I'll add some phone calls to my email surge, but I admit I feel some futility in trying to reason with DINOs.

Here ya go

Chertoff's Homeland Security Blog
http://www.dhs.gov/journal/leadership/

Mike @ 5:

QUICK QUESTION:

Can I switch to Republican for the NY primary and vote for Ron Paul, then switch back to vote for Kucinich?

Yes voting twice is permitted.

Mike @ 7:

L.A. Confidential @ 6:

Mike @ 5:

QUICK QUESTION:

Can I switch to Republican for the NY primary and vote for Ron Paul, then switch back to vote for Kucinich?

Yes voting twice is permitted.

thanks! :)

Yeah, Paul is pro-life and all, but he's making better Republicans.

Hey everyone else is doing it.
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/39986/

the DCCC link article lists Republicans who voted against and urges ppl to call them. what the hell is that about? Call the Democrats who voted against it first. what the hell?

"Phony Democrats" and pond scum.

If any of those asshole Dems listed above from Georgia, North Carolina, Mississippi and
Indiana vote "Nay" when SCHIP comes up for vote again on the House floor, then the
voting citizens of those States should vote them out of office at the first opportunity.
"They" are a disgrace for voting NO in the first place....Get rid of their asses and no
one should be upset to boot them out of office.

Speaking of IN, another taser incident:
Re. $1900 in overdue child support.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/oct2007/tase-o08.shtml

Browning suffered serious injuries, including severe [3rd degree] electrical burns to his genitals, when three different police officers assaulted him with their Taser stun guns while he was unarmed and in his northern Indiana home.
...
According to an Amnesty International report, at least 150 individuals were killed by Taser weapons during the first five years after they were introduced in 2001. Figures are not yet available on permanent vision loss, disfigurement, or other permanent disabilities resulting from the now widespread use of the weapon.

No congressman on the above list is answering phone.
Either rings or voicemail full or leave a message.

Why try. (no question mark) on this or anything else.

They got theirs and that's all there is.

My mistake. Forgot about Columbus Day.

This Democrat is 100% for this bill but I think it unfair to have only one segment of society pay for it.

[...] need healthcare in their districts. Chris Bowers at OpenLeft runs the numbers on all of this, and John Amato at Crooks and Liars is asking for your help as [...]

DC @ 14:

I know I'll be attacked for this but for all the merits this bill does have I don't see why the majority of the funding is put on the backs of cigarette smokers. Now don't get me wrong - 100% support of SCHIP program. I'm all for bills that protect children and keep them healthy. I'm all for passing that bills that outlaw smoking in public places. I'm all for burdening cigarette smokers with the tax bills for cancer and heart research.
But if its a program for children why are they (smokers) the only people taking the burden? why not an alcohol tax? or a gas tax? or a gambling tax? why not a shift in military funding? or a repeal of certain tax breaks for rich?
It just seems too convenient to place it on the backs of one particular group that everyone seems to use as a scapegoat for more funds. This is a bill that needs to be spread across the many and not just the few because it benefits everyone to have our children healthy. I believe thats why these dems are not in support of it as well and rightfully so.

So the anti-health Dems that voted against it did so on behalf of smokers ??

Arent these the same Dems that would have taken part in the cigarette company litigation a few years back?

I agree it shouldnt be funded with cigarette taxes for several reasons. As a non-smoker, I think its silly to base a health care system on something (cigarette smoking) we hope people will stop doing.
then where does the funding come from??

I think we should go into deficit for it, if necessary, and if not, raise revenue the same way the federal government always has.

Taxes.
Nothing in life is free, Republicans are just content withpawning off the debt on their grandchildren.

If we can go into deficit for WAR we can do it for preventative healthcare.

kulshan @ 25:

DC @ 14:

I know I'll be attacked for this but for all the merits this bill does have I don't see why the majority of the funding is put on the backs of cigarette smokers. Now don't get me wrong - 100% support of SCHIP program. I'm all for bills that protect children and keep them healthy. I'm all for passing that bills that outlaw smoking in public places. I'm all for burdening cigarette smokers with the tax bills for cancer and heart research.
But if its a program for children why are they (smokers) the only people taking the burden? why not an alcohol tax? or a gas tax? or a gambling tax? why not a shift in military funding? or a repeal of certain tax breaks for rich?
It just seems too convenient to place it on the backs of one particular group that everyone seems to use as a scapegoat for more funds. This is a bill that needs to be spread across the many and not just the few because it benefits everyone to have our children healthy. I believe thats why these dems are not in support of it as well and rightfully so.

So the anti-health Dems that voted against it did so on behalf of smokers ??

No, but how about four of the five Dems voting Nay being from tobacco rich States;
i.e., Georgia, North Carolina and Mississippi...so it's more likely they were gotten to
by the Tobacco Lobby.

joshdavis @ 18:

I'm really sick of these Republican lawmakers in NC making everyone in this state look like such a hick backwards redneck joke. NC is one of the most progressive of Southern states, with an outstanding educational system - one of the best in the country. We're one the most extraordinary states on the East Coast with a blossoming tourism and historical industry, and yet, we get looked at by people who don't live here as a bunch of backwoods idiots living in trailer parks.

It's odd, because only recently has NC started becoming nationally "important" what with American Idol and the Carolina Panthers. We're a national leader in the a number of areas like medical science, film and TV production, furniture trading and agriculture. Not to mention NASCAR racing.

North Carolina is a gold mine among states, and yet, our leaders make us look like idiots.

I have visited N.c. and I admit its a nice place. But there are lots of nice places...
that I would never live.
The only other news out of N.C. has been the yokel arresting the anti-war couple with their upside down flag.
As for progressiveness, its all relative when your talkin about the home of the "jena 6" , or Alabama,isnt that where the kids did the blackface skit last week??
Its not just one instance making southerners look bad, its a LONG history.

And the agriculture industry is whats determining the vote on SCHIP, as I am willing to bet the biggest cash crop is probably tobacco??

lol.

The Political Junkie @ 30:

Doggiebobo @ 24:

DC @ 14:

I know I'll be attacked for this but for all the merits this bill does have I don't see why the majority of the funding is put on the backs of cigarette smokers. Now don't get me wrong - 100% support of SCHIP program. I'm all for bills that protect children and keep them healthy. I'm all for passing that bills that outlaw smoking in public places. I'm all for burdening cigarette smokers with the tax bills for cancer and heart research.
But if its a program for children why are they (smokers) the only people taking the burden? why not an alcohol tax? or a gas tax? or a gambling tax? why not a shift in military funding? or a repeal of certain tax breaks for rich?

Both of you make good points.

As for introducing a bill and then deliberately put something in it (taxing people who smoke) to ensure it wouldn't pass; that's SOP for Congress. People like Rahm Emmanuel, Nancy Pelosi and Steiny Hoyer introduce or sponsor bad legislation and then when it comes up for a vote, they don't vote for it. That's what they need to be called out on.

Pelosi has done this with the capitulation on Iraq authorization. She damned near wrote the last two bills and sent them to the floor, but then doesn't vote on those bills, and then makes the round of talk shows talking about how "bad" the legislation is.

Hoyer and Rahm consistently do this. Start reading whose sponsoring a bill and then find out if they vote for their own bill or not. They do this so they can go back and tell their constituents they tried to get something done, but don't have to answer for the failure of getting the legislation passed.

But, but, but....I tried to get the Bill introduced and passed,......but, but...the persons
on the other side of the aisle insisted on adding amendments to MY Bill...amendments
that I just could not support... Typical explanation..and BS...sold to the public.

[...] healthcare in their districts.  Chris Bowers at OpenLeft runs the numbers on all of this, and John Amato at Crooks and Liars is asking for your help as [...]

All you people who are advocating increasing the government's presence in healthcare are RUINING THIS COUNTRY.

bang @ 36:

I understand that SCHIP IS TOTALLY funded.

I also understand that the mess around it is the democrats trying to INCREASE the Schip spending to which W put the breaks on, and quite frankly as a democrat I agree.

I also understand that SCHIP is the program that mostly illegal Aliens recieve care under....
Not only Illegal alien children, but their parents....Up to the age of 25.

So what wer'e putting out for these people isn't enough....nothing seems to be enough for democrats...

So let's call it what it is...AN INCREASE IN MONEY FOR ILLEGAL ALIEN HEALTH CARE...

None of this money goes to middle class working people...just illegals (children and adults) unemployed, and apparently greeks, and democrats...

Get a job armato.

My kid's wheelchair depends on this Schip funding... due to a job loss there's no money for insurance, and we don't qualify for Medicaid due to the fact that we are considered
'middle class', and own a home that we can't afford, and can't sell... I know lots of 'middle class people who depend on schip for their kids insurance, especially kids with disabilities who
have trouble getting coverage elsewhere.

And I also totally agree that it is ridiculous to base this insurance on a cigarette tax!

Prudence

moonsha @ 40:

Bang @34...read the bill then apologize for your misinformation.

trolls don't do that sort of thing.

as someone who lives in Jim Marshal's district, and someone who lived through the repug smear machine last election (recorded masages 10X a day telling us how Jim Marshal is trying to destroy America) I, under NO cercumstances will take the alternative. You vote out Blue Dog Dems and you get Ultra neocon thugs. We have NO shortage of those in this area!!!

Show me a female member of the 'Cheney' family who is not gay and I'll show you a unicorn. The man is poisonous in his perversion--and his unfortunate daughters know it.

The Political Junkie @ 31:

Doggiebobo @ 24:

DC @ 14:

I know I'll be attacked for this but for all the merits this bill does have I don't see why the majority of the funding is put on the backs of cigarette smokers. Now don't get me wrong - 100% support of SCHIP program. I'm all for bills that protect children and keep them healthy. I'm all for passing that bills that outlaw smoking in public places. I'm all for burdening cigarette smokers with the tax bills for cancer and heart research.
But if its a program for children why are they (smokers) the only people taking the burden? why not an alcohol tax? or a gas tax? or a gambling tax? why not a shift in military funding? or a repeal of certain tax breaks for rich?

Both of you make good points.

As for introducing a bill and then deliberately put something in it (taxing people who smoke) to ensure it wouldn't pass; that's SOP for Congress. People like Rahm Emmanuel, Nancy Pelosi and Steiny Hoyer introduce or sponsor bad legislation and then when it comes up for a vote, they don't vote for it. That's what they need to be called out on.

Pelosi has done this with the capitulation on Iraq authorization. She damned near wrote the last two bills and sent them to the floor, but then doesn't vote on those bills, and then makes the round of talk shows talking about how "bad" the legislation is.

Hoyer and Rahm consistently do this. Start reading whose sponsoring a bill and then find out if they vote for their own bill or not. They do this so they can go back and tell their constituents they tried to get something done, but don't have to answer for the failure of getting the legislation passed.

ReThug and Democrats = two heads of the same damned snake.
It just seems too convenient to place it on the backs of one particular group that everyone seems to use as a scapegoat for more funds. This is a bill that needs to be spread across the many and not just the few because it benefits everyone to have our children healthy. I believe thats why these dems are not in support of it as well and rightfully so.

Some very good points made DC...and I'm inclined to agree. Maybe, just maybe, "our"
wonderful Congress knew that when presenting SCHIP and knowing that funding would
be primarilly from a new, increased tobacca tax, they never really intended for the Bill
to pass...feeling that the Tobacco industries lobbying groups would get to bush and the
needed number of Repig Congresspersons so as to avert passage...That sound pretty
pestimistic, but the way "our' Congress works, it is not beyond a possibility. Maybe if
the fundings had been divided amoungst several industries, and not solely relying upon
the tobacco tax, the lobbyist groups would not be so successful..Just saying..

I agree completely. I am all for health care for everyone, including children, but I am also a guy who likes to smoke cigars, and this is what the bill would do:

(a) Cigars- Section 5701(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--

(1) by striking `$1.828 cents per thousand ($1.594 cents per thousand on cigars removed during 2000 or 2001)' in paragraph (1) and inserting `$50.00 per thousand',

(2) by striking `20.719 percent (18.063 percent on cigars removed during 2000 or 2001)' in paragraph (2) and inserting `52.988 percent', and

(3) by striking `$48.75 per thousand ($42.50 per thousand on cigars removed during 2000 or 2001)' in paragraph (2) and inserting `$3.00 per cigar'.

That's an increase of 32%! That's simply ridiculous - sorry. I'm glad to pay my share even though I have no children, but I expect others to help out. I think a gas tax is a good idea - at least it taxes people somewhat equally - almost everyone drives, but not everyone smokes.