Thursday, March 25, 2010

GOP Senator Lindsey Graham refuses to work with Democrats, saying "well has been poisoned."

I found this story through the Washington Monthly. Seems like South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has been drinking Senator John McCain's Metamucil. From the Wall Street Journal:

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, one of the Democrats' most likely potential allies on a range of legislation, said in an interview he would no longer work with the majority party on an immigration overhaul. He said because of the Democrats' tactics in passing the package, the "well has been poisoned."

Mr. Graham also has been working with Democrats on climate change, and that cooperation, too, appears in doubt. "Climate and energy are another heavy lift. We'll see," Mr. Graham said. "The consequences of health care being done this way are enormous to the body." Mr. Graham's initiatives would probably not have received significant Congressional attention this year in any case, but his posture signals one potential route for the party.

So, the Democratic majority attempted to reach out to the Republican minority on health care reform, and the Republicans snubbed them. The Democrats offered concessions and compromises on the bill, but the Republicans refused, spreading their own negative attacks, hatred, death panels, and fear-mongering in an attempt to kill the health care reform bill. The Democrats ignore the Republicans and pass the health care reform bill, to which the Republicans are now complaining that the Democrats have "poisoned the well," and will refuse to work on any legislation? Seems to me that the Republicans have refused to work on any legislation with the Democrats, bringing this country down to the gutter in hopes that President Obama will fail, and the GOP can regain control over Congress, possibly the White House. If anything, the Republicans are being poisoned by drinking their own Metamucil.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

The GOP wingnuttery just continues....

I'm not sure I know what to say about this, except that I found this National Journal story from the Daily Kos, and it is fascinating. From The National Journal:

Senate Min. Leader Mitch McConnell and House Min. Leader John Boehner both signaled support for at least some part of a GOP-led move to repeal health care legislation today, suggesting the GOP will run on the issue in the fall campaign.

"I can tell you with the campaign that will continue with the American people, I think the slogan will be 'Repeal and Replace,'" McConnell told reporters after a weekly lunch with fellow members of the GOP Conference.

In a statement following Pres. Obama's bill signing today, Boehner added: "Republicans will continue to stand on principle, hold President Obama accountable for his promises, and fight to repeal this government takeover of health care so we can start over on common-sense reforms that lower costs for families and small businesses."

They are the first 2 members of GOP leadership to hint at embracing a repeal move. Until today, GOPers have been hesitant to support such a move, worrying Dems will tag them for opposing the more popular parts of the bill, and several members of House leadership have suggested a partial repeal while keeping some more popular sections of the bill intact.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) has introduced a measure to repeal health care legislation. In the House, Reps. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Steve King (R-IA), Bob Inglis (R-SC) and Todd Tiahrt (R-KS) have introduced a similar bill aimed at reversing the new law.

McConnell introduced DeMint's bill under a Senate rule that allows it to immediately be placed on the upper chamber's calendar.

Not only that, but former presidential candidate, Arizona Senator John McCain, has announced that the Democrats should not expect any cooperation from the Republicans for the rest of the year. According to the Hill.com:

Democrats shouldn't expect much cooperation from Republicans the rest of this year, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) warned Monday.

McCain and another Republican senator decried the effect health reform legislation has had on the Senate, a day after the House passed the upper chamber's bill.

GOP senators emerged Monday to caution that the health debate had taken a toll on the institution, warning of little work between parties the rest of this year.

"There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year," McCain said during an interview Monday on an Arizona radio affiliate. "They have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it."

I guess I can chalk this up as the Republicans are pandering towards their own, crazed, wingnutty base. But the scope of this is just incredible. I'm trying to understand McConnell and Boehner's stance here, but it doesn't make any sense. There is no way for this health care legislation to be repealed--it will not happen. I can possibly see the Republicans taking control of Congress this November, but not with a two-thirds majority to repeal a presidential veto. Heck, even a Republican control of Congress may seem unlikely now, since the Democrats have passed health care reform, and President Obama will start campaigning to sell the law to Americans. The USA Today poll has Americans approving the health care reform bill, and giving President Obama some stronger job approval ratings. Unless President Obama and the Democrats really screw up between now and November....

So it is obvious that McConnell and Boehner are pandering to the wingnut base of the GOP with their support of repealing the health care law. Yet by pandering to these extremists, both McConnell and Boehner are continuing to confirm the image of the Republican Party as a party of not just a Party of No and obstructionism, but also a party of un-governing? They are not willing to work with the Democrats on fixing this law (Of course, the GOP has never been willing to work with the Democrats), but are now demanding that the entire law be repealed. I know that the Republicans are trying to whip up their crazed base, but continuing this harsh, negative rhetoric is probably going to alienate non-partisans and independents. I'm not sure if non-partisans and independents are completely opposed to the health care bill--some probably are--but I'm guessing that many are open towards political parties working to improve the law, rather than repealing it. It is like the more the Republicans shrill to their wingnuts, the more the GOP finds itself being painted into a smaller corner. It is just crazy.

Then there is Senator John McCain's crazy response. I guess McCain got so angry at the Democrats passing the health care bill, that now McCain is stating there will be no GOP cooperation with the Democrats for the rest of this year. None! Period! Of course, the Republicans have never bothered to cooperate with the Democrats. To a Republican, cooperation means that the Democrats accepts all GOP demands without questions or complaints. Then again, the Republicans have been masters at PR-spin in showing that they were open to listening and compromise, but not accepting any form of compromise from the Democrats. They were masters, until Barack Obama entered the White House. Ever since President Obama attempted to extend a hand for bipartisan compromise, the Republicans bit the hand. There is always rhetoric and partisan attacks by both political parties, but I've never seen such extreme hatred directed at President Obama, and the Democrats, from conservatives, right-wing pundits, protesters and even Republican lawmakers. It is also just incredible. And it will not stop with this latest midterm election, where the Republicans believe they can overturn the Democrats control of Congress by negative campaigning on the repeal of health care reform. They were masters of PR-spin, until President Obama was elected. Now the Republican Party has descended into a whiny, spoiled, almost racist, homophobic, crazy child, who will do anything it can to get its way. You can even see this whiny child in McCain's latest response on the congressional Democrats passing of the health care bill--They have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it. The Democrats never poisoned the well with the health care bill. The Democrats were elected with a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress, and the White House. President Obama attempted to compromise with the Republicans on health care, but the Republicans said no. So President Obama and the Democrats crafted their own health care legislation, and passed the bill over Republican negative campaigning, threats, and fear-mongering. The health care bill was passed by majority vote, with no parliamentary procedures. Now McCain is claiming that the Democrats have "poisoned the well" by performing basic democracy in passing a bill by majority vote, and having that bill signed into law by the president? All because the Republicans didn't get their way?

The GOP insanity just continues....

USA Today poll--Americans have 9-point favorable view of health care reform

It has been a while since I've talked about public opinion polls, but I do find this poll very interesting. This may be the first poll I've seen taken after the health care reform bill passed Congress, and was signed by President Obama today. It is certainly not going to be the last poll on this issue. From USA Today:

WASHINGTON — Americans by 9 percentage points have a favorable view of the health care overhaul that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, a notable turnaround from surveys before the vote that showed a plurality against it.

By 49%-40% those surveyed say it was "a good thing" rather than a bad one that Congress passed the bill. Half describe their reaction in positive terms, as "enthusiastic" or "pleased," while about four in 10 describe it in negative ways, as "disappointed" or "angry."

The largest single group, 48%, calls the bill "a good first step" that should be followed by more action on health care. An additional 4% also have a favorable view, saying the bill makes the most important changes needed in the nation's health care system.

Remember that the Republicans have consistently reiterated that the American people are against the health care reform bill. Now that the bill has passed, this first poll is showing that Americans are starting to warm up to health care reform. All that GOP fear-mongering over health care, and their incessant rhetoric that the American people are against health care has become baseless. Now with President Obama going into campaign mode to sell this health care law, I have to wonder what direction the next polls will be taking as Americans digest the specifics of this law?

The USA Today poll shows that President Obama job standing is at 46 percent excellent or good, while 31 percent call it poor. Congressional Democrats job standing are split at 32 percent good and 33 percent poor. The job standing for congressional Republicans on health care is 26 percent excellent or good, while 34 percent say it has been poor. More Americans apparently disapprove of the Republican job standing than approve. My guess is that Americans did not like the negative rhetoric, fear-mongering, obstructionism and hatred that has been spewed by the Republicans and the hard-lined conservative activists during this health care debate. Now it is starting to show.

Steve Benen at The Washington Monthly makes a brilliant analysis here:

This is the Republican nightmare coming to fruition -- the country gets a better system, Democrats get a victory, the president looks like a hero, and the country is pleased with the results.

It's not too late for Republicans to reconsider that "repeal" strategy, if only the party's unhinged base would let them.

The Republicans have certainly boxed themselves into a corner here. Moderating their strategy of working with the Democrats will anger their crazed, "unhinged base," that they've courted. Whatever moderates that are left in the GOP would also earn the wrath of Fox News and conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage. So the Republicans continue to pander to the extremist votes. This will certainly alienate the moderates, non-partisans and independents, but will they continue supporting the Democrats this November? Especially now that health care reform has passed? I'm tempted to say yes, but it may be a close vote with the GOP pulling every dirty campaign trick and negative ads to use against the Democrats.

Sarah Palin in the news again--This time she supports creation of a third party

Seems like Sarah Palin is getting some more media attention again. This is from Think Progress:

For months, Republicans have been trying to co-opt the tea party movement, supporting its activities and pandering to activists while discouraging them from forming a third party. RNC Chairman Michael Steele met with tea party leaders in January to encourage them to join the GOP, while Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) warned the movement not to “fractionalize the Republican Party.” Even tea party favorites like Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) have come out against an official tea party, saying that he wants to “avoid a third party by giving Republicans and independents good choices in Republican primaries.”

But appearing on Fox News host Sean Hannity’s show last night, contributor Sarah Palin had surprising take, seemingly endorsing the idea of third party to keep Republicans honest:

HANNITY: If it’s a strong conservative that gets the Republican nomination and then a tea party member runs as a third party candidate, do you have any worry about that?

PALIN: I do have a little bit of worry about that but at the same time that can be part of a healthy process, though. A third party candidate can really shore-up a Republican candidate in terms of that Republican candidate having to be very strong and sharp and debate aggressively, regarding the positions that they have taken.

A third party candidate, I think, Sean, can actually help in this process. And if nothing else a third party candidate is going to help keep the Republican Party being held accountable, too.

Here is the video of the Hannity/Palin exchange. From YouTube:



The Think Progress article continues:

Palin’s comments are particularly surprising considering that, in February, she told activists that “the Tea Party movement is not a party” and that they are “going to have to pick a party.” And on Hannity last month, she urged tea party activists to “take over” the GOP in lieu of starting their own party.

Moreover, Palin’s comments seem to contradict the will of the tea party movement. Tea party activists in Florida and Nevada have registered official political parties, but both have met fierce resistance from the grass roots. Twenty tea party groups came out “united in denouncing” the Nevada Tea Party, saying, it “is not now, has never been, and will never be affiliated with grassroots efforts in Nevada.” A Tax Day, Tea Party poll found that 94 percent of respondents believed the third party candidate should withdraw from the race.

I will not go into Sarah Palin's hypocrisy, where she first stated the Tea Party activists that they are not a political party, or when she told them to take over the GOP, whereas now Palin is urging the Tea Party to select their own third-party candidate. The hypocrisy is obvious here. The only thing I have to say here is what the frack is Sarah Palin talking about? A third party Tea Party candidate running against both a Republican and Democratic candidate? I look at the Tea Party movement as an activist conservative movement. It may have first been an activist movement against both parties, but the Tea Party movement gained support through favorable reports by Fox News, and was courted by GOP congressmen. The Tea Party is a conservative movement, whether the Republicans like it or not. Third "Tea Party" candidates will divide the Republican base in elections. Even Mitt Romney warned the Tea Party to not run third party candidates, saying such candidates would divide the GOP, and "That would hand over the country to [President] Barack Obama and [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi and [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid, and that would be very sad indeed.” Romney is correct--third party Tea Party candidates would divide the GOP, giving the Democrats better chances of winning seats--whether it is in this election or the 2012 presidential election. With the Republican Party being the Party of No, and obstructionism, I wonder how many moderates and independents are willing to vote for GOP candidates after listening to some of the threats, rancor, and fear-mongering that came from the right--especially after what went on during the debate on health care reform? This midterm election will probably be even more dirty, filthy, and rancorous from the hard-lined right.

There is another point that Sarah Palin made on how a third party candidate "can really shore-up a Republican candidate," and keeping the Republican Party to being held "accountable." Excuse me, Mrs. Palin, how is it that the Republican Party is not being held accountable to its own extremist positions? Look at the House vote on health care reform from two days ago--not a single Republican voted for the health care bill. The Republicans have been marching lockstep in opposition to just about every Democratic legislative agenda. There are almost no Republican moderates in Congress. Republicans being held accountable by third party candidates? It is nonsense.

Then again, maybe Sarah Palin is positioning herself to be the Tea Party presidential candidate for 2012. Maybe the political savvy of Sarah Palin has realized that the Republican Party will completely implode on itself, disappearing from history forever. The new conservative party movement that will replace the Grand Old Party will be the Tea Party, and Sarah Palin wants to be its new leader--fighting her way to replace Barack Obama in the Oval Office.

Of course, that will only happen when pigs fly....

Sarah Palin wants to star in her own reality TV series

Looks like former Republican vice presidential candidate and Alaskan governor Sarah Palin is back in the news again (Or has she ever been out of the news?). I found this interesting news story that made me stop and ask...what? Here is a March 4, 2010 ABC News story where Palin is shopping around for her own reality TV series:

We knew Sarah Palin was in Los Angeles this week. What we didn't know was that she was shopping...shopping around a reality TV show.

Yes, the former vice presidential candidate is venturing outside of politics and into the land of "The Real Housewives," "The Bachelor" and "Dancing With the Stars."

Palin's show would be set in Alaska and follow her family celebrating the natural beauty that surrounds them.

Her business partner is none other than reality show producer Mark Burnett, who famously asked, "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?" He also helped coin the Donald Trump phrase, "You're Fired!" And he created that father of all reality shows, "Survivor."

Surviving is something Palin has mastered. But would a Palin reality program survive?

"The fact that they are shopping this show to broadcast networks, rather than cable networks, shows that there's a lot of interest in her," says Matthew Belloni, managing editor of features for The Hollywood Reporter. "I will say, she is an A-list personality and a reality show starring her would command A-list money."

Industry insiders suggest she could make well into six figures, perhaps more than $1 million an episode.

The ABC News story reports that the cast for MTV's reality series "Jersey Shore" earn around $10,000 per episode. Sarah Palin is asking for a million per episode. If someone produces 22 episodes of Palin's new series, then Palin collects a $22 million paycheck from the series. That is just Palin's paycheck--that is not counting the cost such a studio will have to pay for producing and filming each episode.

And yet, cable television networks are interested in Sarah Palin's series. From Reuters:

Sources say A&E Networks and Discovery Communications want to acquire Palin's project, which focuses on the ex-governor giving a guided tour of her native Alaska -- visiting fishing boats and taking a trip to a gold mine, to cite a couple of examples. Mark Burnett is executive producer of the project, whose working title is "Sarah Palin's Alaska."

A&E Networks hasn't officially put in a bid for the show, but sources indicate that the company is interested in the project for several of its brands -- A&E, History or Lifetime.

Discovery Communications is likewise vying for the project for one or more of its outlets, such as TLC. Some sources say the flagship Discovery Channel is no longer in play, while others say otherwise.

The former vice presidential candidate is asking for between $1 million and $1.5 million per episode, a hefty amount for a first-year cable series.

Palin initially pitched the show to broadcast networks. Given the show's laid-back nature theme and lack of high-stakes drama that tends to typify broadcast reality hits, industry executives see cable as a better fit.

A&E is the home of bold reality fare like "Intervention" and "Dog the Bounty Hunter," while Discovery has compatible outdoors series, such as Alaska-set "Deadliest Catch."

"It will sell," predicts one insider. "One way or another."

Now I'm not going to criticize Sarah Palin for being greedy here in asking for a million per episode. I'm not even going to criticize network executives for expressing interest in "Sarah Palin's Alaska." What I am surprised is that there will be probably be enough conservative Americans so willing to watch Sarah Palin give us guided tours of shooting wolves from helicopters, or showing us Russia from her house. Then again, Sarah Palin is the darling of the conservative movement. Will these conservatives turn away from the Fox News rantings to watch Sarah Palin on A&E or Discovery?

It is also interesting that Mark Burnett, the father of the "Survivor" reality TV series, has latched on to this Sarah Palin TV series. I wonder if Burnett will make Sarah Palin engage in physical challenges for an immunity idol, or not have Donald Trump tell Palin, "You're fired" from her own TV series--that is if Sarah Palin doesn't quit her reality TV series first. I guess Burnett has got to find another reality TV spin, as Survivor and the Apprentice have gotten really stale and old. There is really nothing new with either Survivor or Apprentice (Or even Celebrity Apprentice), except for the names of the contestants--be it Heroes and Villains, or the latest crop of has-been celebrities. Burnett's "Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader" is really dumb--a game show based on fifth grade educational trivia questions. Of course, I've heard somewhere that the average American has the equivalence of the sixth grade education (Not sure if it is true or not), so maybe this game show appeals to average Americans. So Mark Burnett has to think up another reality TV series to go up against, not only his current crop of reality TV series, but Dancing with the Stars, American Idol, Project Runway, food reality TV shows, Deadliest Catch, Dog, and who knows what other reality TV is out there. What's better than to have a popular has-been governor and VP candidate talking to her rabid, conservative-loving fan base about Alaska? I'm guessing such a series would be a hit for the conservative fans of Sarah Palin. I can't say if Sarah Palin's Alaska will gain enough ratings to pay for the show's expenses, or even Sarah Palin's million dollar per episode paycheck. Then again, I will not be watching the series.

Biden drops the F-bomb during health care bill signing

Oh my. It appears that Vice President Joe Biden just dropped a dirty F-bomb right after introducing President Barack Obama during the health care reform signing ceremony. From YouTube:



Then again, it was a big frickin' deal. So Joe was right.

Think Progress is reporting that Fox News pundits heads are exploding over Joe Biden's f-bomb gaffe. Guess Fox News doesn't have anything to say about the signing of this legislation.

Obama signs health care bill into law

President Obama signed major health care legislation into law on Tuesday. Doug Mills/The New York Times

Well, it is now official. President Obama has signed the health care legislation into law today. From The New York Times:

WASHINGTON —With the strokes of 20 pens, President Obama signed his health care overhaul — the most sweeping social legislation enacted in decades — into law on Tuesday during a festive, at times raucous, White House ceremony.

“We have just now enshrined, as soon as I sign this bill, the core principle that everybody should have some basic security when it comes to their health care,” Mr. Obama declared in the East Room, before an audience of more than 200 Democratic lawmakers, White House aides and others who rode a yearlong legislative roller-coaster ride that ended with Sunday night’s House passage of the bill. They interrupted him repeatedly with shouts and standing ovations.

Moments later, the president sat down at a table, and affixed his left-handed, curlicue signature, almost letter by letter, to the measure, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, using 20 pens that he intended to pass out to key lawmakers and others as mementoes.

He was surrounded by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and other top Democratic leaders, as well as some special guests: 11-year-old Marcelas Owens of Seattle, who became an advocate for health care reform after his mother died without health insurance, and Connie Anderson, the sister of Natoma Canfield, the Ohio cancer survivor whose struggle to pay skyrocketing premiums became a touchstone of Mr. Obama’s campaign to overhaul the system.

Vicki Kennedy, the widow of the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, who had been a driving force for health care legislation before his death last year, was also by Mr. Obama’s side. Mrs. Kennnedy wore a blue plastic bracelet around her wrist that said “TedStrong,” and appeared emotional after the ceremony.

“I know how happy he would be,” she said of her husband, adding, “It was so meaningful for him, in a very personal way.”

And in the audience sat Mr. Kennedy’s son, Representative Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island. He was also there, carrying a gift for the president: a copy of a bill his father introduced in 1970 to provide national health insurance. On it, the younger Mr. Kennedy had written a personal message to Mr. Obama.

For Mr. Obama, the bill signing marks a high point of his presidency. For the many House members in the audience, it marks the end of a trying, chapter, and they let the president know it as he remarked that many had “taken their lumps during this difficult debate.”

While President Obama and the Democrats are celebrating this day, Republican attorney generals in 11 states will be filing lawsuits to stop the health care legislation on grounds that it is unconstitutional. From Reuters:

(Reuters) - Less than 24 hours after the House of Representatives gave final approval to a sweeping overhaul of healthcare, attorneys general from several states on Monday said they will sue to block the plan on constitutional grounds.

Republican attorneys general in 11 states warned that lawsuits will be filed to stop the federal government overstepping its constitutional powers and usurping states' sovereignty.

States are concerned the burden of providing healthcare will fall on them without enough federal support.

Ten of the attorneys general plan to band together in a collective lawsuit on behalf of Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.

"To protect all Texans' constitutional rights, preserve the constitutional framework intended by our nation's founders, and defend our state from further infringement by the federal government, the State of Texas and other states will legally challenge the federal health care legislation," said Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, in a statement.

The Republican attorney generals say the reforms infringe on state powers under the Constitution's Bill of Rights.

Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, who plans to file a lawsuit in federal court in Richmond, Virginia, said Congress lacks authority under its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce to force people to buy insurance. The bill also conflicts with a state law that says Virginians cannot be required to buy insurance, he added.

[....]

In addition to the pending lawsuits, bills and resolutions have been introduced in at least 36 state legislatures seeking to limit or oppose various aspects of the reform plan through laws or state constitutional amendments, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

So far, only two states, Idaho and Virginia, have enacted laws, while an Arizona constitutional amendment is seeking voter approval on the November ballot. But the actual enactment of the bill by President Barack Obama could spur more movement on the measures by state lawmakers.

The debate on health care has entered a new phase, where the Republicans will do anything they can to repeal this bill. Already, the lawsuits are being drawn up to be filed in court. It will probably take a couple of years for this health care bill to end up on the U.S. Supreme Court, but it will get there. Right now, there are four conservative justices on the Supreme Court--Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito. There are four liberal justices on the Supreme Court--Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. The conservative justices will probably vote against this health care reform, and the liberal justices will vote for health care reform. The swing vote here will be Justice Anthony Kennedy. The health care overhaul will take time to kick in, around four years. If the court remains at four conservative justices and four liberal justices, then Justice Kennedy will be in a very powerful position to determine the fate of health care reform in this country. I have no idea how Justice Kennedy will rule on health care reform.

Then again, the Supreme Court may change its ideological make-up over the next four years. But for that to happen, either Justice Kennedy, one of the conservative justices, will have to retire from office. This will allow President Obama to nominate a liberal justice, shifting the Court towards a liberal stance. I don't see that happening yet. There is also the possibility that President Obama may be voted out of office in 2012, with an unnamed Republican president coming in. Any Republican president will probably gut the health care reform bill, turning it into a useless program that he/she could then claim the program needs to be eliminated as an example of government waste. But that is way down the political road here.

For now, the debate is on the policy of the health care reform plan. Republicans will be filing lawsuits, calling the bill unconstitutional. President Obama is going into campaign mode, selling the health care reform bill to Americans in Iowa on Thursday. Both Democrats and Republicans will be gearing up for a massive political fight in November, with both claiming that the health care reform bill will allow them to defeat the opposing party. So far, it is too close to call, as Americans will have to digest the specifics of this bill. Then they will decide at the ballot box on whether they approve this health care reform bill, or not.

Sunday, March 21, 2010

House passes health care reform, Obama to sign.

I've been busy with a number of things, but I've been watching the events taking place on the health care debate. After the Senate passed the health care reform bill in December, the bill went into a torturous reconciliation process, where a number of House Democrats did not like the Senate version of the bill. There was a lot of back-and-forth going on between the two chambers, topped with Republican congress-critters tossing threats and temper tantrums at the Democrats for trying to reconcile the two bills. Even President Barack Obama canceled his East Asian trip to perform some last-minute arm twisting on House Democrats to vote for the health reform package.

So today was the big day for the House to debate and approve the Senate version of the health care reform bill.

The House approved the Senate's health care reform bill 219-212. From ABC News:

The House of Representatives passed the sweeping health care bill with a narrow margin, securing a significant victory for President Obama, who lobbied hard this week for the controversial legislation.

The vote was certain after the House Democratic leadership finalized a deal this afternoon with anti-abortion Democrats to vote for the health care bill in exchange for an executive order from Obama affirming no federal funding for abortion.

The House today voted on two separate pieces of legislation. One, the Senate health care bill and second, the amendments to that bill made by House members and Obama.

The bill now goes to the president's desk to sign, after which it will become law. The White House has not yet decided where or when Obama will sign the Senate health care bill, which he needs to do before the "fixes" to that bill begin to be debated in the Senate, though White House officials say it will not be this evening.

As the last speaker before the vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said that by passing the bill, Congress would be taking a historic step.

"We will be joining those who established Social Security, Medicare and now, tonight, health care for all Americans," Pelosi said.

The bill still has to go back to the Senate for approval of reconciliation "fixes" that House Democrats have proposed. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid assured the House, Saturday, that he has the 51 majority vote needed to pass the fixes, with the Senate expected to pick up the bill on Tuesday. Health care reform will be law.

Watching this debate unfold, what really interested me here is a couple of factors. The big factor has been the Republican response to the entire health care debate. The GOP never wanted any such health care reform passed--be it a Democratic health care reform or a Republican health care reform. In fact, I don't think the Republicans had a health care reform package they could sell to the American public. They never bothered taking up the mantle of health care reform, at least since President Richard Nixon looked at reforming a national health insurance plan for Americans. The GOP and the health insurance industry completely shot down President Bill Clinton's health care plan in 1994. Even when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress under George W. Bush, they never bothered looking at health care, with the exception of passing the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act in 2003. But the prescription drug act is not passing a comprehensive health care bill for all Americans, but rather overhauling Medicare to provide prescription drugs to its recipients. But when you get Blue Cross raising health insurance premiums to its customers by 39 percent this month, and around 45 million Americans are uninsured, the Republicans have turned a blind eye to this growing problem. For the past two years, the GOP refused to join the Democrats in a bipartisan attempt to reform health care, using obstructionism, threats, lies, and deceit as a means to kill health care reform--Death panels anyone? The Republicans thought that by playing the obstructionist game, then Americans would suffer so much under a crushing health care system, job losses, a recessionary economy, and all sorts of other problems, that they would vote the Democrats out of Congress, and bring the Republicans back into the majority. Then the Republicans could play even more obstructionism against President Obama until 2012, when Sarah Palin will be elected into the Oval Office? So the Republicans were united in opposing health care reform. The vote even shows such opposition, since not one Republican House member voted for the health reform bill tonight.

That has all changed. Republican obstructionism failed. It brings me to a second factor in that the passage of this health care bill was a victory that President Obama really needed to re-energize his presidential agenda. Health care reform was a major Obama campaign promise during the 2008 presidential election. When President Obama stepped into the Oval Office, he tried to fulfill his promise of health care reform, but made some serious mistakes. The first mistake Obama made was that he never took the bully pulpit and tell Congress, "This is what I want from health care reform. Here are my proposals, now let us work together in creating real reform." I got the impression that Obama administration took a hands off approach to health care reform, instead saying, "Okay Congress, pass some health care legislation so I can sign it." Talk about a near recipe for disaster. Both congressional houses passed their own versions of health care reform bill which neither house liked the other chamber's bill. I am actually amazed at how close the bill passed tonight. The second mistake the Obama administration made in health care was really allowing the Republicans to control the message on health care for the past couple of years. Think about it--what do you remember of the message on health care reform? I remember death panels, Obamacare killing grandma, Obamacare reducing your Medicare benefits, Obamacare raising taxes, and Obamacare. I remember Tea Party protests, town hall disruptions organized by conservative groups, and even health insurance industry urging their employees to attend protest groups against health care reform. Looking back at the debate in 2009, it seemed like the message pounded into the American public was that health care reform was a terrible bill--look at all these Americans who are afraid of the evils of health care reform. Health care reform should be stopped. That was the message, brought to you by the Republican Party. I never heard much from the Obama administration to counter the Republican spin on health care. And yet, I look at the polls on the health care debate, Americans are split on whether they approve or disapprove of health care reform--it actually depends on how the question is phrased to shift Americans' opinions for either approval or disapproval on the issue. So President Obama lost the message on health care reform to the Republicans. That should have been enough to kill the issue, but it didn't.

Health care reform passed. I think in the last three months, President Obama and the Democrats woke up to the possibility that this reform bill will not pass. The turning point may have been when Massachusetts Republican state senator Scott Brown won a huge victory over Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley for the late Ted Kennedy's vacant Senate seat in late January. Republicans thought that this was the American voters' repudiation of President Obama, and the congressional Democrats, agenda. I think it is a voter's anger over incumbents--both Democrat and Republican. Either way, this was a wake-up call for both President Obama and the Democrats. They needed to pass health care soon, and show a major legislative achievement for the Democrats, and a political victory for President Obama. President Obama needed to show the American people that he could deliver a campaign promise--especially during a troubled economic time, where Americans are worried about their jobs, their financial situation, the housing crisis, and the health care crisis.

Not only that, but 2010 is a midterm election year, where the president's party usually loses seats. If the health care reform debate was dragged out into the late summer/early fall, the Republicans would use health care in attack ads against Democrats in conservative-leaning states and districts. Those Democratic lawmakers would be more worried about their jobs, rather than about passing legislation. Health care would never have passed. And if the Republicans did take control of at least one house, we'll say the Senate, then the GOP majority leadership would simply throw the health care reform bill in the trash. Of course, the Republicans will obviously use this passage of health care reform in attack ads against the Democrats, but President Obama can also tell American voters that he fulfilled his campaign promise to deliver health care reform. This is huge. If President Obama failed at passing health care reform, I think it would have emboldened the Republicans, and conservative constituents, into greater attacks against the Democrats, and the president, for control of Congress. Such emboldened conservative constituents may have gone out of their way to vote Republican candidates in. The Democrats failure at passing health care reform would have also angered their liberal constituents. Would liberal Democrats have gone out of their way to vote for Democratic candidates that failed to deliver on health care reform? I'm sure there are plenty of liberal activists that are speculating on whether to replace those Democratic House members that have voted against the health care reform bill.

Finally, there is President Obama. This could have been a huge failure for the President, who was elected into office on a campaign promise of hope and change. Americans wanted change. If President Obama failed to pressure the Democrats into passing health care reform, he would have been seen by Americans as a president who could not deliver on his campaign promise of hope and change. President Obama would certainly have been a lame duck in the final two years of his first term in office--especially if an emboldened GOP gained control of the Senate. But now, the midterm elections have been changed. President Obama can sell his health care campaign promise to the American voters. The Democrats can attack the Republicans as being against providing affordable health care to Americans. The Republicans can still still play obstructionism and use fear attacks against the president and the Democrats on health care, however, I think the fear factor will be greatly diminished against the moderates and independents (the hard-lined conservatives will still believe in Obamacare's death panels).

This midterm election will still be about the issue of health care. But now the focus will shift to what will this new health care law do for the American voter? Instead of fear-mongering, the issue will be on legal specifics of this law. I think that will be more difficult for Republicans to raise with their fear-mongering, which they will still engage in. Finally, this huge hurdle is over for the Democrats and President Obama--they can now concentrate on other issues, such as financial reform, or jobs. President Obama and the congressional Democrats can work on passing more legislation, against Republican obstructionism, that they can also sell to the American voters. With the health care reform bill passed, American voters can now decide if this is the direction that they want to see their country heading towards, and vote accordingly. This is a whole new midterm election.

Saturday, March 06, 2010

Saturday Morning Cartoons--The Baker's Ten

Okay, this insane song has been playing in my mind for the morning. So I'm going to be a real meanie, and play it for a Saturday Morning Cartoon. What song is it? Why, Sesame Street's Baker's Ten song. From YouTube:



And that's our song of ten!

Friday, March 05, 2010

Can you spot the Republican hypocrisy here?

I found this interesting story through the Washington Monthly, which was tracked back to Max Blumenthal. It is basically a political campaign commercial that Sue Lowden is airing for her bid as the leading Republican candidate for the Senate seat in Nevada. Can you spot the Republican hypocrisy? Here is the video:



And here is the script:

As a mom I know one-size-fits-all clothes don't fit, aren't comfortable and are seldom a bargain. So why does Harry Reid want to force one-size-fits-all government health care on us? Harry Reid thinks Washington knows best, but I think we the people know best. Harry Reid's big government health care plan will raise taxes, put a bureaucrat between you and your doctor, weaken Medicare, kill jobs, push us further into debt. I'm Sue Lowden and I approve this message because government run health care is wrong.


Give up? Here is a hint from the U.S. Social Security website:

Medicare is our country’s health insurance program for people age 65 or older. Certain people younger than age 65 can qualify for Medicare, too, including those who have disabilities and those who have permanent kidney failure or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig’s disease). The program helps with the cost of health care, but it does not cover all medical expenses or the cost of most long-term care.

Medicare is financed by a portion of the payroll taxes paid by workers and their employers. It also is financed in part by monthly premiums deducted from Social Security checks.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is the agency in charge of the Medicare program. But you apply for Medicare at Social Security, and we can give you general information about the Medicare program.

Medicare has four parts

* Hospital insurance (Part A) that helps pay for inpatient care in a hospital or skilled nursing facility (following a hospital stay), some home health care and hospice care.

*Medical insurance (Part B) that helps pay for doctors’ services and many other medical services and supplies that are not covered by hospital insurance.

*Medicare Advantage (Part C) plans are available in many areas. People with Medicare Parts A and B can choose to receive all of their health care services through one of these provider organizations under Part C.

* Prescription drug coverage (Part D) that helps pay for medications doctors prescribe for treatment.

You can get more detailed information about what Medicare covers from Medicare & You (Publication No. CMS-10050). To get a copy, call the Medicare toll-free number, 1-800-MEDICARE (1-800-633-4227), or go to www.medicare.gov. If you are deaf or hard of hearing, you may call TTY 1-877-486-2048.

Seems to me like Medicare is a big, government-run health care organization--something that Sue Lowden obviously believes is wrong. Does that mean that Lowden should also dismantle Medicare, since she obviously believes that big, government health care plans will raise taxes, place bureaucrats between Americans and their doctors, kill jobs, place us further into debt and weaken Medicare? Does any of what Sue Lowden is talking about here makes sense?

Apparently not.

Fallout from the RNC PowerPoint presentation continues....

It appears that the GOP's 72-page PowerPoint presentation is creating some serious public relations damage for the party. From the Washington Post:

National Republican leaders scrambled Thursday to control damage caused by an internal party document that caricatures President Obama as the Joker and stokes fear of socialism to raise money in a critical election year.

The 72-page PowerPoint presentation reveals the blunt appeal to emotion that both parties use to motivate donors and prefer to keep private. But its release online and consequent cable chatter became an unwelcome distraction for Republicans, because the strategy it outlined fit squarely with Democrats' portrait of the GOP as the party of "no."

"You don't defend it," Republican National Committee Chairman Michael S. Steele said Thursday in an interview on Fox News. "It was unfortunate. Those were images that were uploaded off the Internet. They've been out in the public domain for a while. A staffer was putting together a presentation for a small group of nine or 10 folks and thought they would intersperse their presentation with humorous shots. They're inappropriate."

Sen. John Thune (S.D.), a member of the Republican leadership, said: "There is no place for this. Obviously when you're fundraising . . . you want to make direct and succinct points, but using these sorts of tactics is certainly not something that any of us ought to condone."

Said Tom Rath, a former RNC member from Concord, N.H.: "We're not going to win the election by drawing those kinds of comparisons. We're going to win the elections because we have one view of government and how the economy ought to work and American security."

There are a couple of things I want to say about this fallout. The first, obviously, is that RNC Chairman Michael Steele refuses to accept responsibility, and will probably not fire the "staffer" who added these images in the presentation in the first place. It is certainly ironic that Steele first tells Fox News that "You can't defend it," and then goes into a long-winded defense of how the images were "uploaded off the Internet." You do not upload off the Internet, you download from the internet. Yes, I even missed that one as well. Finally, when the images were "uploaded off the internet," Steele claims that some "staffer" thought it would be funny to add these "humorous" shots in the presentation. And since Michael Steele didn't know about this presentation before the Politco story broke, then Michael Steele isn't responsible for it. The WaPost reports that:

Steele said he found out about document on Wednesday, when Politico obtained it and posted it on the Internet. His spokesman, Doug Heye, said he also had not seen the document and would not say who approved it beyond Robert Bickhart, RNC's finance director, who made the presentation to donors in Boca Grande, Fla.


Next question I would have to ask is to RNC Communications Director Doug Hey, who said in an email to Politico.com that;

“The document was used for a fundraising presentation Chairman Steele did not attend, nor had he seen the document,” RNC Communications Director Doug Heye said in an email. “Fundraising documents are often controversial.

“Obviously, the Chairman disagrees with the language and finds the use of such imagery to be unacceptable. It will not be used by the Republican National Committee – in any capacity – in the future,” Heye said.

Now Heye is telling the WaPost that he hasn't seen the document, but is giving out PR-quotes on how Steele "disagrees with the language and finds the use of such imagry to be unacceptable." These guys can't even line up their ducks in a row!

The WaPost also reports that the RNC Finance Chairman Peter Terpeluk Jr., is listed on the PowerPoint document. Terpeluk was a former ambassador to Luxembourg, the co-chairman for President George H.W. Bush's 1992 re-election campaign, and was a major fundraiser for Republican Senator John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign. Terpeluk refused to return the WaPost calls for a comment on the document.

Finally, I haven't heard anything from RNC Finance Director Robert Bickhart, who apparently approved the document and made the presentation in Boca Grande, Florida.

How much do you want to bet that neither Terpeluk or Bickhart will not get fired over this "Evil Empire" presentation?

The second point I would like to make is a comment that former RNC member Tom Rath told the WaPost on the document comparisons: "We're not going to win the election by drawing those kinds of comparisons. We're going to win the elections because we have one view of government and how the economy ought to work and American security." Rath may be correct that winning elections will be about making distinct comparisons on policy issues between Democrats and Republicans, but so far the Republicans have refused to provide any policy proposals on issues. Instead, the Republican Party presents fear-mongering, death panels, economic stimulus spending not creating a single job, Obama killing Granny, socialism, cries of deficit spending, and finally NO! The Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart nails it:

The bigger issue for Steele and the Republicans is that nowhere in those 72 pages is there a blueprint for how the GOP will go after the Democrats on policy or ideas. The American people are looking for answers to some very serious problems they and the nation are facing. If this is the best the RNC can do it might as well hand out DC Comics at its next "leadership" gathering.


Unfortunately, the GOP has staked this midterm election as an election to propagate fear-mongering, name-calling, and extremist rhetoric, rather than presenting their ideas on how to solve this country's serious, complex, problems. The question now is will the American people actually see through all this insane, childish, crazy-talk coming from the GOP?

Or will the American people get swallowed into Arkham Asylum?

Thursday, March 04, 2010

Louisiana sheriff arms local volunteers to defend against terrorist attacks

More insanity continues with this TPM Muckraker story:

A Louisiana sheriff plans to arm volunteers with shotguns, riot shields, batons, and a .50-caliber machine gun mounted on a "war wagon," as part of "Operation Exodus," a program to provide security in the event of a terrorist attack or civic unrest. "It's a calling," he says.

The office of Sheriff Larry Deen of Bossier Parish, near Shreveport in the northwest part of the state, last month selected for the program 200 local residents -- mostly ex-law-enforcement personnel -- and began training them in "defensive techniques in the event of a struggle," reports the Shreveport Times. The plan calls for the new recruits to be sent to protect food from grocery stores, gas from gas stations, and other crucial local resources, should the situation demand it.

A press release from Deen's office announcing the program declared that "recent terror threats" had made clear that "homegrown terrorists are in our midst." It continued: "With the easy accessibility of the internet, it is quite possible that these local and international terrorists can form a national or multiple location attack on our nation at any given moment."

"The buck stops with Larry Deen," the sheriff, who didn't immediately respond to our interview request, told the Times. "I am the chief law enforcement officer in this parish, and it is incumbent upon me protect all of the people in it."

The press release added that Operation Exodus got its name in part "because of its Biblical relevance," explaining that "[i]n the book of Exodus, the Israelites were totally on their own, learning to be self-sufficient and handle everything alone, just as the plan provides."

I'm starting to think that Sheriff Deen believes that these guys;

A training session for "Operation Exodus" volunteers. From TPM Muckraker.com

Can become like...these guys?



Or am I just making an excuse to post a bad 1980s propaganda movie preview? Still, 1984's Red Dawn was a pretty good movie for some really bad propaganda. What really scares me is that Hollywood is currently remaking Red Dawn for a November 2010 release. Excuse me, but didn't we just win the Cold War over the Russkies?

Next thing you know, Hollywood will be crossing Red Dawn with Left Behind.

Republican fund raising document characterizes Obama and Democrats as evil Joker, Scooby, and Cruella

I really do not know what to say about this MSNBC story:

Democrats on Wednesday sharply criticized a Republican National Committee fundraising document that caricatured President Obama as the Joker, while Chairman Michael S. Steele sought to distance himself from it.

Also depicted were House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), presented as Cruella de Vil and Scooby-Doo, respectively. The three Democratic leaders were gathered under the heading "The Evil Empire."

The cartoonish images were part of a 72-page PowerPoint presentation assembled for potential campaign donors and fundraisers.

The document was obtained by Politico after being left at a Florida hotel where the Republicans had gathered Feb. 18.

The presentation also outlined how donors will be encouraged to give to Republicans at a time when the party holds neither the White House nor Congress: "Save the country from trending toward Socialism!"

It cites "fear" and "extreme negative feelings toward existing administration" as reasons why donors might contribute to the GOP.

Said Democratic National Committee spokesman Brad Woodhouse: "If you had any doubt, any doubt whatsoever, that the Republican Party has been taken over by the fear-mongering lunatic fringe, those doubts were erased today."

You can view the entire PowerPoint presentation here.

Much of the presentation seems to be a breakdown of Democratic and Republican congressional and gubernatorial seats for the 2010 race, and marketing and fundraising proposals. On Page 30 of the presentation, the question is asked, "What can you sell when you do not have the White House, the House, or the Senate?" The answer is to "Save the country from trending toward Socialism!" And on Page 31 of the presentation, there is this:

GOP PowerPoint slide characterizing President Obama and Democratic leadership as part of an "Evil Empire."

Again, I look at this slide, and I see a GOP party leadership sliding into stark lunacy. The Republican Party cannot seem to enter into an election debating policy issues--they have to incite fear by coloring President Obama's head as the joker, or redraw House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as Cruella DeVille. The Republican Party is becoming a party of childish crackpots.

What is even more ironic is how the Republican National Committee reacted with alarm, when asked to comment on this presentation by Politico:

The document, which two Republican sources said was prepared by the party’s finance staff, comes as Chairman Michael Steele struggles to retain the trust and allegiance of major donors, who can give as much as $30,400 a year to the party.

[....]

The 72-page document was provided to POLITICO by a Democrat, who said a hard copy had been left in the hotel hosting the $2,500-a-head retreat, the Gasparilla Inn & Club. Sources at the event said the presentation was delivered by [RNC Finance Director Rob] Bickhart and by the RNC Finance Chairman, Peter Terpeluk, a former ambassador to Luxembourg under President George W. Bush.

The RNC reacted with alarm to a question about it Wednesday, emailing major donors to warn them of a reporter’s question, and distancing Steele from its contents.

“The document was used for a fundraising presentation Chairman Steele did not attend, nor had he seen the document,” RNC Communications Director Doug Heye said in an email. “Fundraising documents are often controversial.

“Obviously, the Chairman disagrees with the language and finds the use of such imagery to be unacceptable. It will not be used by the Republican National Committee – in any capacity – in the future,” Heye said.

I love the hypocrisy within the Republican Party. First Communications Director Heye claims that "Fundraising documents are often controversial." And now Heye claims that this particular fundraising document will never be used in the future? Excuse me, but it has already been used in a meeting. And if the presentation was not leaked out, I'd guess that it would still be used--the RNC Finance director and Finance chairman both delivered the presentation, and obviously saw the cartoonish drawings. I'm sure they both got a laugh from it. Now, suddenly the GOP finds the language and imagery unacceptable--only after it was revealed in public, and shows just how clownish the Republican Party has become.

Incredible.

Update: RNC Chairman Michael Steele attempted to defend the PowerPoint documents on Fox News, saying the images were pulled off the internet. What is even more amazing is when Fox News' Megyn Kelly gently tried to ask Steele who was responsible for these documents, Steele pleaded, “Can we not raise this to the level of the health care debate? Please? This is an internal matter,” From YouTube:



Translation, we fucked up--Now shut up!

Bunning blinks, drops filibuster on unemployment benefits bill

It has been a busy week, however, I did notice that our favorite, demented, Senator Jim Bunning has backed down from his one-man filibuster against approving unemployment benefits in the Senate. The Senate then immediately approved the unemployment extension bill 78 to 19. What I found especially interesting about this political temper tantrum was the Republican support for Bunning. From the Democrats.Senat.gov website:

SOME REPUBLICANS DEFEND BUNNING…

Corker Defended Bunning, Said Senate Was “Stooping To A Low Level.” On the Senate floor, Senator Corker defended Senator Bunning and said, “I believe we are stooping to a low level. The Senator from Kentucky and I agree on a lot and we disagree on a lot, and I am not here at this moment to debate the merits of either side. What I am saying is this is not the way the Senate functions. Everybody in the country now knows that the Senator from Kentucky has a hold on this bill. That is something that is honored. Not a hold on the bill, but he is objecting to unanimous consent, and that is something that we honor in this body.” [Congressional Record, 2/25/10]

Sessions Defended Bunning, Said He’s Blocking Unemployment Benefits “As A Matter Of Principle.” On the Senate floor, Senator Sessions defending Senator Bunning and said, “I think the Senator from Kentucky is speaking on behalf of the conscience of a lot of Americans, a majority of Americans, if they heard this debate. He is doing it as a matter of principle. I know he has no desire to see people not receive unemployment compensation. He is willing to support that. He simply is saying that enough is enough.” [Congressional Record, 2/25/10]

Sessions Again Defended Bunning, Said He Respects Bunning’s “Courage.” Just yesterday, Senator Sessions again defended Senator Bunning. Sessions spoke about Bunning’s actions on the Senate floor and said, “I respect him for the courage he showed. [Congressional Record, 3/1/10]

Cornyn Admires Bunning’s “Courage.” Senator Cornyn took to the Senate floor, suggested that Senators Bunning and Corker were not afforded the procedural opportunity to explain the GOP filibuster of unemployment benefits and said, “I understand that Senator Durbin retained the floor for the most part and yielded for questions, but basically the procedure denied Senator Bunning and Senator Corker, who I know also weighed in, an opportunity to explain precisely what was going on…. I want to say I admire the courage of the junior Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Bunning.” [Congressional Record, 2/26/10]

Kyl Defended Bunning, Said He “Made A Good Point.” “Bunning got support from Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl, who defended his colleagues insistence of paying for the legislation with unused stimulus funds. ‘You can't say that everything we do around here needs to be offset,’ said Kyl, ‘and then waive the pay go legislation every time you want to do it.’ ‘My colleague from Kentucky made a good point.’” [Politico, 3/1/10]

…WHILE OTHERS REMAIN SILENT

McConnell Took To The Floor, Didn’t Say A Word About Bunning. This morning, Republican Leader Mitch McConnell took to the Senate floor and didn’t mention Senator Bunning’s actions, or the 1.2 million Americans who are affected by the filibuster on unemployment or the 3,181 Kentuckians who will exhaust their benefits this week ALONE. [Senate floor, 3/2/10, NELP.org, 3/2/10]

When Asked About Bunning’s Actions, McConnell Dodged. At the Republican stakeout today, McConnell was repeatedly asked about his fellow senator from Kentucky actions. McConnell refused to directly answer the question and said, “We're in the process of working this out, and hopefully it will be resolved in the near future.” [CQ transcript, Republican stakeout, 3/2/10]

GOP Not “Available For Comment” On Bunning’s Actions. “Representatives of senators in states that have seen furloughs, including Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Bob Bennett (R-Utah), did not respond to inquiries seeking comment about Bunning’s push. Aides to two Republicans running for the Senate — former Rep. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.) — also did not respond to inquiries seeking comment, and a spokeswoman for Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), a Senate candidate in Illinois, said the congressman wasn’t available for comment.” [Politico, 3/2/10]


I decided to take a look at who voted against the unemployment extension, Corker, Sessions and Cornyn all voted against the bill. Senator Jon Kyl voted for the unemployment bill. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, who remained silent on Bunning's temper tantrum, voted against the bill.

So what does this mean? For the GOP, it is all about playing political attacks and obstructionism against the Democrats, and not providing any sort of bipartisan governing for the country. A crackpot senator decided to gum up an unemployment extension bill with a filibuster, and the Republicans decided to use this crackpot senator to play political partisanship against the Democrats. Of course when Bunning blinks, and the unemployment benefits bill does come for a floor vote, a majority of the Republicans will then perform a CYA to vote for the unemployment extension--the last thing the GOP would want is the Democrats attacking them for not providing benefits to unemployed Americans during a midterm election year. Looking at those Republicans who did vote against the measure, they were all located in strong, red states.

But this entire Bunning temper tantrum really shows another side to the Republican Party. Not only is the GOP a Party of No, and obstructionism, but it is also a party that seems to be consumed by extremists and crackpots. I've been watching how the GOP has been reaching out to the Tea Party activists, where even Sarah Palin gave a keynote address to the Tea Party Convention. Look at how the GOP is trying to muzzle their own lunatic fringe, while many of the top Republican leaders are also lunatics--and I'm not talking about the Republican political leaders here. The Democrats need to highlight, and pound this message that the Republican Party is no longer a party of conservatives, but rather a party of lunatics, extremists, and crackpots. And for the past week, Senator Jim Bunning was the lunatic poster child for the Republican Party, with his insane filibuster on the unemployment benefits extension. While Bunning was having his temper tantrum, the rest of the GOP leadership kept quiet, deferring their political souls to the lunatic fringe.

Welcome to the new Republican Party.

Monday, March 01, 2010

Bunning's filibuster cuts pay to doctors

The Bunning filibuster fiasco continues to drive itself into the Crazies Zone. Now apparently, Bunning's filibuster is causing a pay cut for doctors. From Talking Points Memo:

Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) is already infamous for blocking a temporary extension of unemployment and COBRA benefits for out of work Americans. But included in that package is legislation to prevent a mandatory pay cut for doctors--and by standing in its way, he's triggered a 21 percent fee reduction to doctors seeing Medicare patients starting today.

Republicans say they support a temporary measure to avoid the cuts, but they have been unable to rein in Bunning, and, as such, the Senate has failed to act on a House bill that staves them off.

The American Medical Association warned of this last week: "A Medicare meltdown now seems certain, as the U.S. Senate has left early for the weekend, abandoning seniors, military families and baby boomers," reads an AMA statement from Friday. "The Senate failed to repeal the Medicare physician payment formula that will cause a drastic 21 percent payment cut to physicians who care for Medicare and TRICARE patients. On Monday, the 21 percent cut goes into effect, forcing many physicians to limit the number of Medicare and TRICARE patients they see in order to keep their practice doors open."

On a conference call with reporters this afternoon Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) put it this way: "By his actions, Bunning has prevented people from receiving Unemployment, health care access, transportation projects from going forward, and Doctors who provide Medicare services from getting paid."

Today, for the seventh time, Bunning objected to a request for unanimous consent to temporarily extend benefits. In addition to cutting doctor's fees, his exploitation of the Senate's filibuster rules has cost thousands of out-of-work Americans their benefits and has even put thousands of federal employees out of work.

So if I'm reading this correctly, doctors who treat Medicare and Tricare patients, will see their payments cut due to Bunning's filibustering of temporary unemployment and COBRA benefits. So if the doctors are seeing their paychecks getting cut, does that mean those same doctors will also be thrown out of work and not see a temporary extension of their unemployment benefits?

And does it end at doctors? What about psychiatrists? Will psychiatrists see their paychecks expand due to the increased number of Republican crazies inhabiting Congress?

Olbermann has the latest on the insanity of Jim Bunning:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

GOP Senator Jon Kyl claims unemployment benefits make people not want to work

Is it me, or has the Republican Party followed Jim Bunning over a cliff? From The Huffington Post:

A debate on the Senate floor Monday over unemployment compensation crystallized, at least for a moment, the divide between the two parties in Washington.

Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the Republican whip, argued that unemployment benefits dissuade people from job-hunting "because people are being paid even though they're not working."

Unemployment insurance "doesn't create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work," Kyl said during debate over whether unemployment insurance and other benefits that expired amid GOP objections Sunday should be extended.

"I'm sure most of them would like work and probably have tried to seek it, but you can't argue that it's a job enhancer. If anything, as I said, it's a disincentive. And the same thing with the COBRA extension and the other extensions here," said Kyl.

Unemployment benefits are generally so small that much of it is often used to pay for COBRA health insurance, even when subsidized. The size of the benefits does not generally cover the cost of living and it would be hard to find a single person who would prefer unemployment to having a job so that they could get subsidized COBRA.



I think that Jim Bunning has just opened a huge can of night-crawlers here. Had Bunning kept quiet, and allowed Congress to pass the unemployment extension with overwhelming support from both political parties, this debate would have never come to the forefront. However, Bunning decided to engage in his one-man filibuster. Now we have another Republican Senator, Jon Kyl of Arizona, who is calling unemployment benefits as dissuading people from looking for jobs. Now the debate has crystallized to where the Republicans want to end unemployment compensation for jobless Americans at a time of high unemployment. The Democrats want to extend unemployment. I should also say that the current unemployment rate in the U.S. is at around 9.7 percent.

What are these guys drinking?

There is a new horror movie coming out called The Crazies. I'm actually starting to think that we have our own version of The Crazies in Washington DC, also known as the GOP.

Here's the preview for the horror movie The Crazies. What do you think?

Conservatives muzzle their own lunatic fringe base

I found this Politico.com story through The Washington Monthly, and I just have to marvel at the GOP's pr-spin. From the Politico.com:

After months of struggling to harness the energy of newly engaged tea party activists, the conservative establishment — with critical midterm congressional elections on the horizon — is taking aim for the first time at the movement’s extremist elements.

The move has been cast by some conservatives as a modern version of the marginalization of the far-right, anti-communist John Birch Society during the reorganization of the conservative movement spearheaded by William F. Buckley Jr. in the 1960s and 1970s.

“A similar effort will be required today of conservative political and intellectual leaders,” former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson wrote in his column in The Washington Post. “It will not be easy. Sometimes it takes courage to stand before a large crowd and proclaim that two plus two equals four.”

But for Gerson and other conservatives, this is not just an intellectual exercise. They have a very specific political goal: to deprive Democrats and their allies of a potentially potent weapon to use against the GOP in November.

“I don’t believe we should be giving [extremists] a platform or empowering them to do anything based off their conspiracy theories,” said Ned Ryun, president of American Majority, “because they give the left ammunition to try to define the tea party movement as crazy and fringy.”

I don’t believe we should be giving [extremists] a platform or empowering them to do anything based off their conspiracy theories, because they give the left ammunition to try to define the tea party movement as crazy and fringy. Crazy and fringy??? Can you say Jim Bunning?

The problem here is that the Republican Party has seriously made its bed with the "crazy and fringy" elements on the extreme, conservative right. And now the GOP is afraid that the Democrats will call out just how lunatic the conservative right has become. Steve Benen at the Washington Monthly agrees:

If I were a Democratic strategist, I'd likely invest quite a bit of energy in characterizing the modern Republican Party as stark raving mad, and its base as having gone hopelessly insane. There's probably real value in reminding mainstream voters that there are a lot of nutjobs running the GOP's circus, and rewarding the party with more power, control, and influence may not be a good idea.

If a growing number of leaders on the right believe this is a potential p.r. problem for Republicans, and are taking steps to separate the party from the crazies, this would be a positive development for everyone.

Unfortunately, the extremists are the ones trying to keep the nut-jobs out of the GOP house:

The attempt “to clean up our own house,” as Erick Erickson, founder of the influential conservative blog RedState, puts it, is necessary “because traditional press outlets have decided to spotlight these fringe elements that get attracted to the movement, and focus on them as if they’re a large part of this tea party movement. And I don’t think they are.”

[....]

Erickson has advised new tea party organizers on how to avoid affiliations with extremists and this month banned birthers — conservatives who believe that Obama was not born in the United States and is, therefore, ineligible to be president — from his blog. (He has long blacklisted truthers, those who believe that the U.S. government was complicit in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks — a conspiracy theory with devotees across the political spectrum.)

“At some point, you have to use the word ‘crazy,’” said Erickson.

Media Matters has plenty of reports detailing some of Erickson's own extremist rhetoric, such as calling retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter a "goat-fucking child molester." Erickson also called two Democratic U.S. Senators "healthcare suicide bombers, while praising protesters, marching in Washington, to "tell Nancy Pelosi and the Congress to send Obama to a death panel." And it is not just Erickson that has riled up the right-wing wackos here. Just look at the bile coming from Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin, or Bill O'Reilly. These are some of the biggest conservative commentators and pundits that have spread hatred to their conservative "fringe" base. This has been going on for years. Now top GOP leaders are worried that the fringe base is becoming too extreme and crazy?

The hypocrisy is just incredible.

GOP Senator Jim Bunning filibusters Senate vote to extend unemployment benefits

I've been watching this story over the weekend, and I'm just fascinated at this latest Senate "train wreak" that has been caused by a lone, Republican senator. From MSNBC News:

WASHINGTON - Two thousand federal transportation workers were furloughed without pay on Monday, and the Obama administration said they have a Kentucky senator to blame for it.

Federal reimbursements to states for highway programs will also be halted, the Transportation Department said in a statement late Sunday. The reimbursements amount to about $190 million a day, according to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

The furloughs and freeze on payments were the result of a decision last week by Republican Sen. Jim Bunning to block passage of legislation that would have extended federal highway and transit programs, the department said. Those programs expired at midnight Sunday.

The extension of transportation programs was part of a larger package of government programs that also expired Sunday, including unemployment benefits for about 400,000 Americans.

Bunning objected to the $10 billion measure, saying it would add to the budget deficit. He didn't respond to a request Monday for comment.


Countdown with Keith Olbermann has a decent back story on Bunning's 'bizarro' behavior:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy



Should I really feel sorry that Bunning has missed his college basketball game so that he could deny unemployment benefits to Americans who have lost their jobs?

Of course, when Democratic senators pleaded with Bunning to drop his filibuster, Bunning replied "Tough shit!" From the Politico.com:

Senate Democrats spent Thursday night hammering away at Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) for single-handedly holding up action in the upper chamber – but he blurted out a message to one of them on the Senate floor: “Tough s—t.”

In an unusual display in the normally sleepy chamber, Bunning – without the support of GOP leadership – has blocked efforts to quickly approve a series of extensions to measures that would otherwise expire Sunday, including unemployment insurance and the Cobra program that allows people who lose their health benefits to continue getting coverage.

And that has led to a furious exchange on the floor, with Democrats attacking the senator, who has refused to relent on his objection, in unusually harsh terms.

In a colloquy with Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Jeff Merkley, a freshman Democrat from Oregon, was pleading for Bunning to drop his objection, when the Kentucky Republican got fed up.

“Tough s—t,” Bunning said as he was seated in the back row, overheard by the floor staff and others in attendance.

A spokesman for Bunning did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Finally, an angry Bunning flipped the bird at reporters, questioning Bunning on his one-man filibuster. From ABC News:

Sen. Jim Bunning has left dozens of infrastructure projects on hold and put thousands of federal transportation workers temporarily out of work, but he is sticking to his guns, despite withering criticism from the White House and his Democratic opponents.

Bunning, the Kentucky Republican, decided last week to block a bill that would extend government funding of highway and transit programs and unemployment benefits for 400,000 Americans, among other programs. He has been critical of the bill's $10 billion price tag and its potential to add to the national debt.

Earlier today, Bunning refused to answer questions from ABC News, even flipping his middle finger at a producer trying to catch up with him from behind.

"Excuse me! This is a Senators-only elevator!" Bunning thundered as he boarded an elevator in the Hart Senate Office Building. "I'm not talking to anybody," he said.



I don't really know what else to say about this story, except that Republican Senator Jim Bunning decided to play the major asshole in this latest political drama. Of course, Bunning is in a perfect position to play this curmudgeon game, since he has decided to retire at the end of this year, and will not be facing re-election. But on another note, I can't help but wonder how embarrassing Bunning is to the Republican Party--Bunning is playing the same obstructionist game that the GOP has been playing with the Democrats, and the Obama administration, on every piece of legislative agenda for the past year. Could the difference here between GOP obstructionism against everything, and Bunning's obstructionism against the unemployment benefits simply be that Bunning is a stark, raving lunatic?