How Unpatriotic!

When I’m wrong, I say so.  Now I’m a staunch Democrat, but that would not excuse blindness.  When my party is wrong, it’s my duty as a patriot to say so.  My party could not be more wrong on this one.

In the wake of congressional Democrats' reauthorization and extension of the USA Patriot Act, few elected Democrats have been as vocal about the post-9/11 security measures as they were during the Bush administration.

Leave it to stalwart House progressive Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) to raise a rallying cry against what he called America's love of its fears.

“This legislation extends three problematic provisions of the PATRIOT Act and, at the same time, leaves some of the most egregious provisions in place, absent any meaningful reform and debate," he declared in a media advisory.

The specific provisions he cited are the Patriot Act's powers to conduct roving wiretaps, conduct surveillance of people not thought to have any association with terrorism and tap into your personal records, such as library accounts.

The extensions were approved by Congress and sent to President Obama on Thursday, several days before the Patriot Act's most nefarious portions were set to expire. President Obama had yet to sign the bill at time of this writing.

The Associated Press called the votes a "political victory for Republicans."

Some Senate Democrats did attempt to propose some modifications to the legislation that would have allowed for greater oversight, but they were ignored. Democratic leadership bowed to the wishes of Republicans and conducted a voice vote on Wednesday, upon which the one-year extension was passed. The House voted 315-97 in favor on Thursday.

"Thrown away were restrictions and greater scrutiny on the government's authority to spy on Americans and seize their records," AP added.

"While I strongly support using the most robust tools possible to go after terrorists, Congress must revise and narrow -- not extend -- Bush era policies," said Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-CA), according to Reuters.

Kucinich's scorn for the legislation was even more pronounced.

"Despite years of documentation evidencing abuse of these provisions during the Bush Administration, the Department of Justice has failed to hold Bush Administration officials accountable for illegal domestic spying by barring any lawsuits to be brought against those officials," he said. "Months into this Administration, The New York Times reported that the National Security Agency had 'intercepted private e-mail messages and phone calls of Americans in recent months on a scale that went beyond the broad legal limits,' and that the practice was 'significant and systematic.' Passage of this legislation today continues to make Congress complicit in these violations of our basic constitutional rights."

The title of his press release pleaded for congress to "repeal" the Patriot Act and "restore Constitutional rights to Americans."

"As Members of Congress sworn to protect the rights and civil liberties afforded to us by the Constitution, we have a responsibility to exercise our oversight powers fully, and significantly reform the PATRIOT Act, ensuring that the privacy and civil liberties of all Americans are fully protected," he said. "More than eight years after the passage of the PATRIOT Act, we have failed to do so. As National Journal correspondent Shane Harris recently put it, we have witnessed the rise of an 'American Surveillance State.' We have come to love our fears more than we love our freedoms."

The USA Patriot Act was passed by Congress in the weeks proceeding the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Many Democrats criticized its passage as too hasty, with some even claiming they did not have a chance to read the hefty legislation before the vote. At the time, the Republican majority did not question it, falling in line to support the legislation seemingly regardless of what the Bush administration put in it... [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Raw Story>

I think that Democrats feared giving national security ammunition to the GOP.  I think their rationale is that Obama id far less likely to abuse the power than a GOP President.  I think they are right.  However, if America should ever be cursed with another Republican President, this power will be turned against us with a vengeance.  Given the current makeup of the Extreme Court, the Patriot Act’s unconstitutional provisions would be ignored.  For the Democrats not to repeal those provisions was an act of cowardice.

290 Bills Say the Senate is Broken

The gridlock in Congress is not the fault of either President Obama or the Democratic party.  For the most part, albeit with some glaring exceptions, they are doing their work.  However, Republicans in the Senate, with help from a few DINOs and one accursed independent, have brought government to a standstill.

Exasperated House Democratic leaders have compiled a list showing that they have passed 290 bills that have stalled in the Senate.

The list is the latest sign that Democrats in the lower chamber are frustrated with their Senate counterparts.

An aide to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says the list is put together during each Congress, but that this year’s number is likely the largest ever. However, he said Pelosi blames GOP senators, not Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) or Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).

“The Speaker believes that the filibuster has its place, but clearly Senate Republicans are taking what was once a rare procedural move and abusing it to the detriment of progress for America’s working families,” said Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill.

But some House Democrats and their aides have shown no reticence in blaming Senate Democrats, who enjoyed a supermajority until Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) was sworn in earlier this month.

In January, House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) suggested the Senate was out of touch with Americans, and did not differentiate between the two parties.

“[Senators] tend to see themselves as a House of Lords and they don’t seem to understand that those of us that go out there every two years stay in touch with the American people,” Clyburn said in an interview with Fox News Radio. “We tend to respond to them a little better.”

Earlier this month in an MSNBC interview, House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson (Conn.) said, “There’s a host of things that we’ve passed already, and there needs to be action in the Senate, and people are tired of it,” adding that he was “glad the president cited the House” for making more progress than the Senate in his State of the Union address.

The list of stalled bills includes both major and minor legislation: healthcare reform; climate change; food safety; financial aid for the U.S. Postal Service; a job security act for wounded veterans; a Civil War battlefield preservation act; vision care for children; the naming of a federal courthouse in Iowa after former Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa); a National Historic Park named for President Jimmy Carter; a bill to improve absentee ballot voting; a bill to improve cybersecurity; and the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

Hammill said Pelosi’s office also compiled a second list in December of 90 pieces of legislation that have passed the House, more than 60 of them with at least 50 Republican votes.

“There’s a perception that the House is really partisan these days, but the actual numbers show otherwise,” Hammill said… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <The Hill>

For a complete list of all 290 bills, Click Here.

Rachel Maddow and Sen. Tom Udall illustrated the problem and one solution.

 

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

Udall’s solution cannot be implemented until next January.  That’s not soon enough.  I used to favor it until I understood the nuclear option and explained it on February 16.  If they have the courage 51 Senate Democrats or 50 plus Joe Biden, can nuke the filibastards, end the filibuster, and with it end the GOP’s absurd 41 vote majority in the Senate.  The graphic is original.  Feel free to steal it.

Poll Results – 2/23/2010

Here are the results of the Republican vs DINO poll.

And here are your comments.

From Oso on February 21, 2010 at 12:51 pm. 

 

I'm with Lisa G. We need an Other. I'd vote for a rotted dead dog over a blue dog. I'd campaign for a rotted dead dog over a blue dog.

 

From Kevin Kelley on February 19, 2010 at 11:29 am.   

My selection was "I'm a Republican - The Dino"... with my logic being that the DINO would be closer to what the Republican party used to be and give an excellent balance, while hopefully lacking the crazy social conservative religious garbage that has polluted the GOP.

If congress was filled with Blue Dogs and Democrats, I think America would do just fine...

 

From Lisa G. on February 16, 2010 at 8:33 am. 

 

We need another category (like there aren't enough choices already) for Other. You always include the Other, but not on this one and I don't think I've used it yet. This time I need it.

 

From TomCat in reply to Lisa G. on February 20, 2010 at 6:28 am.   

Then put it in a comment. :-)

From TWM on February 16, 2010 at 7:25 am.  

 

As an independent I don't find any answer acceptable regarding my stance on the question ergo I will forgo voting in this poll and watch with shallow eyed disgust at whatever the outcome of the elec...errr poll is.

 

From Diane on February 15, 2010 at 2:30 pm. 

 

Wow, I'm the first one to vote, so right now it reads 100% Independent Party (of course that will change quickly, I'm sure).

Diane - Laughlin

I posed this question to make a point about strategic political thinking.  I am a Democrat, and I voted DINO.  Why would I, one who rants regularly and vehemently against DINOs vote that way?

In the polling booth we have at most three choices.  We can vote for a Democrat, vote for a Republican, or vote for a third party candidate.  I did not include third party candidate in the poll, because the electoral deck is so stacked that they can’t win.  Therefore, third party candidates only split the voters on their side of the political spectrum.  As such, any vote for a third party candidate becomes an effective vote for the opposite side of the spectrum.  Voters for third party candidates are actually voting against their self-interest.  I learned that lesson the hard way.

That leaves the Republican or the DINO.  Now, it the Republicans were to put up a progressive candidate here who would not hesitate to work and vote with progressive Democrats and there was a DINO in opposition, I would vote for the Republican.  However, since progressive Republicans are as common as flying pigs, I don’t see that happening anywhere in the foreseeable future.  As much as I would hate voting for a DINO, I see it as critical that the Republicans not get control of either body in Congress, where they can control committees and sub-committees.  That makes the DINO the strategic choice.

The new poll will be a quick one.

Good Bayh and Good Riddance

Bayh’s decision not to run was a real shocker.  He did not even inform the Nevada Leg Hound, Harry Reid, until well after the story had broken.

Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana said Monday that he was fed up with Congress and wouldn't seek re-election this year, the latest in a series of retirements spurred by frustration with dysfunction in Congress.

"To put it in words I think most people can understand, I love working for the people of Indiana. I love helping our citizens make the most of their lives, but I do not love Congress," he said in Indianapolis.

The two-term Democratic senator, 54, offered reasons that are increasingly commonplace among those familiar with the nation's legislature: "There is much too much partisanship and not enough progress; too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem-solving," he said. "Even at a time of enormous national challenge, the people's business is not getting done."

Bayh was comfortably ahead in recent polls; his Republican challengers, former Sen. Dan Coats and former Rep. John Hostettler, trailed by double digits. He won his previous Senate races handily: with 62 percent in 2004 and 64 percent in 1998.

His decision is a fresh blow to his party, which since the start of the year has been shaken by the surprise retirement announcements of veteran Sens. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, the decision of Vice President Joe Biden's son Beau not to seek the Delaware seat his father held for 36 years and Republican Scott Brown's win of the Massachusetts seat that the late Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy had held for 47 years. Democrats now control 59 of the 100 Senate seats.

Bayh's decision is a surprise, in part because he's been in politics his entire life. He was 6 years old when his father, Birch Bayh, won the first of his three Senate terms from Indiana.

Evan Bayh has been an elected official since he became Indiana's secretary of state in 1986, at age 30. Twice elected governor of Indiana before he went to the U.S. Senate, he was on the short list of possible vice-presidential nominees in 2004 and 2008, and was viewed as a potential White House contender.

Bayh is one of a shrinking group of eight to 10 Democratic centrists who've traditionally worked closely with like-minded Republicans, usually on spending and tax matters… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <McClatchy DC>

When I first heard this, I heard a GOP pundit say Bayh is quitting, because Obama’s partisanship failed to unite the country.  That, of course, was a lie.  The specific example I heard Bay give in his speech later was of eight Senators who had cosponsored a bill creating a bipartisan commission on reducing the deficit, but later voted to kill it with a filibuster.  Bayh did not say so, but it’s public record that all eight are Republicans.  Another favorite line of pundits from both sides is that he was afraid of defeat.  There is no evidence to support this.  He is being accused of screwing his own party by the last minute announcement.  That does not hold water either.

On a conference call with county Democratic Party chairs this afternoon, Sen. Evan Bayh and Indiana Democratic Party Chair Dan Parker declared that not having a Democratic primary to find a replacement for the retiring Bayh would have its upsides, according to a source who was on the call.

Bayh opened the call by repeating the reasons for not seeking reelection he mentioned in his press conference today, the source said. But in a message tailored for his audience of local party officials, Bayh said the timing of his announcement could be a positive for Democrats. The source said that Bayh told the call that the lack of a primary would mean that the Republican party candidates would attack each other on their own, with no Democrats to get in the way. On the Democratic side of the process, according to the source, Bayh said officials would choose a strong nominee from their "deep bench."

"He said, 'if this goes to the state committee then we'll have selected a candidate without a divisive primary,'" the source told me this evening.

With less than a week until the deadline for potential candidates to gather the necessary signatures to get listed on the primary ballot, it's unlikely that there could be a Democratic primary to replace Bayh even if Democrats wanted one. But, according to the source, Bayh and Parker suggested on the call that not having a public vote on who Indiana's next Democratic nominee for Senate will be could be a positive come November… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <TPM>

The late timing also effectively locks Mike Pence out of the race, as he has no time to gather the needed signatures.  Pence would have been a much stronger candidate, but he was afraid to run against Bayh.  I have plenty of problems with Bayh.  He’s a DINO, whose cozying up to Republicans has aided them in their obstructionist tactics.  But I don’t think it right to accuse him falsely.

In my opinion, Bayh quit because of his own political ambition.  I had heard that he was disappointed not to get the Vice presidential nod.  I think he looked at the polls, saw how unpopular Congress is, and rather that be included as a recipient of public anger, decided to play it to his own advantage.  I expect him to run for Governor in Indians, followed by a presidential bid as early as 2016.

In any event, Indiana is not lost, and just maybe we’ll get a Democrat with sufficient integrity not to join GOP filibusters.

Death Panels Are Real – We Need Real Reform

In hope we never become immune to the stories of real people suffering from Big Insurance criminal abuse and from having no health coverage.  Sometimes, though the stories are so far removed from human decency that indignation is the only appropriate reaction.

PAUL AND MARIA VanNocker are filing a federal lawsuit today on behalf of their 5-year-old son, Kyler, whose insurance company, HealthAmerica, refuses to pay for the latest treatment needed to prolong his life.

The complaint raises lots of questions that I assume will be answered at trial, should it come to that. The question it won't answer is one that's been gnawing at me since I first wrote of Kyler's plight in December:

How do HealthAmerica's overlords sleep at night?

I know my own dreams would be haunted if I acted as arbitrarily, capriciously and abusively - to borrow some pointed adjectives from the complaint - as the VanNockers allege HealthAmerica has regarding their little boy.

The Harrisburg-based company's denial of benefits to Kyler, the lawsuit claims, is the result of "a biased, self-serving misreading and misinterpretation" of everything from Kyler's medical records to the company's own internal documents.

HealthAmerica's Kendall Marcocci told me yesterday that the company won't comment on pending litigation. Center City attorney David Senoff, though, was happy to explain why he is representing the Van Nockers for free in the lawsuit.

"These companies have to be brought to the courthouse to get them to do the right thing," said Senoff, a specialist in insurance disputes. "This child needs this treatment, or else."

He didn't need to explain what "or else" meant.

Readers may recall that Kyler has neuroblastoma, a rare, deadly childhood cancer that attacks the nervous system, creating tumors throughout his body.

He was diagnosed in 2007 and endured a year of medical treatment, with complications he barely survived. Thankfully, it knocked his cancer into remission for 12 lovely months, and he got to revel once again in the glories of childhood.

Last September, the disease came roaring back. This time, only one form of treatment, something called MIBG therapy, could help save his life.

But HealthAmerica refused to pay for the MIBG, which it considers "investigational/experimental" because there is "inadequate evidence in the peer-reviewed published clinical literature regarding its effectiveness." Nor is MIBG approved by the Food and Drug Administration, another criterion that HealthAmerica requires.

How come, then, asks the lawsuit, HealthAmerica covered not one but two prior therapies for Kyler that did not possess these supposed requirements?

In April 2008, the company approved Kyler's use of a drug to treat a life-threatening blood-flow complication, even though the drug wasn't FDA-approved, wasn't manufactured in the United States and wasn't "peer-reviewed."

However, it was the only known drug to treat Kyler's condition, and he responded well to it. Four months later, HealthAmerica paid for another medication that wasn't FDA-approved for neuroblastoma treatment.

Again, Kyler responded well.

So why, pray tell, is HealthAmerica playing the "experimental therapy" card in the case of the MIBG treatment Kyler now needs? Gee, money couldn't have anything to do with the decision, could it?

In my December column, HealthAmerica's Marcocci was emphatic that her company declined Kyler's MIBG therapy not because of its cost but because of its experimental nature.

But that doesn't mean MIBG is ineffective.

"It's considered the standard of care in Europe and the United States for recurrent neuroblastoma," Kyler's oncologist, Stephan Grupp, told me then. "It's not an unproven treatment with no basis in medical science. Actually, the results are often very good."

Regardless of how you describe MIBG, one thing became clear last week when Paul and Maria got the results of Kyler's latest tests to track his neuroblastoma.

The MIBG is working.

Children's Hospital, where Kyler receives much of his care, proceeded with two rounds of MIBG therapy for Kyler - at a cost of $110,000 - despite the VanNockers' inability to pay for it…

Inserted from <Philadelphia Daily News>

Here’s Keith Olbermann’s take on this.  His closing is particularly effective.

 

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

I have nothing but praise for the hospital that saved Kyler’s life with no guarantee of payment.  I have nothing but scorn for the insurance company death panel that denied his treatment and for the Republicans and DINOs that are blocking reform.

Meanwhile, the uninsured are still dying at a rate of several 9/11s per year.

Since the unlikely election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts, hardly a day goes by in Washington without a torrent of speculation on what loss of a filibuster-proof majority will mean for the healthcare reform legislation that both houses have already passed. But as the president recently noted, the intense focus on the process of moving the bill over the finish line has done much to obscure the actual human stakes of the policy being debated.

Particularly striking is the near-total absence of the voices of those most acutely affected by the capriciousness of our current healthcare system, the millions who have no insurance. Despite the fact that 30 million of these folks have arguably the largest stake in the legislative outcome, they're almost totally absent from the national conversation over its fate.

Here at The Nation, we have been working to right this in our own small way. We've spent the last two weeks searching for stories from the uninsured. Despite our chosen tools (Twitter and e-mail), or perhaps because of them, we received 185 responses from a diverse group of people. From recent college graduates, to struggling single parents, to recent retirees, the storytellers ranged vastly in age, background and occupation. However, a common thread held them all together: the anxiety and uncertainty that comes with being uninsured.

Many stories expressed great, unshakeable fear that one medical emergency would ruin them. "I would say my wife and I are one medical emergency away from losing everything, but actually I've pretty much resigned myself in my head to the reality that if I have a medical emergency I am going to die," says a used-book seller in California.

The responses included wide array of opinions and varied hopes for the future of healthcare reform, but what an overwhelming majority agreed upon was that the United States government, particularly Congress, had failed to represent them within the debate…

Inserted from <The Nation>

This article goes on to detail many of the stories mentioned.  I hope you will click through.  They are worth the read.

Why Congress Doesn’t Stand Up to Wall Street

Robert Reich’s column on this is quite good.

Senator Chris Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, scolded Wall Street representatives at a hearing Thursday for sending “an army of lobbyists whose only mission is to kill the common-sense financial reforms” needed by the public. “The fact is,” Dodd said, “I am frustrated, and so are the American people.” He charged that Wall Street’s intransigence was the reason for Congress’s failure to pass any bill to regulate the Street. “The refusal of large financial firms to work constructively with Congress on this effort borders on insulting to the American people who have lost so much in this crisis.”

In other words, it isn’t Congress’s fault. It isn’t the Senate Banking Committee’s fault. It certainly isn’t Dodd’s fault. The reason more than a year has passed since the biggest bailout in the history of the world and nothing has been done to prevent a repeat performance — even as the biggest banks are doling out more than $30 billion of bonuses, even as Goldman Sachs is awarding its big traders $16 billion in bonuses (more than the $13 billion Goldman collected from taxpayers via the bailout of AIG), even as AIG itself is handing out bonuses — the reason is … what, exactly, Senator? Because the Street has sent an army of lobbyists to Capitol Hill?

Call me old fashioned, but I thought Congress was in charge of passing legislation, not Wall Street.

Dodd left out the most telling detail, of course. Wall Street is where the campaign money is. Dodd of all people knows that. He’s been on the receiving end of lots of it over the years.

Wall Street firms and their executives have been uniquely generous to both political parties, emerging recently as one of the largest benefactors of the Democratic Party. Between November 2008 and November 2009, Wall Street firms and executives handed out $42 million to lawmakers, mostly to members of the House and Senate banking committees and House and Senate leaders. During the 2008 elections, Wall Street showered Democratic candidates with well over $88 million and Republicans with over $67 million, putting the Street right up there with the insurance industry as among the nation’s largest equal-opportunity donors.

Some Democrats are quietly grumbling that all the tough talk emanating from the White House in recent weeks — the President calling the Street’s denizens “fat cats” and threatening them with limits on their size and the risks they can take, even waiving a watered-down version of Glass-Steagall in their faces — is making it harder to collect money from the Street this mid-term election year. And the Street is quietly threatening that it may well give Republicans more, if the saber-rattling doesn’t stop.

Congress isn’t doing a thing about Wall Street because it’s in the pocket of Wall Street. Dodd’s outburst at the Street is like the alcoholic who screams at a bartender “how dare you give me another drink when all I’ve done is pleaded with you for one!”…

Inserted from <Alternet>

He’s right.  We have the best Congress money can buy… and has.  The only way to return government to the people is 100% public financing, at least at the federal level.  Until and unless we accomplish that goal, Congress will represent those who bought them, not those whop voted them in.

Will Reid Take on Shelby?

One lone GOP Senator has placed a blanket hold of all of Obama’s appointees.  The reason for it will disgust you.  Now, what will the Nevada Leg Hound, Harry Reid, do?

Sen. Shelby of Alabama has done us all a favor through his brazen attempt to extort the Obama Administration by placing a hold on 70 critical appointees simply to obtain some financial pork for his state and key contributors.

It was no accident that the extortion happened on the first day of the new Senate - one with 41 Republicans. The filibuster proof Republican minority. It was the equivalent of a Dick Cheney F*ck You.

If anyone had any doubts whatsoever about the Republican minority feelings it's oats and wanting to exercise power as if it were in the majority, I hope they are gone. Sen. DeMint's reference earlier to making health care into President Obama's Waterloo now seems almost quaint. How is this behavior not seen as treasonous by the press?

The question now has literally nothing to do with Shelby. One might have thought he would be ashamed, or that his peers would call him out. This is clearly not the case.

From my point of view, Sen. Shelby should surely be censured by the Senate for depriving the nation of much need talent. Can a censure resolution be filibustered?

The question now falls to Sen. Reid. He can continue to recognize the hold, although he has full discretion not to do so. Instead, he could publicize it, go on television to denounce the audacious selfishness of it, and ignore it. This would force Shelby and his compatriots to filibuster the 70 public servants in waiting, preferably on CSPAN.

The very worst reaction would be to honor the hold and to negotiate with Sen. Shelby in any way over his demands…. [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Huffington Post>

To give you some background, According to TPM,Shelby got a $45 million earmark for a federal IED lab in Mobile.  Obama decided not to build it.  I think Obama’s decision is a good one, because US forces have encountered IEDs primarily in Iraq.  That war is winding down, so building the lab would be counterproductive.  In the process, it deprived Shelby a major slap of pork, and he wants it back.  I understand that he is claiming it’s needed to fight terrorism, but it’s clearly just a vehicle to transfer wealth from taxpayers to contractors in return for their support for Shelby.

Now you know the rest of the story.

Rachel Maddow covered this one quite well:

 

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

So the question remains, what will Leg Hound Harry do?  Were I a betting man, I’d put my money on the worst reaction: to hump the GOP leg, honor the hold, and negotiate with Shelby until he is sated with pork at taxpayer expense.

Three to Scorn: Palin, Emmanuel, Limbaugh

Moving ahead with her standard GOP mindset, Mooseolini is a complete hypocrite.

It seems that even the queen must bow to the king, in this, the latest installment of the "retards" controversy ...

Let's start with a brief recap: Last year, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel used the word "retards." A few days ago, Sarah Palin caught wind of the story, clutched her pearls, screamed political gold my baby! and promptly wrote a Facebook [Mooseolini Delinked] entry, demanding that Emanuel be fired. Enter Rush Limbaugh, who in the course of mocking Emanuel, used the word repeatedly to attack liberals ("calling people who are retards, retards"). So Greg Sargent at The Plum Line asked the Palin camp for a reaction to Limbaugh's use of the word and was told:

Governor Palin believes crude and demeaning name calling at the expense of others is disrespectful."

Pretty mild, right? Especially when compared to the seven paragraph Facebook entry dedicated to Emanuel's single use of the word, where Palin was reacting:

... as an everyday American wanting my child to grow up in a country free from mindless prejudice and discrimination, free from gratuitous insults of people who are ostensibly smart enough to know better.

But apparently the mere suggestion that Palin would criticize Limbaugh for (repeatedly) using the word was enough to get the Palin camp fired up [Faux Noise Delinked]:

Sarah Palin, the former Governor of Alaska, Republican mega-star and Fox News contributor, was quick to fire back at Washington Post blog, The Plum Line, for a report that Palin is at war with conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

... with the suggestion that it was a ploy by the Washington Post to "take the pressure off of the White House" (White House reaction: huh?). And then:

But Stapleton told POLITICO that the comment given to The Plum Line was not specifically aimed at Limbaugh.

Au contraire, says Mr. Sargent, who produced the email he sent, specifically asking about Limbaugh. Says Sargent:

I subsequently emailed her to be absolutely certain that it applied to Rush. She didn’t dispute this, answering that it applies to “anyone” who uses the term.

That’s how it happened.

Bottom line? Apparently perceived "mindless prejudice and discrimination" and "gratuitous insults" against her son only matter if Palin can make political hay out of them… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Daily Kos>

First, was Caribou Barbie right to object to the use of the term “retarded”?  Yes, as much as it pains me to agree with her on anything, Emmanuel’s comment was insensitive at best.

Second, Should Rahm Emmanuel be fired?  Yes, but not for his comment.  He should be fired for being a corporatist pig and undermining the people who caused Obama to be elected.

Third, was the Dingbat Diva right to downplay Limbaugh’s far more egregious use of the term? No.

Fourth, does that make Snake Oil Sarah a GOP hypocrite?  Yes. 

Fifth, is the Alaska Asshole afraid Limbaugh?  I’ll leave that one to Keith Olbermann.

 

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

Are you now well armed on this topic?

Paul Volker: How to Reform Our Financial System

I think that Volker has some excellent ideas.

PRESIDENT OBAMA 10 days ago set out one important element in the needed structural reform of the financial system. No one can reasonably contest the need for such reform, in the United States and in other countries as well. We have after all a system that broke down in the most serious crisis in 75 years. The cost has been enormous in terms of unemployment and lost production. The repercussions have been international.

Aggressive action by governments and central banks — really unprecedented in both magnitude and scope — has been necessary to revive and maintain market functions. Some of that support has continued to this day. Here in the United States as elsewhere, some of the largest and proudest financial institutions — including both investment and commercial banks — have been rescued or merged with the help of massive official funds. Those actions were taken out of well-justified concern that their outright failure would irreparably impair market functioning and further damage the real economy already in recession.

Now the economy is recovering, if at a still modest pace. Funds are flowing more readily in financial markets, but still far from normally. Discussion is underway here and abroad about specific reforms, many of which have been set out by the United States administration: appropriate capital and liquidity requirements for banks; better official supervision on the one hand and on the other improved risk management and board oversight for private institutions; a review of accounting approaches toward financial institutions; and others.

As President Obama has emphasized, some central structural issues have not yet been satisfactorily addressed.

A large concern is the residue of moral hazard from the extensive and successful efforts of central banks and governments to rescue large failing and potentially failing financial institutions. The long-established “safety net” undergirding the stability of commercial banks — deposit insurance and lender of last resort facilities — has been both reinforced and extended in a series of ad hoc decisions to support investment banks, mortgage providers and the world’s largest insurance company. In the process, managements, creditors and to some extent stockholders of these non-banks have been protected.

The phrase “too big to fail” has entered into our everyday vocabulary. It carries the implication that really large, complex and highly interconnected financial institutions can count on public support at critical times. The sense of public outrage over seemingly unfair treatment is palpable. Beyond the emotion, the result is to provide those institutions with a competitive advantage in their financing, in their size and in their ability to take and absorb risks.

As things stand, the consequence will be to enhance incentives to risk-taking and leverage, with the implication of an even more fragile financial system. We need to find more effective fail-safe arrangements.

In approaching that challenge, we need to recognize that the basic operations of commercial banks are integral to a well-functioning private financial system. It is those institutions, after all, that manage and protect the basic payments systems upon which we all depend. More broadly, they provide the essential intermediating function of matching the need for safe and readily available depositories for liquid funds with the need for reliable sources of credit for businesses, individuals and governments.

Combining those essential functions unavoidably entails risk, sometimes substantial risk. That is why Adam Smith more than 200 years ago advocated keeping banks small. Then an individual failure would not be so destructive for the economy. That approach does not really seem feasible in today’s world, not given the size of businesses, the substantial investment required in technology and the national and international reach required.

Instead, governments have long provided commercial banks with the public “safety net.” The implied moral hazard has been balanced by close regulation and supervision. Improved capital requirements and leverage restrictions are now also under consideration in international forums as a key element of reform.

The further proposal set out by the president recently to limit the proprietary activities of banks approaches the problem from a complementary direction. The point of departure is that adding further layers of risk to the inherent risks of essential commercial bank functions doesn’t make sense, not when those risks arise from more speculative activities far better suited for other areas of the financial markets.

The specific points at issue are ownership or sponsorship of hedge funds and private equity funds, and proprietary trading — that is, placing bank capital at risk in the search of speculative profit rather than in response to customer needs. Those activities are actively engaged in by only a handful of American mega-commercial banks, perhaps four or five. Only 25 or 30 may be significant internationally.

Apart from the risks inherent in these activities, they also present virtually insolvable conflicts of interest with customer relationships, conflicts that simply cannot be escaped by an elaboration of so-called Chinese walls between different divisions of an institution. The further point is that the three activities at issue — which in themselves are legitimate and useful parts of our capital markets — are in no way dependent on commercial banks’ ownership. These days there are literally thousands of independent hedge funds and equity funds of widely varying size perfectly capable of maintaining innovative competitive markets. Individually, such independent capital market institutions, typically financed privately, are heavily dependent like other businesses upon commercial bank services, including in their case prime brokerage. Commercial bank ownership only tilts a “level playing field” without clear value added.

Very few of those capital market institutions, both because of their typically more limited size and more stable sources of finance, could present a credible claim to be “too big” or “too interconnected” to fail. In fact, sizable numbers of such institutions fail or voluntarily cease business in troubled times with no adverse consequences for the viability of markets.

What we do need is protection against the outliers. There are a limited number of investment banks (or perhaps insurance companies or other firms) the failure of which would be so disturbing as to raise concern about a broader market disruption. In such cases, authority by a relevant supervisory agency to limit their capital and leverage would be important, as the president has proposed.

To meet the possibility that failure of such institutions may nonetheless threaten the system, the reform proposals of the Obama administration and other governments point to the need for a new “resolution authority.” Specifically, the appropriately designated agency should be authorized to intervene in the event that a systemically critical capital market institution is on the brink of failure. The agency would assume control for the sole purpose of arranging an orderly liquidation or merger. Limited funds would be made available to maintain continuity of operations while preparing for the demise of the organization.

To help facilitate that process, the concept of a “living will” has been set forth by a number of governments. Stockholders and management would not be protected. Creditors would be at risk, and would suffer to the extent that the ultimate liquidation value of the firm would fall short of its debts.

To put it simply, in no sense would these capital market institutions be deemed “too big to fail.” What they would be free to do is to innovate, to trade, to speculate, to manage private pools of capital — and as ordinary businesses in a capitalist economy, to fail.

I do not deal here with other key issues of structural reform. Surely, effective arrangements for clearing and settlement and other restrictions in the now enormous market for derivatives should be agreed to as part of the present reform program. So should the need for a designated agency — preferably the Federal Reserve — charged with reviewing and appraising market developments, identifying sources of weakness and recommending action to deal with the emerging problems. Those and other matters are part of the administration’s program and now under international consideration.

In this country, I believe regulation of large insurance companies operating over many states needs to be reviewed. We also face a large challenge in rebuilding an efficient, competitive private mortgage market, an area in which commercial bank participation is needed. Those are matters for another day.

What is essential now is that we work with other nations hosting large financial markets to reach a broad consensus on an outline for the needed structural reforms, certainly including those that the president has recently set out. My clear sense is that relevant international and foreign authorities are prepared to engage in that effort. In the process, significant points of operational detail will need to be resolved, including clarifying the range of trading activity appropriate for commercial banks in support of customer relationships.

I am well aware that there are interested parties that long to return to “business as usual,” even while retaining the comfort of remaining within the confines of the official safety net. They will argue that they themselves and intelligent regulators and supervisors, armed with recent experience, can maintain the needed surveillance, foresee the dangers and manage the risks.

In contrast, I tell you that is no substitute for structural change, the point the president himself has set out so strongly…

Inserted from <NY Times>

Cousin FatCat, the Bankster, does not agree with Volker.  He agrees with Tim Geithner.  He wants business as usual, so he can get new diamonds with which to fill his litter box.  Why do you think he does not like Volker?

Obama Low-Key But Masterful in State of the Union Address

In my opinion, Barack Obama hit a home run with his State of the Union address last night.  I do not agree with everything he said.  However, I respect opposing points of view. My most serious criticism is that he is still clinging to bipartisanship and gave Republicans far more respect than they deserve.  However, he made it clear that he took office in the midst of crises, and that the vast majority of debt under his administration was from enacting the bailout passed before he became President.  He made fools of the Republicans be enumerating the many tax cuts that have been enacted under his administration.  Because Republicans parrot “middle class tax cut” continually, they could not object.  They had to be fuming, because in GOP-speak “Middle Class Tax Cut” means “Tax Cut for the Rich”.  Obama’s tax cuts really were for the middle class.  I also liked the way he lampooned the Senate, by listing all the bills the House has passed and making it clear that inaction by the Senate is the sticking point.  I liked the way he called on Congress to end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.  Although he could simply instruct the military not to enforce it, it is the law.  If he did, he would let Congress off the hook, and leave the law on the books for some future administration to enforce.   Congress passed it.  Rescinding it is their obligation, one which I fully support.  He also made it clear that Republicans are engaging in pure obstructionism, and made it clear that if they continue that tactic, they will have to answer to voters for it.

Keith Olbermann’s coverage excelled, as usual.  Here are two videos.  The first is with Howard Fineman:

 

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

The second was with Markos Moulitsos:

 

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

McClatchy DC has the full text of Obama’s speech.

According to a CBS News Poll, 83% of those interviewed approved of Obama’s proposals.  Only 17% did not.

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell gave the Republican response.  McClatchy also has the full text of his speech.  While more respectful, better constructed, and better delivered that the Bobby Jindal fiasco after Obama’ last address to Congress, it contained only the standard GOP talking points.  One thing was clear.  McDonnell had not even listened to Obama’s speech before responding, because he did not know that Obama had put domestic fossil fuel development on the table.

Republicans were also polled. ;-)

(The Borowitz Report) - President Barack Obama's State of the Union address has already gotten a big thumbs-down from one key group of voters: Republicans who did not see the speech.

According to an instant poll conducted by the University of Minnesota's Opinion Research Institute, 90 percent of Republicans who did not see the President's speech strongly disagreed with it.

Additionally, 95 percent of Republicans polled agreed with the statement, "If I had seen the President's speech, I'll bet I would have hated it even more."

Davis Logsdon, who supervised the poll, said there were certain difficulties in polling Republican voters: "Many of them would not let us finish asking the question before answering 'No.'"… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Huffington Post>

Although Joe “You Lie” Wilson, promised to be on his best behavior, these Republican leaders just don’t seem to understand is that there are people watching who are trained to read lips.

Tonight in his State of the Union address, President Obama outlined steps he plans to take “to pay for the $1 trillion that it took to rescue the economy last year.” However, he first addressed right-wing criticisms that he is overseeing out-of-control spending by noting the situation he faced when he took office:

By the time I took office, we had a one year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door.

The camera then cut to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who leaned over to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and appeared to whisper, “Blame it on Bush.” The two men then laughed. Watch it:

… [emphasis added]

Inserted from<Think Progress>

That was John “McConJob” McCain’s best act since singing “Bomb, Bomb Iran” into a mike he did not know was open.

But even worse was the despicable breech of decorum by reactionary-right activist Justice Samuel Alito.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. responded to President Obama's criticism Wednesday night of a Supreme Court decision last week by appearing to mouth the words "not true."

Obama took issue with a ruling that overturned two of the court's precedents and upended decades of restrictions on corporations being able to use their profits to finance campaigns for and against candidates.

It proved to be a striking State of the Union moment: With six justices seated in their black robes directly in front of him in the House chamber, Obama said: "With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections."

As Democrats applauded, cameras showed the justices sitting expressionless. Except Alito.

"Not true, not true," he appeared to say, as he shook his head.

"I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities," Obama continued. "They should be decided by the American people. And I urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems."

The court's 5 to 4 decision, in which Alito was in the majority, said it did not have to address the question of electoral spending by foreign firms, because the law being considered did not differentiate between domestic and foreign corporations... [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Washington Post>

 

I was impressed with Obama for taking on the Supreme Court to their faces for that horrid decision.  While technically the court did not have to address the question of electoral spending by foreign firms, as Alito said, what Alito did not say, a lie by omission, is more important.  The court did not have to address the question of electoral spending by domestic firms either.  The only question before the court was whether or not broadcasting a single film crossed the line under settled law, well established by precedent.  This decision was judicial activism at its worst, and Obama said so.

In summery, the speech was masterful.  It was not what I would have said, but although I consider myself a wordsmith, Obama’s talents surpass mine far and away.  What remains to be seen is whether or not he follows it up with appropriate action.  I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, which I admit is considerable.

Defective Rahm

Why is he taking heat from the left?  He deserves it!

President Barack Obama's liberal backers have a long list of grievances. The Guantanamo Bay prison is still open. Health care hasn't been transformed. And Wall Street banks are still paying huge bonuses.

But they are directing their anger less at Mr. Obama than at the man who works down the hall from him. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, they say, is the prime obstacle to the changes they thought Mr. Obama's election would bring.

The friction was laid bare in August when Mr. Emanuel showed up at a weekly strategy session featuring liberal groups and White House aides. Some attendees said they were planning to air ads attacking conservative Democrats who were balking at Mr. Obama's health-care overhaul.

"F-ing retarded," Mr. Emanuel scolded the group, according to several participants. He warned them not to alienate lawmakers whose votes would be needed on health care and other top legislative items.

The antipathy reflects deep dissatisfaction on the Democratic left with Mr. Obama's first year in office, and represents a fracturing of the relationship between the president and the political base that mobilized to elect him. A little more than one year ago, Mr. Obama's victory led some to predict an era of Democratic dominance.

The anger on the left shows that Mr. Obama is caught in an internal battle over both the course of his administration and the Democratic Party.

Many in the party, particularly in the wake of the loss last week of a Massachusetts Senate seat, contend that the White House should chart a centrist approach focusing on the economy. They point to polls showing Mr. Obama's approval rating among independent voters has dropped by nearly 20 percentage points since early last year.

The left has gotten some of what it wanted: a ban on torture, an expansion of children's health insurance and an equal-pay law for women. But liberal activists say those and other measures add up to far less than what they expected… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Common Dreams>

To move to the center, Obama would have to take a giant step to the left.  The reason that Obama has dropped 20 percentage points with independents is simple.  Obama ran on a platform of change.  In part due to GOP obstruction, Obama has not delivered.  In part due to following the right wing advice of Rahm Emmanuel, and others, Obama has not delivered.  Independents see no change, and they do not have the investment in Obama that we progressives do, so of course they are bailing out.  Moving to what DINO Neoliberals  are calling a centrist approach is moving even further to the right.  Nothing he could do will alienate independent voters more.  Obama’s Rahm is defective, because Rahm can’t seem to remember why Obama one.

Even the most neophyte computer user knows that when RAM loses it’s ability to remember, you replace it.  The same applies to Rahm.

The Latest on Health Care – 1/27/2010

One chamber of Congress seems to be making progress.  One isn’t.

The political will is there on one side of the Hill for comprehensive healthcare reform. Greg Sargent talks to Dem House whip James Clyburn:

"I feel certain that the House Democrats will pass health care reform if the fixes that we feel need to be made to the Senate bill are guaranteed," Clyburn said. Asked directly if the House votes would be there if this happened, Clyburn said: "Yes, sir."

Clyburn’s comments suggest that if Dem leaders figure out a way of demonstrating to House Democrats that the reconciliation fix is iron-clad, they could support the Senate bill in large enough numbers to pass.

Clyburn cautioned, however, that House Dems would have to be convinced of the veracity of the fix, citing the "natural distrust between the two bodies." He added that House Dems would want to see the fix address their opposition to the "Cadillac" tax, to state-based exchanges, and to various sweetheart deals for Senators.

Clyburn called on the President to use his clout and prestige to urge Congressional Dems to follow this course of action during tomorrow’s speech.

Meanwhile, the Senate Dems reportedly didn't talk about reform at their weekly luncheon today… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Alternet>

Senate Democrats didn’t even talk about it?  The Nevada Leg Hound, Harry Reid, needs to pull his head out of his nether parts and get cracking!  Perhaps he should change his name to Ulysses so we can call him Useless for short!!

Of course the DINOs are whining:

Two Democratic senators, Evan Bayh of Indiana and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, have declared that they won't support a plan to have the House pass the Senate health care bill whole, then pass fixes to the bill through the reconciliation process.

A third, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, suggested lawmakers give up on the comprehensive health care bill entirely and pass reforms one by one.

"We need to focus on things where we have a consensus," Bayh said."Just ramming through a bill on a purely party-line vote on a strictly partisan basis will not do much to generate the kind of progress around here on other issues that we need."

Bayh also said he doesn't understand why the Senate dropped the version of the bill passed by the Finance Committee with one Republican vote. "Maybe we should take another look at that," he said. "If Sen. Snowe was willing to vote for it, perhaps there were other Republicans who were willing to."

Under reconciliation, legislation could pass with 50 votes (plus Vice President Biden as a tie-breaker), with no chance of a filibuster. So Democratic leadership could afford to lose a few votes and still be able to pass changes to the Senate bill… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <TPM>

Bayh has to be intentionally obtuse here.  Let me clarify.  He’s lying his head off.  Before any Republican votes for passage of any of the versions of health care reform that have been on the table, I will be arrested for poop-bombing SCOTUS, while flying over DC under my own power.  And Nelson has some nerve complaining about reconciliation.  He had no problem with the use of reconciliation in 2001 when he voted for Potomac Pinocchio’s $1.3 trillion tax cuts for the rich!

It’s Time to Dump Reid!!

The Nevada Leg Hound, Harry Read has been too busy spinelessly humping GOP and Blue Dog legs to be an effective Majority Leader in the Senate:

Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 9/18-20. Likely voters. MoE 4% (8/31-9/2 results)

Harry Reid (D) 41 (40)

Danny Tarkanian (R) 52 (45)

Reid (D) 42 (41)

Sue Lowden (R) 51 (44)

Yeah, incumbents usually don't come back from numbers like that in the best of times. In this political environment? Brutal. Reid's favorability rating of 34 percent, compared to 55 percent unfavorable, doesn't give him much room for improvement. Among independents, that number is 26-61. Definitely brutal.

This isn't the first poll showing Reid in trouble, there are plenty of those floating around. So we decided to look for a Democrat that could hold the seat for us.

Oscar Goodman (D) 44

Tarkanian (R) 41

 

Goodman (D) 44

Tarkanian (R) 40

 

Shelley Berkley (D) 40

Tarkanian (R) 46

 

Berkley (D) 40

Lowden (R) 45

 

Ross Miller (D) 36

Tarkanian (R) 44

 

Miller (D) 37

Lowden (R) 43

Miller is the Nevada Secretary of State. With name ID of only 38 percent, he's unknown, but has potential upside. Berkley is a congresswoman, and tainted with DC. That association is toxic.

Then there's Oscar Goodman, the mayor of Las Vegas who recently left the Democratic Party to run for governor as an independent. The flamboyant politician certainly carries none of the stench of DC's failed political culture on him, making him the most electable Democrat in the state. And he's not even a Democrat anymore...

Inserted from <Daily Kos>

Since it seems clear that this jellyfish cannot even hold onto his own Senate seat, Nevada Democrats need to run a candidate with a better chance at winning the seat, and leave the Majority Leadership to be filled by a Democrat with sufficient spine to stand up to the GOP.