There's always got to be the kids who are naughty and naughtier at Christmas. This year it's John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Tom Coburn. They're playing games with the lame duck in an attempt to stall as much as possible, but some of them are downright mean.

First, we have Lindsey Graham whining for his jammies and tea because he's tired. Poor guy. It must be rough sitting on everything all year long, blocking it as much as possible only to have to stay late and maybe miss hanging his balls on his Christmas tree. Or maybe he's a little nervous over the possibility of being outed. Whatever the case, he threw the first hissy fit today over all the work he's still got to do. After he was done with that hissy, he went on to apologize to Senator John Kyl for the Senate ratifying the new START treaty with the full co-operation of Republicans.

"I stand here very disappointed in the fact that our lead negotiator on the Republican side... basically is going to have his work product ignored and the treaty jammed through in the lame duck. How as Republicans we justify that I do not know," Graham said. "To Senator Kyl, I want to apologize to you for the way you've been treated by your colleagues."

Oops, Lindsey. No goodies for you this year. You've got to do better than that.

Meanwhile, we have John McCain playing the role of Scrooge McGrumpy in a petulant, whiny sort of way. In a last-ditch effort to scuttle the DADT repeal, McCain came to the floor tonight ready to bring the Defense Appropriations bill up for a vote. Of course, he was ready to do that because he and his bitch Mitch McConnell had inserted a poison pill amendment that would have undone the actual repeal.

Joe Lieberman, on the other hand, probably just earned an extra package under the tree for blocking their pathetic bigoted attempt to shoot holes in something the President is set to sign at 9:15 am today.

The amendment was on John McCain's wish list this year. But he's been naughty, so no amendments for him!

Finally, we have Tom Coburn, who may qualify for the Ebenezer-Unredeemed-Scrooge-Forever award for his random block on Harry Reid's effort to resurrect the 9-11 responders bill. In what could be one of the most cynical moves ever, Coburn claims the bill was never debated in committee. Chris Hayes, sitting in for Keith Olbermann, reminds us all that yes, it was debated. It's just that Coburn ditched the committee that day. I'm guessing he ditched to bloviate on the Senate floor about how horrible the Affordable Care Act was. Or he was out fundraising with his tea party buddies.

Either way, Coburn wins the prize for being the meanest, most selfish, cynical, ugly SOB in the Senate. If I were Santa, I wouldn't even bother with coal. I'd pick up after the dog and put it in his stocking.

Once again, shooting for the lowest common denominator:

Republican U.S. Senate hopeful Ken Buck Saturday flip-flopped on statements made Thursday by former Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo that Barack Obama is the greatest threat to the United States, now claiming Tancredo’s comments had a lot of truth to them.

Speaking after Tancredo at the Conservative Western Summit on Saturday, where Tancredo reiterated statements made at a Buck supporter barbecue on Thursday, Weld County District Attorney Buck reversed his position.

“The other day my good friend and supporter Tom Tancredo said that the greatest threat to this country is the man who occupies the White House, Barack Obama,” Buck said Saturday. “There is a lot of truth in what Tom Tancredo says.”

I'm not sure how to even respond to this kind of idiocy. And according to that study in the Boston Globe, it wouldn't matter if I tried. Funnily enough, Buck's campaign called to complain to the Colorado Independent for their coverage. Not for agreeing with that nutcase Tancredo that Obama is the biggest threat to the country, no, no, no. He objected to being characterized as flip-flopping on his agreement with Tancredo:

Saturday, speaking after Tancredo at the Conservative Western Summit, where the former congressman reiterated his previous remarks, Buck said, “The other day my good friend and supporter Tom Tancredo said that the greatest threat to this country is the man who occupied the White House, Barack Obama. And there is a lot of truth, a lot of truth in what Tom Tancredo said.”

But Buck then went on to provide more context:

“The greatest threat folks is not a single man, but rather the progressive liberal movement that is going on in this country. It is the $13 trillion of national debt; it is a huge threat to our security and financial system; Obamacare, cap and trade, card check, our disintegrating relationship with Israel. It is a huge threat to this county.

“Folks, picture this for just a second. If Obama leaves office, you turn on your TV and you hear the following, ‘I, Joseph Biden do solemnly swear.’ The threat continues because then Nancy Pelosi is in office, Harry Reid is in office, Barney Frank is in office … and the liberal progressives continue marching down that path. We can’t allow that and in November you will have that chance. And I will beat [Sen.] Michael Bennet on Nov. 2.”

You stay classy now, Buck. You can support Michael Bennet here in his fight against DeMint protege Buck here.

DOWNLOADS: (741)

PLAYS: (763)

Embed

[H/t Heather]

It's hard sometime to believe the blithering, fact-free idiocy that passes for Beltway wisdom these days. Take David Gregory interviewing everyone's favorite Sunday talk-show guest, John McCain:

MR. GREGORY: I have a question that keeps nagging me about the enemy, about the Taliban.

SEN. McCAIN: Yeah.

MR. GREGORY: The United States is engaged in working with the Afghan central government to recruit Afghan soldiers. Why do we have to recruit Afghan soldiers? Who's training the Taliban? Nobody has to recruit them. They're out there fighting for, you know, what they see as a future. Which is, by the way, is a dark, terrorist, annihilist future. Nevertheless, they don't have to be recruited, and yet we're in this position where we're trying to recruit Afghan soldiers.

SEN. McCAIN: You know, that's a very good question. And it's clear that the Taliban is a very extremist and very fanatical element, and I think this is true with all insurgencies. But I think you also find that the majority of the people in Afghanistan do not want the return of the Taliban. They're afraid, though, that when the United States leaves that there will be assassination squads going around and taking care of those who cooperated with the government and the Americans. Look, Karzai is not doing the things we want him to do. I don't think there's any doubt about that in many respects. Maliki was not doing the things we wanted...

MR. GREGORY: In Iraq.

SEN. McCAIN: ...us to do. He was perceived as very weak. The level of sectarian violence in Iraq makes what's going on in Afghanistan pale in comparison, and I'm not saying it's not going to be long and hard and tough, and I'm not saying that it's going to be easy. And I--but I am convinced of one thing, you--fundamental of warfare, you tell the enemy when you're leaving, that--then they will wait. And Ho Chi Minh certainly is an authentication of that, of that course of action.

Can anyone tell me what the hell these two people are talking about? Or why they are considered wise and worthy voices to spend our time listening to on a Sunday morning?

Because Al Qaeda recruits all the time. It's a major part of their relative success. (Just Google "Al Qaeda recruitment" for a sample.)

Of course, it doesn't hurt that idiocy like this makes it possible for the United States to significantly improve the climate for recruitment of Al Qaeda terrorists, either.

Well, here's a little treasure (PDF) from the Pacific Research Institute (aka right wing hatchery of the west). Sarah Palin has written the foreward for their "Tort Liability Index", where she brags about how "reformed" Alaska's tort system is.

Alaska has the second-lowest monetary tort payouts of any state, controlling for the size of each state’s economy. Our tort costs are particularly low for businesses—another reason for entrepreneurs to locate here. We also have some of the lowest medical liability costs in the country. We appreciate doctors in Alaska and welcome them with open arms, not abusive lawsuits.

Imagine that. If the Deepwater Horizon were to have sunk off the coast of Alaska after destroying all the wildlife in the area, they could've gotten off EASY. Because Sarah Palin was all about watchin' out for the doctor and entrepreneur.

I wonder if I could sue for injuries suffered from slamming my head on the desk repeatedly.

Given these sweeping benefits, all states would do well to follow Alaska’s example and enact legal reforms that eliminate lawsuit abuse. The state motto, after all, is “North to the Future.”

It would be irresponsible of me to simply rant about the idiocy of Sarah Palin writing any kind of foreward for any kind of think tank publication without at least looking at this wonderful tort liability climate in Alaska and sharing that information. So I went looking, and what I found is, well...interesting. (Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer)

• Life has a price - If you die in Alaska as the result of someone else's negligence, the most you are worth is $400,000 or $8,000 times your life expectancy. Period.
• Grievous injury has a price too - If you are injured or disfigured and the injury/disfigurement is permanent, the maximum you're worth is $1,000,000 or $25,000 x life expectancy.
• Punishment has its limits, too - If it is found that you have been wronged intentionally, punitive damages may be part of the verdict. Those limits range from a $500,000 maximum for an individual injury to $7,000,000 for intentionally inflicted financial injury (e.g. embezzlement, securities fraud, etc). However, if the issue is unlawful employment practices, the cap drops drastically to a maximum of $200,000 for small employers and $500,000 for employers with more than 500 employees.

Now look at those caps, and think about the 11 employees of BP killed on the Deepwater Horizon and ask yourself whether or not tort reform is such a good thing.

Palin's little foreward and endorsement of these practices just cements her as a straight-up Republican. Nothing to see here, folks, move along.

Oh, and if anyone sees evidence of actual thought going on in the "think tanks", let me know, okay?

(h/t The Daily Dish)

Amped Status: Not only did Goldman Sachs profit on betting against CDOs they designed to fail; more importantly, they insured them through AIG which led to a $182 billion taxpayer bailout.

Blue Heron Blast: Irreconcilable Differences

Mario Piperni: On Republicans, War, and Dung

Shakesville: We've had nests on the porch, in ferns, and small tress around our home for many years. Amazing!

AlterNet: Exposing the Christian right's new racial playbook

Gawker: WaPo cannot tell Obama from Malcolm X

First there was Dr. Cassell firing patients. Then there's "dermdoc" bragging on a message board that he has just laid off his first Obama-voting employee. From CBS News' Political Hotsheet:

Last Friday, someone going by the name "dermdoc" posted a thread on a message board for Texas A&M students and alumni with this topic: "Laid off my first Obama voting employee today."

"Our reimbursement rates are spiraling downward, taxes are projected to go up with Obamacare, so I did it," the person wrote. He later added: "I made this decision because I can."

"It is kind of interesting watching their face as you explain to them the economic consequences of the policies of the guy they voted for," wrote dermdoc.

The original message board thread has now been removed, but that didn't deter "dermdoc" from expanding on his original thesis.

"Elections have consequences," wrote dermdoc. "If you vote for someone who raises my taxes and lowers my income, you pay the cost."

"My office manager and med business guru have calculated that this is just the beginning. Tax rates are going to go through the roof with additional Obamacare taxes AND the expiration of the Bush tax cuts," he added. "And most analysts think reimbursement rates for docs will go down about 20-25% the next 2 years, and that is BEFORE Obamacare really kicks in."

(h/t Mugsy)

Before I go sideways ballistic on this guy, I'll try and sort out fact from fiction, just a bit.

Reimbursement Rates for doctors

Reimbursement rates for doctors are part of the famous "docfix" package that Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) is holding hostage along with an extension on unemployment benefits. The House passed the docfix last year, but the Senate is a bit slower on the uptake, largely due to the political obstructions placed on the pathway by the likes of Senator Coburn and his cohorts.

From the name "dermdoc", it can be inferred he is a specialist, probably a dermatologist. Specialists are a bit piqued about the health reform bill because it allows for a bonus to primary care providers, to encourage incentives for more to either return to or enter the field.

As insurance companies took over more health management authority, it was far more lucrative for doctors to skip primary care entirely and jump into a specialty. Medicare and insurance reimbursement rates have always been far in excess of what they pay primary care physicians. There are two consequences to this. First, the number of primary care physicians dropped drastically; and second, health care costs careened out of control as specialists tended to order state-of-the-art testing and treatments.

One of the centerpieces of the health care reform bill is to put primary care providers back in the center of the health care picture. This is good for us and it's good for reducing costs, because most conditions don't require a specialist, and having a primary doctor who knows you, your family, and your specific circumstances means there's a history they can draw upon to make decisions about treatments. This doesn't mean specialists aren't necessary. They are, but not always as a first-line option.

Consequently, specialists are a bit annoyed at the prospect of losing their monopoly over different parts of your body to a more holistic approach.

Beyond that, isn't it time that doctors considered the cost-saving measures in the law? After all, streamlining claims procedures, Medicare codes, implementing electronic health records, and standardizing it all is also part of "Obamacare". Doesn't it make sense that if they save money on these aspects of providing care, it will flow through to them?

dermdoc's real issue: The Bush tax cuts expire 12/31/2010

Make no mistake. When the Bush tax cuts expire, there will be screams from many different corners of the country. All the high rollers will (gasp!) have to pay a reasonable income tax for the privilege of keeping 75 cents on every dollar or so. Pardon me if I don't bend over weeping for those earning in excess of $300,000 when they have to pay extra taxes. That Medicare tax increase for "Obamacare"? An extra $900 or so. Big Frickin' Deal.

And check this comment on the same thread:

But race didn't have anything to do with this doctor's feelings toward Obama, his employee, or the health care bill, did it? None whatsoever. Sure thing.

My personal message to whining doctors

Get over yourselves. It's law, it's staying law, and you're going to make a boatload of money one way or the other so you can fund your racist conservative teabagging buddies in the Southern states. If it's so repugnant to you to practice medicine for the welfare of patients instead of the welfare of your checkbook, get out of the medical profession, get out of the way, and let someone who gives a damn step in your place.

And pass your 35% tax credit for insuring those employees over this way, would you? The most absurd part of this doctor's rant is that he either doesn't give his employees health insurance, in which case he's part of the problem, or he does. If he does, and his practice has less than 25 employees he's entitled to a 35% tax credit on what he pays to cover them. A dollar-for-dollar tax reduction on cost of benefits for employees that he didn't have last year.

In the end, all politics is local, and what dermdoc did was retaliate out of political pique at an employee who now will drive his tax bill up by claiming unemployment benefits. Good job there, dermdoc. Mighty compassionate of you, but not very fiscally responsible.

UPDATE (Nicole): Apparently unused to the wild and wooly world of the blogosphere and the unvarnished criticisms that go with it, "dermdoc" has denied any layoffs and slams the media for not doing any actually confirming before running the story (h/t Scott):

there was no layoff of anyone at my office.

Any of you reddit dweebs can check my employment records or call my office on Monday.

IT WAS ALL A TROLL!

I was merely making a hypothetical because of frustration with decreased reimbursements and future increased taxes.

It is really hard to believe that simply by posting a topic on the internet that I could make newspapers, several national talk radio talk shows-WITHOUT ANY VERIFICATION.

Whatever. What has the US become when you have entire web sites of people sitting around just waiting to screw with people and their families without even checking out the source.

Granted, all of this is my fault but any "Ag" who would screw with other Ags or this website because of one unverified post needs to seriously check out their life.

All you lefties can call off the preemptive strikes on me or my family, my wife actually was the one who made me do this because she feared for our safety.

I am done.

Guess dermdoc should consider himself lucky that his story wasn't one that Drudge, Malkin or Breitbart would have a problem with. If he thought lefties were harsh on him, can you imagine what those readers would have said?

DOWNLOADS: (740)

PLAYS: (3176)

Embed

Smacking down Sarah Palin must be similar to swatting a gnat sitting on the table with a big "HIT ME HERE" sign on its back. I hate even writing about her, but when the President smacks down her idiocy, it's worth a post or ten.

In his exclusive interview with George Stephanopoulis yesterday, the President was once again asked one of those cutting-edge, everyone-needs-to-know questions, riffing off of Sarah Palin's rant on Hannity's show the day before. For reference, here's Palin's quote:

It's unbelievable. Unbelievable," said Palin on Sean Hannity's program. "No administration in America's history would, I think, ever have considered such a step that we just found out President Obama is supporting today. It's kinda like getting out there on a playground, a bunch of kids, getting ready to fight, and one of the kids saying, 'Go ahead, punch me in the face, and I'm not going to retaliate. Go ahead and do what you want to with me.'"

Leave it to George to ask the question burning in all of our minds:

STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to get to some of those broader issues. Because you're also facing criticism on that. Sarah Palin, taking aim at your decision to restrict the use of nuclear weapons. Your pledge not to strike nations, non-nuclear nations, who abide by the nonproliferation treaty. Here's what she said. She said, "It's unbelievable, no other administration would do it." And then she likened it to kids on the playground. She said you're like a kid who says, "Punch me in the face, and I'm not going to retaliate." Your response?

OBAMA: I really have no response. Because last I checked, Sarah Palin's not much of an expert on nuclear issues.

Undeterred by Obama's non-response, GSteph presses forward:

STEPHANOPOULOS: But the string of criticism has been out there among other Republicans as well. They think you're restricting use of nuclear weapons too much.

OBAMA: And what I would say to them is that if the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff are comfortable with it, I'm probably going to take my advice from them and not from Sarah Palin.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But not concerned about her criticisms?

OBAMA: No.

I think the President put Sarah Palin's opinion about nuclear weapons in the proper perspective. But there was a troubling aspect to her remarks for me, as a parent.

I've always taught my kids that the scorched-earth 'beat-the-crap-outa-them-if-they-touch-you' approach is fairly barbaric. There are always better, savvier, less violent ways to handle things. Now that they are adults, or nearly adults, I can say my approach seems to have worked. They've never been beaten up, are able to get along with others without a fuss, and actually have the ability to listen to a point of view which might not be perfectly in line with their own.

So is Palin saying that Republicans think the only way to handle an affront is retaliation? Why is that not surprising to me? Ronald Reagan would even have a field day with her. Please, please, let her keep making her case for national bullyhood so the President can keep smacking her down with a smile and absolutely no violence.

I wonder what the so-called Christians who exalt her would say about her denial of Christ's teaching to 'turn the other cheek'. Don't you love her selective Christian "family values"? I know I do.

Pharyngula:

Did someone declare this National Flaming Racist Idiot week, and I just didn't notice until now? You have got to read Michael Medved's latest foray into pseudoscience: he has declared American superiority to be genetic, encoded in our good old American DNA. Because our ancestors were immigrants, who were risk-takers, who were selected for their energy and aggressiveness. Oh, except for those who are descended from slaves.

The idea of a distinctive, unifying, risk-taking American DNA might also help to explain our most persistent and painful racial divide - between the progeny of every immigrant nationality that chose to come here, and the one significant group that exercised no choice in making their journey to the U.S. Nothing in the horrific ordeal of African slaves, seized from their homes against their will, reflected a genetic predisposition to risk-taking, or any sort of self-selection based on personality traits.

But, he hastens to add, modern African-American genetics have been leavened with the genes of recent, self-selected immigrants from the Caribbean and Africa, so their unfortunate stay-at-home genes have a "less decisive influence".

Okay, I realize that being a conservative pundit means never having to say anything factual, but how can anyone be so unafraid to show his utterly bigoted ignorance? Does any brave soul want to listen to his program and get a list of sponsors so we can ask them if this is the kind of idiocy that they want their businesses associated with?

Republican Peter King is a total embarrassment to NY. Growing up there I cringe every time he spouts his nonsense and this ladies and gentlemen is complete idiocy that demeans our troops in Iraq and everybody that has any semblance of intelligence in our country,

Download | play -WMP Download | play -QT

King: Conditions on the ground are different than what you see on television.---As we go through the city of Baghdad, it was like being in Manhattan. I’m talking about bumper to bumper traffic. Talking about shopping centers, talking about restaurants, talking about video stores, talking about guys--on the street corner, talking about major hotels. And so, at that moment, people must be amazingly resilient and you would never know that there was a war going on...

...in Mosul---I remember seeing news reports about roller coasters. Where you had two or three parking lots filled with their cars on a Sunday afternoon. Again, that’s not something you’d see on television, and at any given time a suicide bombers can walk into an amusement center, but the point I’m making is that the situation is more stable than you think....

Let's all book our flights to the joyous and refreshingly amusing--Mosul. OK, suicide bombers can go off at anytime, but the sun is still shining for King. He says as long as the Iraq forces keep training then maybe two, three or four years we will draw down. Way to go Peter! He made this speech in the Merrick Jewish Center. I played many a gig out in Nassau County.

The Opinion Mill: If David Broder were a horse....on the other hand, he's this blogger's inspiration...Shakespeare's Sister provides a treatise on another brave media soldier, Bill O'Reilly...MediaBloodhound interviews Dr. Ben Marble of "Go f**k yourself Mr. Cheney" fame...and let me just say, Hooray for Hollywood!!

PERRspectives Blog: Thailand and the Bush "Democracy" promotion fraud...all of this bunch's policies invite ridicule and chaos.

The Whole American Hog: Mark Twain on the immorality of imperialist wars and the idiocy of 'staying the course'...could've been penned last night if there was anybody around who wrote this well.

Bloggasm: Mapping the diversity of the blogosphere...

Domestic Spying Center: Our friend "Brett" has super-security clearance and writes: "I can assure you that this device uses the exact same technology that we do down here at the Pentagon to screen data and prepare our findings for Vice President Cheney. This is why we haven't been hit here at home since 9/11...And speaking of 9/11, this
also is useful in Iraq which as you know, is the central front in the war on terror."

Crooked Timber: War on Science...science strikes back