I confess to a short happy dance when I heard Senator Ben Nelson was retiring. Like everyone else, I'm sick and tired of his obstruction, his Blue Doggy-ness, and the way he plays his hand at the end like a smug cheater. But Lawrence O'Donnell pointed this out: He still voted with Democrats 82% of the time. The good news about his retirement is that we won't have Ben Nelson to tear our hair out over anymore. The bad news is that his seat will likely flip to a Republican, and an ultra-conservative Republican at that. Nebraska, like Kansas, is chock-full of tea party types who will gladly have a candidate at hand to carry out their wishes.

As unbelievable as it sounds with the current craziness in Congress, Republicans could end up in the majority in the Senate, with Mitch McConnell taking over as Senate Majority Leader. They only need to win 4 seats and hold on to the ones they already have in order to do it.

Nate Silver predicts a 5-seat pickup for Republicans is possible, but he also has a caveat:

Continue reading »

Whether it's the bronze bull encountered by those occupying Wall Street, the fixation with a Chris Christie presidency not to be, or the ex post facto transformation of Ronald Reagan into Kratos by middle-aged Republican Congresspersons who practically start to giggle and spontaneously pulsate just upon hearing his name, there is one thing you can expect to encounter a lot of on the right side of the political spectrum these days: Golden Calves.

Sure, that Bible thing conservatives claim to have read and revere strictly admonishes those who take to idolatry. But then again, it also doesn't wish death upon 30-year-olds because they lack health insurance or a poorly conceived bowl-cut by a former Speaker of the House who's running just about even with the hantavirus in Republican presidential polling.

So even the Bible is fallible.

These Golden Calf conservatives have taken impulses that have been long ascendant on the Right, and way-too-present in American culture overall, and transformed their entire belief system into the Cirque de Soleil of idol worship. These days their leaders bow down before personality, mythology, ideology, theology and an unregulated market economy. These are revered in much the same manner anti-gay Republicans seem to hold a particular passion for the most quickly available RentBoy, or Kelsey Grammar does divorce court.

If you think I exaggerate, ponder what has brought the extreme right to public ecstasy over the last few months, and the right's obsessions in general, and tell me core members of the tea party brigade aren't addicted to symbol over substance. Think about it ... Rick Perry. Paul Ryan's unworkable budget plan. Chris Christie. Guns. The Constitution (at least their mistaken reading of it). Socialism. Bigger guns. Wall Street. American Exceptionalism. Really, really big guns.

This tendency to idolise people and objects makes it all the more amusing when loudmouth right-wing preachers start in with all the "cult" talk about Mitt Romney's Mormonism. So let me get this straight, Romney's version of Christianity is cultish, while those who handle snakes, speak in tongues and ask their arena-based parishioners for their very last dime, so they can erect Mammon-on-Earth, are not?

When one lacks practical, reasonable answers to the myriad problems this country is facing, from a continued economic debacle to ongoing civil liberties abuses at home and abroad to who Carly Simon's singing about in "You're So Vain," the only thing left to do is turn to symbolism. For those on the Right that means trusting Jesus will just work things out for them, or Reagan needs to be on the $10 bill, or obsessing over the Founding Fathers, you know, such as John Quincy Adams, Alan Cumming and Darth Plagueis The Wise.

This is not to say some Democrats have not fallen into this same trap. Again, grasping at symbols, especially charismatic individuals, is encoded in human DNA. There are those who would stick with President Obama were he to break every campaign promise he made during the 2008 election (so far I am gonna guestimate about 82 percent). But overall, education and civic engagement tend to lessen this tendency. Hence, it is not only a much more interesting, but foreboding phenomenon on the right.

Continue reading »

Mooooo!

"Republicans said we can't vote for this or they'll say mean things about us!" Of course, it's just an excuse to do what they want to do to make big contributors happy:

The Senate effectively rejected a slimmed-down package of jobless benefits and state aid late Thursday, rebuffing President Obama's call for urgent action to bolster the economic recovery.

Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) voted with a united Republican caucus to block the approximately $120 billion package. The measure needed 60 votes to advance, but garnered only 56.

Democratic leaders, who had predicted victory less than 24 hours earlier, vowed not to give up on the measure, but acknowledged that they have no clear path to securing the one or two Republican votes needed to push it to final passage. Though the sprawling package contains a number of must-pass provisions, Republicans have been steadfast in their opposition, insisting that the full cost of the measure be covered by cutting existing government programs.

"Americans are frustrated with the amount of spending and borrowing around here," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said after the vote. "Let's not wave on through legislation that is going to worsen the deficit and dig an even deeper hole than we are in."

With midterm elections looming this fall, conservative Democrats also had voiced opposition to the size of the package and its impact on deficits, already driven to record levels by government spending to combat the recession. But congressional leaders have struggled to pare the legislation back.

(h/t Heather)

I can see that Ben Nelson and the Conservadems/Baucus Dogs have a plan. They bitch and moan about the effect a public option would have on the poor, poor health-insurance industry, so if they do have to vote for a public option in the Senate that clearly benefits Americans and not his favorite donors, they will only do it under the provision that the states "opt in" rather than "opt out."

His hair has been saying this for a while now.

Nelson's hair doesn't explain why he favors the "opt in" version and Harwood doesn't bother to ask. And he can count on the media to not inform America what the differences are in an opt in or an opt out version of the PO so when we complain about it the Villagers will attack us. He was interviewed by John Hardwood, a Villager of the highest order on MSNBC.

Here's what Ben Nelson's hair said:

Harwood: You'd agree that unless a comprehensive health care bill would pass that it would cripple his presidency.

Nelson's hair: Well, I don't know that we should conclude that some form of health care reform won't pass. I believe that some form of health care will pass.

Harwood: What in your mind are stoppers, things that, knowing this place, things that either because you oppose them or other senators oppose them, simply can 't be in the final product to have it pass?

Nelson's hair: Well, it's very difficult to see how that CLASS Act that was in the HELP committe bill would make it [that's long term care provisions] I think also any kind of public option that would undermine or destabilize the private insurance that 200 million Americans have, I don't see that that would make it. But some version such as an opt-in, for the states with a state option, that could very well be in.

Digby alerted me to this clip and she astutely writes:

But I am still suspicious that there might be a play to make opt-in the reasonable alternative to opt-out. It just keeps cropping up in all kinds of places, often from White House reporters. It's worth keeping an eye on anyway.

Harwood thinks that Nelson will stick with them on cloture and I haven't heard otherwise. (and if Harwood asked him he didn't say, the putz.) But he certainly keeps dangling himself out there as a vote for opt-in, so if this thing really comes down to the wire I could see it happening. Again, I don't think the village media have clue about just how different the two things are. It's just bumper sticker slogans to them.

The Hill reports that Sheldon Whitehouse also trumpeted the same thing.

The Senate health bill is drifting toward ending up with an "opt-in" provision versus an "opt-out," one Democratic senator said Friday.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) predicted that healthcare reform in the upper chamber would shift from its current construction, which allows states to opt out of a public option, to a version that forces states to opt into such a plan.

"I think it's falling into an opt-in, versus opt-out," Whitehouse said during an appearance on MSNBC. "You have a public option, but it's up to a state to take an affirmative act to take advantage of it."

Whitehouse suggested the opt-in as a potential compromise on the public option to win enough Democratic votes in the Senate, where Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) has said he will vote against a bill containing a public option, and several other centrist Democrats have been reluctant to support the current proposal.

I'm doing some digging around to see what's really happening and I'll have news soon. Reid is already having the "opt out" scored by the CBO, but my sources indicated that the Senate has not sent out the "opt in" to be scored. From what I'm hearing. The "opt in" would not pass the House conference.

The first test cloture vote is taking place right now in the Senate. In true form, Ben Nelson has voted with his Republican friends and Wall Street benefactors to filibuster financial reform. He didn't even have to do it: The Republicans had already promised a united front to block it from proceeding to debate.

Ben Nelson's message to the rest of us? Wall Street doesn't need no stinkin' reform. At least, not any reform that might actually be, well...reform.

Other remarkable moments from the debate ahead of the vote include Judd Gregg (R-NH) bashing populist anger against Wall Street and Bernie Sanders answering that point for point. I'm trying to find the video on that, because both are moments worth watching.

Update #2: Reaction has been swift and harsh:

President Obama is "deeply disappointed" that Republicans voted as a block and Nancy Pelosi's blog has a whole string of reactions. The theme is the same: Blocking debate benefits no one but Wall Street.

Update #1: Q1 Campaign contributions to Nelson 2012

3/31/2010:

Continue reading »

Whoops:

The top prosecutors in seven states are probing the constitutionality of a political deal that cut a funding break for Nebraska in order to pass a federal health care reform bill, South Carolina's attorney general said Tuesday.

Attorney General Henry McMaster said he and his counterparts in Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, North Dakota, Texas and Washington state - all Republicans - are jointly taking a look at the deal they've dubbed the "Nebraska compromise."

"The Nebraska compromise, which permanently exempts Nebraska from paying Medicaid costs that Texas and all other 49 states must pay, may violate the United States Constitution - as well as other provisions of federal law," Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said.

McMaster's move comes at the request of Republican U.S. Sens. Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint of South Carolina.

In a letter to McMaster, Graham singled out the deal to win Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson's vote on the massive health care bill the Senate is expected to adopt Thursday. Nelson held out as fellow Democrats worked to get 60 votes to foreclose a GOP filibuster and the bill was amended to shield Nebraska from the expected $45 million annual cost tied to expanding Medicaid programs.

"We have serious concerns about the constitutionality of this Nebraska compromise as it results in special treatment for only one state in the nation at the expense of the other 49," Graham and DeMint wrote.

Nebraska wasn't alone in getting Medicaid breaks. Vermont, Louisiana and Massachusetts also got help with their programs.[..]

Also Tuesday, U.S. House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., said Republicans need to stop complaining about deals their colleagues made.

"Rather than sitting here and carping about what Nelson got for Nebraska, I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: Let's get together and see what we can get for South Carolina," Clyburn said.

Boy, this is a tough one. As much as I don't want to validate the petty obstructionist machinations of Republicans, I kinda wouldn't mind Nelson's sweetheart deal struck down. After all, he thinks we women are second class citizens undeserving of full health coverage.

(h/t Heather)

I've been hearing from my sources that the ConservaDems in the House of Lords (The Senate) would rather have states be able to "opt in," rather than "opt out," of the public option in health-care reform. No matter how you feel about these proposals, the one Ben Nelson supports is a far, far worse plan than the other. Here's what he said on CNN's State of The Union:

KING: If there is a vote and Harry Reid needs 60, have you promised him, even if you disagree with the proposal and might vote no on the proposal, you would give him your vote on the procedural issue?

NELSON: I have made no promise. I can't decide about the procedural vote until I see the underlying bill. It would be, I think, reckless to say I'll support the procedure without knowing what the underlying bill consists of. And it's not put together yet. It's a draft -- it will be a draft bill some time next week, submitted the Congressional Budget Office for the review of the cost. And until I've seen a completed draft...

KING: Well, let me -- let me jump in, can you support...

NELSON: ... I'm not going to...

KING: Can you support a public option where states could opt out so there is a public option in the federal legislation, or will you only support a public option where the state would have to opt in, so there is not a national program already created?

NELSON: Well, I certainly am not excited about a public option where states would opt out or a robust, as they call it, robust government-run insurance plan. I'll take a look at the one where states could opt in if they make the decision themselves.

I understand what the other Senators are trying to do with the opt-out proposal -- which comes down to guaranteeing the public option an uphill, state-by-state battle -- but Ben Nelson in particular continually thwarts every effort to include a robust public option in America. I think he uses health insurance payoffs as a form of roughage to keep his bowels clear. And he still won't say if he'll give us an up-or-down vote. Schmuck.

Nelson must be looking to become a health insurance lobbyists once he leaves the Senate and since he takes the most cash from them---I imagine he has a gig already lined up.

The netroots has made a huge stand for health care reform and we're not sitting around doing nothing. Blue America hit Blanche Lincoln hard which forced her to write an op-ed in Arkansas to try and redefine her position and now the PCCC and DFA just hit Ben Nelson in an action called: Health care Can't Wait. Lincoln, who is up for re election took an approach in which she informed her constituents that she's considering the public option now which is a good start, but Ben's response was to cry, stomp his feet and declare that health care reform will be killed if Americans stand up and demand that he be part of the solution.

Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) lashed out Friday at the ads being run against his position on health care reform in his home state, saying they would backfire -- and might even derail the entire reform process.

In a statement issued late in the afternoon by Nelson's office, spokesman Jake Thompson warned that if the new series of ads calling out the Senator's "stalling" on reform were "an indication of the politics going into August, then health care reform may be dead by the end of August."

"Nebraskans don't need outside special interest groups telling them what to think. Senator Nelson has nothing but praise for Nebraska groups working toward health care reform. Unfortunately, he says, these outside groups undermine the sincere and dedicated efforts of people in our state," Thompson wrote. "Recently, similar ads have run in Nebraska. Those ads by other special interests prompted hundreds of Nebraskans to call our offices, with 9 to 1 urging Senator Nelson to do exactly the opposite of what the special interest group wanted. In short, the ads backfired."

Politicians who dare to say that they will kill health care because the American people want change just proves our point about the gasbags that reside in Washington that rule our country for themselves and not for the people they were elected to represent.

Olive Willis:

They seem to think that the support they got in 2006 and beyond is going to keep them up if they just have a (D) behind their names. Conservative democrats who obstruct meaningful progress in Washington are the political equivalent of Bush Republicans, and they’ll be treated that way.

Do your job, Senator.

We will not back down and we will not go away. Blanche Lincoln will hear from us shortly too.

PCCC and DFA are doing their part and so are we. Please donate to Blue America's Health Care Choice so we can keep the pressure on.

Ben Nelson has done so much damage in such a short time. Remember what he did to the stimulus package?

The Liberal blogosphere has been bashing Ben Nelson over his statements against not backing a public option for health care.

Sen. Ben Nelson is being targeted in a mailing and Internet ad campaign asking people to withhold their political contributions to him and other members of Congress.The campaign takes issue with the Nebraska Democrat's opposition to President Barack Obama's proposed public health-insurance option. That option would create a government insurance plan to compete with private plans...read on

He's taken a boatload of cash from the health care industry so when he said this, it didn't come as a shock to me. Nicole Bell wrote this story last month: Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) Opposes Public Health Plan. His pockets are lined with gold from the Health care industry

Nelson plans on gathering together some like-minded sell-outs Democrats to oppose any public health plan. Go to Open Secrets to find out who has donated money to Nelson last few years for his re-election and whaddya know? Blue Cross/Blue Shield is in the top 5 with $31K. In fact, Nelson received more than $230,000 from the healthcare industry in the last four years. Actually, HCAN lists more than $600,000 from the insurance industry to Nelson.

Now he's changing his tune a little bit, but don't let this fool you.

Nelson, according to three people in the room, told the group that he was open to a public option, the primary Democratic goal of reform and anathema to conservatives.

The word I'm hearing is that the health care industry is going to back the public option and then Nelson and Co. will make it so bad that nobody would ever want it.

Howie Klein met Donna Edwards last week at an event I was supposed to go to, but couldn't make and he writes:

One of the House's most outspoken and well-reasoned advocates of universal health care-- sidetracked by the puppets of the Medical Industrial Complex to a chance for a "public option"-- Donna is worried that Big Insurance will embrace the "public option." Embrace and then smother to death in a bear hug. They don't want the competition, so they have given their well-paid allies-- Republicans, Blue Dogs, members of the Evan Bayh anti-Obama Bloc of Senate Conservadems-- their orders: let it pass and then make it dysfunctional. They will gamble everything that their three highest paid shills-- Arlen Specter (R/D-PA- $4,026,933), Max Baucus (D-MT- $2,833,731) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY- $2,758,468)-- will be able to sabotage the public option sufficiently enough to ensure that it is not robust and not competitive.

That looks to be their strategy. Change Congress has a petition up and writes:

Ben Nelson said he may not support Obama’s plan. Is this why?

Nelson raised more than $2 million from insurance and health care interests in his three campaigns for federal office, 83% from out-of-state. -- Public Campaign analysis

We need to keep holding his feet to the fire so please sign on, but keep both our eyes on how Congress handles the "Public Option."

(h/t Heather)

Will Rogers famously said that he wasn't a part of an organized group, he was a Democrat. Sadly, when it comes to Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), that's even more true. I understand that Nelson is a conservative Democrat and comes from a historically conservative state, but there's no excuse for his abject stupidity in discussing Guantanamo and how to deal with the detainees there.

What's so odd about Nelson's NIMBY attitude is that he himself points out the flaws in his logic: we have and are successfully housing some really dangerous men (including both foreign and domestic terrorists, like Moussaoui and Eric Rudolph) in prisons on American soil without incident. Nelson just doesn't want them here.

Well, Sen. Nelson, I'd prefer that we have a country that wasn't full of criminals and people who wish us harm too. But unfortunately, that isn't reality. I live within 30 miles of San Quentin prison and Bay Area residents (for as liberal and hippy as our reputation is) do not seem to be all that concerned about our collective safety. The fear that these people will be on American soil so that we deal with them as befitting our justice system forgets that they will also be under heavy lock and guard as well.

And then in another annoyingly wrong nod to bipartisanship, Nelson lends credit to the Republican meme of Jack Bauer/the-ends-justify-the-means issue of keeping American safe is somehow the moral equivalent of respecting the rule of law:

WALLACE: Senator Nelson, who’s right about the balance between, on the one hand, keeping the country safe and, on the other hand, living up to our values?

NELSON: Well, they probably both are in some -- to one degree or another. I don’t think anybody wants to see this country attacked again. And I think it’s also a question about whether or not it is held against us because these tactics have been used.

But look, the president, when he was running, said that we’re going to stop waterboarding. John McCain has said it’s torture. I think what we have to do is understand that this decision apparently was decided last -- last November.

But what we need to do is make sure that the intelligence information that’s gathered is accurate, that we do everything within our power to get good intelligence, and it may or may not consist of coming from enhanced techniques.

Oh holy FSM. I'm so tired of this dishonesty. NOTHING of value came from torture, and to suggest that it might is accepting the Republican framing of this issue. Nelson should be ashamed of his ignorance. If we had to torture three people over 30 days more than 200 times looking for some way to connect Iraq to 9/11 (unsuccessfully, too), then how can anyone with the least bit of common sense much less intelligence think that it kept us safe? Does Nelson actually think that the 108 detainees killed via "enhanced interrogation techniques" have actually deterred terrorism?

Think about it, Sen. Nelson, before you spout off on television again, hurting your party and the President's stance: If your son, brother, cousin or friend (even if he had jihadist tendencies--something we have not yet proven) was killed in the name of the American "War on Terror", would you be inclined to be sympathetic to the American cause, or would you too seek revenge for the US's dehumanizing treatment?

Continue reading »