Where's the Outrage?

I first read about the blogger Jon Swift dying from the update below.  Jon, which wasn’t his real name, was one of the first major bloggers to answer one of my e-mails. He put my little blog on his blog roll. He engaged me in conversation. After a while, I was able to engage just about all of the major bloggers except for Jane, Huffington and Digby (they have never answered any of my e-mails). Jon was the rarest of conservatives, he was thoughtful, open, humorous and engaging. I know that the world would be a better place if there were more people like him around.

From Political Animal:

• Iraq: “Three powerful suicide bombings killed at least 33 people and wounded more than 50 Wednesday in the restive Diyala province northeast of Baghdad, authorities said. Most of those killed and wounded were Iraqi police officers charged with securing the province’s capital city ahead of elections Sunday. “
• Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) announced a “leave of absence” from his powerful post as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee today. Whether he’ll ever get his gavel back remains unclear.
• Marriage equality reaches the nation’s capital. Western civilization remains unaffected.
• Matters get slightly worse for New York Gov. David Paterson (D).
• Greece tried to alleviate creditors’ fears today with a new $6.5 billion austerity plan.
• Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) is blaming Harry Reid for Bunning’s five-day hostage standoff over unemployment benefits.
• On a related note, Kevin Drum explains, “Bunning is a moron.”
• Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, is threatening to vote with far-right Republicans to kill health care reform. This isn’t the first time Grijalva has talked like this.
• I was very sorry to hear that the blogger known as “Jon Swift” has died.
• Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) is not above trying to connect his hatred for gays to his opposition to federal wage requirements.
• As part of our ongoing coverage of SUNY Binghamton’s troubling transition to Division I athletics, the school announced this week that its basketball team will not be participating in the America East tournament this year.
• Leave Grant’s picture on the $50 alone.
• And finally, Rod Blagojevich was — in all seriousness — the “guest of honor at a Northwestern University panel on ethics in politics last night.” The disgraced former governor reportedly “elicited laughs from the audience — and not necessarily intentionally.”

Tags: Civil Rights, Economy, House of Representatives, Senate by ecthompson
No Comments »

If you voted against extending unemployment benefits, should you be forced to present to the American people what your alternative is? If you have no alternative, shouldn’t you be fired from the Senate immediately?

From DK:

Lamar Alexander, John Barasso, Bob Bennett, Jim Bunning, Richard Burr, Tom Coburn, Bob Corker, John Cornyn, Mike Crapo, Jim DeMint, John Ensign, Mike Enzi, Judd Gregg, Orrin Hatch, Mike Johanns, Mitch McConnell, James Risch, Jeff Sessions and John Thune. Those are the guys who decided Tuesday night that Americans limping along on meager unemployment benefits apparently are, in the word chosen by Nevada Rep. Dean Heller, “hobos.” They all voted against extending those benefits.

If you’re drawing such benefits in Tennessee, Kentucky, Wyoming, Utah or Idaho, you have both of your Senators to thank for telling you to get off the dole and get a job ya lazy bum. Yep. Who would want to work instead of enjoying all that these magnificent government checks will buy? It’s such a cush life on the $275 weekly maximum you can draw from unemployment coffers if you live in Tennessee, where the jobless rate is 10.9%. If it’s you, your spouse and a couple of kids in the family, those benefits will put you $8,000 below the federal poverty line.

That is, if you were lucky enough before being laid off to work in a job covered by unemployment insurance in the first place. Only 38% of out-of-work Americans have that option. But whether you’re covered by benefits or are one of the less fortunate 62%, the above 19 members of the Party of No Way, No How have a couple of words for you: Tough shit. Like Jim Bunning riding the Senators-only elevator, they all just keep giving out-of-work Americans the finger. Those exact same 19 Senators plus 19 of their Republican colleagues also voted against the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act a year ago. And most of them were on board to oppose the teensy job-creation bill that passed the Senate last month.

Tags: Economy, Senate by ecthompson
1 Comment »

I find the caution on the part of the Democrats to be sad and the hypocrisy on the part of the Republicans par for the course.

From TPM:

Republicans are doing everything they can to convince the media and the public that using the budget reconciliation process to finish health care would be a grave crime against democracy.

But reconciliation is part of the Senate rules. And there’s perhaps no better person to make that point than Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH)–the Senate Republicans’ top budget guy–who vociferously defended the use of reconciliation when his party tried to use it in 2005 to allow drilling in Alaska.

“The representation by the Senator from Massachusetts that somehow that this is outside the rules–to proceed within the rules–is a very unique view of the rules,” Gregg said on the Senate floor back when he was part of the majority. “We are using the rules of the Senate here, that’s what they are senator. Reconciliation is a rule of the Senate set up under the Budget Act. It has been used before for purposes exactly like this on numerous occasions.”

Gregg went on, “Is there something wrong with majority rules? I don’t think so.”

Unsurprisingly, Gregg feels differently about things these days. Last year he compared the majority-rules vote to “running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them in the Chicago River.”

Republicans have also advanced the meme that reconciliation amounts to the “nuclear option”–a term that came to fame when Republicans tried to change the Senate rules regarding the minority’s right to obstruct judicial nominations. But the “nuclear option” was a threat to change the rules. As Gregg pointed out very publicly, reconciliation is already part of the rules.

Tags: Obama administration, Party Politics, Senate by ecthompson
11 Comments »

I guess that there are no “moderate” Republicans left. I guess when you are 100% wrong about something you should just make up more shit stuff.

From Political Animal:

We’re supposed to be able to expect a certain degree of rationality from “moderates” like Sen. Susan Collins (R) of Maine. When truly unhinged senators like DeMint and Inhofe make incoherent, blatantly false remarks, no one bats an eye. When Collins does it, reasonable people start wondering if Republicans will ever be able to recover from their current condition.

On Saturday, Collins delivered the official GOP weekly address, and blasted the Obama administration’s handling of the Abdulmutallab case. She claimed, in prepared text, that officials only questioned the attempted terrorist for 50 minutes before he was read his rights and “he stopped talking.” She proceeded to use some absurd, Giuliani-like rhetoric, as if she were just another Republican hack.

We’ve since learned that Collins was completely, demonstrably, unambiguously wrong. The administration handled the matter exactly as Bush/Cheney did, but unlike Bush/Cheney, Obama’s team actually got results. Thanks to this administration’s strategy, the attempted terrorist didn’t “stop talking,” but rather has been “cooperating for days” with U.S. officials. Abdulmutallab has in fact produced valuable, actionable intelligence.

OK, so Collins was wrong. We all make mistakes. She can show some contrition, express her relief that Obama’s approach is helping improve our national security, and we can all move on. Collins’s reputation would be a little worse for wear, but it can recover.

But, no. Collins refuses to back down — even though we know she was completely wrong — and keeps digging herself deeper. Asked to explain the discrepancy between her claims and reality, Collins issued a statement to MSNBC:

“I remain concerned that there was no consultation with intelligence officials before the Department of Justice unilaterally decided to treat Abdulmutallab as if he were an ordinary criminal. If Abdulmutallab is now talking in the context of plea negotiations, that is, of course, welcome, but it implies that the government is willing to grant him a measure of leniency for the information he is willing to provide. We will never know whether the quality and quantity of information might have been superior had he not been given a lawyer who is now guiding him on what to reveal and what not to disclose. The lack of coordination on the front end and the inexplicable, reflexive choice to use a law enforcement approach were dangerous decisions.”

Sigh.

Is Abdulmutallab “now talking in the context of plea negotiations” as Collins suggests? No, she just made that up, and the Justice Department has offered him nothing in exchange for information.

Did we lose valuable “information” by reading the attempted terrorist his rights? No. The FBI interrogated Abdulmutallab, then read him his rights, and then got lots of additional information.

Collins is now clinging to the notion that there “was no consultation with intelligence officials,” but what she may not realize is that the FBI is actually pretty good at this, and there was no reason for the Justice Department to “consult” with other agencies. [Update: Also note, Collins has her facts wrong on this, too.]

Honestly, Collins is coming across as a rookie, right-wing House member, more interested in getting on Fox News than seeming credible. Josh Marshall concluded today that Collins has ended up looking like “an embarrassment.”

Tags: Party Politics, Senate, Terrorism by ecthompson
5 Comments »

I have problem with these rich people stoking their campaigns with their own money. It makes me sick. It is an unfair advantage over “regular” folk. Bloomberg did it. Hillary did it. Now, Carly is doing it. This isn’t right.

From TPM:

Carly Fiorina’s $2.5 million loan to her U.S. Senate campaign has given the former Hewlett-Packard CEO a considerable financial edge over her Republican rivals.

In all, Fiorina’s campaign had $2.75 million in the bank to begin the year, according to a federal disclosure report delivered Friday. She is one of three Republicans vying for the right to challenge California Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is seeking a fourth term. (more…)

Tags: Elections, Senate by ecthompson
12 Comments »

Republicans continue to floor me.

From C&L:

Mitch McConnell is asked why seven of the Republicans who co-sponsored the Conrad-Gregg fiscal commission turned around and voted against it. McConnell says he now wants a spending reduction commission because heaven forbid we can’t have them considering any tax hikes for the rich. Leave it to Republicans to take a bad idea and make it worse.

KING: Well, let’s talk about your side of the equation. Robert Gibbs just complained about it and the president mentioned it in his Saturday radio address. He says there was a proposal. It was sponsored by one Democrat and one Republican. It would create a commission that would spend a few months studying how can we cut federal spending, maybe even propose tax increases; find some way to reduce the federal budget deficit. Now, it then failed last week on a vote in the Senate. And here’s the president’s complaint.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: This past week, 53 Democrats and Republicans voted for this commission in the Senate, but it failed when seven Republicans who had cosponsored this idea in the first place suddenly decided to vote against it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Now, we want to show on our screen the seven Republicans who were cosponsors but then withdrew their cosponsorship and voted against it: the Republican Sam Brownback of Kansas, Mike Crapo of Idaho, John Ensign of Nevada, Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, James Inhofe of Oklahoma, John McCain of Arizona, Robert Bennett of Utah.

If this was such a good idea that they would cosponsor it — this is what comes up, Senator McConnell, in my travels all the time. People say, why do they always just play politics in Washington? Is this just politics, as the president says, or if it was the same proposal six months ago when they cosponsored it, what was wrong with it last week when a Democratic president wanted it?

MCCONNELL: Well, what was wrong with it last year? I mean, I discussed this very issue with the president right after he came to office, and with his chief of staff, never could get a commitment out of him.

In the meantime, we’ve seen a year, now, in which we’ve been on a spending binge. They passed a budget that doubled the national debt in five years and tripled it in 10.

There’s a lot of skepticism now about whether — and the president endorses this commission a couple of days before the vote. Where was he a year ago when we were talking to him about it?

KING: But why should that…

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Why should that matter? Why should that matter?

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Because I want to go back to your point. I’m sorry for interrupting. I want to go back to your point.

Why should that matter? Yes, the president endorsed it because of political pressure, without a doubt. Democratic senators went to the White House and said, we will not vote to increase the debt ceiling unless you help us out here.

But if it was a good idea, why should — let’s say the president’s playing politics. But if it’s a good idea, why not vote for it? Because you were here several months ago and you said it was a great idea. [Read more →]

Tags: Budget, Party Politics, Senate by ecthompson
No Comments »

From TP:

One question bouncing around news outlets today is what Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd’s (D-CT) retirement means for the regulatory reform effort. Does it make him more or less likely to compromise on key parts of the bill, including the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA)?

It’s hard to discern whether Dodd’s retirement will lead him to give in on a host of issues (as one “gleeful” financial services lobbyist told Politico it would) or compel him to put “it all on the line to get what he wants, bipartisanship be damned.”

But one thing is for certain: Dodd’s retirement means that the regulatory reform effort needs to wrap up this year, as Dodd’s likliest successor as chairman is Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD), a very bank-friendly Democrat who would almost certainly produce a worse product. And this point hasn’t escaped Republicans, as the Wall Street Journal pointed out:

At the same time, [Dodd's] decision gives Republicans the incentive to draw out the process until after next year’s elections when a more business-friendly Democrat could ascend to the banking panel’s chairmanship. Next in line on the committee is Sen. Tim Johnson (D., S.D.), generally seen as more receptive to industry concerns.

According to Roll Call, “Senate Democrats said that no palace intrigue is expected to take place with the Banking panel” and that Johnson will take the gavel. So Republicans and the financial industry have ample motivation to gum up the works until Dodd is all the way out.

This same concern arose when it looked like Dodd might take the helm of the Senate HELP committee following the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy. Back then, Tim Fernholz wrote that “it would be bad news for regulatory reform if Johnson took over the [banking] committee; he’s received nearly a million dollars from the financial industry in the last 20 years.”

Johnson was the only Senate Democrat to vote against a credit card reform bill last year, and the banking industry has focused on him as one of the Democrats most likely to torpedo the CFPA. “No one is pro-industry today but he’s been historically very receptive,” said a top financial services lobbyist of Johnson. “He’s been sensitive to the impact of legislation on the financial service industry given the large number of jobs he represents.”

Even if Dodd gets a regulatory reform bill passed, as the investment research firm Concept Capital pointed out, Johnson’s chairmanship would likely result in other efforts to rein in banks going by the wayside. “His elevation to chairman should put to restworries over interchange and interest rate caps,” the firm wrote.

There is one note of good news amidst all this, however: Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal will be running for Dodd’s seat, and he has been a strong advocate for consumer financial protection.

Tags: Economy, Party Politics, Senate by ecthompson
No Comments »

I have complained about Harry Reid on a number of occasions. I think that he has been lead-footed on important issues and has been outflanked by the Republicans on a number of occasions. I think he has the forethought and insight of a gnat. Six months ago, everyone knew that the Senate was going to be a problem. What did he do to prevent the problem?

From C&L: Can we please have new Senate leadership now? The White House and Harry Reid have made one bad decision after another. We can’t do anything about Obama, but why do we have to put up with an incompetent Senate Majority Leader?

Four days before the Senate jettisoned the idea of expanding Medicare to younger Americans, a dozen Senate Democrats, including some of the chamber’s most liberal members, dispatched a stern letter warning that the proposal would make it harder for elderly patients in parts of the country to find care.

The letter, sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), attests to the effectiveness of a ferocious campaign by influential hospital and physician lobbyists to defeat the idea. And it underscores the difficulty of forging policy and political deals in the warp-speed, supercharged environment in which Congress is trying to reshape the nation’s health-care system.

The proposal to allow people ages 55 to 64 to buy insurance through Medicare — one of the most significant ideas to emerge from the Senate’s side of the debate — appeared and vanished in a mere six days.

Sources on and off Capitol Hill say the quick life and death of the Medicare buy-in reflects the complex politics and a brutal reality at this stage of the Senate’s deliberations, in which there is little time to refine proposals that do not immediately attract the 60 votes needed for health-care legislation to pass.

The broad contours of the proposal emerged early last week from 10 liberal and moderate senators whom Reid had assigned to negotiate a bill. The group reached for the Medicare buy-in as a compromise between members who favored a new government-sponsored insurance alternative for Americans of all ages, and those who were wary of more public coverage. The buy-in, they reasoned, would create access to public insurance for people in late middle age — a group for whom medical problems become more common and insurance is particularly expensive.

But in the following days, the proposal met resistance among Senate moderates as well as some liberals. Meanwhile, Reid made a strategic decision, ordering the negotiators to keep the details of their proposal secret until congressional budget analysts examined the impact it might have on consumers and the federal budget. That strategy, however, meant that the proposal did not attract much support from outside constituencies that have, in the past, favored letting younger people buy into Medicare.

“We were immobilized due to lack of information,” said John Rother, executive vice president for policy and strategy at AARP, a lobbying group for people age 50 and older, which has endorsed buy-in proposals in the past. “We couldn’t support something that we didn’t know what it was.”

Tags: Healthcare, Senate by ecthompson
1 Comment »

Many years ago, Markos was a dude like you and me. At parties, once everyone was all liquored up, folks would listen to him. It is the same way with me. Once everyone has a few, they will listen to anyone. That was then. Now, Markos has an audience of hundredss of thousands, if not millions. Markos has grown with his audience. He has tailored his rants. He makes thoughtful arguments that some of the best columnists in the world don’t or can’t make.

Markos makes an excellent case for giving the Senate a big fat raspberry.

(Raspberry at 2:19)

Markos:

Ezra Klein takes me to task for my opposition to the mandate, pointing out that Switzerland, among other systems, have mandates that require citizens to purchase health insurance from private insurers. It’s true. They do. Those countries also have strict regulatory regimes that heavily regulate those insurance companies. In Switzerland, for example, insurance companies cannot profit from the essential benefits plan everyone must purchase. That’s kind of an important detail missing from the Senate’s monstrosity of a bill. In addition, Switzerland also strictly regulates the price of medicines and medical devices — something this Senate has explicitly refused to allow.

Give me those kinds of restrictions to the Senate bill, and I’ll rethink my opposition.

Then there’s Nate Silver and his 20 questions For Bill Killers, which I’ll happily answer:

1. Over the medium term, how many other opportunities will exist to provide in excess of $100 billion per year in public subsidies to poor and sick people?

The assumption here is that this bill is the only option on the table. The House still has a say in the matter. And really, the point of reform isn’t to shovel taxpayer dollars to the insurance companies, it’s to expand care and lower costs. I’m not willing to surrender on costs.

2. Would a bill that contained $50 billion in additional subsidies for people making less than 250% of poverty be acceptable?

This betrays a simplistic view of liberals, as if our answer is to merely shovel money at a problem. What we’re looking for is good policy, which in this case, would also be good politics. So no, throwing money at the insurance companies doesn’t change a thing. The insurance industry would simply absorb the new subsidies just like universities have raised tuition to shovel up any increases in financial aid.

3.  Where is the evidence that the plan, as constructed, would substantially increase insurance industry profit margins, particularly when it is funded in part via a tax on insurers?

Where is the evidence that insurance companies would rig the system to extract record profits? I don’t know. Perhaps the last decade or two might provide the answer.

4. Why are some of the same people who are criticizing the bill’s lack of cost control also criticizing the inclusion of the excise tax, which is one of the few cost control mechanisms to have survived the process?

Because it is a measure that would disproportionately affect blue collar workers in high-risk jobs, or workers that have given concessions on wages to preserve good benefits packages. Limit that provision to people making over X amount (say, $100K/year), and I wouldn’t have a problem with it.

5. Why are some of the same people who are criticizing the bill’s lack of cost control also criticizing the inclusion of the individual mandate, which is key to controlling premiums in the individual market?

Because without premium caps or a public-run competitive option, there is no incentive for them to lower their premiums. They have a monopoly, and monopolies aren’t in the business of unilaterally reducing their prices. There are two ways to force them to do so — government regulation or market competition. The former is out, and the latter is inadequate.

6. Would concerns about the political downside to the individual mandate in fact substantially be altered if a public plan were included among the choices? Might not the Republican talking point become: “forcing you to buy government-run insurance?”

If you start worrying about Republican talking points, you’ve lost the game. They’re accusing Democrats of trying to kill grandma. They’re not going to back off because a talking point isn’t 100 percent accurate. 2010 will be the year of the “commie socialist Democrats”, no matter what health care reform bill is passed.

In any case, Republicans have tried to destroy socialist programs such as Medicare and Social Security for years. If people like a program, there’s nothing the GOP can do about it.

Please read more of his thoughts. I think that Markos has done an excellent job at summarizing the thoughts of those of us who are trying to get behind this bill. There are some good things in this bill. Unfortunately, I feel that supporting this bill is like buying a car without the engine. There simply ain’t much there.

Tags: Healthcare, Senate by ecthompson
5 Comments »

I’m still not sold on this Senate healthcare bill. I think it is a sorry excuse of a bill. Yet there are a few good things still in the bill that I can support. Here’s one point of view.

FromThink Progress:

Since Joe Lieberman demanded stripping the public option and Medicare buy-in provisions from the merged Senate bill, some strong progressives like Howard Dean have argued that without a public option or a Medicare buy-in provision, the bill is a giveaway to private insurers and should be killed. Other progressive leaders like Senators Jay Rockefeller, Tom Harkin and Sherrod Brown believe that the bill represents the best chance for passing health care reform in the foreseeable future. “I’m going to vote for it,” Brown told reporters. “I can’t imagine I wouldn’t. I mean there’s too much at stake.”

Change of the magnitude envisioned by health care reformers does not come easily. There have been many frustrations and there will be more. But, as a senior White House staffer with a ringside seat for the slow death of comprehensive care in 1994, I am keenly aware of the real alternative to the bills now before us: millions more Americans without health care and billions more for health care spending as the same challenges President Clinton tried to resolve continue to metastasize unchecked.

So while I have great respect for Governor Dean, and we have worked together to provide the strongest health care reform bill for the American people, I come down on the side of the Senate passing the bill.

Here’s why:

The Senate health care bill is not without its problems. But if enacted, it would represent the most significant public reform of our health care system that Congress has passed in the 40 plus years I have worked in politics. The bill will give health care coverage to a record 31 million Americans who are currently uninsured, lay a foundation that will begin to lower costs for millions of families, and provide all Americans with the access to adequate and dependable coverage when they need it most.

All of us are anxious to see the final language from the Senate. And a final bill must ensure that the subsidies provided are sufficient to make insurance truly affordable for working families. But based on what we know, here are my top ten reasons for why progressives should support the Senate passing the bill:

1. Largest Expansion Of Coverage Since Medicare’s Creation: Thirty-one million previously uninsured Americans will have insurance.

2. Low/Middle Income Americans Will Not Go Without Coverage: For low-income Americans struggling near the poverty line, the bill represents the largest single expansion of Medicaid since its inception. Combined with subsidies for middle income families, the bill’s provisions will ensure that working class Americans will no longer go without basic health care coverage.

3. Insurance Companies Will Never Be Able to Drop or Deny You Coverage Because You Are Sick: Insurers can no longer deny coverage because of a pre-existing condition. They can’t rescind coverage or impose lifetime or annual limits on care. Significantly, the bill also ends insurer discrimination against women — who currently pay as much as 48% morefor coverage than men — and gives them access preventive services with no cost sharing.

4. Lowers Premiums For Families: The Senate bill could lower premiums for the overall population by 8.4%. For the subsidized population, premiums would decrease even more dramatically. According to the CBO, “the amount that subsidized enrollees would pay for non-group coverage would be roughly 56 percent to 59 percent lower, on average than the nongroup premiums charged under current law.”

5. Invests in Keeping People Healthy: The bill creates a Prevention and Public Health Fund to expand and sustain funding for public prevention programs that prevent disease and promote wellness.

6. Insurers Can’t Offer Subprime Health Care: Insurers operating in the individual and small group markets will no longer sell subprime policies that deny coverage when illness strikes and you need it most. Everyone will be offered an essential benefits package of comprehensive benefits.

7. Helps Businesses Afford Coverage: Small employers can take advantage of large risk pools by purchasing coverage through the bill’s state-based exchanges. Employers with no more than 25 employees would receive a tax credit to help them provide coverage to their employees. The bill also establishes a temporary reinsurance program for employers providing coverage to retirees over the age of 55 who are not eligible for Medicare.

8. Improves Medicare: The bill eliminates the waste and fraud in the Medicare system, gets rid of the special subsidy to private insurers participating in Medicare Advantage and extends the life of the Medicare trust fund by 9 years. It also closes the doughnut hole that affected 3.4 seniors enrolled in Medicare Part D in 2008.

9. Reduces The Deficit: Not only would the bill expand coverage to 30 million Americans without adding to the nation debt, it would also reduce the deficit by up to $409 billion over 10 years.

10. Reduces National Health Spending: A CAP-Commonwealth Fund analysis concludes the bill could reduce overall spending by close to $683 billion over 10 years – with the potential to save families $2,500. Even the most conservative government estimates conclude that the bill would reduce national health care expenditures by at least 0.3% by 2019.

Tags: Healthcare, Senate by ecthompson
1 Comment »

Look, unless we were blind and still living in the ’50s, we knew that the Senate was going to be a problem on healthcare legislation. We knew this back in March. Senator Harry Reid has had approximately nine months to come up with a strategy to pass a healthcare bill through the Senate. In the nine months, he was unable to garner one Republican vote. He’s been unable to garner enough Democratic votes to stave off a filibuster. If, by some chance, he can procedurally outmaneuver Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln, he probably has 54 votes to pass an extremely watered-down healthcare bill which will not cover all Americans. (Let’s celebrate.)

Progressives, we only have ourselves to blame. We’ve known since 2002 that we have an uphill battle to fight. We are fighting not only conservative Republicans but also uninformed Americans, the “liberal media” and the corporatists. This last category is a huge problem. It encompasses both Democrats and Republicans.

Senator Ben Nelson has stated that he wants more abortion controls in the healthcare bill. What? This is not an abortion bill. Yet, Ben Nelson would hold up progress so that we can write a special phrase or clause dedicated to abortion. What is wrong with this man? The current laws are clear. Public money cannot fund abortions. There’s no ambiguity. There is no language in this bill that would support abortions. So what is he talking about?

Back to Joe Lieberman. We saw in his reelection campaign who he really was. Joe Lieberman was vindictive, pompous and extremely flexible on the issues depending upon whether it was advantageous for him and his career to go one way or the other (see video above). He supported expansion of Medicare just a few years ago. Now it is the worst thing ever. If anything good has come out of this healthcare debate is that Joe Lieberman has clearly shown the voters of Connecticut that he is not looking out for them. It’s hard for me to imagine either Republicans or Democrats supporting Joe Lieberman anymore. He has no principles. He has proven this over and over and over again.

Back to Harry Reid. What is he doing? He has shown little or no leadership on this issue. He’s shown the willingness to get in front of the cameras, but he never says anything of substance.

Finally, it is time for progressives to realize that we might have bitten off more than we can chew. We’ve worked hard over the last four years to get Democrats elected to national office. For the most part, we’ve had great success. Unfortunately, maybe we did not do the right thing. We tried to elect Democrats. Maybe we should’ve tried to elect progressives. Maybe we should’ve insisted on trying to find candidates who supported healthcare reform, closing Guantánamo Bay, not spying on Americans without warrants and withdrawing troops from Iraq expeditiously. I think these last nine months should not get us dispirited or disheartened; instead, we need to redouble our efforts. Our country depends on it.

Tags: Healthcare, Party Politics, Senate by ecthompson
No Comments »

I talk with Joan McCarter from the Daily Kos about what the heck is going on in the Senate. Joan has been following the ins and outs of the Healthcare legislation with posts two or three times per day.

This is clearly worth a listen.

Update from McJoan:

According to USA Today, there’s a new, influential voice pushing reconciliation to get a healthcare reform bill passed.

USA TODAY’s Washington bureau chief Susan Page reports that John Podesta, president of the Center for American Progress and the former head of President Obama’s transition, said some Democrats may be taking another look at the so-called reconciliation process, a budget procedure that would let Democrats pass a health care bill with only 51 votes….

The issue, Podesta said, is whether Lieberman “is trying to get to ‘no’ ” on health care. He said Democratic congressional leaders were surprised by Lieberman’s negative language Sunday on the emerging Democratic plan.

“I suspect musty folders on reconciliation got dusted off this morning” on Capitol Hill in the wake of Lieberman’s comments. “If you don’t have Lieberman and you don’t have Nelson, the question is whether you can get Snowe and Collins.” He said the Democrats were “very close” to 60 and might still be able to get there.

On Lieberman: “I’ve given up on him” — that is, on trying to figure out what he will do.

Snowe says that she’ll only support a bill if they slow things down (because being at the heart of negotiations in the Finance committee for the past year, and being one of the bipartisan Gang of Six that drug on, and on, and on, and on, and knowing this bill inside and out just hasn’t given her enough time to make up her mind). Collins isn’t going anywhere Snowe doesn’t go first. Nelson still wants his abortion amendment.

Figure out enough compromises to make any of the “moderates” happy enough to get to 60, and you risk losing progressives, particulary Brown (who personally invested a great deal in the compromise Lieberman just blew up), Sanders, Feingold, and Burris. You also risk losing a 218 majority in the House.

Let’s hope that those musty folders are being dusted off, because there very well may be no other way to achieve this. And let’s hope the issue compromises a large part of the discussion in the Senate Dem caucus meeting this afternoon.

 

 The Errington Thompson Show - Special Healthcare edition 12-14-09 [14:23m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Tags: Healthcare, Podcasts, Senate by ecthompson
No Comments »

From DK:

I’m still amazed that not even one f****g [ed. note - the Republican party does not have any moderates any more. We all know that there aren't any liberals. They are all different favors of ultraconservatives.] Republican could find minimum decency to at least vote for health care DEBATE in the US senate. Quite astonishing. What a disgrace. I’m not even talking about Olympia Snowe, who became half-president in recent months and now refuse to let the debate begin – But Orin Hatch? John McCain? People who served decades with Teddy Kennedy? How disgusting.

Right after the vote, Victoria Kennedy called Harry Reid in tears:

Mr. Reid first mentioned the call in an aside to Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and one of Mr. Kennedy’s closest friends in the Senate, as they stood at a news conference after the vote. While Mr. Kennedy was battling cancer, Mr. Dodd stepped in as acting chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and helped shepherd the health care bill through a committee vote in July.

“She believes that Ted was watching,” Mr. Reid told Mr. Dodd.

Asked about the call, Mr. Reid said that Mrs. Kennedy had telephoned him in the Democratic cloakroom just after the 60 to 39 vote, which allows debate to begin on the Senate’s health care legislation.

“She called right after the vote,” Mr. Reid said. “I’ll remember the call always. She of course was crying pretty hard. We both felt that he’s watching us tonight.”

Tags: Healthcare, Senate by ecthompson
No Comments »

Now, this is getting something from a blog that got something from another blog and now, I’m giving the information to you.  The good news is that you don’t even have to wash your hands. Just read and be revoked by Senator Vitter.

From Think Progress– Rape Victim Confronts Vitter Over His Vote Against Franken’s Amendment Holding Contractors Accountable:

Last month, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts if companies “restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.” Although the amendment passed, 30 Republican senators voted against it.

One of the Republicans singled out for especially harsh criticism following the vote was Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), who has a track record of siding againstwomen’s rights. The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein reports that at a town hall meeting this past weekend, a constituent confronted Vitter about his vote. The woman, a rape victim, demanded that he explain why he opposed Franken’s amendment. Vitter refused to give her a straight answer.

As Sam Stein noted at the HuffPo–”The exchange was contentious, heart wrenching, and potentially damaging.”

WOMAN: It meant everything to me that I was able to put the person who attacked me [behind bars]. And what allowed me to do that was our judicial process. I showed up in court every day to make sure that happen.

VITTER: And I’m absolutely supportive of any case like that being prosecuted criminally to the full extent of the law.

WOMAN: But there are rape victims who are being kept silent.

WOMAN: But how can you support [a law] that tells a rape victim that she does not have the right to defend herself?

VITTER: Ma’am The language in question did not say that in any way shape or form.

WOMAN: But it is unconstitutional to have a law that says a woman does not have a right to defend herself.

VITTER: You realize Mr. Obama was against that amendment that his administration was against that amendment

WOMAN: But I’m not asking Obama. I’m asking you.

VITTER: Do you think he’s in favor in rape?

WOMAN: I’m asking you Senator. What if it was your daughter who was raped? Would you tell her to be quiet and take it? Would you tell your daughter to be silent?

Tags: Senate by ecthompson
2 Comments »

Now, this is funny:

Schieffer: Holy Joe thanks for coming

Lieberman: thank you very much Bob

Schieffer: So the Democrats may pass health care reform public option – what do you think?

Lieberman: I’m all for health care reform but we have to worry about the state of the economy in 20 years and a public option might help people and save lives in the short term but in the long run it will run up the debt and destroy America

[ shakes jowls vigorously ]

Schieffer: but most people like it

Lieberman: sure they do but this crazy idea that people deserve health care just came out of nowhere!

Schieffer: Liberals say we need it to save lives

Lieberman: true but we must be ready to kill the many to save the few who make our incredibly fragile economy the envy of the world

Schieffer: will you filibuster a public option?

Lieberman: I will – I must stop this horrific idea that the government would create an entitlement for health care

[begins weeping]

Schieffer: you think people are not entitled to decent health care?

Lieberman: not if they are not as wonderful as I am

Schieffer: is anyone in America as terrific as you?

Lieberman: touchdown Jesus

Schieffer: but your filibuster could kill all health care reform

Lieberman: oh no I’m not the one who would do that – those horrible people who push for the public option are — they are mean and say if you
are not for the government insurance you must be a bad person (more… )

Tags: Healthcare, Senate by ecthompson
No Comments »

As usual, Marcy Wheeler is able to dig into reports and bills find gold. Max Baucus’ latest bill appears to be a windfall for large corporations.  I think that it is nice and sweet that Senator Baucus thinks of big corporations.  If it wasn’t for him who would stand up for Wal-Mart (Republicans).

From EmptyWheel:

Tags: Healthcare, Senate by ecthompson
No Comments »

From WH:

We can still hear his voice bellowing through the Senate chamber, face reddened, fist pounding the podium, a veritable force of nature, in support of health care or workers’ rights or civil rights. And yet, as has been noted, while his causes became deeply personal, his disagreements never did. While he was seen by his fiercest critics as a partisan lightning rod, that’s not the prism through which Ted Kennedy saw the world, nor was it the prism through which his colleagues saw Ted Kennedy. He was a product of an age when the joy and nobility of politics prevented differences of party and platform and philosophy from becoming barriers to cooperation and mutual respect — a time when adversaries still saw each other as patriots.

And that’s how Ted Kennedy became the greatest legislator of our time. He did it by hewing to principle, yes, but also by seeking compromise and common cause — not through deal-making and horse-trading alone, but through friendship, and kindness, and humor. There was the time he courted Orrin Hatch for support of the Children’s Health Insurance Program by having his chief of staff serenade the senator with a song Orrin had written himself; the time he delivered shamrock cookies on a china plate to sweeten up a crusty Republican colleague; the famous story of how he won the support of a Texas committee chairman on an immigration bill. Teddy walked into a meeting with a plain manila envelope, and showed only the chairman that it was filled with the Texan’s favorite cigars. When the negotiations were going well, he would inch the envelope closer to the chairman. (Laughter.) When they weren’t, he’d pull it back. (Laughter.) Before long, the deal was done. (Laughter.)

It was only a few years ago, on St. Patrick’s Day, when Teddy buttonholed me on the floor of the Senate for my support of a certain piece of legislation that was coming up for vote. I gave my pledge, but I expressed skepticism that it would pass. But when the roll call was over, the bill garnered the votes that it needed, and then some. I looked at Teddy with astonishment and asked how had he done it. He just patted me on the back and said, “Luck of the Irish.” (Laughter.)

Of course, luck had little to do with Ted Kennedy’s legislative success; he knew that. A few years ago, his father-in-law told him that he and Daniel Webster just might be the two greatest senators of all time. Without missing a beat, Teddy replied, “What did Webster do?” (more… )

Tags: Senate by ecthompson
No Comments »

The heartlessness of Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma is bad enough, but look at the reaction of the crowd. It is rather heart-wrenching to watch. Coburn basically tells a woman whose husband has a brain injury to go and panhandle his neighbors. If I get a break at work, I’ll have more to say on this terrible scene.

From Slate:

Writing in the New Republic’s health care blog, the Treatment, Harold Pollock, a professor at the University of Chicago School of Social Service Administration, said that when he saw this clip neither he nor his wife, a clinical nurse specialist, “could … believe what we were watching.”

Neither could I. Here’s a transcript:

Q: Sen. Coburn, we need help. My husband has traumatic brain injury. His health insurance will not cover him to eat and drink. And what I need to know is: Are you going to help him? Where he can eat and drink? We left the nursing home, and they told us we are on our own. He left with a feeding tube. I have been working with him, but I’m not a speech pathologist, a professional that takes six years for a masters’, and I’m trying to get him to eat and drink again [inaud].

A: Well, I think—first of all, yeah. We’ll help. The first thing we will do is to see what we can do, individually, to help you, through our office. But the other thing that is missing in this debate is us as neighbors, helping people that need our help. [Applause.] You know we tend to … [Applause.] The idea that the government is a solution to our problems is an inaccurate, a very inaccurate statement.

Pollock, his wife, and Philip Pizzo, dean of Stanford Medical School, found Coburn’s answer to be deeply disturbing. I did, too, of course. But what truly shocked and depressed me was not Coburn’s let-’em-eat-cake response but the fact that it wasn’t met in the room with a collective sharp intake of breath. Instead, Coburn received two quite robust bursts of applause. I have no idea how Congress and the White House can possibly sell health care reform to people like that. (more… )

Thanks to Political Animal for pointing this video out to me.

Tags: Healthcare, Senate by ecthompson
3 Comments »

Something is very wrong. No one just steps down to be with family. Is he sick? I mean, does he have cancer? Is someone in his family sick? Was he part of the C Street crowd? I don’t understand. He’s a first- term Senator! He has been in office about four years. This is very odd.

From CNN:

Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Florida, will announce that he is resigning his seat, three GOP sources tell CNN.

The sources said that Martinez will officially announce his intention to step down on Friday. The Florida Republican, first elected in 2004, announced in December of last year that he would retire in 2010.

Florida law states that Gov. Charlie Crist may temporarily appoint someone to the vacant seat until the next general election. As of Friday morning, it was unclear what Crist would do. Crist announced in May he would not seek another term as governor, and instead would run for Martinez’s seat. (more… )

Tags: Party Politics, Senate by ecthompson
No Comments »

C-SPAN can be an awful thing. Now with the Daily Show, blogs and the like is really hard for a congressman to stand up and say something really stupid without somebody knowing. Senator Charles Grassley stood up and just made a complete fool (no that’s not it) moron (nope) ass (no that’s not it either) — you decide. How would you describe Charles Grassley’s performance besides laughable.

Tags: Senate by ecthompson
No Comments »