There's only a few hours left. I love all the contestants, but if you have a minute please vote for Digby to win the Air America Cruise contest. She's my friend and a great thinker for the progressive movement.
She's behind by a lot of votes because she has never written anything about the contest, so click on through and vote.
The debate rages on as to whose fault it is that we find ourselves in the situation that Joe Lieberman can decide to cut whatever he likes out of the health-care reform bill and tongue kiss Dana Bash while doing it. Was the Obama administration so naive that they didn't think they needed to cut a deal with Lieberman on health care as soon as he won the election? Joe actually supported John McCain to the bitter end and bloggers made the argument that Joe should go from the beginning of his term, but the leadership decided to keep him on board.
Yes, the health-care fight was never going to be easy so why didn't David Axelrod secure Joe's vote on health-care before it got off the ground? It boggles the mind. We all know what prima donnas conservative Democrats are in the Senate. It's quite clear that Lieberman is only interested in punishing liberals and not helping Americans. They knew who he was. He wasn't f*&king hiding. He was stumping for McCain!
Howie Klein, Digby and I all thought that the Senate was ultimately going to call the shots at the end. I always figured the House would pass a fairly progressive bill, but it was the ConservaDems in the House of Lords who would be the problem. So that's why Blue America targeted Blanche Lincoln. She was the only senator up for re-election and had to face the voters in 2010.
Matt Yglesias makes a good case as to why this mess isn't really Obama's fault, but I don't agree with all of it.
I think there’s something perverse in the very strong desire I see among liberals to make problems in congress be about anything other than congress. It’s just not in the power of Barack Obama to make the senate anything other than what it is. To pass a bill, you need sixty votes. To get sixty votes you need Ben Nelson or Olympia Snowe to back your bill. Neither Nelson nor Snowe is especially liberal, and the President doesn’t have a great deal of leverage over either of them. You can try to change the rules, or you can accept that you’re at the mercy of Nelson and Snowe and maybe a few other moderate members.
And it’s crucial to remember that these people—each and every member of congress—is an adult human being, capable of making up his or her own mind, responsible for his or her own decisions, and possessed of moral agency. These are men and women who have amassed a great deal of power, and who ultimately need to decide on a daily basis what it is they want to do with that power. If they choose to use it for bad ends, then blame them for that, not Obama or his team’s alleged lack of familiarity with the United States Senate.
I really like Matt's writing. First, I never thought Tom Daschle was the guy for the job because he whipped the Dems to vote for the war in 2002, but maybe I'm wrong there. Obama is still the president and he won a mandate with health-care reform on the table. I think part of the problem is their inexperience in real-world governance and especially in handling a piece of legislation this massive and this momentous.
I believe that President Obama does want to pass good health-care reform, but you can't use the same tactics that were used for running a general election campaign and apply them to legislation. Not with the Senate vacant of any decent Republican human beings. The president is a wonderful speaker and a great communicator, but there was no way he could swoop in at the end and save the day like he was able to do in the general election. Policy does not work like that as we've just seen.
I'm not sure how that will all work out in the end. But I'm fairly confident that the deficit scolds are getting ready to launch a full scale offensive on government spending, so "improving the bill" in any financial way is probably not going to be on the agenda any time soon, certainly not with a looming election and tanking poll numbers. And with the president's approval rating suffering not simply due to health care reform, but because of unemployment and economic torpor, what we get in this health care reform bill had better be enough to last us for quite a while.
Since the media loves Lieberman and everything he stands for, no matter what bill is passed he'll suddenly be the face of it and the Villagers will rejoice.
I feel like those more supportive of this bill are attacking anti-mandate strawmen. The reason for thinking that without a public option or similar mandates are going to be a disaster is that without competition or sufficient affordability (due to not quite generous enough subsidies), you're forcing people to buy shitty insurance that they can't afford. Mandates aren't bad in and of themselves, but they're bad if they aren't part of a comprehensive plan which is... good!
Now, the reforms moving through Congress won't produce a system as comprehensive as what the Netherlands or Switzerland has. But that's not because of the individual mandate, which actually makes a lot of sense. (Read here if you want chapter and verse on that.) That's because the subsidies and regulation in these bills aren't as generous and strong as they could be.
In other words, you're forcing people to buy shitty insurance that they can't afford. Why would anyone possibly object to that?
A dubious honor for any songwriter/performer:
Canadian singer Daniel Powter has been voted the decade's one-hit wonder by Billboard magazine.
The singer's track Bad Day stayed at the top of the Billboard chart for five weeks in 2006 and the song also did well across Europe.
The magazine is describing a one-hit wonder as an act whose second single did not make it into the top 25.
The vote included acts from 2000 to 2007 as some who released a song last year could just be taking a break this year.
The track Terror Squad for Lean Back came in second place and Crazy Town with Butterfly came third.
Actually, I'd argue the point at which Alvin and the Chipmunks cover your song is when you know you've jumped the shark (hear that, Beyonce?).
Any other honorable mentions for one hit wonder status?
Gen. David Petraeus may be registered as a Republican but he didn't vote for John McCain for president in 2008. When Petraeus became a two-star general in 2002 he stopped voting. "When I was promoted to major general, it seemed like a quiet thing at the time, but it's perhaps taken on bigger ramifications," Petraeus told Fox News' Chris Wallace Sunday.
But the general continues to speak to partisan orgianizations. "I've spoken to AEI before. I've spoken to the Heritage Foundation and I've spoken to elements on the other side of the spectrum," said Petraeus.
The vote on bringing the bill to the floor may happen by the end of this week:
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid scrambled Tuesday to lock down votes behind a health-care bill that he may present as early as Wednesday.
The Nevada Democrat would not confirm that he had received commitments from all 60 members of his caucus to overcome GOP procedural objections and bring the bill to the Senate floor, saying only, "I feel cautiously optimistic that we can do that. I think we're together as a caucus."
[...] Preliminary estimates by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the legislation's official scorekeeper, have indicated that the Senate measure would cost far less than the bill the House approved last week, while lowering the federal deficit further over the long term, said several senior Democratic aides who have reviewed the CBO data.
Which, of course, makes me wonder: Who did the Senate leave out?
Democrats are hopeful about winning over at least one Republican, Sen. Olympia J. Snowe, on a vote for final passage. But the Maine moderate has pledged to support a GOP filibuster at the outset because Reid's bill is expected to include a public-insurance option that she opposes.
UPDATE from TPM:
Under the terms of the bill, Medicaid would be expanded to cover everybody up to 133 percent of the poverty line. And in a move that will disappoint progressives, tax credits to buy health insurance would be limited to those between 133 and 300 percent of poverty line. (People between 300 and 400 percent of poverty would not be provided any direct federal assistance, but insurers would not be able to set their premiums at more than 9.8 percent of their annual income.)
Here we go again. That's not going to be enough to make it affordable to most people, and it has to change in the final version. Call your Congress critter!
(Mildred Younger campaigned for California State Senate - Doing it the old Fashioned way)
Coming up on the off-year elections in 2010 I ran across a documentary produced in 1954 about the off-year elections of that particular year.
Alben Barkley(former Vice-President to Truman): “Finally I said to him ‘how’s politics?’ – ‘well, he said, ‘it’s pretty badly mixed’. That created some suspicion in my mind, well I said ‘well, how am I running?’ ‘Well, he said ‘it’s gonna be pretty close’. Well I said ‘you’re for me aren’t you?’ Well, he said ‘I thought I’d vote for Chandler’. Well, I said ‘my friend, how can you do that? Now don’t you remember that when you couldn’t get your allotment fixed up that I did it? ‘ He said, ‘yes you did’. ‘And when you couldn’t get your insurance I got that straightened out”’ He said ‘yes, you did’. And I said ‘and when you were injured over there in France didn’t I sit on the bed with you for an hour?’ And he said ‘yes, and I never enjoyed a mans visit in my life like I did yours.’ And I said ‘ when I came home and the Armistice came didn’t you want to get home at once and didn’t you write to me and didn’t I write General Pershing and weren’t you on your way home in a month?’ And he said ‘yes, you did that.’ And I said ‘didn’t you want a loan on your farm, and didn’t I help you?’ And he said ‘yes.’ ‘Didn’t you have a loan on your property when the flood washed it away?’ He said ‘yes, you did that’. I said ‘well, how can you vote against me?’ Well he said ‘my friend, what in the thunder have done for me lately?’
Seems the styles have changed, the methods, the dirt - but then as now, it's all about politics and the art of the horse race.
Donna Edwards tells her story of being a young mother without health insurance and how she is paying America back with her vote for health care reform.
Edwards: I collapsed and was taken to an emergency room. Without health care I was treated as one of those uncompensated and now it's time for me to pay the American people back with a vote for comprehensive health care reform. This bill will take the burden off of providers and Americans for paying the costs of uncompensated care and safeguards for the health of all Americans.
She's been a solid progressive voice in Congress. We need more like her. I watched the endless insanity of the Republicans in the House on full display all day and night Saturday. It made me sick, watching them line up like replicants, making sure they used the same talking points over and over again. When they talk about "freedom," all they do is smear what that word means to the world. C&L Annette emailed me and said we should start calling them the Republick Party. I like that.
You won't read much about their behavior during a crucial time in our history because the media shields the nuts who are loose in the halls of Congress.
Howie Klein writes:
I love Donna Edwards. Her short speech about why she was voting for health care reform made me cry last night-- and not fake Glenn Beck tears. Like Donna, there was a time in my life when I couldn't afford health insurance-- or health care-- either. Americans deserve better than predatory insurance companies thriving on misery. This is why America needs more members of Congress like Donna Edwards and less like Paul Ryan, Suzanne Kosmas and John Barrow
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?
So even though the Maine results are depressing, let's look at some real progress over at the western part of the country:
Washington state voters have approved Referendum 71, keeping a law that expands state benefits for registered same-sex and some senior domestic partners.
The tally Thursday afternoon saw the vote to approve R-71 widening its lead 52.5 percent to 47.5 percent.
That lead now appears insurmountable. The Secretary of State's Office estimates another 500,000 to 600,000 ballots statewide are still outstanding, with about half expected from King County, where the measure is being approved by slightly more than 2 to 1.
"Voters across the state listened to the personal stories of lesbian and gay families and the challenges they faced and sent a strong message that we want to see all families treated equally under the law in our state," said Anne Levinson, chairwoman of Washington Families Standing Together, which worked for the measure's approval.
But opponents of R-71 were not conceding Thursday afternoon.
Larry Stickney, head of Protect Marriage Washington, which worked for rejection of R-71, said: "There are a lot of votes out there still. We continue to have some hope that the votes cast later will move in our direction."
In 19 days we will know whether we beat back NOM and the Catholic Dioceses and protected marriage equality for Mainers, or took yet another step backwards at the ballot box for equality. 30 states have had votes on marriage equality since 1998 and the right-win has won in all 30 of them. We are going to stop that streak in Maine, but we can't do it without the resources to fuel a massive get-out-the-vote operation.
Today at midnight is the last major financial reporting deadline and it also marks the first day of early voting. If you were planning on giving to No on 1 and haven't yet, or have the resources to give again, today is the day to do it. Luckily, we at Blue America have a little sweetener, courtesy of Howie:
Meanwhile we have something nice to offer to donors today. The first 9 people who kick in at least $30 at the Blue America '10 page each wins a special DVD of Barbra Streisand's spectacular 1966 television special Color Me Barbra (which includes a rare poster). And if that wasn't fabulous enough, we also have something pretty mind-blowing for the person who donates the most by 6AM (PT) tomorrow. The picture is above. It's a gorgeous Joan Osborne RIAA custom double platinum award for both Relish and "One of Us." It's rare, collectible, unique and... well, what a gift it would make for anyone who you happen to know who went bonkers over the song below! And, more important, what an opportunity to make a real difference in the lives of our brothers and sisters in Maine!
There is new polling out that shows us up 51.8% to 42.9%, but Bill in Portland Maine over at the great orange satan reminds us of why poll numbers are crap:
I take you back to 1997 when, after nine attempts spanning 20 years, the Maine legislature finally passed a basic civil rights bill preventing discrimination in employment, housing, credit and public accommodation on the basis of sexual orientation. Governor Angus King signed it. The law was put on hold while the religious conservatives---trying to marginalize our very existence by denying us any official state recognition---launched a war to repeal it by a citizens veto referendum, very similar to the kind they're waging now. They got the signatures they needed and the fight to take away our newly-won civil rights was on.
The polls had our side up by several points. The result? The 1998 referendum passed. The fundies won. The final vote: 51.9% to 48.1%. It's one thing to feel disappointment when your favorite candidate loses. It's quite another when you are the one being voted on by your neighbors, and a majority of them agree that, yes, it should be legal for a Maine business owner to pull you aside and say, "I don’t want no faggots workin' here. You're fired." It took another seven years to finally make that against the law. To this day I still get a knot in my gut when I think about what happened 11 years ago.
The only way we stop this from happening again is to make sure that we can get our voters out to the polls. The No on 1 campaign needs your help to make sure they have the resources to execute their field plan. So give today and maybe take home a platinum Joan Osborne album, or a rare Barbara Streisand poster and DVD.
The Courage Campaign is sending me back to Maine in a week or so. Expect more reports from on the ground there on how your generous donations are being spent. I was there a couple weeks ago and can assure you, the campaign is a tightly run ship, simultaneously on the offense and firing back at the lies spewed from the other side. No on 1 is IDing and turning out their voters, relying on thousands of in state volunteers and assisted by out of state phone bankers from around the country. They know how to win in Maine "and can do it with your help.
Majikthise: Population economists take note: Madame Curie had her Nobel Prize first, her baby second.
Bay of Fundie: Sadly, yes. Plus some awesome book reviews.
Rev. Billy and the Church of Life After Shopping: A Peace Activist Thinks about G-20.
Phydeaux Speaks: Poll numbers say whuh?
Wonkette: I think we've got our campaign video for 2010. Vote Progressive or vote with this guy.
(Ross Perot with purported Adviser)
When I heard the news today that Dell was buying Perot Systems for a reported $3billion, I started to realize we actually hadn't heard anything from Ross Perot lately.
Surely, the 1992 election and Perot's on-again/off-again/on-again candidacy left a lot of people baffled. When he restated his entry into the race, a month before the election - it not only caught people off-guard, it left them scratching their heads, as was the case with this announcement and press conference from October 1, 1992. Certainly his short fuse made for some interesting moments.
Reporter: “Ten weeks ago you said you were quitting the race because you didn’t want to be a spoiler and you didn’t want to be disruptive. Now you say you’re back to win this thing. . . “
Perot: “Yes.”
Reporter: “Isn’t your strategy to disrupt George Bush’s vote in a number of key states, including this one, Texas?”
Perot: Absolutely not. Absolutely not. That’s press myth number six hundred and fifteen. . . .
(Crowd noise)
Perot:”WAIT JUST A MINUTE!!! Wait a minute - let me finish! Absolutely not. Absolutely not. Now, I love you guys. He has called me every name in the book. All I’ve ever said ‘fine man, fine family’, the only thing I’ve ever criticized is his mistakes in office. That’s it. We’re talkin’ about performance here, not personality. See, I’m everything from a monster to a crazy comin’ from them, right? Nobody ever says, ‘boy, you must really dislike that guy, because you keep sayin’ those things. I show up here and you say I don’t like George Bush. When you create these fairy tales and pass ‘em on, every now and then get together some time in the evening and say ‘ is there any basis for this stuff?’ No. There’s no basis for that. I wouldn’t spend ten minutes because of personal dislike. I certainly wouldn’t spend the money I’m having to spend on this. I’m doing it for the reasons I gave in the speech – very simple.”
It makes you wonder about the constantly changing landscape of politics. Whether Perot will make another appearance remains to be seen.
His short fuse was kind of enjoyable though . . .
John Conyers draws a line in the sand for his vote on the health care bill.
Conyers: Well, we should be doing single payer, but we've compromised on that and what we're doing now is that we're stepping back. But this cannot be called reform of health care if a public option isn't on it and so this is down to the crunch time...
Paul Begala on AC360 makes the case for why it's time for Democrats to stop negotiating with Republicans on health care reform, and puts out the number on just how much Democrats have given to Republicans in order to appease them for a bill they are never going to get a single vote on. David Gergen is dead wrong here. If there is decent legislation passed with some meaningful reform, the public is not going to care who voted for it.
If it's a bad bill and nothing but a giveaway to the insurance industries, then they're not going to be happy in the end no matter what the roll call is when this is said and done. And Amy Holmes is full of it. Republicans are not going to support even the watered down co-op plan. They're already calling it all the same names they would be single payer if it was on the table, and the public option. Republicans do not want any reform of the insurance industry, or anything to be done which cuts into their profits.
COOPER: Paul, we got a text 360 question based on the -- I guess, the Barney Frank thing.
Patty says, "Do you think the Obama administration is considering moving ahead because of negative Republican reaction at town hall meetings?"
I mean, do you think this -- this idea of -- of going it alone is in response to what they have suddenly seen at all these town hall meetings?
BEGALA: I think, frankly, less the town hall meetings. That hasn't moved a lot of Democrats. I have talked to a whole lot of them. They don't seem terribly rattled by that. But I think what they're seeing is...
COOPER: What about independents?
BEGALA: Well, I mean, Democratic members of Congress.
COOPER: Oh, OK.
COOPER: Among independents, it's -- Republic opposition has hardened. And that's fine. They're the opposition party.
But to try to pass something in a bipartisan fashion is just going to be very difficult, and almost impossible. Look at this. There's four committees that have already passed out versions of health care, three in the House, one in the Senate.
If you add all those committees together, they accepted, the Democrats who run the committees, 183 Republican amendments in those four committees, 183. Despite taking all those 183 amendments, you know how many Republican votes they got? Zero, zilch, as we say in the Catholic Church, bubkes, nada.
Now, at what point do you start to get the idea that the Republicans are just not going to play along? More recently, you know, we have the Senate Finance Committee as the last hope of bipartisanship. Senator Max Baucus, the chairman, is trying to negotiate with Charles Grassley, the leading Republican on the committee.
And he's been reached out to, Grassley has, and the president has praised him in the past. And, so, what does he do? He goes home. And, you know, grandpa Twitter gets on his BlackBerry and says, the president wants to pull the plug on grandma, and then he calls the president of the United States intellectually dishonest.
That's who Obama is trying to deal with. So, there's no hope of bipartisanship.
Malkin once again proves that there's nothing so low that she won't do it. You may remember that she attacked 12-year-old Graeme Frost over the SCHIP vote and posted personal information about his family. Well, now she's lowering the bar and attacking an 11-year-old girl. (Malkin link here)
At least she's an equal-opportunity smear artist. I know this happened a few days ago, but I had to address it. Bob Cesca covered it with his post: Malkin and Fox News Are Stalking Children Again
It's a brand new conspiracy involving President Obama and an 11-year-old girl. The plot? To ask a question at a town hall meeting.
Scary. Run for your lives and all that.
Rewind to Tuesday afternoon when an 11-year-old girl asked President Obama a question about the "mean things" she observed on various protest signs outside. Malkin and other wingnuts swooped into action, investigating and exposing the girl's parents as -- shock, horror! -- supporters of the president. The girl's parents even donated some money and volunteered on the campaign.
Mind blowing, I know. It's like the Donald Sutherland scene in JFK.
But considering that there were literally millions of volunteers associated with the president's campaign, and considering that tickets for the event were available online where millions of supporters of the president typically hang out, it stands to reason that a few actual, you know, supporters would manage to acquire tickets.
Yet beyond this earth-shattering information uncovered by Malkin that Obama supporters attended an Obama event, there isn't any evidence whatsoever that the 11-year-old girl was coached or scripted by the White House. None. And, it goes without saying that Malkin and Fox News Channel are entirely ignorant of the fact that similar Bush events were revealed to be literally and entirely staged and scripted with attendees having to sign loyalty oaths.
Sean Hannity had Malkin on his Fox News show to try and justify her actions. I mean it's sickening. And yet networks like NBC put her on the TODAY show as if she's a credible person.
Malkin: The lie about the astroturfing is very important and I spent a lot of time today on my own blog talking about these Obamacare human stage props that OFA and HCAN have put forth. And yesterday in Portsmouth we saw it with that little girl who's mom happened to be a very invested and close ally of the Obama administration....
The lie is that she denies any astroturfing has been taking place at the town halls. I won't even post the information because it's been so heavily covered, but the words "truth and "lie" are interchangeable with Michelle so why bother giving her evidence when she clearly knows about it.
Wasn't Malkin's infamous, and creepy, 2007 Baltimore drive-by* bad enough? I guess not, because now Malkin's zeroing in on a young Massachusetts school girl. Why? Because she got to ask president Obama a question at a town hall forum. Bad idea! (She was an "in-the-tank questioner.") The girl may as well have painted a bull's eye on her back because Malkin and her online detective pals are takin' that kid down!!
Stay classy, Michelle.
Next up, Malkin steals a toddler's pacifier because his parents live in San Francisco and had an Obama bumper sticker. "It's just another cry baby socialist!"
