Sharon Angle is Evil

Sharon Angle is evil. Sarah Palin is an idiot, but Angle is evil. How else can one explain the following? [emphasis added]

“We know that if we could have that affordability across state lines, you’re not, you’re not afraid of competition I know you’re not, you would in fact invite it. I have friends in other states that say “you know I’d like to come to Nevada, but you have problems there in Nevada. And one of the problems is unfunded, well they are unfunded, but these mandates on insurance companies to provide coverage for things that people don’t even really need! And what we need to do is get rid of those mandates, let you provide a comprehensive coverage that takes care of what people need and allows them to buy them the things that they have to have, not things that are mandated by the government. A similar policy, as the things that people write for car insurance, and life insurance, you know you write something that fits the need of a person rather than fitting what the government has done for some politically correct special interest and that’s how we got those mandates.”

Can you say bullshit? What is comprehensive coverage if not mandating the insurance companies to provide a basic level of care? Why isn't she upset about having to buy auto insurance or fire insurance for her home? Maybe because they aren't underwriting her campaign?

Routine breast exams (never mind mammograms!). Colorectal exams. Prostate exams. Pap smears for early detection of ovarian and cervical cancer. Well-child visits. The "new" requirement that women be allowed 48-hours in hospital after a mastectomy rather than just 24 (used to be 1-week).

These are all medical services that we have come to associate with routine medical care. Care not just associated with the new health care reform, but care we receive if we are fortunate enough to have health insurance. Not every state has the same requirements, but most states have some minimal level of service that insurance companies are required to provide to its customers.

It makes sense, as if you catch cancer before it takes hold, you can stop it faster and easier (and supposedly cheaper) which should be as advantageous to the insurance companies as to the patient.

But no. Now we learn that these are not procedures and services contained in basic health care because they make sense, or because they are "basic." No. We receive these services because some special interest, somewhere, has paid the government to include that category in mandated insurance coverage. People like Sharon Angle love to talk in sound bytes like unfunded mandates and special interests, and sneer and use air quotes. Ever since John McCain went overboard with the use of air quotes during his debates with then Senator Obama, those on the right seem to believe that using them is an automatic dig at Democrats. And autism? Where is her buddy Palin on this one? After all, Palin's sister has a child with autism.Of course she'll speak out for children with disabilities and correct Angle. Right? Right? Right.

Angle (and now O'Donnell) take their cues from Palin and somehow believe that running for office (or a title, as Palin says - never far away from her beauty queen days) means proving the other person is unfit rather than trying to show how they would do better. When unable to prove anything negative about their opponent, they resort to personal smears (gay? gay? I never said he was gay. I would never say he was gay. who said he was gay? gay? not me) and lies (death panels anyone?) including misrepresenting legislation that their opponent is associated with. Journalists are little better as they say that their job is to present both sides, not to verify the truthfulness of what they report (Gregory). Statements by others they support that do not fit their worldview are ignored (remember the false concensus effect that I have discussed previously here and here) or re-written to say what they want it to say.

In the Pledge to America and the Republican rants against health care reform, in the conversations I have had or heard about the evils of socialized medicine, people against health care reform are against some generalized concept they have been taught to fear, but when asked item by item, point by point, one finds that they are actually in favor of the benefits to be gained by the new legislation. What is mind-boggling, is that you can ask many of these people if they are in favor of no pre-existing conditions conclusions, coverage for children until age 26, and some of the other individual features of health care reform, but tell them that they have just agreed to all of the component parts of the concept they are fighting against, they continue to say they are against it.

What is completely bizarre, is that Sharon Angle and Harry Reid are in a dead heat. Granted, Reid was way behind at one time, but once we started learning about what a whack job Sharon Angle really is, he started moving up in the polls - to dead even.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Tea Party Protests and A Birth of A Nation: Melissa Harris-Lacewell Explains

Photo: D.W. Griffith "The Birth of A Nation"

In an essay published in The Nation magazine, Associate Professor of Politics and African American Studies at Princeton University, Melissa Harris-Lacewell has written of the actions of the Tea Party protesters this past weekend on the Capital Mall as the attacked members of Congress. During their passage between the House and the White House, members were called racial and homophobic pejoratives and even spat upon. One of the valley's members, Devin Nunez, responded by saying that people were so angry at the tyranny of the Democratic Party...a statement that I know will surely come back to haunt him. Liberal commentators have linked the actions of the protesters to the Civil Rights protesters of the 1960's, something that Harris-Lacewell cautions against, saying that:

"Crafting a metaphor that connects the civil rights movement and the bigoted language of this weekend's protesters is seductive. It seems so obvious given that Representative John Lewis plays a critical role in both."
[...]
"In 1965 Lewis was a disenfranchised protester fighting to be recognized as a full citizen. When he was beaten by the police, he was being attacked by the state. In 2010 Lewis is a long time, elected representative. When he is attacked by protesters, he is himself an agent of the state. This difference is critically important; not because it changes the fact that racism is present in both moments, but because it radically alters the way we should understand the meaning of power, protest and race."
[...]
"The state is the entity that has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, force and coercion. If an individual travels to another country and kills its citizens, we call it terrorism. If the state does it, we call it war. If a man kills his neighbor it is murder; if the state does it is the death penalty. If an individual takes his neighbor's money, it is theft; if the state does it, it is taxation."

She raises the point that Congressman Lewis as an agent of the state, changes completely the dynamics of race in this issue. The Tea Party and other protesters are in effect saying that our government has no right to do what it is doing. According to Harris-Lacewell, they are saying that:

"This 1915 film [The Birth of A Nation] depicts the racist imagination currently at work in our nation as a black president first appoints a Latina Supreme Court Justice and then works with a woman Speaker of the House to pass sweeping national legislation. This bigotry assumes no such government could possibly be legitimate and therefore frames resistance against this government as a patriotic responsibility."

Again, I am always struck by the comments, and include several posted in response to her essay. The first, was breathtaking in displaying the individual's ignorance as he or she said

I'm not surprised that the reverse racist Ms Harris-Lacewell has it completely backwards.It was Obama and the Democrats that staged a coup last night against the constitution.

We are those who love our country and wish to restore the constitution that was trampled on last night.

The racism charges are a red herring designed to keep ignorant Americans unaware of what these Stalinists did last night.

Posted by antisocialist at 03/22/2010 @ 10:23pm

***

Bigotry lies at the heart of GOP politics for the past 42 years. Newt Gingrich as much as admitted this when he compared the passing of HCR to the passing of LBJ's '65 Civil Rights legislation, the seed for Nixon's southern strategy, i.e. the continuing GOP coded appeal to racism. The teabaggers are yet another good example of the corporate GOP's targets for appeals to bigotry when furthering aims inimical to the targets' real interests. Bigotry clouds judgment, that's the GOP's game, and what progressive critics are noting once again.

Posted by sloper at 03/22/2010 @ 10:45pm

***

Lacewell, "The Tea Party is a challenge to the legitimacy of the U.S. state. When Tea Party participants charge the current administration with various forms of totalitarianism, they are arguing that this government has no right to levy taxes or make policy. Many GOP elected officials offered nearly secessionist rhetoric from the floor of Congress this weekend. They joined as co-conspirators with the Tea Party protesters by arguing that this government has no monopoly on legitimacy."
The Tea Party is challenging the legitimacy of a Congress that would go against the wishes of the majority of Americans and ram an unwanted bill down their throats without the benefit of one republican vote. That says it all. There has never been a bill with such sweeping reform passed without a single opposition vote.
The Tea Party takes it's name from another rebellion against tyranny in Boston at the birth of our nation. This is no different.

The real conspirators this weekend were the union thugs who infiltrated the Tea Party ranks and shouted those slurs at the Congressmen. Even if it were actual Tea Partyers, they are to be condemned for those rants. There is no place in America for such language.
The very tone of your piece seems to laud a self-aggrandized ending of the so-called struggle of blacks since the Emancipation. When will be enough for you before the entire republic collapses?
Ms. Lacewell, your people will not be able to advance in this country on the scale that you would desire until they start to reject government largess and handouts in the name of phony repartions. The debt has been paid. The country is going bankrupt. The party is over. Encourage your people to develop a sense of responsibility and to stop having babies they can't pay for.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 03/23/2010 @ 12:57am

Most of the comments were supportive, but there were many like antisocial and gunslinger1 (do they realize what they say about themselves by the screen name they choose?). I included the comment by sloper as the media seem to be ignoring Newt Gingrich's equating health care reform to passage of the Civil Rights Act--both (in his mind) equally bad, no matter how much he has tried to walk it back since his initial comments.

In any case, an excellent article and one that should be read in its entirety which you can do here.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Keith Olbermann Special Comment, and Sign Your Name to The Health Care Reform Bill

He's baaack! And what a special comment it is. The money quote?
"You lost. You're behind the wheel of a political Toyota." to John Boehner.

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

Want to add your name to the Health Care Reform Bill? Organizing for America will establish a permanent archive with all the names , so that generations to come will have a record of those who stood together in this moment and won this fight for our future. Add your name here.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

And We Have A Bill!

I have been listening to C-Span all afternoon and we are in the  middle of the second of three votes. Rep. Stupak slightly redeemed himself with his passionate defense of the Democratic position as he spoke against the Republicans motion on the abortion language which President Obama resolved in his Executive Order. Stupak rightly saw this as just another delay. I'm fairly angry at Obama who is moving very far to the right from his campaign and previous positions with this executive order, but I understand why he did it.

I am fascinated by the comments I am hearing on the call-in line. Most of the callers on the "against" line are either 1) students who have insurance or 2) adults who also have insurance. The reasons against appear to fall under the headings of being a) unconstitutional, b) a loss of freedom, or 3) too expensive. A common thread seems to be "why don't we wait until we have resolved unemployment and the deficit?" Another common meme is "if people who don't have insurance would just get a job..."

 Sigh.

I believe absolutely that people are entitled to their opinion. But I have no use for people who hold on to an opinion that is not supported by fact. Of course, I have also spent the past two days listening to the Republicans in the House stand on the floor and speak of the abortions that will be funded with federal funds if this bill passes (not true), and all the other horrors that will happen which they know full well are not true. I watched Virginia Foxx of North Carolina get so incensed at something a Democrat was saying that she just  jumped right in and started talking right over them while they were speaking - on the floor of the House. Not only is this woman an ignorant bigot, she's also rude.
People have been informed numerous times that without some kind of health insurance reform, our economy will not only remain stagnant, it will get worse. Jobs will continue to be lost, employers will continue to move their companies overseas, and the cost of health insurance will go up. So yeah, get a job. Right.

Well. Reconciliation just passed to cheers and reports of hugs and cheers at the White House. Yay!

Lots of work ahead yet. Don't let up and don't let those Blue Dogs think they're home free. November is coming quickly and this reform is only a foundation, and a very weak one at that.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

UPDATE: Healthcare Vote Tomorrow: Another Story, and What You Can Do

UPDATE:

It does make a difference. Two Blue Dogs in the San Joaquin Valley here in California just announced that they will vote yes tomorrow. Granted, some back room wheeling and dealing went on (water for the valley, of course, but a significant issue here), but constituent pressure WORKS!

***************

Tomorrow is the day. Congress votes on health insurance reform and it is close. Amazingly, it is still close. The Republican noise machine remains effective at clouding the issue and spreading its lies. Using fear as their primary tactic, they convince many people that this bill will cause significant damage to the U.S. economy and to their individual lives. The reality, is that 95% of us will see no difference from this bill.

If you need one more story to convince yourself or someone else, here is a story I read a few minutes ago on Salon dot com. Cary Tennis, a columnist for Salon, who has written an advise column for them for years has been battling a very rare form of cancer. After successful surgery, he has been advised to have proton beam radiation therapy which while rare, is the standard of care for this rare type of cancer (sacral chordoma). Any guesses on what his insurance company, Blue Cross, decided on the request for pre-approval? Request denied, or in Cary's words, "drop dead."

Cary has been blogging about his experiences, but says he tried not to use his position in the media for personal benefit. After the denial of care, he decided to share his problem with his readers and requested that they contact Blue Cross on his behalf hoping that a groundswell of support would help change their mind. Unfortunately, without claim numbers and other personal details, navigating the system is difficult at best and unlikely to accomplish much (anyone who has ever tried to call an insurance company knows the first thing you have to provide before moving through the automated telephone system is a social security number and/or a claim number).

The reason that I am writing this today, is that in among the overwhelming support generated in the comments, one commenter stood out.

Friday, March 19, 2010 11:49 AM

Crucial distinction

"denied the request for this treatment."
No - Blue Shield denied your request for *payment* of this treatment.
NB – I’m passing absolutely no judgement [sic] on the situation one way or another and certainly don’t wish anyone to suffer unduly because they are unable to afford medical treatment, but the difference between denying treatment and denying payment for treatment is an important distinction to make, especially in the context of ObamaCare.

—Ramesees

And this is the result of the Republican public relations campaign of the past forty years, and the intensity of their attacks on health care reform of the past year. The success of the astroturfed "Tea Party" movement is a case in point as ignorant Americans are led to a belief that is against their own best interests. What Ramesees above fails to understand (and is pointed out by many other commenters in response), is that denial of *payment* is denial of treatment. Expensive treatments require pre-approval and is not provided without it. I have been denied chemotherapy by Blue Cross (anyone remember when they used to be a non-profit?) and believe me, it is an incredible feeling to realize that accountants are making my healthcare decisions instead of my doctors. And people worry about a government takeover of healthcare.

So, if you have not already contacted your Representative, please do so now. If you have friends, family, neighbors, or others who you know are against this bill, please share this story with them as an example of why we need reform. Will reform solve this particular problem? Maybe. Maybe not. But it will establish a foundation for future reforms. Social security and Medicare did not begin as they are now; they evolved over time on a basic foundation that provided the minimum. What I do know, is that without this bill, there will be nothing to build on, nothing to fix, and the 95% of us who are doing fine with our healthcare now, will be significantly less in the future as healthcare takes a larger and larger share of our economy.

If you do not know how to contact your Representative, or who he or she is, find that information here.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

URGENT: Sign Health Care Reform Petition

This is it: The fate of health care reform will be decided in the next 48 hours.

It could come down to a vote or two. And that means that right now, every last message to Congress makes a difference.

It's an all-hands-on-deck moment. Even if you've already called and written your representative, it's time to send one last message. If you haven't yet weighed in, now's the time. And please send this on to friends, neighbors, colleagues, former roommates, and anyone who cares about health care reform.

I just added my name to an emergency petition to Congress before the big vote. Will you join me?

Petition

Thanks!

Half The Sky, An Event by Nicholas Kristof & Sheryl WuDunn About the Oppression of Women

Below, is an interview on WNYC with NY Times columnist Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn discussing their bestseller "Half The Sky" and the oppression of women. Their book focuses particularly on sex trafficking, maternal mortality, and violence against women. On Thursday, CARE, a humanitarian organization fighting global poverty, will be hosting an event called "Half the Sky," a rebroadcast at select theaters nationwide of "Woineshet" by Marisa Tomei and Lisa Leone, a film about an Ethiopian girl and her triumph over the sexual violence and discrimination that are a part of the local tradition. The evening will also include music and discussion. For more information about the event and the film, go here. h/t Crooks and Liars. 

How to Talk Health Care Reform Over Turkey

With thanks to Buzz Flash, some guidelines (which I have paraphrased here) on what to do tomorrow if you find yourself faced with the dilemma of what to say to that difficult relative about the health care debate.

• If Grandma is on Medicare and says "Reform is going to destroy Medicare" then she has probably fallen for some of the Republican scare tactics. You can tell her that if she is one of the 3.4 million who fall into the doughnut hole, her savings will be immediate, and substantial.
• If Uncle is 62, and laid off and says "No job, no insurance" you can tell him that this bill will ensure that older adults who no longer are eligible for employer funded insurance, will qualify for high-quality, affordable health care through "exchanges."
• Aunt with a pre-existing condition who says "I always worry that my insurance will cut me off" you can tell her that the insurance companies cannot cut her off (rescind) or deny her coverage or raise her rates due to pre-existing conditions, current health status, or gender.
• Cousin, just out of college who says "There are no jobs with insurance" you can say that her parents can keep her on their policy until she is age 27, rather than 22 as it now.
• Sister, small business owner who says "It is tough paying for employees' health insurance" you can say that reform will allow her to provide coverage at a fair price and tax credits will help her pay the premiums.

And, if everyone in your family is healthy, employed, and has adequate, quality insurance, you have much to be thankful for.You might remind them that this reform will help all the families that are not as lucky as they are and that they will all end up saving over the long term as the reduction to the overall cost of health care will be passed on to all consumers. (Not to mention a healthy society is a more productive society).

If they are still screaming about health care, politely remind them that high blood pressure is a pre-existing condition and could result in their insurance company cancelling their policy or raising their rates.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Stupak - "We Won Fair and Square" - Neener, Neener, Neener

On Fox & Friends today, Bart Stupak (D-MI) talked with Steve Doocy about the Stupak-Pitts Amendment recently passed in the House. Responding to reports that his amendment might not make it into the final bill, Mr. Stupak stated,

“They’re not going to take it out. If they do, health care will not move forward…We won fair and square.”

White House Senior Advisor, David Axelrod was reported to have said over the weekend that the language of the amendment should be adjusted, and Stupak replied as any proud Republican would (except he’s not) and stated quite firmly that,

“That is why Mr. Axelrod is not a legislator, he doesn’t really know what he is talking about.”

Ummm. Every time I read that or hear it, my jaw drops. Doesn't know what he's talking about? Serial stupidity does not belong only to Republicans. The White House Political Director, one of the two men responsible for getting Obama elected, and he doesn't understand legislating? I think Mr. Stupak will find his name missing from the White House invitation list from now on. He sounds like a little boy who hasn't learned how to play well with others yet. "We won fair and square...neener, neener, neener." Very adult.

I know it will play well to the GOPhers, but Stupak is a Democrat and wants to win Democratic votes. I think. He claims to have 20 Democrats who will join him in voting with him against the bill if his language is stripped out. Okay. There are at least forty who won’t vote for it if it isn’t.

What Mr. Stupak seems to not know what he is talking about, is that the amendment process on the House floor is a process. It is not the end of a bill. He introduced an amendment. He was told it would be voted on. It was. It passed. It was attached to the bill. It then goes, with all the other amendments and the bill to be attached to the Senate bill after their bill is finalized. No one expects that all of the amendments will make it through markup. A lot of them are just happy that they can go home and campaign on the fact that they offered an amendment and that it passed on the floor.

Most of their constituents don’t know or understand that something can pass on the floor and never make it into the final bill, or that the bill can die before it reaches a final vote, or never get signed, or that there are many, many things that can happen before a bill actually becomes law. The fact that an amendment made it onto the floor and passed is nice, but one of the reasons that legislators are willing to vote for amendments is the art of the deal. It is how they get votes for their pet amendments, or how the Speaker gets vote for the final bill. Many representatives will vote for an amendment because they know it will never make it through into the final bill. If they thought that this particular bill had any chance of making it into the final health care bill, it would never have passed.

Mr. Stupak has voted with his party 96.1% of the time, but this does not include the 8.5% of the time that he has not shown up for a vote. In the past year, the times when he has voted against his party include voting against paid family medical leave, the Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights, Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, and numerous appropriations bills to keep the government running. He lives in the C Street House owned by “The Family” while in Washington D.C., the house that became famous (infamous?) during the sex scandals involving Mark Sanford, John Ensign, and others.

[Totally off topic, but today C Street lost tax exempt status for about 66% of that house]

Stupak denies any real involvement with The Family and states that he just rents a room there. Jeff Sharlet, who lived at C Street and Ivanwald, a residence for young men also run by The Family, before he wrote his book on The Family, said that Stupak was a regular visitor to the Cedars at Ivanwald and questions his lack of participation in Family activities.

Stupak saw a way to make some video for his next campaign. He’s considering a run for governor which will be an open seat in 2010. Michigan has been blue since 92, although not solidly blue, so his conservatism clearly sells in the upper Midwest. He’s held his seat since 1993 and won his last race 65% to 35% so obviously feels pretty secure turning against his party’s platform. Many of his constituents want health care, however, and if he holds it up because of abortion, they may make him regret it.

This country still supports a woman’s right to choose regardless of what the religious right would have you say. In July 2009, a Harris poll found that 51% of Americans supported the provisions of Roe v. Wade vs. 44% opposed, with 5% unsure. On the issue of whether people considered themselves pro-choice or pro-life, a USA-Gallup poll taken at the same time found 46% found themselves pro-choice vs. 47% pro-life. Remember, someone can consider themselves pro-life, and not want to overturn Roe v. Wade. I consider myself pro-life, and support a woman’s right to choose. I just believe that if you say you are pro-life, you must also be against war, the death penalty, and allow a woman the right to decisions about her own life.

My biggest problem with Bart Stupak and the other Blue Dogs and Conservadems? They signed on as Democrats. The used the Democratic Party to get elected, they caucus with the Democrats, the accept committee assignments from the party, accept party money, and in return, accept the party platform. The platform and each plank are agreed to by everyone in the party. If the Democratic Party wants to change their platform, they can. Everyone gets together and talks about it and votes and changes are a big deal.

Being a member of the party is a big deal, its how a legislator gets seniority. Having seniority is how one gets committee assignments and what assignments you get determines how much power you have in Washington, and how much power you have determines how much your voice (and therefore your vote) matters. Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders going independent was a very big deal even though they both caucus with the Democrats. There’s a reason Lieberman gets away with the sh*t he does even though he’s not a member of the party. In fact, if he was a member of the party, and not a member of the Connecticut for Lieberman Party, he would likely get away with a lot less, but that’s another post.

Why am I ticked? Have you ever read the Democratic Party Platform? I didn’t think so. [emphasis added]

Page 50


Choice
The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.


The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to comprehensive affordable family planning services and age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informal choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions.


The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre-and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.

Page 12
Covering All Americans and Providing Real Choices of Affordable Health Insurance Options. […] should have the option of keeping the coverage they have or choosing from a wide array of health insurance plans, including many private health insurance options and a public plan. Coverage should be made affordable for all Americans with subsidies provided through tax credits and other means.

So how exactly does this philosophy, these promises to women and to the American people square with the Stupak-Pitt Amendment which takes us further back than the Hyde Amendment? The Amendment means that not only can no federal dollars be used to pay for an abortion (Hyde), but that no woman eligible to receive exchange dollars to pay for her insurance coverage (whether through an employer, a public option, or whatever) can have any insurance plan that covers abortion, even if she pays for it with her own money. In plain and simple language, you don’t like the insurance plan offered to you through your employer, you shop around and find a plan that would cost you a similar amount that you would have to pay to buy into your employer’s plan, and you buy that. Employer plan does not cover abortions but receives exchange dollars, your plan does cover abortions but does not. According to Stupak-Pitt, it’s illegal.

Do you ever get the feeling that we're moving backwards?

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Government Has No Right To Interfere, Unless You Are A Woman

The most restrictive abortion language in years is now a part of the debate on what the final bill will look like.

 

Sigh.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.

k

Kos Writes About Tuesday Night's Big Lesson

Markos Moulitsos (Kos) wrote last night on his blog, Daily Kos

There will be much number-crunching tomorrow, but preliminary numbers (at least in Virginia) show that GOP turnout remained the same as last year, but Democratic turnout collapsed. This is a base problem, and this is what Democrats better take from tonight:

1. If you abandon Democratic principles in a bid for unnecessary "bipartisanship", you will lose votes.

2. If you water down reform in favor of Blue Dogs and their corporate benefactors, you will lose votes.

3. If you forget why you were elected -- health care, financial services, energy policy and immigration reform -- you will lose votes.

Tonight proved conclusively that we're not going to turn out just because you have a (D) next to your name, or because Obama tells us to. We'll turn out if we feel it's worth our time and effort to vote, and we'll work hard to make sure others turn out if you inspire us with bold and decisive action.
The choice is yours. Give us a reason to vote for you, or we sit home. And you aren't going to make up the margins with conservative voters. They already know exactly who they're voting for, and it ain't you.

I rarely post anything in its entirety, but this was short and concise and makes a good point.

I've spent several hours this morning reading aggregate sites, blogs, newspapers, the MSM pundits from both the right and the left and the analysis is all over the board. I've written some of my own. What I find fascinating, is how many left-wing bloggers are (and have been) saying that we must stop criticising Obama. My own family tells me I must stop and give the man a chance - that it has only been a (month, few months, year). My son, the politics and government major whose thesis was on Clinton and the MSM, reminds me that Obama is the President of the whole country, not just the progressives (to which I remind him that it was the progressives who gave him a majority Congress).

I agree that Obama has accomplished a great deal in one year, relatively speaking, and that he was handed a bigger mess than any president ever has with more restrictions coming in (the stimulus was Bush's, the status of forces agreement was Bush's, TARP was Bush's ...). But, does that mean that we are not to hold him accountable for the promises made in his campaign?

• Don't ask, don't tell
• Guantanamo
• Torture investigations
• Transparency
• Regulations on Wall Street
• Iraq & Afghanistan
• Health care

In every case, Obama has either changed his mind, begun discussions so close to the bottom that any legislation would be close to worthless (health care), or put people in charge that were part of the problem and allowed them to craft the solutions. Instead of taking a strong stand, he holds back. Yes, we did vote for a President who would take a measured, informed approach to problem solving. But we did not vote for a President who is going to straddle the center line at the expense of the ideals of his party.

Obama has said over and over and over again that he is committed to bipartisanship, that we want bipartisanship. No we don't. Sure, we would like Congress to get things done, but I don't think at the end of the day that anyone cares who votes for what. The American people gave him an overwhelming majority in the House and the Senate because we want change and we told him that we wanted the change that he said he would bring. I understand that it will take time. He said it would. But change doesn't happen if he doesn't at least begin. I don't understand why he allowed Congress to begin negotiating healthcare at the bottom, why it had to be a 50/50 committee that crafted the Senate plan, why he is going back on his word on the wars, on torture, on transparency, and so many other issues.

This election yesterday was not a referendum on Obama, but if he doesn't get it together quickly, the historic election of 2008 will be wasted and he'll lose Congress. He said that he would be happy to be a one term president if he could accomplish what he set out to do. I'm beginning to wonder if that's true.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Billionaires for Wealthcare

This is fabulous.



Thanks for stopping by.  Come back soon.
k

Way To Go Grayson!

Who the hell cares what Olympia Snowe wants? I have not been able to comprehend the Democrats kowtowing to her. Even if they get her to vote for the health care bill, she will bring no GOP votes along with her, and they don't need her. Time and energy would have been better spent working on the Blue Dogs.

I have not always been a fan of Alan Grayson, but his actions in the recent weeks have been amazing when it comes to standing up to the Republicans. Today, was breathtaking.



Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Will Ferrell Speaks Up For Real Health Care Victims

Protect Insurance Companies PSA from Will Ferrell

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog - Fire Up The Email For The Public Option

I rarely (okay, never) copy whole blog posts or even big chunks of blog posts. But, this is too important and calls and emails and letters DO make a difference. Diane Feinstein is my Senator and she does actually respond to letters & emails (although not usually as rudely as below) if frequently months after the bill under discussion is either passed or dead. In any case, Bob and Lee are on top of this issue on a daily basis (as is Digby @ Hullabaloo and FireDogLake, addresses to the right). So, forget what you read in the paper, the public option is only dead if we let it be dead. Congress passes bills, not the President (thanks Bob for reminding us). Please make noise. Numbers below. Click the post title above to read the rest of the blog for other links and articles.

Fire Up the Email for the Public Option

Back in late June and early July, we successfully pushed members of Congress to support the public option. We, as a liberal community, had a serious impact. Remember how Diane Feinstein complained about all the calls she was getting about it? That was awesome.

With the public option on the ropes again, it's time to amp up our efforts. Because Congress is in recess, I strongly recommend emailing until they reconvene.

The New Coalition of the Corrupt & Spineless:

THE WHITE HOUSE
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461
Email

Harry Reid (D-NV) (just because)
Phone: 202-224-3542
Fax: 202-224-7327
Email

Max Baucus (D-MT)
Phone: 202-224-2651
Fax: 202-224-0515
Email

Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) (supports public option, but needs reinforcements)
Phone: (202) 224-5521
Email

Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) (supports public option, but needs reinforcements)
Phone: (202) 224-4843
Fax: (202) 228-1371
Email

Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Phone: (202)224-5824
Fax: (202) 224-9735
Email

Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Phone: (202) 224-2043
Fax: (202) 224-7776
Email

Joe Lieberman (I-Douchebaggia)
Phone: (202) 224-4041
Fax: (202) 224-9750
Email

Evan Bayh (D-IN)
Phone: (202) 224-5623
Fax: (202) 228-1377
Email

Ben Nelson (D-NE)
Phone: (202) 224-6551
Fax: 202-228-0012
Email

Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Phone: 202-224-5274
Fax: 202-228-2183
Email

Chuck Schumer (D-NY) (supports the public option, but needs reinforcements)
Phone: (202) 224-6542
Fax: (202) 228-3027
Email

Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Phone: (202) 224-3841
Fax: (202) 228-3954
Email

Tom Carper (D-DE)
Phone: (202) 224-2441
Fax: (202) 228-2190
Email

Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Phone: 202-224-3441
Fax: 202-228-0514
Email

Mark Warner (D-VA)
Phone: 202-224-2023
Fax: 202-224-6295
Email

Mark Pryor (D-AR)
Phone: (202) 224-2353
Fax: (202) 228-0908
Email

Palin's Imaginary Victory & Grassley's Imaginary Committee

You have to wonder about Senators who hold imaginary committee meetings when everyone else is on recess, and ex-half-term-governors who are for things before they're against them before they're for them again. Someone that dizzy surely needs national health care, or something.

Sarah Palin claims victory for changing the Health Care Reform Bill. No longer having access to the official State of Alaska website, and no longer tweeting (she's probably having a hard time trying to figure out how to tweet without using a no-longer-valid user name - someone should tell her that changing your user name on Twitter is way easy), she now sends out press releases via Facebook. I must admit, whoever her new writer is, the quality of the writing is much improved. Note, I said quality, not content.

In a Facebook post on Friday, August 14, Palin said, [emphasis added]

"I join millions of Americans in expressing appreciation for the Senate Finance Committee's decision to remove the provision in the pending health care bill that authorizes end-of-life consultations (Section 1233 of HR 3200)," ..."It's gratifying that the voice of the people is getting through to Congress."

"That provision was not the only disturbing detail in this legislation; it was just one of the more obvious ones," ... "As I noted in my statement last week, nationalized health care inevitably leads to rationing. There is simply no way to cover everyone and hold down the costs at the same time."

She goes on to claim that the only conclusion to this would be a nationalized health care system (which to maintain full disclosure, I am not totally against). The problem with Palin and other right wingers, is that they form one conclusion and refuse to see another. Nationalized healthcare does not inevitably lead to rationing, nor is rationing an evil word. Insurance companies ration care right now. Oh well, that's another post and a debate that should be taking place and would be taking place if the right wing noise machine would allow a civil discourse to occur at democratic town hall meetings.

Back to her post. A few problems.

Congress is out of town. It's a little difficult to remove provisions in a bill when everyone is out of town. And, the letters HR before a bill number means House Resolution whereas the letters SR mean Senate Resolution.

She obviously got a little confused because Senator Charles Grassley (of the Senate Finance Committee) on Thursday announced at a Town Hall that he was responsible for having the provision relating to end of life counseling removed from the health care reform bill so no one had to worry about killing granny.

Chuck is jumping the gun just a trifle, as HR 3200 is not completely through the House, everyone is on recess, he hasn't done diddly, and he's forgotten the how a bill becomes a law process, too. Unless he held that imaginary meeting. He follows me on twitter, I follow him, but I must have missed that tweet.

So, to review. Once a bill passes the House, then it goes to the Senate. Once passed by the Senate, it goes to the President for his signature. (Along the way, there are things called markups...).

In the case of HR 3200, America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 referred to in Sarah Palin's Facebook post, it has meandered its way through markup through the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee on Ways and Means, and the Committee on Education and Labor. It is now in markup in the Committees for Oversight and Government Reform, and the Budget Committee, according to Thomas dot gov, and upon the completion of the August recess, will pass the House and move to the Senate where depending on the Blue Dogs, will be completed some time in late September or October.

Sarah Palin, like Senator Chuck Grassley who claimed victory for removal of the same provision, has nothing to do with anything to do with this bill, at this point. Palin never will, and Grassley not until it reaches the Senate.

So why are they each proclaiming victory for something they have nothing to do with? Politics. Grassley will be running for re-election in 2010. He knows that ultimately, he has no chance in stopping health care reform but is looking for sound bites and video clips for his base. He now has them - particularly rabid ones at that as he refers to health care reform "killing granny" - that he can use for the far right-wing of his constituents to "prove" that he fought against health care reform. He had to. The day before, President Obama had singled him out for praise as a voice of reason in the health care debate and he knew that anyone running against him would use that clip against him, so he needed to have some O'Reilly and Beck-type 'creds' to throw back. Never mind reality, or truth. It's just politics.

And Palin? It's the issue of the day. She created the "death panel" label that took the right wing by storm - even if she was against it a few days later until she realized that more people supported her for it than didn't, so she was for it before she was against it before she was for it again. Whew. Busy lady. Anyway.

It doesn't matter what she says or does. Or if it's true or not. Just throw a bunch of words around, terms that she heard someone say that sound important (never mind if she understands them - no one else will either) and post something that's really, really long and looks important (no one will read it anyway, or understand it if they do). It's just politics.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

From the Far Left Side

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Number One

By Lee Stranahan.



Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Patsy by Lee Stranahan

Another excellent video from Lee Stranahan. Short but to the point.



Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Keith Olbermann Special Comment on Health Care

If you don't watch Countdown on MSNBC, this Special Comment by Keith Olbermann is worth watching. This is his longest special comment and a rare one as he doesn't often offer one outside the campaign season.

Watch.



Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k