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!
Saturday, March 06, 2010
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:
Give up? Here is a hint from the U.S. Social Security website:
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.
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:
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:
Next question I would have to ask is to RNC Communications Director Doug Hey, who said in an email to Politico.com that;
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:
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?
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:
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.
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.comCan 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:
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:
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!
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:
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.
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:
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:
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:
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?
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:
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:
Unfortunately, the extremists are the ones trying to keep the nut-jobs out of the GOP house:
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.
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:
Countdown with Keith Olbermann has a decent back story on Bunning's 'bizarro' behavior:
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:
Finally, an angry Bunning flipped the bird at reporters, questioning Bunning on his one-man filibuster. From ABC News:
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?
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?
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Is Obama a leader, or a follower?
This is from Andrew Sullivan at the Daily Dish:
There were two major issues that defined the first year of Obama's presidency. The first issue was the economic stimulus plan. I'm not surprised that the plan passed, considering that the U.S. economy was sinking into a deep recession, and both Congress and the president had to do something to show the American people that they were trying to tackle the serious economic problems--irregardless of the GOP obstructionism, and Republican wet dreams of seeing this president fail. The second issue was health care. Health care was an issue that was brought up in the 2008 elections, and President Obama made it a centerpiece in his campaign agenda. But throughout the first year of his administration, I never really saw President Obama express any strong leadership in the health care debate. President Obama never really presented an agenda, or a bill, expressing what health care reform should be--it was almost like Congress had to draft health care reform through committee, and now we've got a health care reform bill that nobody likes. President Obama never used the bully pulpit to press the need for health care reform, to attack GOP obstructionism of health care reform, death panel fears, or rumors that "Obamacare" would take away grandma's Medicare. If anything, President Obama ceded the debate on health care to the Republicans, who were more than happy to bash Obama and the Democrats with a 2X4. Finally, I don't think I ever saw President Obama get mad. There are times when a president has to be calm, cool, and collected in making policy decisions. But there are also times when a president will have to use his own 2x4 to force congressmen, or opponents, to submit to his will. When was the last time you saw President Obama take Joe Lieberman to the back of the woodshed?
This is going to be the most important speech President Obama could ever make in his political career--this speech will determine whether Obama will become a one-term president. President Obama will have to come out and crack congressional skulls in order to pass his health care reform. President Obama needs to show this country that he is a leader, not a follower. If health care reform dies, then President Obama has become a failed leader. Republicans will become even more empowered in their obstructionism, sending this country further into the toilet for their crass greed of political power--I'm sorry, but the Republican Party does not believe in the good of the country. Independents will leave him. They bought the Obama campaign message of change. However, since President Obama could not deliver such change in his first year, then why should independents continue to support him? Finally, I think that Democrats will become disillusioned and angry. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party is angry at President Obama for not being progressive or liberal enough on the health care bill. Moderate Democrats may become disillusioned because they hoping for a charismatic leader, but ended up voting an empty suit in the White House? Again, I'm looking at the Massachusetts and Oregon special elections, and I see a populist anger slowly growing against the way our current leaders are badly behaving in the government. President Obama has shown his own bad behavior in that he has failed in providing strong leadership to the country. If Obama doesn't turn this around quickly enough, then he is going to be more than just a mediocre one-term president. President Obama will become another failed leader.
This country cannot afford to keep electing failed leaders into the White House.
Unlike many liberal blogs, I'm encouraged by the spending freeze and thrilled by the debt commission idea. But to my mind, none of this makes any sense unless Obama passes a core political test.
Does he have the courage to insist that healthcare reform is not dead? Does he use his clout to pressure the Senate to give the House some signs that the reconciliation strategy can work? Does he use every ounce of political capital to pass this bill, the cornerstone of his reform agenda, the failure of which will mean the end to any grappling with the health insurance crisis for another generation.
If he cannot do that, if he punts on this bill, or if he is passive and uncommitted, then those of us who placed hope in his leadership skills will have to acknowledge we hoped too much. The test of leadership is sometimes staying a course even when all the polls and pols have turned against it on a dime. There are times when a president should preside; but there are also times when he must lead.
I have one simple test: if the health bill dies from neglect and irresolution, Obama is no leader.
He is a follower. He cannot vote present on this one. He has majorities in both Houses and a landslide victory and he is unable to deliver on a core priority in his first year. That's a definition of a failed presidency and it is why the GOP - with nothing to offer the country - decided to make it his Waterloo. They knew and know how gutting this bill and killing reform and suffocating any serious change in this country is their way to a nihilist victory. And such a victory would not be a vindication of Republican policy right now. It would be a perfectly reasonable response to a Democratic party palpably incapable of governing and a president clearly unable to deliver.
If he cannot do this, he does not have the fortitude to be a successful president. And his weakness on this will be rightly interpreted as weakness everywhere else. That applies to foreign policy as well, with Netanyahu and Khamenei and Chavez and Sarkozy all watching to see what this guy is made of.
These are dark times as the forces of reaction and resistance redouble their efforts to prevent any reform on any issue. Obama was elected to break through that impasse. If he cannot deliver, he must cede to someone who can.
There were two major issues that defined the first year of Obama's presidency. The first issue was the economic stimulus plan. I'm not surprised that the plan passed, considering that the U.S. economy was sinking into a deep recession, and both Congress and the president had to do something to show the American people that they were trying to tackle the serious economic problems--irregardless of the GOP obstructionism, and Republican wet dreams of seeing this president fail. The second issue was health care. Health care was an issue that was brought up in the 2008 elections, and President Obama made it a centerpiece in his campaign agenda. But throughout the first year of his administration, I never really saw President Obama express any strong leadership in the health care debate. President Obama never really presented an agenda, or a bill, expressing what health care reform should be--it was almost like Congress had to draft health care reform through committee, and now we've got a health care reform bill that nobody likes. President Obama never used the bully pulpit to press the need for health care reform, to attack GOP obstructionism of health care reform, death panel fears, or rumors that "Obamacare" would take away grandma's Medicare. If anything, President Obama ceded the debate on health care to the Republicans, who were more than happy to bash Obama and the Democrats with a 2X4. Finally, I don't think I ever saw President Obama get mad. There are times when a president has to be calm, cool, and collected in making policy decisions. But there are also times when a president will have to use his own 2x4 to force congressmen, or opponents, to submit to his will. When was the last time you saw President Obama take Joe Lieberman to the back of the woodshed?
This is going to be the most important speech President Obama could ever make in his political career--this speech will determine whether Obama will become a one-term president. President Obama will have to come out and crack congressional skulls in order to pass his health care reform. President Obama needs to show this country that he is a leader, not a follower. If health care reform dies, then President Obama has become a failed leader. Republicans will become even more empowered in their obstructionism, sending this country further into the toilet for their crass greed of political power--I'm sorry, but the Republican Party does not believe in the good of the country. Independents will leave him. They bought the Obama campaign message of change. However, since President Obama could not deliver such change in his first year, then why should independents continue to support him? Finally, I think that Democrats will become disillusioned and angry. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party is angry at President Obama for not being progressive or liberal enough on the health care bill. Moderate Democrats may become disillusioned because they hoping for a charismatic leader, but ended up voting an empty suit in the White House? Again, I'm looking at the Massachusetts and Oregon special elections, and I see a populist anger slowly growing against the way our current leaders are badly behaving in the government. President Obama has shown his own bad behavior in that he has failed in providing strong leadership to the country. If Obama doesn't turn this around quickly enough, then he is going to be more than just a mediocre one-term president. President Obama will become another failed leader.
This country cannot afford to keep electing failed leaders into the White House.
GOP leaders tell House Republicans to behave
This is just very interesting. From Who Runs Gov, via Americablog:
I wonder how many of these House Republicans will behave during President Obama's SOTU address tonight? Or will the Senate Republicans degenerate into bratty children tonight?
Update: Perhaps the Congressional Republicans will take a page out of this brilliantly funny SNL strip:
House GOP leaders are urging fellow Republicans to control their tempers and avoid any repeat performances of Joe Wilson’s “you lie” outburst at tonight’s State of the Union speech.
House Republican leaders warned rank and file Republican members in a private meeting this morning to show the President “respect” during tonight’s speech, two sources familiar with the meeting tell me.
House GOP leader John Boehner, minority whip Eric Cantor, and leading House conservative Mike Pence all stood up and delivered that message to the closed-door House GOP caucus meeting today.
“All of them talked about how the President is a guest,” one senior House GOP aide who was there tells me.
Separately, Cantor did a round of local radio interviews in his home state of Virginia vowing that attendees would treat the President “respectfully.”
For his part, Wilson is promising to behave: “I am a gentleman.”
I wonder how many of these House Republicans will behave during President Obama's SOTU address tonight? Or will the Senate Republicans degenerate into bratty children tonight?
Update: Perhaps the Congressional Republicans will take a page out of this brilliantly funny SNL strip:
Oregon voters approve measures to tax the rich
I wrote this post on Oregon voters were considering a couple of measures to tax the rich a couple of days ago. Well, the votes are in. This is from the Oregon Live.com, via Americablog:
I'm still thinking that the Oregon measures are the result of some serious populist anger against the established interests. I think these voters are getting angry over the unfairness, corruption, cronyism that is taking place between corporate interests, politicians, government, Wall Street, the ubber-rich--list your points here. It is a general, growing, anger at the direction this country is heading, and at how the voters feel like they're getting screwed on Main Street. And this anger is on both sides of the political spectrum--look at the Tea Party movement that could be threatening to push the Republican Party even further rightward. It is fascinating to watch.
Going back to the Americablog posting, there is an interesting political context link from MyDD's Jonathan Singer:
Singer calls it populism, which is probably a better term than my voter anger. Still, the message is clear--voters do not like what is going on in government. And they're willing to knock out Democrats or Republicans that are unwilling to listen to their demands.
Oregon voters bucked decades of anti-tax and anti-Salem sentiment Tuesday, raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy to prevent further erosion of public schools and other state services.
The tax measures passed easily, with late returns showing a 54 percent to 46 percent ratio. Measure 66 raises taxes on households with taxable income above $250,000, and Measure 67 sets higher minimum taxes on corporations and increases the tax rate on upper-level profits.
The results triggered waves of relief from educators and legislative leaders, who were facing an estimated $727 million shortfall in the current two-year budget if the measures failed.
"We're absolutely ecstatic," said Hanna Vandering, a physical education teacher from Beaverton and vice president of the statewide teachers union. "What Oregonians said today is they believe in public education and vital services."
The double-barreled victory is the first voter-approved statewide income tax increase since the 1930s. Other states, facing similar budget woes, are watching the outcome closely because Oregon, after all, is a state that capped property taxes and locked a surplus tax rebate program into the constitution.
I'm still thinking that the Oregon measures are the result of some serious populist anger against the established interests. I think these voters are getting angry over the unfairness, corruption, cronyism that is taking place between corporate interests, politicians, government, Wall Street, the ubber-rich--list your points here. It is a general, growing, anger at the direction this country is heading, and at how the voters feel like they're getting screwed on Main Street. And this anger is on both sides of the political spectrum--look at the Tea Party movement that could be threatening to push the Republican Party even further rightward. It is fascinating to watch.
Going back to the Americablog posting, there is an interesting political context link from MyDD's Jonathan Singer:
After the Beltway elite read the results of the special Senate election in Massachusetts last week as an indication of conservatism on the rise, Oregon voters clarified the message: It's not conservatism, but rather populism that is on the rise.
[....]
The message out of Oregon, like the message out of Massachusetts, is resonating: Voters are in a populist mood right now -- not an anti-government one, necessarily, but a populist one nevertheless. The progressive brand of populism that resonated with Oregonians this month is slightly different than the one that rang true in Massachusetts. Yet the message is just as clear.
The real question now is whether DC will listen, or if instead it will continue to cling to its common wisdom.
Singer calls it populism, which is probably a better term than my voter anger. Still, the message is clear--voters do not like what is going on in government. And they're willing to knock out Democrats or Republicans that are unwilling to listen to their demands.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Toyota tells dealers to stop selling eight model cars covered by recall
This is a huge blow for Toyota. From the Los Angeles Times:
This has become a huge problem for Toyota--a recall of eight models produced over a span of 3-5 years, affecting over 6 million cars. I do not even think that Toyota really knows what the problem is with these cars regarding unexpected acceleration. What is more, both the recall and the halting of sales affects some of Toyota's best-selling models--including the Camry, the Corolla, the Tundra, and the Highlander--affecting Toyota's small car, truck, and SUV platforms. So far, Toyota is now taking the right steps now in both issuing the recall order and halting the sales of their vehicles. But apparently Toyota has been rather late in issuing such a recall, according to this ABC News story:
Toyota had a reputation for producing safe, quality-made cars. This latest order to halt sales will probably severely tarnish Toyota's image as a quality car-maker, not to mention the losses Toyota will take in U.S. car sales market as a result of the halting of sales and production of these models. The longer this halting of sales and production of Toyota cars takes place, the greater the losses that Toyota will incur. And it is not just dollar amounts of lost sales, but also potentially long-term, loyal Toyota customers who will be shopping for other manufacturer's cars.
Toyota Motor Corp. is temporarily halting sales and production of eight models, including the top-selling Camry and Corolla, that it has recalled because the accelerator pedal can stick and cause unwanted acceleration.
The automaker announced the recall of 2.3 million cars and trucks late last week. That came just months after Toyota launched its largest-ever recall -- 4.3 million vehicles -- because floor mats could trap the gas pedal and also cause sudden acceleration.
Today, Toyota informed its roughly 1,200 U.S. dealers to immediately halt sales of both new and used models of the affected vehicles: the 2009 to 2010 RAV4, 2009 to 2010 Corolla, 2009 to 2010 Matrix, 2005 to 2010 Avalon, 2010 Highlander, 2007 to 2010 Tundra and 2008 to 2010 Sequoia. It also is halting sales of certain 2007 to 2010 Camry sedans, depending on where those vehicles were manufactured.
Toyota also said it would stop production of those models on five assembly lines in the U.S. and Canada, effective Monday.
The automaker did not say how long it would freeze sales of those vehicles, which represent the majority of its sales, by volume, in the U.S.
"At this point, we don't know," Toyota spokesman Brian Lyons said about a remedy for the problem. He said that Toyota had never before issued a "stop sale" order. "I'm not going to speculate on how long this will be in effect."
This has become a huge problem for Toyota--a recall of eight models produced over a span of 3-5 years, affecting over 6 million cars. I do not even think that Toyota really knows what the problem is with these cars regarding unexpected acceleration. What is more, both the recall and the halting of sales affects some of Toyota's best-selling models--including the Camry, the Corolla, the Tundra, and the Highlander--affecting Toyota's small car, truck, and SUV platforms. So far, Toyota is now taking the right steps now in both issuing the recall order and halting the sales of their vehicles. But apparently Toyota has been rather late in issuing such a recall, according to this ABC News story:
The major announcement comes just days after Toyota recalled 2.3 million vehicles to correct the sudden unexplained acceleration in some of its models, after ABC News informed the company that the latest in a long series of investigative reports on the issue was about to air.
Safety expert Sean Kane told ABC News that since last fall, when Toyota said it had solved the acceleration problem with proposed changes to gas pedals and a recall of 4.2 million cars with suspect floor mats, more than 60 new cases of runaway Toyotas have been reported.
In the most tragic incident, on the day after Christmas, four people died in Southlake, Texas, a suburb of Dallas, when a 2008 Toyota sped off the road, through a fence and landed upside down in a pond. The car's floor mats were found in the trunk of the car, where owners had been advised to put them as part of the recall.
"There's one thing that didn't cause the accident," said Southlake police spokesman Lt. Ben Brown.
Federal safety investigators have joined in the investigation, according to Lt. Brown.
Toyota had a reputation for producing safe, quality-made cars. This latest order to halt sales will probably severely tarnish Toyota's image as a quality car-maker, not to mention the losses Toyota will take in U.S. car sales market as a result of the halting of sales and production of these models. The longer this halting of sales and production of Toyota cars takes place, the greater the losses that Toyota will incur. And it is not just dollar amounts of lost sales, but also potentially long-term, loyal Toyota customers who will be shopping for other manufacturer's cars.
31 House Republicans support resolution honoring alleged felon James O'Keefe
Okay, now the James O'Keefe story is entering into the Twilight Zone. Now Media Matters is reporting that Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX) has introduced a resolution praising O'Keefe for his investigation into the ACORN activities. Here is the text of the resolution:
Even more insane, Olson's resolution has picked up support by 31 House Republicans. Media Matters has the names of these supporters:
According to Govtrack.us, the resolution was introduced on October 7, 2009, and is currently sitting in the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. So obviously this resolution was introduced well before O'Keefe got busted today on the wiretapping charges. And I'm certainly guessing that the Democratic leadership are more than happy to toss this resolution into the committee trash can. This makes me wonder--will Olson and his GOP cosponsors continue to support this resolution, now that O'Keefe has been arrested on felony charges? This resolution is certainly making Olson and his 31 Republican cosponsors looking really stupid now.
Talking Points Memo now has the federal affidavit detailing the charges against O'Keefe.
Text of the House Resolution:
Whereas Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe III filmed investigatory videos uncovering the fraudulent and illegal practices of the Association of Community Organization for Reform Now (ACORN);
Whereas the House of Representatives voted to completely defund ACORN on September 17, 2009;
Whereas these videos resulted in the potential annual savings of millions of taxpayer dollars to organizations that contract with ACORN;
Whereas Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe III have displayed exemplary actions as government watchdogs and young journalists uncovering wasteful government spending; and
Whereas Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe III are owed a debt of gratitude by the people of the United States:
Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives— (1) honors Hannah Giles and James O’ Keefe III for their work as investigative journalists; (2) commends Hannah Giles and James O’ Keefe III for bringing to light the fraudulent behavior of the Association of Community Organization for Reform Now (ACORN) and helping save millions of taxpayer dollars that otherwise would have funded ACORN; and (3) respectfully requests the Clerk of the House to transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution to Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe III.
Even more insane, Olson's resolution has picked up support by 31 House Republicans. Media Matters has the names of these supporters:
Todd Akin [R-MO2]
Roscoe Bartlett [R-MD6]
Joe Barton [R-TX6]
Rob Bishop [R-UT1]
Jo Bonner [R-AL1]
John Boozman [R-AR3]
Paul Broun [R-GA10]
Henry Brown [R-SC1]
John Campbell [R-CA48]
John Carter [R-TX31]
Howard Coble [R-NC6]
Tom Cole [R-OK4]
Michael Conaway [R-TX11]
John Culberson [R-TX7]
Mary Fallin [R-OK5]
Trent Franks [R-AZ2]
Louis Gohmert [R-TX1]
Kay Granger [R-TX12]
Ralph Hall [R-TX4]
Jim Jordan [R-OH4]
Steve King [R-IA5]
John Kline [R-MN2]
Doug Lamborn [R-CO5]
Blaine Luetkemeyer [R-MO9]
Daniel Lungren [R-CA3]
Kenny Marchant [R-TX24]
Joseph Pitts [R-PA16]
Bill Posey [R-FL15]
Phil Roe [R-TN1]
Jean Schmidt [R-OH2]
John Shadegg [R-AZ3]
According to Govtrack.us, the resolution was introduced on October 7, 2009, and is currently sitting in the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. So obviously this resolution was introduced well before O'Keefe got busted today on the wiretapping charges. And I'm certainly guessing that the Democratic leadership are more than happy to toss this resolution into the committee trash can. This makes me wonder--will Olson and his GOP cosponsors continue to support this resolution, now that O'Keefe has been arrested on felony charges? This resolution is certainly making Olson and his 31 Republican cosponsors looking really stupid now.
Talking Points Memo now has the federal affidavit detailing the charges against O'Keefe.
Anti-Acorn filmmaker arrested for bugging Senator Mary Landrieu’s office
This is just...wow! From the Politico.com:
Do I see shades of Watergate rearing its head again?
I'll admit that the ACORN controversy became big news story for the conservative media, and bloggers. My thinking here is that O'Keefe got a little cocky with his successful "gotcha journalism" against ACORN, that he thought he could get away with wiretapping Landrieu's Senate office. What was O'Keefe thinking he could get from bugging Landrieu's office? Any publishing of taped phone conversations would still get O'Keefe arrested on wiretapping charges. Or was O'Keefe hoping to gather dirt on Landrieu to give to other GOP operatives intent on politically taking Landrieu out? O'Keefe was stupid for attempting to break the law for political gain, and he should be prosecuted to the fullest intent. Then again, I also have to wonder how many other GOP or conservative political operatives are also breaking the law for political gain?
Federal authorities have arrested four men on felony charges for attempting to infiltrate Sen. Mary Landrieu’s New Orleans office, including one filmmaker who targeted the community group ACORN last year in undercover videos.
Among those arrested was 25-year-old James O’Keefe, the conservative filmmaker, along with Joseph Basel, Robert Flanagan and Stan Dai, all 24. They were charged with entering federal property under false pretenses and attempting to gain access to the Democrat’s office by posing as telephone repairmen, according to a copy of an FBI affidavit unsealed Tuesday.
The complaint said that Flanagan and Basel each entered the premises, wearing light green fluorescent vests, denim paints and blue work shirts, tool belts and hard-hats. They informed a member of Landrieu’s staff that they were telephone repairmen and requested access to the main telephone at the reception desk.
At that point, the two men allegedly attempted to manipulate telephones and accessed the telephone closet, saying they needed to work on the entire system. The men, who said they left their credentials in their vehicles, were arrested by the U.S. Marshal’s Service soon afterward.
According to the FBI, the four men could each face up to 10 years and a fine of $250,000 if they are convicted.
O’Keefe made waves last year when he posed as a pimp and taped ACORN employees discussing a prostitution ring, embarrassing the group and forcing many of its supporters to spurn its ties with it.
Do I see shades of Watergate rearing its head again?
I'll admit that the ACORN controversy became big news story for the conservative media, and bloggers. My thinking here is that O'Keefe got a little cocky with his successful "gotcha journalism" against ACORN, that he thought he could get away with wiretapping Landrieu's Senate office. What was O'Keefe thinking he could get from bugging Landrieu's office? Any publishing of taped phone conversations would still get O'Keefe arrested on wiretapping charges. Or was O'Keefe hoping to gather dirt on Landrieu to give to other GOP operatives intent on politically taking Landrieu out? O'Keefe was stupid for attempting to break the law for political gain, and he should be prosecuted to the fullest intent. Then again, I also have to wonder how many other GOP or conservative political operatives are also breaking the law for political gain?
Could alien life be already here on Earth?
This is from MSNBC News:
Of course the aliens are among us. You just have to look here;
I'll admit that I was first going with the 1956 movie trailer, but I think I like the 1978 trailer even better. Both are great science fiction movies.
LONDON - For the past 50 years, scientists have scoured the skies for radio signals from beyond our planet, hoping for some sign of extraterrestrial life. But one physicist says there's no reason alien life couldn't already be lurking among us — or maybe even in us.
Paul Davies, an award-winning Arizona State University physicist known for his popular science writing said Tuesday that life may have developed on Earth not once but several times.
Davies said the variant life forms — most likely tiny microbes — could still be hanging around "right under our noses — or even in our noses."
"How do we know all life on Earth descended from a single origin?" he told a conference at London's prestigious Royal Society, which serves as Britain's academy of sciences. "We've just scratched the surface of the microbial world."
The idea that alien micro-organisms could be hiding out here on Earth has been discussed for a while, according to Jill Tarter, the director of the U.S. SETI project, which listens for signals from civilizations based around distant stars.
She said several of the scientists involved in the project were interested in pursuing the notion, which Davies earlier laid out in a 2007 article published in Scientific American in which he asked: "Are aliens among us?"
Of course the aliens are among us. You just have to look here;
I'll admit that I was first going with the 1956 movie trailer, but I think I like the 1978 trailer even better. Both are great science fiction movies.
Schwarzenegger wants to send California prisoners to Mexico
This is from Raw Story:
It is an interesting idea, but I seriously doubt it will ever work. First, I'm guessing that the Governator would want to contract with private firms to build and run these prisons in Mexico. Why is it, when I think of this proposal, my mind goes back to the corruption, waste, fraud, and shoddy workmanship that Haliburton, KBR, and other firms engaged in with the Iraq reconstruction money--financed by American taxpayers? Something tells me we'd see the same thing with private firms building and running these Mexican prisons. In fact, I'd also guess that the private firms would demand more money from California taxpayers to build more Mexican prisons to house more inmates, and perhaps even cut corners just to increase their own profit margins?
A second problem I have with this idea is Mexico itself. There is still a high level of corruption in Mexico--especially political and drug-related corruption. And the Governator wants to build prisons in Mexico? I don't know how much this corruption will affect such a prison program--especially if such corruption influences private firms' construction and maintaining of these Mexican prison facilities, or even if the corruption extends down to a prisoner's ability to bribe the guards to be released from such a prison. Finally, how would Sacramento be able to regulate these facilities that are run by private companies in a foreign country? I'm sorry, but the more I think about this, the more I believe the Governator is proposing a scam to screw the California taxpayer into this boondoggle of a wealth transfer to a privatized prison interest.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger suggested California could ease its crowded prison system by sending thousands of undocumented inmates to specially built jails in Mexico.
Speaking to reporters at the Sacramento Press Club, Schwarzenegger said California could ease its strained finances by a billion dollars if 20,000 illegal immigrants currently held in the state were housed across the border.
"I think that we can do so much better in the prison system alone if we can go and take, inmates for instance, the 20,000 inmates that are illegal immigrants that are here and get them to Mexico," Schwarzenegger said.
"Think about it -- if California gives Mexico the money. Not 'Hey, you take care of them, these are your citizens'. No. Not at all.
"We pay them to build the prison down in Mexico. And then we have those undocumented immigrants down there in prison. It would half the costs to build the prison and run the prison. We could save a billion dollars right there that could go into higher education."
It is an interesting idea, but I seriously doubt it will ever work. First, I'm guessing that the Governator would want to contract with private firms to build and run these prisons in Mexico. Why is it, when I think of this proposal, my mind goes back to the corruption, waste, fraud, and shoddy workmanship that Haliburton, KBR, and other firms engaged in with the Iraq reconstruction money--financed by American taxpayers? Something tells me we'd see the same thing with private firms building and running these Mexican prisons. In fact, I'd also guess that the private firms would demand more money from California taxpayers to build more Mexican prisons to house more inmates, and perhaps even cut corners just to increase their own profit margins?
A second problem I have with this idea is Mexico itself. There is still a high level of corruption in Mexico--especially political and drug-related corruption. And the Governator wants to build prisons in Mexico? I don't know how much this corruption will affect such a prison program--especially if such corruption influences private firms' construction and maintaining of these Mexican prison facilities, or even if the corruption extends down to a prisoner's ability to bribe the guards to be released from such a prison. Finally, how would Sacramento be able to regulate these facilities that are run by private companies in a foreign country? I'm sorry, but the more I think about this, the more I believe the Governator is proposing a scam to screw the California taxpayer into this boondoggle of a wealth transfer to a privatized prison interest.
New poll reveals 23 percent Americans spend too much time online
Excuse me while I check out the latest OMG from Yahoo. In the meantime, you can ponder this revealing Rasmussen poll:
Americans increasingly live in a world of cell phones, laptops, Blackberries, desk computers and more, all wirelessly linked to the Internet, and now automakers even plan front-seat computers in some cars.
But a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 23% of adults think they personally spend too much time using the Internet, computers and mobile communications devices.
Seventy-one percent (71%) disagree and believe the amount of time they spend this way is appropriate. Seventy-five percent (75%), however, believe young children spend too much time on computers and other electronic equipment.
In a survey last August, 51% of adults said they use the Internet every day or nearly every day. Another 14% said they are online several times a week. Six percent (6%) said they are on the Internet once a week or less, while 28% rarely or never go online.
President Obama proposes spending freeze
I saw this story last night after I was finished tweaking the new blog template. Now it is time to comment on it. From the New York Times:
First, I don't know any details on this spending freeze, except that it is going to be a small savings cut from your basic budget programs. The cuts are not going to take place in defense or the entitlement programs of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. And the entitlement programs are certainly some of the fastest growing parts of the federal budget, now sitting at around $3.5 trillion.
So what the heck is this spending freeze? I'm starting to think that this spending freeze is nothing more than a political gimmick, possibly raised by the Obama administration to reassure Americans who are worried about increased deficits. I found this interesting NY Times tidbit of information:
Ever since President Obama started asking Congress for money to fund his economic stimulus program and continue bailing out the banks, the congressional Republicans have suddenly discovered the evils of deficit spending and our huge debt--which is rather hypocritically ironic, considering how those same congressional Republicans were so eerily silent while Republican President George W. Bush was charging up the nation's credit card like a drunken sailor (Not that the Democrats were any better). I think the GOP's bashing of the Obama administration's "fiscal irresponsibility" is probably promoting enough fear in Americans on the budget mess. Toss in the Massachusetts election results, and the Democrats may be worrying that they're pushing too much big government programs and too much deficit spending on an American electorate that is worried where the country is heading. Hence, President Obama's new spending freeze.
We'll learn more details on this freeze during President Obama's State of the Union speech tomorrow.
WASHINGTON — President Obama will call for a three-year freeze in spending on many domestic programs, and for increases no greater than inflation after that, an initiative intended to signal his seriousness about cutting the budget deficit, administration officials said Monday.
The officials said the proposal would be a major component both of Mr. Obama’s State of the Union address on Wednesday and of the budget he will send to Congress on Monday for the fiscal year that begins in October.
The freeze would cover the agencies and programs for which Congress allocates specific budgets each year, including air traffic control, farm subsidies, education, nutrition and national parks.
But it would exempt security-related budgets for the Pentagon, foreign aid, the Veterans Administration and homeland security, as well as the entitlement programs that make up the biggest and fastest-growing part of the federal budget: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
The payoff in budget savings would be small relative to the deficit: The estimated $250 billion in savings over 10 years would be less than 3 percent of the roughly $9 trillion in additional deficits the government is expected to accumulate over that time.
First, I don't know any details on this spending freeze, except that it is going to be a small savings cut from your basic budget programs. The cuts are not going to take place in defense or the entitlement programs of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. And the entitlement programs are certainly some of the fastest growing parts of the federal budget, now sitting at around $3.5 trillion.
So what the heck is this spending freeze? I'm starting to think that this spending freeze is nothing more than a political gimmick, possibly raised by the Obama administration to reassure Americans who are worried about increased deficits. I found this interesting NY Times tidbit of information:
“A lot of our caucus won’t like it but I don’t think we have any choice,” said an adviser to Congressional Democratic leaders, who would only speak on condition of anonymity about internal party deliberations. “After Massachusetts and all the polls about independents’ abandoning us for being fiscally irresponsible, we can’t afford to be spending more than Obama.”
Ever since President Obama started asking Congress for money to fund his economic stimulus program and continue bailing out the banks, the congressional Republicans have suddenly discovered the evils of deficit spending and our huge debt--which is rather hypocritically ironic, considering how those same congressional Republicans were so eerily silent while Republican President George W. Bush was charging up the nation's credit card like a drunken sailor (Not that the Democrats were any better). I think the GOP's bashing of the Obama administration's "fiscal irresponsibility" is probably promoting enough fear in Americans on the budget mess. Toss in the Massachusetts election results, and the Democrats may be worrying that they're pushing too much big government programs and too much deficit spending on an American electorate that is worried where the country is heading. Hence, President Obama's new spending freeze.
We'll learn more details on this freeze during President Obama's State of the Union speech tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
