Politics Plus is a progressive perspective. All points of view are welcome, but personal attacks against me or anyone who comments here are forbidden. Trading insults never changes anyone's mind. After over a year offline, it's great to be back! This is mostly a political blog, but on occation you will see posts about my personal life and the volunteer work I do in and out of prison as an ex-convict helping other former felons become productive, pro-social members of our communities. Enjoy!
I’ve read several rants blaming Democrats for letting Bunning get away with this, but that’s not fair. The Republican and Democratic leadership had agrees to pass this measure by unanimous consent, and most of the Senators left for the weekend. The Democratic leadership had no idea that Bunning planned this, and when he dropped the bomb, there were no longer sixty Senator’s left to override his filibuster. The net effect is that the GOP derailed several important programs in addition to cutting off unemployment benefits for thousands of workers, displaced by the GOP’s No Millionaire Left Behind program. They can now lie and say they did not know either, blaming it all on Bunning, who is not seeking reelection.
In the midst of the worst economy in decades, Republican U.S. Senator Jim Bunning last night again took to the floor of the United States Senate to block passage of legislation that would extend unemployment benefits to out-of-work Americans -- and his party is doing nothing to stop him.
It's worth watching his mean-spirited obstructionism -- and Harry Reid's and Dick Durbin's attempts to cajole him into supporting the legislation -- to get a sense of just how committed some Republicans are to doing the wrong thing for America:
Bunning is the poster-child of the most callous, heartless political party in modern American history, and they are proud of it. If they get their way, this coming Sunday, unemployment benefits will expire for countless out-of-work Americans because a handful of extremist ideologues decided to tie the U.S. Senate up in knots… [emphasis added]
Sarah Palin will be getting some ‘fair and balanced’ political education, thanks to Rupert Murdoch. She will be tutored by paragon of fairness, love and understanding, Professor Glen Beck.
Yesterday I did manage to get caught up replying to comments. I spent the rest of the day working on website design for my nonprofit. Today, I’ll just have to see what the day brings.
Jig Zone Puzzle:
It took me 4:06. To do it, click here. How did you do?
Short Takes:
Here's an idea. Democrats should agree to not to use reconciliation in return for Republicans agreeing not to use the filibuster. Since both are political tactics occasioned by arcane Senate rules, it's a fair trade.? Fat chance, huh?
Gov. David A. Paterson ended his campaign for election on Friday amid crumbling support from his party and an uproar over his administration’s intervention in a domestic violence case involving a close aide. While I cannot comment on his guilt or innocence, I consider his resignation a plus.
The average income reported by the 400 highest-earning U.S. households grew to almost $345 million in 2007, up 31 percent from a year earlier, Internal Revenue Service statistics show. That shows that in 2007, the GOP’s only successful program, No Millionaire Left Behind, was working just as they intended.
Plus Humor:
The boys from Red State Update weigh in on the health care summit.
I tried to find one exchange that personified the health care summit. Here’s my choice.
CALVIN WOODWARD
AP News
Feb 25, 2010 13:07 EST
When President Barack Obama and a Republican lawmaker sparred Thursday over what might happen to health insurance premiums in an overhauled system, both cited a nonpartisan analysis that looked at that very question. The president gave a fairer summary of what the analysis found.
Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander declared in his statement to the White House health policy conference that "for millions of Americans, premiums will go up" under the Obama plan. That much could be true — but for millions of others, premiums are expected to go down and those who face higher costs would be getting better coverage than they have now.
The debate on that point is key if Americans are to accept the insurance changes Obama wants. Democrats know that pitching their plan as a means to extend coverage to the uninsured is not enough: They must convince middle-income Americans who already have insurance that they, too, will end up with a better deal under the overhaul. So the squabble was about more than a bureaucratic report.
Obama sharply challenged Alexander on his claim and insisted he had the facts on his side when quoting from the report by the Congressional Budget Office. For the most part, he did.
THE CLAIMS:
Obama: "Lamar, when you mentioned earlier that you said premiums go up, that's just not the case, according to the Congressional Budget Office."
Alexander: "Mr. President, if you're going to contradict me, I ought to have a chance .... The Congressional Budget Office report says that premiums will rise in the individual market as a result of the Senate bill."
Obama: "No, no, no, no. Let me — and this is an example of where we've got to get our facts straight."
Alexander: "That's my point."
Obama: "Well, exactly, so let me — let me respond to what you just said, Lamar, because it's not factually accurate. ... Here's what the Congressional Budget Office says: The costs for families for the same type of coverage that they're currently receiving would go down 14 percent to 20 percent. What the Congressional Budget Office says is that because now they've got a better deal, because policies are cheaper, they may choose to buy better coverage than they have right now, and that might be 10 percent to 13 percent more expensive than the bad insurance that they had previously."
THE FACTS:
Both are right, but Obama offered important context that Alexander left out.
The analysis estimated that average premiums for people buying insurance individually would be 10 to 13 percent higher in 2016 under the Senate legislation, as Alexander said. But the policies would cover more, and about half the people would be getting substantial government subsidies to defray the extra costs.
As the president said, if the policies offered today were offered in 2016, they would be considerably cheaper under the plan, even without subsidies. One big reason: Many more healthy young people would be signing up for the coverage because insurance would become mandatory. They are cheap to insure and would moderate costs for others.
Moreover, the analysis estimated that almost 60 percent of the people covered under individual policies would qualify for subsidies, bringing their own costs down by more than half from what they pay now…
In short, while the Republicans were not as ill prepared as they were during their conference, they had nothing to bring to the table, except for their tired old talking points and lies. The Democrats were not that impressive either, but Obama stood out.
The GOP has made it abundantly clear that there is no negotiating with them. Without the public option, the bill is far less than it should be. Nevertheless, the good qualities it does have are too significant to allow it to slip away. After a VERY brief pause (ten minutes would be ideal), lets move on to reconciliation. AQs soon as it’s passes, and signed, it will be tome to start pushing for health care reform: single-payer.
If you have not seen this, watch it. If you have, watch it again. I wish every Senator and Representative would watch this. I have nothing else to say, because my words would only lessen the impact of his.
She raises an excellent point. The sole purpose for their existence is to make as much money as they can. What she does not say here is that it is the same reason corporations should not have the same political rights as people, since corporate interest and public interest are diametrically opposed.
Finally, Anthony Weiner ripped into the Republicans like gangbusters!
Peter DeFazio is a Representative from Oregon, and was the one granting Weiner time. Did you see the grin on his face when Weiner was done? What a grin! I’d have to munch down half the birds in the Western Hemisphere to have a grin like that! Bravo Weiner!!
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]
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.
Now I ask you this. Were it not for evil government run health care, Cheney would be dead. If a proven war criminal deserves such benefits, don’t the rest of us?
I suspect that everyone will be posting an analysis of Obama’s proposed fixes to the Senate bill. I like most of them, but rather than duplicating many efforts, I’d like to look at what the upcoming summit means.
“This new Democrats-only backroom deal doubles down on the same failed approach that will drive up premiums, destroy jobs, raise taxes, and slash Medicare benefits,” said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio). “This week’s summit clearly has all the makings of a Democratic infomercial for continuing on a partisan course.”
What’s interesting about this official response is that it appears to fall directly into a trap that the White House has been quite candid about in their off-the-record comments. The White House is using this summit on Thursday to “shine a light” on the lack of any serious counterproposals from the Republicans. They will also be able to demonstrate that independent experts disagree with Republican assertions that the proposed legislation will drive up premiums, increase the budget deficit, create death panels, raise taxes (except on the wealthiest Americans), or slash Medicare benefits.
There’s a basic clash that is being set up on the White House’s terms. On the one side, the White House is presenting this as a situation where health care reform is going to pass. That aspect is removed as part of the debate. All that remains to decide is what precisely will be in the legislation. On the other side, the Republicans simply want to defeat any health care reform, no matter what is in the bill. But that position violates the entire premise and spirit of the summit, including its aspirational bipartisanship. It also means that the Republicans do not concede that some reform is urgently needed. That’s why the Blue Anthem rate hikes of 39% are being put forward by the White House. How can hikes that large not require a response?
The Republicans had already convinced their supporters that the battle to kill health care reform was won. This puts them in a bind. How can they concede that something needs to pass? How can they accept the very premise of the summit that they feel politically compelled to attend? Yet, if they do attend the summit and they behave in the way they’ve been behaving, they’ll be sharply corrected by representatives of the Office of Management and Budget, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Joint Committee on Taxation.
It appears that the Republicans are headed full-steam into a political trainwreck. If they engage seriously during the summit, embracing the premise that reform needs to pass, they’ll enrage their base beyond description. But if they petulantly refuse to accept the premise and keep repeating their mantra that the American people have already rejected reform, they’ll come off exactly the way the White House wants them to come off. And then the Democrats will have renewed momentum for passing a bill under reconciliation rules…
The President’s plan has one huge fault. It lacks a public option, despite wide-spread public support for it:
…A batch of state polls by the non-partisan Research 2000 shows that in multiple states represented by key Dem Senators who will have to decide whether to support reconciliation, the public option polls far better than the Senate bill does, often by lopsided margins.
Here’s a rundown, sent over by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which commissioned the polls:
* In Nevada, only 34% support the Senate bill, while 56% support the public option.
* In Illinois, only 37% support the Senate bill, while 68% support the public option.
* In Washington State, only 38% support the Senate bill, while 65% support the public option.
* In Missouri, only 33% support the Senate bill, while 57% support the public option.
* In Virginia, only 36% support the Senate bill, while 61% support the public option.
* In Iowa, only 35% support the Senate bill, while 62% support the public option.
*In Minnesota, only 35% support the Senate bill, while 62% support the public option.
* In Colorado, only 32% support the Senate bill, while 58% support the public option.
When the White House unveiled its new proposal to take to the summit, it did not include a public option, as expected. Obviously, including one would have made it easier for Republicans to argue that Dems aren’t making a good-faith effort to compromise, since the public option is the centerpiece of the dreaded “government takeover” that Republicans have warned against.
But if the summit yields no compromises, and Dems decide to forge ahead on their own and pass reform via reconciliation, including the public option at that point might make some political sense, if the above polls are to be believed.
Yesterday I not only stayed up to date on replying to comments and returning visits, but also made a few extra visits as well. Today looks good for staying that way.
Jig Zone Puzzle:
It took me 3:52. To do it, click here. How did you do?
Short Takes:
What a quote! “I love gridlock,” Coburn said. “I think we’re better off when we’re gridlocked because we’re not passing things.”
Only one Democrat voted against cloture to debate Harry Reid's puny jobs bill. If you guessed Ben Nelson, you're right.
I hear ChickenHawk Cheney was hospitalized for heart trouble. There must be another explanation, as Cheney lacks the necessary preexisting condition.
Did Marcy Kaptor (D-OH) tear into ‘too bought’ Timmy or what?
Most of us are thoroughly fed up with the ChickenHawk and the Lizard.
Today on Face the Nation, former Secretary of Sate Colin Powell dismissed former Vice President Cheney’s claim that President Obama has made the nation less safe. Saying, “I don’t know where the claim comes [from],” Powell ticked off Obama’s national security accomplishments, gave a full-throated defense of using civilian courts to process terrorists, and said Cheney’s attacks “are not borne out by the facts”:
SCHIEFFER: Let’s talk a little bit about national security. The former vice president, you just saw him there, he has almost on a weekly basis, it says something about the president is putting the nation’s security at risk. … Has Barack Obama made this country less safe?
POWELL: Well, let me lay out a few positions and facts. … I don’t know where the claim comes that we are less safe. … In eight years the military commissions have put three people on trial. Two of them served relatively short sentences and are free. One guy is in jail. Meanwhile the federal courts, our Article 3 regular legal court system has put dozens of terrorists in jail. They’re fully capable of doing it. So the suggestion that somehow a military commission is the way to go isn’t borne out by the history of the military commission. [...]
SCHIEFFER: Your bottom line answer is no?
POWELL: The bottom line answer is the nation is still at risk. Terrorists are out there. They’re trying to get through. But to suggest that somehow we have become much less safer because of the actions of the administration, I don’t think that’s borne out by the facts.
Watch it:
For weeks, Republicans have been hammering Obama over his handling of the Christmas Day terror attempt, especially the decision to try Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in civilian court rather than a military commission. Many whined that Abdulmutallab had not been properly interrogated because he was read his Miranda rights. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell even tried to score political points by insulting counterterrorism field agents. Of course, they ignored that President Bush treated shoe bomber Richard Reid in almost exactly the same way in 2001. And Obama’s rejection of torture has actually aided Abdulmutallab’s cooperation, not hurt it.
Later in the interview, Powell said that he has “no problem” with 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed being tried in federal court, though he would prefer the trial to be held some place other than New York City. Powell also reaffirmed his commitment to closing the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, saying it “has cost us a lot over the years in terms of our standing in the world and the way in which despots have hidden behind what we have done at Guantanamo to justify their own positions.”... [emphasis original]
Here’s the bottom line. Ever since the US withdrawal from Vietnam, National Security has been the GOP’s exclusive domain. They have used it ever since to portray Democrats as week, attack our patriotism, and strike fear into the hearts of uninformed voters. It boggles me that they have kept up this deception for so long, especially considering that the most significant contribution the GOP has made to national security in recent years is allowing 9/11 to happen on their watch through their incompetence. Suddenly that is changing. Under the Democrats, more terrorists are being killed. High lever terrorist leaders are being captured. Interrogations without torture are discovering better actionable intelligence than anything ChickenHawk and his sidekick, Texas Torquemada, ever got through their war crimes. The GOP is so desperate that they are telling even more absurd lies in a pathetic attempt ho hang onto national security preeminence. It isn’t working.
I still cannot think of Colin Powell without visualizing him standing before the United Nations, parroting Bush/GOP lies to justify their war for oil and conquest that led to the waste of US lives and treasure and the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocents. Nevertheless, it pleases me to see him trying to rehabilitate himself and thank him for his honesty.
Obama has once again called for bipartisanship in the Thursday’s HCR conference.
I expect one of three things to happen.
Door Number 1:
Obama could cave in to GOP demands. While this would cause consternation on the GOP, because they would have to immediately about face and pretend that they now and have always opposed whatever those demands are. Such a move would doom Obama’s presidency by alienating the mainstream, let alone his base.
Door Number 2:
Obama will present what is essentially BARF (Baucus Against a Real Fix). The GOP would oppose it, as do the majority of Americans. It would probably fail to pass and doom Obama’s presidency for the same reasons.
Door Number 3:
The last and best possibility is that Obama will introduce a compromise between the House and Senate bills. Of course the GOP would refuse to compromise, and Obama can then claim justification to proceed with reconciliation. Hopefully, the public option will be put back in during that process. This alone can save Obama’s presidency.
Yesterday I told you about a Facebook group honoring Joseph Stack, the nut case who crashed his plane into an Austin office building. AmericaBlog captured images the teabaggers’ attempt to restart it, before Facebook took it down:
Is this foul or what? How anyone could honor this mad man boggles my mind. But this had risen all the way to the GOP mainstream.
Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes discuss the GOP love affair with violence.
Yesterday I accomplished little. Barely able to see, I took an intended short nap and slept all day. Today I will be away most of the day attending a board meeting for the nonprofit for which I volunteer. My schedule looks pretty clear Sunday through Tuesday, so I’ll be catching up then. Ugh! What a week! At least I can see again.
Today’s Jig Zone puzzle took me 3:56. To do it, Click Here. How did you do?
Short Takes:
Rep. Brad Ellworth (D-IN) has decided to run for the Senate seat currently held by Evan Bayh.
Faux Noise ambush specialist, Griff Jenkins, was ambushed by Think Progress at CPUKE.
It has become abundantly clear that no progress is possible as long as Democrats try to include Republicans in their plans. The reason they keep trying is they fear that they will lose votes, if the public perceives them as partisan. A recent poll belies that fear.
The vast majority of opposition to health care and allowing gays to serve openly in the military is coming from people who already say there's no chance they'll vote Democratic this fall. That's an indication of minimal fallout for Congressional Democrats by acting on these issues. 37% of Americans say they will definitely not vote Democratic for Congress this year. 34% say they definitely will and that leaves roughly 30% of the country up for grabs. Right now 50% of voters say they oppose President Obama's health care plan to just 39% in support. Digging a little deeper on those numbers though 64% of respondents planning or open to voting Democratic this fall support it with only 22% opposed. The overall numbers are negative only because of 94/1 opposition among folks who have said there is no way they'll vote Democratic this fall. It's a similar story when it comes to the prospect of repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' Over 54% of voters support it with 37% opposed. But among the voters Democrats need to make happy- the ones planning to or considering voting for them this year- there is 72/24 support for letting gays and lesbians serve openly in the military. The total numbers are brought down only because of 59/25 opposition with folks who will never vote for them anyway… ...Full resultshere. [PDF] [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Public Policy Polling>
Regular readers probably know that, before I became disabled, I worked in opinion research. I examined the poll and found the questions worded and ordered in such a way as to be non-biased. The only bias I found was in the demographics of the sample, as slight more self-identified ‘conservatives’ were included than liberals. If the results are at all skewed, the actual situation is better than reported.
What Democrats should learn from this poll is that the people they would turn off by going it alone are people who weren’t going to vote for them anyway.
Rachel Maddow discussed the attempt by progressive Senators to pass the public option through reconciliation, which I reported yesterday, and also discussed reconciliation with Bernie Sanders.
She raises an excellent point. It’s impossible to negotiate an agreement with someone who changes their policy every time you agree to their policy. The bottom line here is that the GOP has only one policy: to disagree on everything.
Let reconciliation roll!
The stimulus is beginning to work. There’s certainly more stimulus required. How do I know? If not, why are GOP politicians grubbing for the money?
The Wall Street Journal has followed up on The Washington Times report about Republican lawmakers who publicly opposed the stimulus but privately sought stimulus funds to create jobs in their states and districts. Some nuggets:
Rep. Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican who called the stimulus a "wasteful spending spree" that "misses the mark on all counts," wrote to Labor Secretary Hilda Solis in October in support of a grant application from a group in his district which, he said, "intends to place 1,000 workers in green jobs."
Republican Reps. Sue Myrick of North Carolina and Jean Schmidt of Ohio sent letters in October asking for consideration of funding requests from local organizations training workers for energy-efficiency projects.
The Environmental Protection Agency received two letters from Sen. John Cornyn of Texas asking for consideration of grants for clean diesel projects in San Antonio and Houston. Mr. Cornyn is the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. One of the letters was signed jointly with Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, also of Texas.
The agency also appeared to have received eight identical letters from Republican Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah recommending infrastructure projects in his state, seven of which were sent before stimulus legislation was passed by Congress.
The entire congressional delegation of Alabama, including its two Republican senators, wrote to then-Forest Service Chief Gail Kimbell asking for $15 million for cogongrass eradication and control programs in the state. The state ended up getting a $6.3 million grant.
It's not just the WSJ and Washington Times that are paying attention. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune reports that Gov. Tim Pawlentyused stimulus funds to balance his state's budget. TPM notes new Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell has privately thanked the administration for offering stimulus funds to his state.
Based on these and other reports, the Obama Administration is mounting an aggressive defense of the stimulus program, pointing to the 'slam it in public, beg for it in private' hypocrisy of its Republican critics… [emphasis added]
I know you’ve seen that chart before at other blogs, but the Democratic Party sent it to me in email and asked me to spread it around, and it does fit this article perfectly. As bad as things still are, that condition is a result of the disaster Bush and the GOP left Obama and the Democrats to clean up. Long term readers who were here during the previous incarnation of Politics Plus will remember that, during the last year of the Bush/GOP regime, I often speculated that the GOP, knowing they would face major losses in 2008, intentionally allowed the economy to tank, even including the misuse of their half of TARP spending, to leave a mess behind that was so bad that they could blame Democrats for the effects of their own policies and use that blame in an attempt to regain power. While In have no proof that was their intent, inductive logic indicates likelihood. Look at that chart again. Things are not as bad as they used to be.
Bear in mind that these reports of GOP duplicity regarding the stimulus are not coming from left wing sources. Both papers are bastions of the right.
Two of my favorite people had a field day with this story.
First, here’s Rachel Maddow with DNC Chair, Tim Kaine.
Now the next time a rabid right winger tells you that the stimulus is _________ [insert GOP lie at hand], you are now armed with the truth. Let them have it with both barrels.
I thought this was the case, but now there’s support for that opinion.
One of the greatest obstacles to passing progressive legislation in Congress has been the use of the filibuster in the Senate. With upwards of “40 cloture votes since the start of the 111th Congress in January, this Senate is on pace to recordthe second-largest number of filibuster roll calls,” transforming what was intended to be a seldom-used procedural tactic into an all-out tool for obstructionism. Now, a new CBS/New York Times poll finds that more Americanssupport ending the filibusterand requiring legislation to pass by a simple majority:
As you may know, the Senate operates under procedures that effectively require 60 votes, out of 100, for most legislation to pass, allowing a minority of as few as 41 senators to block a majority. Do you think this procedure should remain in place, or do you think it should be changed so that legislation is passed with a simple majority?
Should remain 44
Should be changed 50
[Don't Know] 6
Changing the filibuster would not be without precedent. In 1975, the filibuster threshold waslowered from 67 to 60… [emphasis original]
Inserted from <Think Progress>
When I’m wrong, I say so. Please accept my apology. I have previously reported that there are three ways to end the filibuster: by rule change (67 votes), by statute (60 votes)and by changing the rule on the first day of a new session (51 votes). Chris Hayes explained the nuclear option on Rachel Maddow’s show. I had previously misunderstood it.
So if a Senator raises a point of order that the filibuster is unconstitutional, and if the President of the Senate (VP Biden) concurs, the Democrats could end it today with 51 votes. With that in mind, how should we handle those GOP filibastards?
Political analyst Lawrence O'Donnell is known for his strong opinions and occasional passionate outbursts. In 2004, he repeatedly shouted down [wing-nut delinked] Swift Boat Veterans spokesman John O'Neill with cries of "liar," leading conservative blogger Michelle Malkin to describe him as "unhinged."
Now O'Donnell has repeated the performance by confronting Marc Thiessen, a former speechwriter for Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush, staunch defender of "enhanced interrogation," and author of Courting Disaster: How the CIA Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama Is Inviting the Next Attack.
During an appearance Friday on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Thiessen began by telling host Joe Scarborough, "Barack Obama has eliminated the CIA's interrogation program, which is the single most successful and important intelligence program in the war on terror and possibly in the history of the CIA. ... You've got to think back to the period after 9/11. We didn't even know who hit us. ... This program is why we did not have another 9/11."
O'Donnell wasn't buying it, however. He told Thiessen, "You actually published a book that says that the president of the United States ... 'is inviting the next attack.' Isn't it true that the president you worked for invited the first attack by having no idea what was going on with al Qaeda?"
By this point, Scarborough had already begun attempting to cut O'Donnell off, repeatedly saying, "Lawrence, that's ridiculous," but O'Donnell continued inexorably.
"You just admitted that when you were hit on 9/11, you just said, 'We didn't know who hit us,'" O'Donnell stated. "You were told who was going to hit you before we were hit on 9/11, and your administration invited the first attack -- for which you should live in shame!"
As Thiessen attempted to respond by counting up the number of terrorist incidents under the Clinton administration and O'Donnell continued to talk over him, Scarborough finally jumped in to say, "We're going to break, right now ... and I'm going to be interviewing Marc by myself."
When the show resumed, Scarborough could be heard saying to Mika Brzezinski, "...if you don't balance the meds just right, crazy Lawrence..."
This time Thiessen was allowed to make his argument that we were "caught blind" by the Christmas bomber because we no longer have the ability to torture terrorists. "The Obama administration has thrown that out and gone back to the pre-9/11 approach," he concluded.
Given just 30 seconds to respond, O'Donnell asked Thiessen, "I'm wondering about your own personal experience with torture. I know you grew up in the richest zip code in America, on the Upper East Side. You went to the only boarding school in Connecticut that I know of that has a golf course ... and, of course, like all the torture-mongers in the White House, the Cheney family included, you never served a day in the military. ... With that background, what is it that gives you an expertise in torture? What makes you love it so much?"
"I actually met with the actual interrogators," Thiessen replied. "That's my expertise."...
Thiessen lied when he said we didn’t know who hit us. When Thiessen tried to list Clinton’s shortcomings when confronted with the Bush/GOP failure responsible for the catastrophe, Thiessen was using deferment. This is a criminal thinking error I teach prisoners and former prisoners to avoid. Rather that face up to it, Thiessen deferred by changing the subject. Of course the ‘interrogators’, actually torturers, believe what they did was worthwhile. Without that belief, how could they sleep at night? Thiessen thus based his so-called expertise on the least reliable possible source.
Scarborough should be ashamed for trying to allow Thiessen to parrot his GOP lies unopposed, and his ‘balance the meds’ comment was despicable. I will be calling MSNBC later today to complain. If you care to join me, their number is (212) 664-4444.
Keith Olbermann also debunked Thiessen’s bogus claims, and discussed the incident with Lawrence O’Donnell.
Obama killing too many terrorists? Whatever he’s drinking, it must be mighty strong!
Why is the GOP so intense in their support for torture? Here’s why:
A New York Times / CBS poll confirms the findings from other polls that I reported here yesterday: The public approves of Barack Obama’s handling of “the threat of terrorism” far more than it approves his performance on any other issue.
But the new poll asked a couple of question that the earlier polls I linked to did not, and the results are kind of startling.
“How likely do you think it is that there will be another terrorist attack in the United States in the next few months?” — not next few years, next few months. 58% say very or somewhat likely.
“What do you think is the most important problem facing the country today?” 1% say “terrorism.” One percent!
If my math is right, 57% of the respondents — presumably a representative cross-section of the American people — expect a terrorist attack here in the next few months but do not think it’s the most important problem we have to deal with. I suppose they expect to happen somewhere else, not where they live.
Yet, as I noted yesterday, Obama’s political standing depends rests heavily on public approval of the way he’s handling terrorism. If he didn’t have high marks in that department, he might very well be even lower than the 46% overall approval that this Times / CBS poll gives him… [emphasis added]
Since Karl Rove took over GOP strategy, attacking strength and falsely portraying it as weakness has been their standard ploy, and it’s been quite effective. For example, John Kerry was a war hero running against GW ChickenHawk, who used GHWB’s influence to get into the Air Guard, opted out of foreign deployment, and even ducked out of that commitment. Rove attacked Kerry’s strength with the Swift Boat lies, and they worked well enough for Diebold creativity in Ohio to enable Bush’s second theft of the White House. What the GOP is doing now in their quest for totalitarian power is no different. The good news is that Lawrence O’Donnell heroically refused to let Thiessen propagate their lies unchallenged.
Let me start with some good news. Past President Bill Clinton is now at home after two stents were successfully installed in a coronary artery.
Trying to take political advantage, Faux Noise falsely claimed that he would not have gotten such care had HCR passed.
This morning, Fox & Friends covered President Bill Clinton’s hospitalization by asking if the President would have been treated for his heart problems “if the health care reform had gone through.” “Would he have gotten those stents?” host Brian Kilmeade asked in-house health reform expert Peter J. Johnson Jr[Faux Noise delinked].
Johnson admitted that “under a lot of protocols he would have gotten those stents,” but suggested that if the government adopted best practice methods using comparative effectiveness research, “perhaps hundreds of thousands of people like the president” would receive a cheaper, less effective, treatment:
JOHNSON: If the government decides to adopt the Peter Orszag, budget director, architect of health care, method and put in regulations that say there is a gold standard, there is a best practice based on the literature, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people like the president, I’m not going to make a determination…if the new standard is save money, best practices, does President Clinton or you or I who needs it get the stent under the new regimen of health care effectiveness?
Watch it:
Conservatives have long used comparative effectiveness research (CER) to further their claim that health care reform would ration treatments based on cost, impose a one-size-fits-all standard for medicine, and keep doctors from prescribing more expensive and effective procedures. But this line of thinking misunderstands the purpose of CER and ignores legislative language that specifically prohibits the government from applying research findings to coverage decisions. CER is a recommendation, not a mandate. (See pg. 1652 of the Senate bill or pg. 769 of the House bill).
Rather than making arbitrary decisions based on cost, CER — which compares clinical outcomes of alternative therapies used to manage the same condition — would provide doctors with unbiased information about the most effective treatments, help doctors and patients make better informed decisions, and improve the quality of care. Properly conducted CER will actually promote faster adoption of personalized care, not one-size-fits all medicine...
I'm just a retreaded activist from the 1960s trying to promote progressive values one day at a time, remove the GOP stranglehold on our nation, and insist that Democrats stop acting like Republicans.
