DOWNLOADS: (4231)

PLAYS: (6505)

Embed

(h/t Heather)

This clip of Anthony Weiner going ballistic on the House floor is one for the ages -- it should be watched again and again and again, and not only because he was angry and frustrated, but because he spoke a truth that all of us expect from our representatives. It's really quite simple: "If you believe that it's right, you vote yes. You don't hide behind procedure and give cover to your pals."

It's really that simple, but here's the backstory. The House has been trying to re-open the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund through 2031 for 9/11 responders whose health has been affected.

When it became apparent that the Republicans were going to attach "poison pill" amendments to the bill that had nothing to do with 9/11 and everything to do with their political agenda, Democrats shut down the possibility of amending the bill by moving it to the suspension calendar, where a minimum 2/3rds vote is needed for it to pass.

Republicans applied the same old talking points, calling it a "massive new entitlement program". Actually, that's not quite right. They called it a "massive job-killing new entitlement program", because that's the Frank Luntz mantra of the week. (I was monitoring the Senate at the same time, and somehow the Small Business Jobs bill also became another "massive job-killing new entitlement program.") Of course, that's nonsense too, given that it had been structured to be paid for by closing a tax loophole for foreign corporations.

If you believe it's right, you vote yes.

Continue reading »

Looks like President Obama is punting on a campaign promise until after the mid-term elections. If I was completely sure he'd back the repeal, I wouldn't care - but I'm never quite sure with him.

I'm really tired of gay issues being sent to the bottom of the agenda. How can we keep asking gay people to support the Democrats when they get so little in return?

President Obama has endorsed to a "don't ask, don't tell" compromise between lawmakers and the Defense Department, the White House announced Monday, an agreement that may sidestep a key obstacle to repealing the military's policy banning gays and lesbians from serving openly in the armed forces.

The compromise was finalized in meetings Monday at the White House and on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers will now, within days, take a series of votes on amendments that repeal the Clinton-era policy, with a provision ensuring that any change would not take effect until after the Pentagon completes a study about the impact on troops. That study is due to Congress on Dec. 1.

In a letter to lawmakers pushing for a legislative repeal, White House budget director Peter Orszag wrote Monday that Obama's administration "supports the proposed amendment."

"Such an approach recognizes the critical need to allow our military and their families the full opportunity to inform and shape the implementation process through a thorough understanding of their concerns, insights and suggestions," Orszag wrote.

While gay rights advocates hailed the move as a "dramatic breakthrough," it remained uncertain whether the deal would secure enough votes to pass both houses of Congress. Republicans have vowed to maintain "don't ask, don't tell," while conservative Democrats have said they would oppose a repeal unless military leaders made clear that they approved of such a change.

Even if the compromise language passes, a legislative repeal would go into effect only after Obama certifies that the change does not harm the nation's military readiness.

Not so fast, Sen. Dodd. You're telling us this is about Republicans blocking reform, but I agree with Russ Feingold - don't vote until we have a real reform bill. Keep talking!

WASHINGTON With one Democrat absent and two others voting no, the Senate failed to get the 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster and bring the huge overhaul of financial regulations to a vote.

Democrats and Republicans have been trying to reach agreement on a few key issues, but some disputes apparently are lingering over several amendments.

Another vote is expected on Thursday, and Democratic leaders were optimistic that they could overcome the procedural hurdle.

The Democrats fell two votes short, though the vote was 57-42. Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada changed his vote to 'no' to make it easier to hold another vote. He blasted Republicans after the vote for voting to "protect the big banks on Wall Street."

[...]Cantwell wants votes on two amendments -- one to tighten new proposed regulations on complex financial derivatives and another to restore a prohibition against federally insured commercial banks also doing investment banking. Feingold also wants a vote on the banking prohibition.

"The test for this legislation is a simple one -- whether it will prevent another financial crisis," Feingold said after the vote. "As the bill stands, it fails that test. Ending debate on the bill is finishing before the job is done."

In keeping with Frank Luntz's talking points, Mitch McConnell will block Wall St. reform -- by claiming to reform Wall Street. Hey, why not? It's not as if gobblety gook hasn't worked before! And I'm sure it had nothing to do with his recent meeting with Wall Street bankers:

Mitch McConnell has rounded up the necessary votes to block Democrats from bringing Wall Street reform to the Senate floor, a spokesman for the Senate Minority Leader said on Friday afternoon.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said on Thursday he planned to bring the bill to the floor next week where it would be debated and amendments added. McConnell has now persuaded 41 Republicans to vote against debating reform.

'We simply cannot ask the American taxpayer to continue to subsidize this 'too big to fail' policy. We must ensure that Wall Street no longer believes or relies on Main Street to bail them out. Inaction is not an option," McConnell writes in a letter to Reid that was provided to HuffPost.

Democrats have been battering McConnell all week for his firm opposition to the Democratic reform effort.

Reid spokesman Jim Manley told HuffPost that Reid will be moving ahead regardless.

"Congratulations. I hope they feel good," said Manley. "They've got 41 signatures on a weak, watered-down letter that simply calls for more negotiations. If they are at all serious, they will simply let us go to the bill next week and let the amendment process begin."

Manley said the bill will be brought up for a vote on a motion to proceed to debate later this coming week.

Because we're getting so much of this news as it breaks, it's hard to get all the context. But it sure sounds like they're only pursuing another way to pass the bill in response to the Republicans' hypocritical attacks - which only gives credence to said attacks:

House leaders have decided to take a separate vote on the Senate health-care bill, rejecting an earlier, much-criticized strategy that would have permitted them to "deem" the unpopular measure passed without an explicit vote.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said Saturday that the House would take three votes Sunday: first, on a resolution that will set the terms of debate; second, on a package of amendments to the Senate bill that have been demanded by House members; and third, on the Senate bill itself.

Van Hollen, who has been working on the issue with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), said House leaders concluded that that order -- approving the amendments before approving the Senate bill -- makes clear that the House intends to modify the Senate bill and not approve the Senate bill itself.

"Our objective all along was to make it clear that the House is amending the Senate bill, and we found another way of accomplishing that," Van Hollen said in an interview.

The list of amendments for Rules Committee consideration is now published. Of 90 proposed amendments, one belongs to Democrats. The rest are nothing more than Republican stupid stalls.

The one Democratic amendment is Alan Grayson's proposal to allow Medicare buy-in for any age. I give it about a 5% chance of success. It's more likely that it was included here to meet his request for an up or down vote on the measure itself and foreclose the accusation that Stupak was getting more attention than positive suggestions.

Other amendments on the list are pure right wing hackery, designed to stall the process and allow them to spew more crap into the TV machine. Shining examples of Republican nasty:

• Joe Barton/Sam Johnson(R-TX) - Would require that all individuals under Medicaid have to demonstrate their identity and citizenship. (Me: Because all those poor folks are really just illegals slidin' over the border to suck up our medical resources. Yeah, right.)
• Joe Barton (R-TX) - Would repeal a provision providing Medicare coverage to certain individuals exposed to environmental health hazards. (Me: I believe this was intended to extend to Ground Zero first responders, which would be a truly nasty gesture on the part of these yahoos)
• Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) has a series of 4 'self-destruct' amendments calling for the entire bill to turn to dust under certain circumstances. Hey Marsha, is there one of those for obnoxious Congresscritters too?
• Marsha Blackburn, redux: Would prohibit the Federal government from passing any law that would give it authority to ration health care for the American people. (Me: Don't insurance companies ration health care now? Why yes, they do.)
• Crazy Virginia Foxx (R-NC) has one in there to strike the student loan bill from the reconciliation act. I guess she hates education.
• One of the more bizarre amendments comes from Christopher Lee (R-NY) - Would create a 3 year / 5 state medical tribunal pilot program to be administered by the Secretary of HHS. Me: A tribunal? Wow, visions of white-cloaked men on a high dais come to mind.

None of these amendments are expected to pass, which will give Republicans the excuse to go running into the street, grab the nearest microphone and whine about how their ideas are never, ever used in Democrat bills. Let them whine. They had a chance to be serious and actually do something good for this country. Now they're just in the way of progress and need to step aside for our own good.

Well, all but Grayson. I harbor a secret utopian hope that they'll slip this little extra goodie into the reconciliation bill. It's actually quite well-crafted. But alas, I'm not sure it's Senate-proof. Yet.

BAGnewsNotes: Mature adults in decision-making positions sometimes have second thoughts. It's what thinking people are supposed to do. Yesterday's NYT profile of Icon Condi emphasizes that the Secretary -- as is consistent with Dubya and the rest of the cabal -- does not reflect.

Empire Burlesque: Whatever dream you had about what America is, it isn't that anymore. It's gone. The Republic you wanted -- and at one time might have had the power to take back -- is finished. You no longer have the power to keep it; it's not there.

The Quaker Agitator: Most of our wars have been fought for reasons of "empire." But empire and democracy cannot coexist. Do we want to be an "empire" and NOT a democracy?

The Washington Note: The Bush administration keeps trying to convince Americans that what most observers see happening in Iraq is not actually happening and that conversely, things are improving -- with no evidence.

Corrente: Last Labor Day post. "If I'm so f**king productive, where's my cut?"

Secrecy News: The controversial amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that were enacted under intense Administration pressure earlier this month are reviewed section-by-section in a new report from the Congressional Research Service.