They didn't use those words, but that's what they're saying, nevertheless. There are two principles at stake here: First, that discrimination against sick people is a thing of the past; and second, that the days of cherry-picking insured groups are over.

Either insurance companies can get on board, or else they are begging for Lynn Woolsey's newly-revived public option to become the law of the land. They certainly appear to be crying out for one. Here are a couple of stories that prove the point:

Insurers stop writing policies for children

This story could likewise be headlined "Insurers throw hissy fit, kick and scream on the floor, choose those least able to defend themselves as targets."

Nothing screams public option like screwing kids. Via MSNBC:

Some major health insurance companies have stopped issuing certain types of policies for children, an unintended consequence of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law, state officials said Friday.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (765)

PLAYS: (1017)

Embed

You can always count on Tom Tancredo to say all kinds of insane things, but sometimes it's hard to tell if he just says them to get attention, which he obviously craves, or if he really believes the things he says.

Well, the other day at a campaign event for his pal, Republican Senate candidate and renowned Tea Partier Ken Buck (a favorite of Erick Erickson, too), Tancredo seemed quite aware of this confusion, and did his best to clear it up for us all:

Tancredo: What could be more important for you to do, really, if you think about this? Everything is at stake here. Everything.

I firmly believe with all my heart, you guys, although we have had many threats to our nation -- and we have gone through a whole lot of things, and survived many things. We -- I always say, you know, we survived the Civil War, we survived the Depression, we went through all -- we survived Bill Clinton, for heaven's sake!

But nothing -- I do not believe -- not the Soviet Union, when we were in, you know, that thirty-five year period leading up to the fall of the Soviet Union, thanks to Ronald Reagan, God bless him. [Applause]

...

But we had that threat, we survived it. Later, we found out we had another threat to our way of life, and that was Al Qaeda, and we found that out on 9/11.

But I firmly believe this -- it's not just, you know, some dramatic statement a person would make to get press or something or ink. I believe this with all my heart -- that the greatest threat to the United States today, the greatest threat to our liberty, the greatest threat to the Constitution of the United States, the greatest threat to our way of life, everything we believe in, the greatest threat to the country that was put together by the Founding Fathers, is the guy that is in the White House today.

It's actually a bit scarier to realize that people like Tancredo (and Beck, and Limbaugh, and Weiner Savage, and Palin, et al et al) really believe the things that come out of their mouths.

And you'll notice that everyone applauded.

WHAT CAN ONE SAY?

via Sam Rosenfeld

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said this yesterday about Terri Schiavo:

Like other Republican lawmakers championing Schiavo's bill, DeLay often suggests she is alert and potentially treatable.
"She talks and she laughs and she expresses likes and discomforts," he said Sunday evening. "It won't take a miracle to help Terri Schiavo. It will only take the medical care and therapy that patients require."

For those keeping score at home, that statement is a straight-up, non-fungible, unambiguous, and utterly unconscionable lie. And if you were watching cable news yesterday (as I was), it’s probably safe to say you never heard anyone call DeLay out on it, or any number of similarly, knowingly fallacious statements spewing forth from the mouths of our national political leaders.
(Via The Stakeholder.)

It seems that Senator McCain is being very critical of Donald Rumsfeld's handling of the war planning effort and the president for making a stump speech on board of the USS Abraham Lincoln.

TSP Exclusive: Senator John McCain said "We are paying a price for mistakes that were made." On the Imus show.

McCain responded to talk show host Imus this morning, when Imus asked Senator McCain:

Imus:"What's going on in Najaf? Is that going door to door, is that the way to do it?

McCain: "I think we have to now, but we are paying a heavy price for a number of mistakes we made early on after the quote "Mission was Accomplished". We also should never have let these people take over Fallujah, which is has become a basic sanctuary for them. We are paying a heavy, heavy price for not having a lot more troops over there of the right kind. Particularly right after the conflict was over. But we have to win this. God bless these brave, young people. They are incredible, they are the most courageous people that I have ever...

What is errie about President Bush making his "Mission Accomplished" speech abourd the USS Abraham Lincoln is the views that Abraham Lincoln expressed in a letter that he wrote in 1848 to his law partner William Herndon. If you take out the word "neighboring" in the first sentence, it could have been written at any time in the past year: "Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever HE shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, WHENEVER HE MAY CHOOSE TO SAY he deems it necessary for such a purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure."

Lincoln then goes on to explain why the Framers gave Congress, and not the President, the power to declare war: " Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending ... that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that NO ONE MAN should hold the power of bringing this oppression on us."

The emphases that I show are Lincoln's, not mine. Lincoln was speaking of the war against Mexico, which he considered was entered into illegally, and under false pretenses. The whole letter gave me an eerie feeling - a sort of "deja vu" in reverse.

The Republicans like to say that they are "the party of Lincoln." But they certainly don't agree with Lincoln about pre-emptive war.

Fehrenbacher, Don E., ed., "Abraham Lincoln: A Documentary Portrait through his Speeches and Writings;" The New American Library of World Literature, Inc., NY, 1964; pp. 59-60.

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/01/con04026.html

Feist isn't exactly wrong about this. Goldman Sachs employees did contribute nearly a million dollars to Obama's presidential campaign in 2008. But Robert Yoon's article linked in his post is wrong, and I can't figure out if it was just an editing error or intended to be inflammatory. Whatever it is, it's probably worth putting a stake through the heart of the ever-recycled rumor of Goldman Sach's PAC donations.

What Yoon says:

According to Federal Election Commission figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, Goldman Sachs' political action committee and individual contributors who listed the company as their employer donated $994,795 during 2007 and 2008 to Obama's presidential campaign, the second highest contribution from a company PAC and company employees. Only the PAC and employees of the University of California, which donated more than $1.5 million, topped Goldman Sachs. Federal law prohibits a company from directly giving money to a campaign committee.

What the Open Secrets (Center for Responsive Politics) reports say:

A little perspective

This is important. There is a refund of one effort by a PAC to donate, and an issue-related donation of $300. That is the only PAC money applicable to the Obama 2008 campaign. I can understand how Yoon concluded that such a large total must have included PAC funds. There's a summary at the top of the Open Secrets page which cautions viewers to understand what PACs are and what role they play, since companies can't be direct donors. However, if Yoon had clicked on the donor stats tab on the page he viewed, he would have gotten a little more perspective on the whole Goldman Sachs campaign donation thing, and why he's wrong to make a big deal out of it.

While it is true that Goldman-Sachs employees gave nearly a million dollars to the Obama campaign, it's equally true that no one donor gave any more than any other individual from any other profession, and when taken as a percentage of the total given to his campaign, it was less than 1% of the total given by everyone.

It is also true that the Obama campaign received more from small contributors ($200 or less) than any other campaign in history -- over $25 million. That number represents more than 125,000 individuals.

319,706 people donated $200 or more to the Obama campaign in 2008. 60.5% of them donated $1,000 or less. Those donors represent 21% of total donations, or $73.5 million. In contrast, if every single Goldman Sachs employee gave $2300, it would represent 433 donors. If we added up every Wall Street firm on the Open Secrets list and assumed each employee gave the maximum, it would represent 1,576 donors out of the nearly 59,000 who gave more than $2300 to his campaign.

Now that we have donor information from the Center for Responsive Politics in perspective, what exactly is CNN's point, anyway? Lots of people donated. Who gets more weight? The ones who gave $25 million in increments of $5 each, or the ones who gave $1 million capped at $2,300 each?

I think we can all figure out the answer to that.

You know, the Villagers are so uniformly self-centered and oblivious to larger reality that it's too much like shooting fish in a barrel to go after them -- too easy and not quite sporting.

But the bed-wetting Richard Cohen takes it to higher levels than almost anyone else:

There is almost nothing the Obama administration does regarding terrorism that makes me feel safer.

Because it's all about you, isn't it, Richard?

Whether it is guaranteeing captured terrorists that they will not be waterboarded, reciting terrorists their rights, or the legally meandering and confusing rule that some terrorists will be tried in military tribunals and some in civilian courts, what is missing is a firm recognition that what comes first is not the message sent to America's critics but the message sent to Americans themselves. When, oh when, will this administration wake up?

What, you mean the concept that we all have equal rights under the law? Yes, I can see where that idea might cause some problems.

[...] No doubt George Bush soiled America's image abroad with what looked liked vigilante justice and Dick Cheney's hearty endorsement of ugly interrogation measures. But more is at stake here than America's image abroad -- namely the security and peace of mind of Americans in America. Bush stands condemned by the facts for Sept. 11 -- his watch, his responsibility -- and in all likelihood he bent over backward to ensure that nothing like those attacks would happen again.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, seems to have bent over backward to prove to the world it is not the Bush administration and will, almost no matter what, ensure that everyone gets the benefit of American civil liberties.

As one of those who have been watching as Obama rubberstamps numerous Bush terrorism policies, I can only shake my head. Can it be that Cohen simply doesn't know how to read?

But the paramount civil liberty is a sense of security and this, sad to say, has eroded under Barack Obama. Repeatedly, the administration has shown poor judgment. Abdulmutallab's silence is a scream that something is wrong.

Really? Really, "the paramount civil liberty is a sense of security"? Your sense of security? I'm sitting here looking at the Bill of Rights and yeah, they do talk about security, all right - but not the way you mean:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...

Maybe you should go back and read the rest, you pathetic excuse for an American. Or remember the words of Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Here it is, the somewhat anticlimactic morning after the historic vote on health care reform in the House of Representatives. I thought it would be nice to have a reminder of why we are fighting and why the fight continues.

This version of health care reform was never going to be the final product. Certainly, the inclusion of the Stupak amendment makes its current version unpalatable to me and others. But we must remember Lisa and Cathy and her son and stake out this new ground and then push for more and more, until we have truly universal health coverage and we catch up with the rest of the industrialized world.

Health care will be topic one with the bobbleheads. Joe Lieberman gets the attention he so whorishly craves, with an appearance on Fox News Sunday. The rest of the shows seem to take pains to offer up matched sets: DNC chair Tim Kaine with RNC chair Michael Steele on This Week, Governors Ed Rendell (D-PA) and Haley Barbour (R-MS) on Meet the Press. Astroturf King Dick Armey will be on Face the Nation, (note the description isn't his current gig with FreedomWorks, but as a former House leader...sneaky). New Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell gets dual exposure on Fox News Sunday and State of the Union. Think they'll mention his rather retro-notions on gender roles? Nah, I don't think so either. My favorite round table guest, Rachel Maddow, is back on Meet the Press. Let's see her show David Gregory for the chump he is.

ABC's "This Week" - Democratic National Chairman Tim Kaine and Republican National Chairman Michael Steele; Army chief of staff Gen. George Casey.

CBS' "Face the Nation" -Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J.; former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas; Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla.

NBC's "Meet the Press" - Govs. Haley Barbour, R-Miss., and Ed Rendell, D-Pa.

NBC's "The Chris Matthew Show" - Panel: Kathleen Parker, Andrew Sullivan, John Heilemann, Savannah Guthrie. Topics: Election Fallout: How Will Democrats Both Stick with Obama and Move to the Center? The GOP's Strange Bedfellows: Do the Wingnuts Run the Show? Meter Questions: Will Tuesday's vote scare moderates on health care? YES: 1 NO: 11; Will Afghanistan define President Obama's legacy more than health care? YES: 6 No: 6.

CNN's "State of the Union" - Army chief of staff Casey; Virginia Gov.-elect Bob McDonnell.

CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" - A star-studded panel of historians discusses Obama's first year in office and the political climate in America. Plus, as Hamid Karzai gets another term as President of Afghanistan, we get the view from across the border: Pakistan's former President Pervez Musharraf on Karzai, corruption, and the prospects for peace in Afghanistan.

CNN's "Amanpour" - Christiane talks to Iranian mastermind of 1979 US Embassy takeover, plus a hostage, and Pres. Carter's Iran point man.

"Fox News Sunday" - McDonnell; Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent; Reps. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., and Mike Pence, R-Ind.

So, what's catching your eye this morning?

DOWNLOADS: (1357)

PLAYS: (1128)

Embed

Is there really nothing more the White House can do about this? Seems like pretty weak tea to tell them to "think about it." Here's hoping there's some arm-twisting going on behind the scenes:

In the wake of reports that Goldman Sachs is set to pay a record 23 billion in bonuses this year, the President’s Senior Adviser David Axelrod told me this morning that he thinks big banks dishing out bonuses to their employees is “offensive” and advises banks to “think through what they are doing.”

“The bonuses are offensive and to the firms that still have federal TARP money there’s some jurisdiction, the pay master of Treasury is working on trying to limit that,” Axelrod said. “You’ve seen a lot of firms go to stock rather than cash, so at least people have a stake in the success of their company and they’re not just walking away with cash-making short-term decisions.”

“They ought to think through what they are doing and they ought to understand that a year ago a lot of these institutions were teetering on the brink and the United States government and taxpayers came to their defense. They have responsibilities and they ought to meet those responsibilities.”

DOWNLOADS: (2621)

PLAYS: (10359)

Embed

Stephen Colbert had a little fun with this story last night:

A Belgrade couple decided they couldn't afford the lost income if the husband reported for jury duty, so they cooked up an expletive-filled affidavit telling the court in no uncertain terms that the husband didn't want to serve.

That was back in January.

Now, the vulgarity-laced affidavit has turned up on the Internet on a Web site called The Smoking Gun, owned by the cable and satellite network Court TV.

“Apparently you morons didn't understand me the first time. I CANNOT take time off from work. I'm not putting my family's well-being at stake to participate in this crap,” begins the notarized affidavit submitted to the Gallatin County District Court last January by Erik A. Slye.

Slye goes on to say that he doesn't believe in America's “justice” system (the quotation marks are his) and that jury duty is “a complete waste of time.”

Most of Slye's other comments use language not suitable to be quoted here.

Slye was traveling on business Friday and couldn't be reached for comment; but his wife, Jennifer, told the Associated Press that she - not her husband - actually wrote the affidavit.

“I wrote it and he sent it in. We figured it was either crazy enough to work or he was going to end up in jail,” Jennifer Slye said in a telephone interview. “I guess it could have been said a little nicer, but it wouldn't have had the same impact.”

... When Erik got the summons for jury duty, he asked to be excused on the basis of lost income, but got a second notice a month later.

“We had to up the ante,” Jennifer said. “Some people think we're like militia people or something ... but I just said, ‘We can't afford it. That didn't work. Maybe this will.' ”

Erik Slye did end up being excused from jury duty in that instance and has since been twice more excused - once because he again pleaded financial hardship and the second time because the trip he was taking Friday clashed with the court schedule.

District Judge John Brown, in whose Bozeman court Erik Slye was summoned to serve, said Friday that a foul-mouthed affidavit is not a good model to follow to avoid jury duty.

Brown said he summoned Erik Slye into court two weeks ago to discuss the affidavit.

“We understand that it's a hardship for people to come down here and serve, but everybody, all citizens, have a legal obligation,” the judge told Slye, according to a transcript provided by the court.

“Maybe you'll be excused, but the point is that you should ask like an adult and not like you're 13 years old,” the judge told Slye.

At Judge Brown's direction, Slye apologized to several clerks who were in the courtroom at the time.

Still, as Colbert points out, he did get out of jury duty nonetheless.

I noticed that the wife who wrote the letter seemed confused by people's impressions they were involved in the militias. Maybe that's because Montanans have for some years now been reading screeds from the Montana Freemen that weren't appreciably different from hers. Particularly the line about not believing in "your 'Justice' system.'

My Montana-native wife was hoping that Conrad Burns' defeat would finally mean an end to national embarrassments for her home state. Alas, no such luck.