With all due respect to Karen Tumulty...

I posted a question on the reply board to Karen Tumulty's recent piece on Doris Kearns Goodwin worthless (in my mind) idea to "make 'em filibuster". Ms Tumulty was good enough to answer. Thus I happily apologize for calling her a moron earlier.

That being said, I still think she's dead-ass wrong, and I'm not sure what world she's living in.

I shall endeavor to recreate the exchange I had on the board:

ADMIRALMPJ (which would be me):

Karen,

Explain to me where Senators get to stand up and talk, when these bills are getting killed and/or yanked during cloture votes?

Explain to me how Ryan Grim's article is inaccurate. Simply saying it is, is at best disingenuous. If you have a point, make it.


KAREN TUMULTY:

What almost always happens in the face of a Fake Filibuster is that the Majority (in this case, Democratic) leadership concedes defeat and takes its own bill down. What they would have to do (as Byrd did on campaign finance in 1988) is refuse to take the bill off the floor, and then put a quorum (51 senators) on the floor, so that the filibuster-er can't "suggest the absence of a quorum."

This is how you get around this problem suggested in the Huffpost piece:

As both Reid's memo and Dove explain, only one Republican would need to monitor the Senate floor. If the majority party tried to move to a vote, he could simply say, "I suggest the absence of a quorum."

...

Again, you may ultimately lose (as Byrd did), but you do get a chance to expose obstructionism for what it is. For the record, I felt this way when the Republicans were in charge, too. My first beat in Washington was Capitol Hill, and I have a lot of admiration for the legislative process. Unfortunately, as years have gone by, I have noticed that fewer and fewer legislators do.


ADMIRALMPJ

Karen,

What you wrote is clearer, but I still need one more thing clarified:

So, the Senate puts up HCR. It fails on a Cloture vote, lets say 51-49. It's not yanked by Reid, we do what Byrd did, and we being a process where we keep 51 Senators on the floor, waiting for what? A moment where there isn't quorum? That's what I wasn't clear on.


KAREN TUMULTY

If you really think that the public is behind you, and really wants the legislation that is being blocked, you go out and make the case for it. And then you trust the voters (here's the Mr. Smith model, though he was the filibuster-er, but you get what I mean...) to put pressure on the people who are blocking it. The point here is to make your case, and trust that if you are right, the other guys are going to feel the heat.

I see what she's talking about. There is something you can do, but I (little more respectfully this time) still vehemently disagree with her.

Even Karen admits that there isn't a way forward should you stick to your guns as she suggests. While I would love to see the visuals of Republicans (and more than a few Democrats) blocking reform, the simple fact of the matter is if you (the Pro Reform side) stick to your guns and the antis stick to theirs...the Legislation dies anyway. In a results oriented culture...last I checked that still counts as a loss.

I subscribe to the central Nancy Pelosi basic philosophy. You have a bill. You whip the votes . Once you have the numbers on your side, you have a vote. I think that's how even the Senate is operating

I'm not a big fan of losing noble battles...which is were I diverge from a lot of my fellow progressives. Karen Tumulty's ideas, and thus Doris Kearn Goodwin's ideas, and Governor Ed Rendell's ideas do provide compelling visuals, they do put the Republicans and Conservadems on the spot...

...but they don't produce a damn bill.

Answering the Beige One...

This deals with another blog (the Savvy, The Extreme, the Idealist) I occasionally post on. It might sound repetitive to my three regular readers.

There was a quote in the beige one’s recent post that got my attention and I wanted to answer:

Mr. President, during the State of the Union address, you said that you didn’t choose to tackle the health care reform issue just to get a legislative victory under your belt. I believe you, but can you tell me how taking someone that is unemployed, or maybe is employed, but still can’t afford decent health insurance and making them buy some kind of policy from the very insurance companies that have screwed us in the past; how is this not capitulation? How do you go from the Public Option (and you did campaign on the Public Option) to trigger plans and not see that as dispiriting for the people who voted for you?

I must call up a post I made on here earlier today:

Reforming Health Care is more complicated than what the beige one is making it out to be in his statement. This is why the Democratic solution doesn't fit on an effing bumper sticker. Short of ripping everything up and installing a Single Payer Plan (which is my preferred choice – but good luck getting the votes for that in either chamber), you’re going to be surprised at what choices you have to do reform the system.

And by the way, I’ll get to the beige one’s unemployed dude in a minute. But to debate his point, I have to go to the beginning.

First, you start off with the concept of Universal Coverage. At its core, this is what we all want. Of course, since you want everyone to have access to the system, you have start with ending the ban on pre-existing conditions. This is just basic. Everyone loves this. It polls great.

But, if you end the ban of pre-existing conditions, what happens? Well, sick people who couldn’t previously get insurance will jump into the system, and healthy people will leave figuring (at this point correctly) that they can just buy insurance when they need it (i.e. when they're sick). If that happens, Insurance rates don't just rise, they skyrocket. (Krugman referred to this as an Insurance Death Spiral). If everyone in the Insurance Pool is pulling money out of the system, the Industry can't cover all the costs.

Not won’t, can’t.

So, to keep the healthy people in the system, thus keeping costs low, you have to force the Healthy People to buy insurance (yes, force). This is called a mandate, which everyone hates, and polls terrible.

The mandate is not Insurance putting a gun to our heads, and demanding our healthy citizens. This is just how Insurance works (Auto, Home, what have you). It’s all about managing risk. You have multiple Healthy people putting money into the system covering the one Sick person who takes money out. Doing that keeps our rates lower (though not non-existent). One day, those Healthy People will get sick themselves, but there will be other Healthy people covering them, so the cycle goes on.

Now, if people are made to by insurance, well...some of those people aren't going to be able to afford it (like The beige one’s unemployed guy), so you need to have subsidies to help those who can't pay for this crap, or increased access to Medicaid to do the same. Once you've taken that step, you pretty much have the bills that are wandering their way through Congress.

The lack of a Public Option is a loss, but there are parts of Europe (I think the Netherlands, hardly a bastion of Conservative thought) that have similar systems but don't have Public Plans. It's not a disaster if Health Care Reform doesn't have one. It's just infinitely better with one. It’s not pretty. It’s nowhere in the same good neighborhood of Single Payer (the best and truly cheapest way to fix Health Care), but given the fact that Health Care Costs will double in ten years, it’s our best shot.

And might I remind the beige one a little something about his unemployed guy. Sickness cannot tell, nor does not care when someone don’t have a paying job. If he or his family gets sick while he’s unemployed, he’s screwed, and the rest of us are going to have to cover him. At least with even the crappier Senate plan, he has options, like Medicaid.

This is also a basic sketch of the Massachusetts Plan, which also wasn’t popular when it passed, but try taking it away from them now.

All that mess...was just for one issue: Health Care Reform. Imagine that, multiplied a thousand times (given the thousand problems we have) where every Federal dollar spent has a lobby attached to it.

If I have a complaint about my fellow progressives, it is that they’re spending a lot of time with their heads up their arses, thinking everything is simple. “If he just did this, everything would work…”

No it won’t.

Leadership is never simple. Certainly not as simple as Liberals make it out to be.

And comparing everything to the New Deal?

My fellow Liberals may be many things, but experts on Roosevelt they ain’t (particularly at the Huffington Post where they quote the New Deal like it was the tablets Moses brought down from the mountain. Too bad none of them seem to have...you know...read a book on the the New Deal.)

I’ve been working on a project set in the Depression so I’ve been reading nothing but Depression stuff for the last year and a half. And let me tell you, the New Deal was horribly, horribly compromised from jump. In fact Norman Thomas (Socialist Party leader and Dennis Kucinich of his day, once compared the New Deal “cough drop for a case of pneumonia.” African-Americans were suspiciously left out of a lot of New Deal Programs. Farm Workers were cut out of the National Labor Relations Act just as sharecroppers were going on strike. FDR had a more favorable Congress (with an even bigger majority), but even then they bickered and guffawed about every little damn thing. The Supreme Court struck down a lot of the initiatives from the 100 Days, being about as ethical as the current Roberts Court. There were fears of open armed rebellion, not in the south, but in fuckin’ Iowa. And oh yeah, unemployment was at 25%, almost triple what it is now.

Roosevelt got some things he wanted, some things he didn’t. (He was, it is often forgotten against the creation of the FDIC). You have to look at the whole picture, and not just your imagined corner of it. It is the overall metric of FDR's Presidency that we judge him on, and judge him rightly. It has to be the same standard for Obama, or otherwise the Progressive movement is more full of shit than I feared.

Time: Karen Tumulty is a bit of a moron, too...

Time's Karen Tumulty is full of shit, in talking about making the GOP stand up and filibuster:

Also, though some reports have suggested that it is no longer possible to do this under the Senate rules, this is not true. It simply requires the majority to muster enough will and discipline to keep a quorum on the floor. Here's an account of how it worked as recently as 1988. Making them filibuster doesn't guarantee that the majority prevails, but it does require the minority to put up or, literally, shut up.

Yeah. Simply saying its not true makes it so.

I listed out the reasons why what Doris (apparently Ed Rendell) and now Karen are saying is bullshit. (In summary: yhe problem is not the filibuster, it is the cloture vote. Legislation is being killed or yanked during cloture, before Senators get a chance to stand up, speak and try to bring the hall to a screeching halt. Someone needs to tell me where in history did Senators ever stand and talk when the cloture votes, especially when they'regoing down along party lines. It would have helped if it was Karen or Doris, but everyone's too busy being smartasses.)

But if you're going to rip down what Ryan Grim wrote back in 2009 (which Karen called "not true"), howzabout explaining why its not true? Simply saying so doesn't exactly tell me why. I made my points. Why can't Karen.

Yet another new image...

Feeling good. Feeling defiant. Thus, a new banner image.

President Obama at the GOP House Retreat in Baltimore, MD (VIDEO)

Some folks are comparing this to "Question Time" in the U.K. Parliament (TPM did, too). But don't be fooled, Obama got in a few shots.

I'm using C-SPAN Video...for now. As soon as I can get something better, I'll update this posting. (And yes, the constant noise of Republicans eating got on my damn nerves, too.



UPDATE: 4:47pm, Pacific: Finally nabbed the video from the White House, which is much larger, much clearer...and frankly much more stable than the C-SPAN feed. They're still not good at embedding.

And the dinner noises still drive me crazy.

President Obama and Vice President Biden's Town Hall in Tampa, Florida (VIDEO)

"It's amazing the crowds I draw..."

President Obama, joined by Vice President Biden, announces $8 billion in Recovery Act funding for high-speed rail projects that will provide faster, more energy-efficient travel between cities and create new jobs for American workers. The announcement came during a Town Hall meeting in Tampa, FL.

Depressingly accurate (VIDEO)

Charlie Booker of the BBC rips apart TV Journalism.

Wonderful news...Part 2

Because it's Kansas, I'm shocked...but Scott Roeder, the man who killed (murdered...assassinated) Abortion Doctor George Tiller has been convicted.

Usually, I can managed a "yay" at the bottom of posts like these...but Dr. Tiller is still dead. His family is still mourning his loss, and the killer who sought to prevent abortions being provided in Kansas may ultimately get his way.

It's Yitzhak Rabin's assassination all over again, but granted on a much smaller scale.

Wonderful news...Part 1

GDP running hot-hot-hot, at 5.7%, fastest pace in six years.

This sure as hell wasn't cash for clunkers.

Obama has saved the overall. Economy. Period. End of discussion. But in a very important way, no big deal. Now, he's got to save the jobs.

What the hell was that, Comedy Central??

Watching Comedy Central tonight was painful. Both interviews, Jon's with Doris Kearns Goodwin and Stephen's interview with David Gergen were clueless. I've never seen either show this dumb before.

Though in truth, David Gergen was the problem in Colbert. Health Care is dead? I get this from the King of the Villagers?

And Jon's interview with Doris? I don't know who was more out of his depth. Jon or Doris (because she's supposed to be the expert, I'm leaning Doris).

This is not about them not liking the speech. In truth, both of them were favorable towards the speech, but want to see some action. That's a fair comment.

But, they also @#$%ed up some basic facts...facts I'm amazed that they @#$%ed up.

It boiled down to two errors: one Doris's, one Jon's.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Doris Kearns Goodwin
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

In discussing the Filibuster...specifically Goodwin's repeated demands for the Democrats to make the Republicans stand up and filibuster, drink nothing but milk and water, force them not to go to the bathroom, etc...was so wrong it made me wonder what she'd been doing for the last six months.

(And as an aside, I wretch every time she brings up LBJ. That's not an expertise thing. She knows LBJ quite well...too well, from what I understand. But it's just a rumor, so lets move on.)

She does know that legislation isn't getting killed by filibuster, but by cloture vote, right? I mean, this is kinda common knowledge.

The Senate rules are simple...though stoopid. The Senate in the course of passing a bill has...I think three cloture votes to end debate and proceed to a final vote. (Yes, these rules are arcane, but it's why I keep saying the Senate sucks). These cloture votes are traditionally just procedure, a check-box to move onto the next stage. There's nothing partisan about them, you're just agreeing to have a vote.

...but that was then.

Now, the Cloture Vote has been weaponized. It's been turned into a tool to block legislation. Don't laugh, I think it was the Democrats who weaponized it. The Cloture vote is now the substitute filibuster, and best of all...you don't have to stand or keep talking to kill legislation. You just don't let it come to a vote, and the legislation just...dies.

It's still being called a filibuster, but it's really not. Thus it's thought of as a filibuster, and people complain about the Dems letting the GOP abuse it. I thought, given her relationship with LBJ, Doris was a little more familiar with how the Senate works. I shouldn't know more about the Senate rules than she does.

So whenever I hear people (like Doris) say we should just make Republicans stand up and filibuster these bills, it's all I can do to keep from laughing at them.

Doris, I ain't laughing at. I thought she knew better.

So, that was the major error. There was also a minor one.

Jon said that Obama needed to boil down Health Care to four basic things. "Oh yeah, Obama just should say one, blah, two, blah, three, blah, and four, blah..."

(Sorry, it's early in the morning. Comedy Central didn't put up the video last night, and so now I'm at work...wanting to squeeze this in before doing...you know...work. No time for a transcript. That's why I posted the video.)

Needless to say, Jon's four ideas would...kinda raise Insurance premiums.\

Actually, his ideas would take 'em to the moon, Alice, TOO THE MOON!

This is why reforming Health Care is more complicated than people think. This is why our solution doesn't fit on an effing bumper sticker. Short of ripping everything up and installing a Single Payer Plan (my preferred choice) this is what you gotta do.

You want Universal Coverage? Of course, you start with ending the ban on pre-existing conditions so everyone can get into the system. But, if you end the ban of pre-existing conditions, sick people will jump into the system, and healthy people will leave figuring (at this point correctly) that they can just buy insurance when they need it (i.e. when they're sick). If that happens, Insurance rates don't just rise, they skyrocket. If everyone in the Insurance Pool is pulling money out of the system, the Industry can't cover all the costs. (I can type a short paragraph on the basics of insurance and risk...but honestly, do you me want to go there?? Didn't think so.)

So, to keep the healthy people in the system, thus keeping costs low, you have to force them to buy insurance...which is called a mandate, which everyone hates. (But it's worked, so far, in Massachusetts.)

Now, if people are made to by insurance, well...some of those people aren't going to be able to afford it, so you need to have subsidies to help those who can't pay for the crap. And once you've taken that step, you pretty much have the bills coming through Congress.

Thank you, Paul Krugman for that explanation...but his is more...science-y.

Okay, if Jon wants simple, I'll give him simple. If we do nothing, Health Care Costs double in ten years.

There. (Imagine me smacking my hands clean.)

That's all I have to say about tonight's shows. The basic idea Jon suggested that Obama needs better communication is spot on. Hell, didn't the President say that himself?

Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people.

Look, I don't expect Jon to be a policy expert. He's a comedian first. But, he waded into the policy end of the pool, and its fair he get called out on it for being...frankly...wrong.

I love Jon. I love Doris. I love Stephen.

They just had a bad night.

David Gergen, I can do without.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
David Gergen
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Economy

I’m for change, he was telling the assembled members of Congress. What about you?

I've had my disagreements with Eugene in the past (getting rid of the D.C. Gun ban, are you kidding me??) but he nailed this one:

The conventional wisdom was wrong, as usual. Some in the punditocracy expected President Obama to tack toward the center, others expected him to run to the bosom of the Democratic Party’s liberal base. He did neither. By the end of his State of the Union address, when he summed up the whole speech in three words -- “I don’t quit” -- you had to take him at his word.

The president’s message was simple: He’s not going to zig or zag to boost his poll numbers. He knows the financial bailout was unpopular, but it was necessary. He knows many people didn’t like the stimulus bill, but it was necessary. He knows his own party won’t cheer a three-year spending freeze, but he sees it as the right thing to do. He knows health-care reform ran into a political “buzzsaw,” but he demands that Congress push ahead.

There were no fall-off-your-chair surprises in Obama’s speech, but many people might have been surprised by the style in which he delivered it. Obama didn’t sound like a president buffeted and beleaguered by the political fates. He sounded determined, patient, forceful, good-humored, at times even mischievous. He looked relaxed and in control. For the first few minutes, the applause was strictly partisan -- Democrats rising to clap, Republicans sitting on their hands. Toward the end, Republicans were often springing to their feet, too. Maybe they lost themselves in the moment.

Or maybe the Republicans -- and the Democrats, too -- realized that Obama was speaking over their heads to a nation that is fed up with “Washington” and “government” and “partisanship.” For the first time in months, it seemed to me, Obama reconnected with the language and themes that got him elected.

I’m for change, he was telling the assembled members of Congress. What about you?

"Who's activist now, @#$%??" (VIDEO)

Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) criticized the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission to overturn precedent and strike down limits to corporate financing of political advertisements in campaigns.



Leahy’s remarks at the 2:36 Mark. He deviated a little from his prepared remarks. Instead of calling him misguided and wrong, he all but said Justice Alito was a liar...but did it in polite Senate speak.

Good.

Thus, I present the amended transcript here for you to enjoy.

Now, only six years after upholding 100 years of precedent a thin majority of the Supreme Court, made possible by President Bush’s appointment of Justice Alito, has thrown out important parts of the law and they’ve run roughshod over a long line of longstanding Court precedent. Mr. President, this is a threat to the rule of law. It overrules congressional efforts to keep powerful, moneyed interests from swamping individuals’ voices and interests.

Now in his confirmation hearing Justice Alito, I might say under oath, testified that the role of the Supreme Court is a limited role. It has to do what it’s supposed to do vigilantly, but it also has to be equally vigilant about not stepping over the bounds and invading the authority of Congress. That was then, when he was seeking confirmation. This is now. And as Justice Stevens’ dissent makes clear, the narrow majority of the Justices, including Justice Alito, substituted their own preferences for those of the duly-elected Congress, despite a hundred years of their own Supreme Court precedents.

This helps...Part 3

This has been a freakin' busy day, mostly because the State of the Union tends to produce a lot of news around it.

Screw Mary Landrieu, Al Franken has got it goin' on:

"I think we all thought this gathering today would be a celebration," he said. "Well, it may not be a celebration, but it's not a funeral either," he said.

From that moment, Franken called for those present to keep fighting for the cause and not to give up so close to victory.

"The opponents of reform have found their bumper sticker, their slogan, their rallying cry, it's one word: No. You can read that on a bumper," Franken told the members of Families USA, drawing laughs. "Our bumper sticker has — it's just way too many words. And it says, "'Continued on next bumper sticker.'"

While Franken acknowledged there were some parts of the Senate bill he does not agree with, he said that called for the House to pass it, with the understanding that Congress would then "fix" the bill through the process of budget reconciliation which only needs a simple majority.

"We have to stop letting perfect be the enemy of the merely very good. And I believe that the bill we passed in the Senate is a very good foundation on which to build," he said. He highlighted several "very good" aspects of the Senate bill, including his medical-loss ratio provisions, which would require that 85 percent of premiums be spent on actual health care costs, not profits and overhead.

Franken acknowledged that the Democratic loss in the U.S Senate race in Massachusetts was a setback, but reiterated Obama's words in the State of the Union speech Wednesday night that this is not the time to give up.

"If they did anything, it helped remind us of why we're doing this in the first place. They reminded us of how hard it is, how truly hard it is, to bring about big change in America. And they reminded us of what we're up against. And they reminded us about how close we are to the biggest health care victory in half a century."

Statement's like Mary Landrieu's are why she's going to lose in November, and frankly...won't be missed.

"Hard Times Come Again No More..." (VIDEO)

Mary J. Blige's killer, killer performance at the Hope For Haiti Now concert.

Don't forget to keep giving!

TPM: "Single-Payer Health Care Approved By California Senate"

Don't worry, the Debtinator will screw it up.

MAs, MFAs and PhDs for Obama!

According to Gallup, we love the guy!

According to Gallup, I really got his back! (See the last paragraph).

This helps...Part 2

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-DA, talkin' willpower:

I've said to my colleagues, go in the door. The door's locked? Go to the gate. The gate's locked? Climb over the fence. It's too high? Pole vault in. That doesn't work? Parachute in. We have to get this done for the American people one way or another.

This helps...Part 1

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NB), talkin' reconcilliation:

“If Republican colleagues are serious about fixing our health care system and want to avoid using the reconciliation process, then I will go to the negotiating table with them,” Senator Nelson said. “If Republican senators join me at the table, we can use bipartisanship for health reform rather than use reconciliation, which needs only 50 votes to approve legislation.

“All it takes is one Republican to come forward, put partisanship aside, and work on behalf of those that do not have or cannot afford health insurance,” Nelson added. “Working together, we can fight to ensure health reform relies on our private market system, rather than the government to reduce the cost of health care and deliver better care for millions of Americans.

“Reconciliation has never been my preference for moving legislation. Instead, I always prefer the regular order process that allows full and open debate, many amendments and an opportunity for broad bipartisanship. That can be achieved, if Republican colleagues come to the negotiating table with their ideas and proposals,” Nelson said.

Ben Bernanke Reconfirmed 70-30

Good.

I know some of y'all out there have doubts, should bear in mind that the man is an actual expert on the Economics of the Great Depression. He did a crappy job under Bush, but honestly, consider that President's agenda. Bush was a President who did not believe in accountability, regulation or Government for that matter. Is it any surprise the Economy nearly tanked?

For those of you with doubts, I refer you back to this interview from back in March. It let me know there was a man behind this job, told he that he got it, and was worth keeping on...at least with a President who believes in accountability, regulation and Government.

Let me count the ways the Senate sucks…

…at least, according to the President. These are actual passages from last night's State of the Union:

We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities -- and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy-efficient, which supports clean energy jobs. And to encourage these and other businesses to stay within our borders, it is time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas, and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs right here in the United States of America.

Now, the House has passed a jobs bill that includes some of these steps. As the first order of business this year, I urge the Senate to do the same, and I know they will. They will. People are out of work. They're hurting. They need our help. And I want a jobs bill on my desk without delay.

…

We need to make sure consumers and middle-class families have the information they need to make financial decisions. We can't allow financial institutions, including those that take your deposits, to take risks that threaten the whole economy.
Now, the House has already passed financial reform with many of these changes.

…

To create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. And, yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.

I am grateful to the House for passing such a bill last year.

…

When we renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will work with Congress to expand these reforms to all 50 states. Still, in this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job. That's why I urge the Senate to follow the House and pass a bill that will revitalize our community colleges, which are a career pathway to the children of so many working families.

Can we finally put to rest this meme that Obama favors his old Senate colleagues over the House?

He all but screamed from the podium: Senate, GET OFF YOUR ASS!!!

..and you still suck.