police officers, he is under constant surveillance and is not anywhere near where the president.
I want to know more about this alleged church. What the hell are these fools about?
UPDATE 2:11pm Pacific: Never mind. The guy's on Hardball. He's not Secret Service, he's just a right-wing douchebag.
But if this story is correct, what the hell. At our Code Pink worst, Liberals weren't packing heat to Anti-War Rallies.
Think Progress: Black Congressman has office vandalized (VIDEO)
Stories like this are coming in buckets:
At a contentious town hall meeting last week, Rep. David Scott (D-GA) shot back at the protesters who were disrupting his event by accusing them of “hijack[ing]” the gathering. Now, Scott’s district office in Smyrna, GA, has been vandalized with a four-foot swastika painted onto his door. Fox News reported that Capitol Hill police will likely be launching an investigation immediately.
TPM: Tussle breaks out at Specter Town Hall...this morning (VIDEO)
From Huffington Post:
Senator Arlen Specter, (D-Penn.) faced an overwhelmingly hostile crowd on Tuesday, with attendees at a town hall forum challenging him with a host of deeply cynical and occasionally erroneous allegations about the president's health care agenda.
One man threatened the senator with God's wrath. "One day, God's gonna stand before you," he said. "And he's gonna judge you and the rest of your damn cronies up on the Hill, and then you can get your just deserts."
Monday, August 10, 2009
Raw Story: "So what? This is America!"
Listener to Right Wing Radio Station, calls in, and allegedly says this (allegedly, because we have only another Listeners word for it):
The Host of the show, Bob Haa, then allegedly says this:
Mr. Haa got himself a visit from the Secret Service today.
Good.
Tape from the show, surprise, surprise...is unavailable.
Of course, he denies saying anything wrong. But what if he did, he says:
Further and further over the edge, we go.
Man, I'm ticked and frustrated at Obama, I'm loading up on ammunition, I'm going to be practicing.
The Host of the show, Bob Haa, then allegedly says this:
Don't be wasting it on targets. Save it for the administration.
Mr. Haa got himself a visit from the Secret Service today.
Good.
Tape from the show, surprise, surprise...is unavailable.
Of course, he denies saying anything wrong. But what if he did, he says:
"What if I actually had said that?" he asked. "So what? This is America!"
Further and further over the edge, we go.
Into the fire...
August 11th, my Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA29) is having himself a Town Hall on Health Care.
I will be there...camera in hand to document any craziness I see (should that prove necessary).
Just because it's a Blue District, doesn't mean there won't be insanity.
In fact, it might guarantee it.
I will be there...camera in hand to document any craziness I see (should that prove necessary).
Just because it's a Blue District, doesn't mean there won't be insanity.
In fact, it might guarantee it.
The Hill: Another threat...
...and this one has to involve the Secret Service.
The Secret Service may investigate a fax sent to a Democratic lawmaker that depicts President Barack Obama as the Joker and warns of “death to all Marxists.”
The black-and-white fax portrays Obama in makeup similar to that worn by actor Heath Ledger in his portrayal of the Joker in last summer’s “The Dark Knight.”
On Obama’s forehead is a communist hammer-and-sickle insignia, and beneath the image is the text: “Death to All Marxists! Foreign and Domestic!”
Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.) received the fax and passed it along to U.S. Capitol Police.
This would be the second threat made in relation to a Congressman (the first was against Brad Miller of North Carolina) and the Health Care Town Halls. This is the first time it's involved the President.
TPM: There was also a gun at Rep. Steve Cohen's Town Hall event ...
Gabrielle Giffords, apparently, is not alone.
What's truly sad is that for me (and I think a majority of African-Americans) is we know who these people are. We always have. We know the true nature of the protests, and what sort of person is behind these threats, always escalating the rhetoric and the threat of violence...
...and it's not mainstream Republicans.
Mainstream Republicans merely don't like the bill.
Mainstream Republicans are not willing to kill over the bill.
But the real problem is that too many mainstream Republicans are willing to let this slide, to take advantage, to let others to push the envelope in order to score political points.
Just so you know, Congressman Cohen...is a friggin' Doctor. I heard him on the Randi Rhodes show this (August 10, 2009) afternoon, and I gotta give him credit. He called this for what it is: racism, and the fear of some people that their world is changing.
What's truly sad is that for me (and I think a majority of African-Americans) is we know who these people are. We always have. We know the true nature of the protests, and what sort of person is behind these threats, always escalating the rhetoric and the threat of violence...
...and it's not mainstream Republicans.
Mainstream Republicans merely don't like the bill.
Mainstream Republicans are not willing to kill over the bill.
But the real problem is that too many mainstream Republicans are willing to let this slide, to take advantage, to let others to push the envelope in order to score political points.
Following a tense town hall meeting by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) in Memphis over the weekend, local TV reported that one attendee was packing heat and had been escorted from the room -- which if true, would be a dramatic escalation in the increasingly confrontational health care debate. However, TPMDC has learned that there was not in fact any threat made, nor was it a cause for immediate alarm in its full context.
While one attendee did indeed possess a firearm, he did so in accordance with the state's conceal and carry laws, and was fully cooperative when asked to take it to his car due to a no-guns rule for the meeting.
"The gun issue was handled before the meeting," Shelby County Sheriff's Department spokesman Steve Shular told TPM. The audience was asked at the beginning whether anybody had a gun. One man replied that, yes, he was carrying a gun. He was told to leave it in his car for the meeting, and then did so. An officer followed him to his car, made sure that his permit was in order, and he was then allowed to re-enter the event.
Just so you know, Congressman Cohen...is a friggin' Doctor. I heard him on the Randi Rhodes show this (August 10, 2009) afternoon, and I gotta give him credit. He called this for what it is: racism, and the fear of some people that their world is changing.
The very definition of Irony... (VIDEO)
Right Wing Activist goes to SEIU sponsored Health Care Town Hall.
Right Wing Activist helps start fight at said SEIU sponsored Health Care Town Hall.
Right Wing Activist gets hurt at said SEIU sponsored Health Care Town Hall.
And now, guess what??
Said Right Wing Activist needs help paying his Medical Bills because...you guessed it...he just got laid off, and now doesn't have Health Insurance.
Right Wing Activist helps start fight at said SEIU sponsored Health Care Town Hall.
Right Wing Activist gets hurt at said SEIU sponsored Health Care Town Hall.
And now, guess what??
Said Right Wing Activist needs help paying his Medical Bills because...you guessed it...he just got laid off, and now doesn't have Health Insurance.
HuffPo: Someone dropped their gun at an Arizona Town Hall.
Getting closer and closer to the abyss.
Town hall disruptions around the country have led to some outbreaks of violence. Unions participating in town halls have received death threats. At an event held by Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) last week, the threat of violence led her aides to call the police after one attendee dropped a gun.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
The Fireside chat for August 8, 2009
As we draw close to finalizing - and passing - real health insurance reform, the defenders of the status quo and political point-scorers in Washington are growing fiercer in their opposition. In recent days and weeks, some have been using misleading information to defeat what they know is the best chance of reform we have ever had. That is why it is important, especially now, as Senators and Representatives head home and meet with their constituents, for you, the American people, to have all the facts.
So, let me explain what reform will mean for you. And let me start by dispelling the outlandish rumors that reform will promote euthanasia, cut Medicaid, or bring about a government takeover of health care. That's simply not true. This isn't about putting government in charge of your health insurance; it's about putting you in charge of your health insurance. Under the reforms we seek, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Countdown: Jonathan Alter says some things we may not want to hear...
The whole interview is good, but the stuff I'm talking about (how we Liberals shouldn't be so wedded to a particular version of the Public Option) starts at the 8:08 mark.
ALTER: Well, there has to be some kind of cooperative, maybe what they call a souped-up cooperative, one that can actually withstand pressure from insurance companies which in the past have taken something like BlueCross, which is originally nonprofit and turned it into just another insurance company. So, the problem with the co-op idea is that it-they have been putty in the hands of the insurance company.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
ALTER: Well, there has to be some kind of cooperative, maybe what they call a souped-up cooperative, one that can actually withstand pressure from insurance companies which in the past have taken something like BlueCross, which is originally nonprofit and turned it into just another insurance company. So, the problem with the co-op idea is that it-they have been putty in the hands of the insurance company.
But there still is room for compromise there. They could design a new kind of co-op that could provide some real competition.
OLBERMANN: Yes.
ALTER: It could be essentially a public-private option that satisfies enough people to get something through.
So, I don't think liberals should go, you know, public option or bust. There are other alternatives and you have to remember that there are many, many important things in this bill that have become almost non-controversial that two years ago, if you'd been told they're going to-they're going to end discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions, they're going to insure another 30 million Americans, we say, "Great, where do we sign up?"
And now, some progressives are-maybe a little bit too wed to the public option. Even though, my favorite, too, but we shouldn't go down with the ship, with the public option.
Lawrence O'Donnell: In defense of...Lobbyists??
I really wanted to show the video on this, but The Ed Show's MSNBC Website isn't as well set up as the other shows yet.
Guest Host Lawrence O'Donnell gave us a treatise on how Washington actually works, as opposed to how we'd all like it to work, or how we fear it works.
In the Washington of Lawrence O'Donnell's day (and remember he was the Chief of Staff for the Senate Finance Committee, working for its chair Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, the same position Max Baucus holds now); Lobbyists weren't the enemy.
When I went to work in the Senate, I thought most lobbyists were criminals like the most infamous of them all, Jack Abramoff. But I was wrong.
In those pre-Abramoff days, none of them were that bad. Some of them surely were criminals at heart, but they feared the law too much to break it and there was way too much money to be made perfectly legally to ever risk jail time.I was chief of staff of two Senate committees back then, first Environment and Public Works, then the all-powerful Finance Committee.
Environment and Public Works is an odd mix of jurisdictions, basically protecting the environment and billing highways, courthouses, and order federal buildings. If you wanted to protect wetlands or an endangered species, of if your company poured concrete, your lobbyists desperately needed to see me.
Lobbyists for the biggest construction companies in the country tried to talk their way onto my schedule all the time. And when I moved to the Finance Committee in 1993, every lobbyist in town needed to see me because the committee's jurisdiction is so vast.
The corridor outside my office in the Dirksen Senate Office Building is actually known as "Gucci Gulch," because it's constantly patrolled by lobbyists.
My own sleaziest encounter with a lobbyist occurred in my Finance Committee office. One lobbyist who I didn't know somehow got 15 minutes on my schedule to describe the unbearable suffering AIG was being forced to endure because of some corporate tax provision or other that he wanted to get repealed or amended or something such. I feigned interest, I nodded a lot, maybe even led a hint of sympathy into my eyes and said nothing. If he told his masters that I was anything but noncommittal, he was lying.
The next day, one of our staff rushed into the office. She had just opened an envelope addressed to me and was shaking as she handed it to me.
It was from the AIG lobbyist, a letter thanking me for the meeting, and a check made out to my boss' reelection campaign. I would not even use a sheet of Senate stationery to reply.
Instead, I hand-wrote a very harshly-worded version of, "How dare you?"-and that's cleaning it up-on the lobbyist's letter and sent it back to him with that check. I didn't have to check with my boss, the late New York Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan, to know that is what he would want me to do. He was always impervious to the influence of campaign contributions and ran his campaigns on one-tenth the amounts that his successor, Hillary Clinton, raised to win his seat.
There are honorable lobbyists. I dealt with them every day. By "honorable lobbyists," I do not mean only those who do pro bono lobbying for charities or the underpaid lobbyists working for environmental groups. When a giant corporation, let's say Kodak, sends its very high-priced lobbyist to see you, to talk about how Fuji is subverting international trade agreements, you listen, because Kodak is the last manufacturer of film left in the United States, and the single biggest employer in Rochester, New York.
Yes, Kodak's lobbyists are trying to protect corporate profits, but they are also trying to protect American jobs and save Rochester from becoming a ghost town. Only the most zealous Marxist could fail to see the honor in that lobbying campaign.
Good lobbyists tell you something you don't know, like why teaching hospitals need more money for doctor training. They then tell you what they think you should do about it, how to pay for it, and most important, who opposes it and why. They know their opposition is going to be lobbying you too, so they don't say anything that can be proved wrong in your next meeting. And they don't promise their clients that they will always get what they want.
There are not enough Congressional staffers to keep track of the hundreds of thousands of complex issues under federal jurisdiction. Good government needs good lobbyists.
Our defense against the toxic mix of bad lobbyists and campaign cash, it always comes down to the people we vote for.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP. What follows is a clip of Laurence's former show, The West Wing, featuring Alan Alda playing Senator Arnold Vinick, and Patricia Richardson playing Shelia Brooks:)
SHELIA BROOKS: Now these energy guys that are going to be there tonight, obviously they're going to want to hear how you're voting on the energy deregulation bill.
SENATOR VINICK: Well, it depends on what is in it when it comes out of committee.
SHELIA BROOKS: Sends a very bad message to the big contributors if you vote against it.
SENATOR VINICK: Hey, if you can't drink their booze, take their money and then vote against them, you don't belong in this business.(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'DONNELL: Yes, "The West Wing" was a fictional universe, but I would not have written that scene if I never saw senators let lobbyists make their cases, contribute money to their campaigns, and then vote against them.
There is a massive amount of special-interest money from the health care industry sloshing around in the campaign coffer of our senators and Congressmen as they consider health care reform legislation. Let's just hope that enough of them still know how to take the lobbyists' money and vote against them.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
TPM/WaPo: "Abandoning All Pretense" (VIDEO)
This is from back to back stories on TPM. One featured Video from the apparent melee in Tampa at the Health Care Town Hall, and another is a column from tomorrow's Washington Post courtesy Steve Pearlstein. Juxtaposing these two items seemed most apt, especially in reflection of the death threats made to Rep. Brad Miller yesterday, and the sick jokes made at Sen. Chris Dodd's expense.
If by some miracle, you are reading this, and you are of a Conservative bent, someone who has a fundamental political disagreement with the President over this Health Care Legislation passed, I say, go to the Town Halls. I'm a Liberal, and that's totally cool. That's kind of the idea of Representative Democracy. Go for it. Represent your point of view. Ask tough questions. I actually encourage this behavior; so do your Congress-people.
But there is a line here, and too many people on your side of the aisle are only too happy to cross it.
You don't have to get nasty. You don't have to get violent, and you sure as hell don't have to shut down the meeting for everyone else. There are undecided people out there with questions of their own. Do you really think you're convincing them to take your side in this??
The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage. By poisoning the political well, they've given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. They've become political terrorists, willing to say or do anything to prevent the country from reaching a consensus on one of its most serious domestic problems.
If by some miracle, you are reading this, and you are of a Conservative bent, someone who has a fundamental political disagreement with the President over this Health Care Legislation passed, I say, go to the Town Halls. I'm a Liberal, and that's totally cool. That's kind of the idea of Representative Democracy. Go for it. Represent your point of view. Ask tough questions. I actually encourage this behavior; so do your Congress-people.
But there is a line here, and too many people on your side of the aisle are only too happy to cross it.
You don't have to get nasty. You don't have to get violent, and you sure as hell don't have to shut down the meeting for everyone else. There are undecided people out there with questions of their own. Do you really think you're convincing them to take your side in this??
What's going on here is dishonest, and dangerous both politically and societally. And for that some of the people in the Tampa video should be in jail.
And some of this stuff is just not @$@$%ing funny. We are on the razor's edge here people, because like I said...the Union folks are coming. We can either have a Health Care debate or an arms race between two motivated and pissed off camps. What's it going to be?
And some of this stuff is just not @$@$%ing funny. We are on the razor's edge here people, because like I said...the Union folks are coming. We can either have a Health Care debate or an arms race between two motivated and pissed off camps. What's it going to be?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)