Back in 2003, Republican leaders praised the AARP for its support of President Bush's unfunded and deeply flawed Medicare prescription benefit. But now that the 40 million member organization has endorsed the House Democrats' health care reform bill, the GOP is declaring war on its one-time ally. Helping lead the attack is an array of industry-funded front groups and their reactionary has-been spokesmen like Pat Boone.
Last week, Republican Congressmen Dave Reichert (R-WA) and Mike Pence (R-IN) implied the nation's leading organization for seniors was in for the ACORN treatment from the GOP and its media allies. Despite the thorough debunking of right-wing claims that Democratic health care reform proposals would slash Medicare benefits for46 million American elderly:
Pence and Reichert suggested that support was the result of corruption inside the AARP and not based on the interests of its membership.
"What you've got here is a backroom deal," Pence said of reform measures expected to be introduced by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid this afternoon. "Democrats are protecting the salaries of the heads of groups like AARP while cutting Medicare"...
The GOP is using more than just rhetoric to go after the group. Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA) claims to have launched an investigation into AARP in his home state. Reichert says his "ongoing" investigation focuses on whether AARP should be classified as an insurance company because of its revenue from royalties the group gets from licensing its brand for insurance products.
Sounding the clarion call for conservatives is aging singer turned World Net Daily regular Pat Boone. Boone, who in recent months branded Barack Obama a "president without a country" who is "waterboarding America" over "socialistic health care and a host of other ultraliberal causes," is also the celebrity mouthpiece for the 60 Plus Association.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1663)
PLAYS: (1654)
I was wondering how Newt Gingrich would react to the crazy teabaggers that attacked him for endorsing Scozzafava: Would he stand by his principles or would he bow down at the altar of Rush Limbaugh?
“The special election for the 23rd Congressional District is an important test leading up to the mid-term 2010 elections,” Gingrich said of Scozzafava's candidacy in a statement to supporters, as reported by the The Post-Standard. “Our best chance to put responsible and principled leaders in Washington starts here, with Dede Scozzafava.”
--
“The Republican Revolution in 1994 started very much like what we see today,” the former speaker said. “Like then, our country is reeling from misguided liberal policies, high taxes and out-of-control spending. This special election in New York’s 23rd Congressional District could be the first election of the new Republican Revolution, but we need the momentum to get it started.”
But Gingrich, who served as Speaker of the House from 1995 to 1999, wants to unite the party. He sees Scozzafava and the Upstate special election – the only House race in the nation this fall -- as the best hope for Republicans to start a comeback and regain control of Congress.
Gingrich is apparently willing to overlook Scozzafava’s support for same-sex marriage and abortion rights.
The teabaggers, Palin, Limbaugh and Beck were all putting their energy behind a man who wasn't even from the district, Doug Hoffman, and in the end it cost the GOP a seat in a district that hasn't elected a Democratic politician to represent them in over 100 years.
Right before the election, right-wing bloggers attacked Newt for supporting Dede and said they would never support him for President because of it. After Hoffman lost, Rush Limbaugh blamed Newt and the GOP party machine for Hoffman's loss.
What would Newt Gingrich do? Would he stand up for his endorsement and tell the teabagger brigade that to win national elections, the party needs moderates to be included? After all, he's the Big Kahuna. Guess again. In his election night wrapup that he tweeted the day after the election, he repeated Rudy Giuliani's line that Scozzafavva was too liberal to have been the Republican nominee, which is a blatant lie.
In retrospect it is clear Dede Scozzafava should never have been nominated because she was far too liberal to be acceptable.
Republican leaders in New York must recognize that Mike Long and the Conservative Party in that state have to be consulted before decisions are made. The national conservative movement is a force that has to be recognized and respected.
I certainly heard from enough friends to know that my decision to support the unanimous vote of the 11 New York county chairs was very unpopular with conservative activists.
In New York, after two failed special elections, it is clear the state party has to fight to change the election law so there are primaries in special elections. The insider nominating process is simply unacceptable to grassroots populists and guarantees a sense of illegitimacy.
Then, on Sean Hannity's Fox News show last night, he explained in detail why he regretted having supported Scozzafava. It was pretty abject.
Gingrich: I think the nomination was a mistake. I wish that we had gotten involved earlier. And if we had, I would have done everything I could to make sure she had not been picked. And she clearly proved in the last few days that she was in no way a loyal Republican.
Gingrich isn't one to make a snap judgment without knowing the facts, and he knew Dede was moderate on social issues, but to say she's not conservative enough is ridiculous.
If Republicans try to laugh off the notion that Limbaugh is running their party, all the media have to do is look at Newt. He caved to Limbaugh big time.
All day long MSNBC has had on one pundit after another using the election in NY-23 as their springboard to make the case that the Dems are weak. There hasn't been a Democrat elected in that seat for more years than I've been alive, but that doesn't seem to enter into the equation.
The real story, though, is the fighting going on within the GOP. Rudy Giuliani was on with Chuck Todd and saying that the GOP will never win national elections if they never win in NY and California and so there needs to be a more inclusive Republican party. NY-23 didn't pan out that way for Rudy and he had to figure a way to lighten the blow. He said that Scozzafava was really a liberal and implied that he told Newt not to back her. He said the GOP needs moderates in the party, but they have to be 80% with them on issues and 20% against.
The reality is this: When people say “don’t judge a book by its cover”, you should take their advice. The “cover” on Scozzafava was that she was this progressive Republican because she was backed by the WFP, supported a woman’s right to choose and has been a supporter of marriage equality. But the “book” tells the whole story (as it usually does). Scozzafava has a few positions that are more liberal (on abortion and marriage equality) but most of her positions are, at best, moderate-to-conservative. More often than not, however, she is a conservative.
This race is interesting to watch just to see the Villagers scurry around and try to make it a national story, but at least they could take the time and get their facts straight.
I'm not sure if the teabaggers will have much success in purifying their party, but it'll be interesting to see how the Villagers will react. My guess is they'll portray them as just folks exercising their patriotic duties, unlike those dirty fucking hippie traitors who ran a primary against the greatest man in America, Joe Lieberman.
The cable shows are covering these races as if the outcome will determine if Obama should step down as the president.
At a short press availability in his campaign office here, NY-23 Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman said that a GOTV volunteer’s tires had been slashed, and all but blamed Democrats for the dirty trick. “There are reports that they’re bringing in the troops and they’re bringing in ACORN,” said Hoffman. “I think the Democrats are doing anything they possibly can to steal this election away from the 23rd district.”
-- Update: Anton Troianovski of the Wall Street Journal followed up with the Plattsburgh police on this, and was told that the volunteer actually damaged his tire on a broken bottle. I asked Hoffman campaign manager Dan Tripp about this–he said he had no comment because the campaign had not heard this yet.
I just hope that all the major networks and newspapers assign a special reporter to look into these accusations by the teabaggers' darling. Certainly Fox will be running with them and everyone knows that the mainstream press has been remiss by failing to follow up on such important Fox investigations.
It's actually a smart move. Since Fox has intimidated the pants off of the other news organizations, they will bend over backwards to be "fair and balanced" thus lending credence to the ACORN meme.
I just got off the phone with former state Democratic Chairwoman June O'Neill, who informed me the police had been called to at least two polling sites in St. Lawrence County due to overzealous electioneering (O'Neill called it "voter intimidation") by Doug Hoffman supporters.
"We've gotten reports that people are standing there, covered with Hoffman stickers and yelling anti-choice stuff at voters," said O'Neill, a St. Lawrence native who has been running the party's GOTV effort for Bill Owens in NY-23.
"Apparently, there's some woman claiming to be a commissioner," O'Neill continued. "Commissioner of what, I don't know. She's from Texas, I think, and she won't leave."
"This is not the way we roll in the North Country."'
O'Neill also said she had received anecdotal reports of problems at polling sites in Gouverneur, which is Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava's hometown. But she couldn't immediately confirm this.
I called over to the St. Lawrence Board of Elections and got GOP Elections Commissioner Debbie Pahler on the line. She confirmed that the police indeed had been called, but she downplayed the incident, saying it's "a routine procedure here in the county."
"We had electioneering within the 100-foot polling marker," Phaler said. "It's my understanding that they were asked to leave and wouldn't leave."
"If people are electioneering within the marker and don't stop when we ask them to, our inspectors are instructed to call law enforcement to assist them. I don't think anybody was arrested."
O'Neill also said she had received anecdotal reports of problems at polling sites in Gouverneur, which is Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava's hometown. But she couldn't immediately confirm this.
The Glenn Beck crowd are out there yelling anti-choice crap. They will bring the same anger and hatred they brought to the town halls that they disrupted. This is going to put a lot of stress on local police forces.
This is just the beginning. Gee, I wonder if Fox News will cover this voter intimidation and try to make a national story out of it. OK, I was joking. I hope the local media up in NY-23 get plenty of video of this. If any of our readers has video, please email us: crooksandliars-at-gmail.com
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1909)
PLAYS: (3340)
A gaffe, Michael Kinsley famously mused, is what results when a politician inadvertently tells the truth. And so it was Monday when Utah Republican Senator Orrin Hatch came clean about his party's scorched-earth opposition to health care reform being championed by President Obama and Congressional Democrats. Hatch acknowledged, as I've long argued, that the GOP is worried not that Obama's health care initiatives might fail, but that they might succeed.
As he did in his pivotal effort to block Bill Clinton's health care efforts starting in 1993, conservative strategist Bill Kristol warned his Republican allies then as now that that a victory for President Obama would earn his party the thanks of a grateful public and guarantee Democratic majorities for the foreseeable future. In an interview with CNS Monday, Senator Hatch revealed that was his darkest fear as well:
HATCH: That's their goal. Move people into government that way. Do it in increments. They've actually said it. They've said it out loud.
Q: This is a step-by-step approach --
HATCH: A step-by-step approach to socialized medicine. And if they get there, of course, you're going to have a very rough time having a two-party system in this country, because almost everybody's going to say, "All we ever were, all we ever are, all we ever hope to be depends on the Democratic Party."
Q: They'll have reduced the American people to dependency on the federal government.
HATCH: Yeah, you got that right. That's their goal. That's what keeps Democrats in power.
Back in September, a study by Harvard Medical School found that over 44,000 Americans die each year due to lack of health insurance. Now, in a complete reversal of both logic and the truth, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced that it is the availability of a public insurance option which could prove fatal. Of course, McConnell's announcement that the public option "may cost you your life" should come as no surprise. After all, in July he echoed George W. Bush and Tom Delay in declaring that thanks to the emergency room, Americans "don't go without health care."
MCCONNELL: Well, it doesn't make any difference frankly whether you opt-in or you opt-out, it's still a government plan. You know, Medicaid, the program for the poor now, states can opt-out of that, but none of them have. I think if you have any kind of government insurance program, you're going to be stuck with it and it will lead us in the direction of the European style, you know, sort of British-style, single payer, government run system. And those systems are known for delays, denial of care and, you know, if your particular malady doesn't fit the government regulation, you don't get the medication.
MILLER: Right.
MCCONNELL: And it may cost you your life. I mean, we don't want to go down that path.
While he has generally left the myth-making about "death panels" and "pulling the plug on grandma" to Sarah Palin, Chuck Grassley and other tall tale tellers in the GOP, Senator McConnell has otherwise been fabricator-in-chief when it comes to Republican talking points on health care.
While the Obama White House, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Congressional Democrats debate among themselves whether the so-called "opt out" public health insurance option endorsed by Reid will be included in reform legislation, Minnesota Governor and GOP presidential wannabee Tim Pawlenty has already weighed in. Asked if he would "lead a charge" in his state to opt out, Pawlenty replied, "I think so because I don't like government run health care."
That's easy for him to say. As it turns out, Minnesota is the exception that proves the rule of red state socialism. An increasingly blue state with the 4th best health care system in the nation, the Land of 10,000 Lakes sends far more tax dollars to Washington than it receives in federal spending in return. But for Pawlenty's fellow Republican refuseniks, leaders of red states offering dismal health care and a beneficiaries of a one-way transfer of taxpayer funds from DC, opting out may not be an option.
In recent weeks, Texas secessionists and Georgia legislators have echoed Pawlenty's confused reading of the Tenth Amendment by endorsing a state veto over federal health reform mandates. But just in time for the debate over the merits of a state-by-state "opt out" of a national public health insurance option, the Commonwealth Fund has released its 2009 state health care scorecard. As in 2007, the data reveals the critical condition of red state health care. All of which could present Republican governors and legislatures with a dilemma: Will they refuse to offer lower cost insurance coverage for their residents by rejecting a system funded in part by blue state taxpayers?
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1180)
PLAYS: (1264)
In recent days, Republican leaders have scored a series of political victories in their eternal quest for tort reform. Last week, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) told Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that an onerous package of malpractice curbs he championed could save the government an estimated $54 billion over 10 years. That came on the heels of President Obama's latest offer to support limited tort reform as an olive branch to recalcitrant Republicans balking at his health care proposals, including funding for a $25 million pilot program.
But largely overlooked in the heated discussions of damage award caps, special health courts, expert panels and national compensation schedules is the inescapable truth that the medical malpractice system has only a negligible impact on overall American health care costs. Republican horror stories of a torrent of baseless malpractice suits producing "jackpot justice" that fuels rising premiums for physicians and patients alike while driving doctors from practice simply don't comport with reality. The overstated, overblown, over the top and often outright false GOP claims suggest that the Republicans' real target is not the flawed American malpractice system, but instead the nation's trial lawyers whose campaign contributions help bankroll the Democratic Party.
Here, then, is a look at Republican Malpractice Myths:
And James Madison explaining more than 200 years ago why the Senate would naturally represent the interests of rich people:
Should experience or public opinion require an equal & universal suffrage for each branch of the Govt., such as prevails generally in the U. S., a resource favorable to the rights of landed & other property, when its possessors become the minority, may be found in an enlargement of the election districts for one branch of the legislature, and an extension of its period of service. Large districts are manifestly favorable to the election of persons of general respectability, and of probable attachment to the rights of property, over competitors depending on the personal solicitations practicable on a contracted theatre. And although an ambitious candidate, of personal distinction, might occasionally recommend himself to popular choice by espousing a popular though unjust object, it might rarely happen to many districts at the same time. The tendency of a longer period of service would be, to render the body more stable in its policy, and more capable of stemming popular currents taking a wrong direction, till reason & justice could regain their ascendancy.
Say what you want about the founding fathers, you can't claim they weren't up front about what they were doing.
So you see why the Senate acts entirely against the interests of ordinary America.
This is unbelievable. Apparently the Democrats not only can't break a filibuster on the new school loan bill, they may not even have 50 votes. What is going on here?...read on
Listen, I plead guilty to having raised money for Governor George W. Bush because I thought he was the best person to be President of the United States. And I did it in a completely appropriate fashion and enthusiastically for the President. And there's no mystery to the fact that I was appointed to this job because, in part, I had a relationship with the President of the United States.
Anybody who receives a political appointment -- I am a political appointee -- there's going to be some measure of politics involved with that appointment.
New Jersey Governor, polled by The New York Times, 10/9/09-10/14/09, Likely Voters, MoE +/- 4-5%
Jon Corzine (D) 40 Chris Christie (R) 37 Chris Daggett (I) 14
After a week in which Republican challenger Chris Christie has watched poll after poll showing a dwindling lead in the gubernatorial race in the Garden State, this poll is the first to show a Corzine lead of greater than a point.
What's more, among registered voters, the polls lead really expands:
New Jersey Governor, polled by The New York Times, 10/9/09-10/14/09, Registered Voters, MoE +/- 3%
Jon Corzine (D) 40 Chris Christie (R) 30 Chris Daggett (I) 13
That would seem to suggest that the pool of persuadable voters, who are not yet quite sold on voting, is even more anti-Christie than the corps of likely voters identified by the New York Times.
As Jillian subtly points out, GOP chairman Michael Steele is not 13-years-old and, therefore, should not have a blog entitled "What Up?"
But along with the chairman's new blog, a new GOP site has been unveiled as the party attempts to re-brand itself. "Something is happening at GOP.com," booms the voice of Steele as the page loads. No joke: a digital Michael Steele struts across the computer monitor to explain the new website and how "that something new -- is you!" Sure this tiny Michael Steele and cheesy line is enough to make you roll your eyes, but it gets worse. Much worse.
And even worse, the new website violates one of the cardinal rules of web design: web pages should never make sound without the visitor’s consent. The GOP home page has a little Javascript-animated Michael Steele who comes walking out and starts talking, like one of those incredibly annoying advertisements you see on cheesy websites.
It’s the political party with a website that’s not safe for work.
Red State loves it, but it must be discouraging that the "Future Leaders" page doesn't actually have any names on it. As I looked around the site, I noticed that each time I changed or refreshed pages, a new face would pop up on the page, just like my screen cap above. Strangely, a disproportionate number of those photos were of African-Americans and there were plenty of fresh, young faces too. You know, people who don't belong to the Republican Party, and never will? They even have the nerve to try to claim the ghost of Jackie Robinson!
Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) was the lone Republican to support the package. "My vote today is my vote today. It doesn't forecast what my vote will be tomorrow," she said, although her vote does keep her at the negotiating table and at the center of the health care reform debate. Snowe risked marginalizing herself with a no vote.
The year after both Truman and Clinton's failed efforts, the Republican Party retook control of Congress and any hope of reform faded to minority status. President Obama intends to avoid the same fate.
With the bill having officially moved through the panel, deliberations will migrate to the Capitol, where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will huddle with Senate leaders to merge the finance bill with a more generous version from the health committee which passed earlier this year.
There are more votes to come in the Senate, so this thing is far from over.
From The Hill, "Sens: Snowe may be risking a high perch on healthcare reform vote":
Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine) is risking a shot at becoming the top Republican on an influential Senate committee by backing Democratic healthcare legislation, according to senators on the panel.
..."A vote for healthcare would be something that would weigh on our minds when it came time to vote," said a Republican on Commerce, who said Snowe would otherwise be assured of the ranking member post if not for the healthcare debate.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Sunday he's still trying to keep Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman within the Democratic caucus despite anger over Lieberman's support of Republican presidential nominee John McCain.
While he has opposed Democratic efforts to end the war in Iraq, "Joe Lieberman votes with me a lot more than a lot of my senators," Reid told CNN's "Late Edition."
Sen. Joseph Lieberman affirmed on Tuesday what progressive health care reform advocates have long feared: At this juncture, he is likely to oppose a public option for health insurance coverage.
--
For Democrats, it was a shot to the gut -- the latest so-called centrist lawmaker from within their own party ranks speaking out against one of their most cherished aspects of health care reform. For all the angst Lieberman has caused within Democratic circles the past few years, he was supposed to be an ally on domestic issues.
The response from Reid’s No. 2, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.): "We’ve never done that. We’re not going to do that."
Durbin said the petitioners needed to "count to 60 and understand we need to be together, and there are times when we need to work out our differences."
"This is a silly and unnecessary distraction that is not going to happen — period," added a Senate Democratic leadership aide. "Given how important this is to the rest of his agenda, it is up to President Obama to help the leadership to hold the caucus together."
The GOP threatens Snowe and the Dems do nothing to the appeasers of the obstructionist right. It's infuriating.
It's all about that up-or-down vote, and it's something we need to push hard on, as Digby says:
Anyway, those last comments probably tell us where the filibuster issue is, in my opinion. The leadership aide says that Obama needs to step up to twist those arms, which one assumes from the comment, he is not doing. And Dick Durbin, who is Obama's staunchest supporter in the Senate, is basically saying that nobody's going to play hardball. So, there you have it. At least for today.
As I've been writing for a while, it's all about cloture. There's no need for them to vote for the final bill, they just need to allow their president and the people of the United States to have a simple up or down vote on health care reform. And there is a cluster of egos in the centrist caucus (not the least of whom is Holy Joe) that is getting ready to stamp their little feet and hold their breath until they turn blue unless someone, goddamn it, finally understands that they are the most important people in the world.
The GOP’s 1996 candidate for president said he was asked by current Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., not to issue a bipartisan statement calling for passage of health care reform legislation.
“We’re already hearing from some high-ranking Republicans that we shouldn’t do that — that’s helping the president,” Dole said. He later specified that the people he referred to included one “very prominent Republican, who happens to be the Republican leader of the Senate,” according to The Kansas City Star .Dole was also quoted as saying that partisanship by his own GOP was behind the delay in reaching agreement on a final health care bill..
I don't expect Dole to suddenly go on the air and rip into his party, but the fact that this much got out says a lot. The republicans have no plan for health care reform so any words that come from older republicans on the hot topic carries a sting to it.
Mitch will be on Face the Nation today and I wonder if Bob Schieffer will bring it up or read a David Brooks column. Maybe they'll just want to talk about the Nobel Peace prize. What do you think?
Listening to the golden boy, Paul Ryan present his argument about how to reform health care is the disease that needs to be given immediate health care attention to. Turning to the free market has failed America and he knows it and admits that too, but can't break from his party to tell the truth on how we should fix it. However, Barney Frank corners him into admitting that Republicans/conservatives, (whatever you call the party of George Bush) failed to reform health care for the eight years that they ran the country.
FRANK: I just want to ask Paul one question. … When did you figure that out? Because apparently for the 12 years that the Republicans were in control — eight of which had a Republican president — that hadn’t occurred to you. So I’m glad you now understand that. Can you tell me at what moment the revelation occurred?
RYAN: First of all, I introduced on this subject about six years ago.
FRANK: You had control of the Congress. Why didn’t the Republican Congress fix it?
RYAN: I will have a moment of bipartisan agreement. We should have fixed this under our watch and I’m frustrated we didn’t.
I doubt he's frustrated because Republicans never, ever wanted to fix health care for America. Michael Moore's movie called "Sicko" really was instrumental in shining a light on our health care nightmares to the country and made it a problem that no longer could be ignored. He deserves a lot of praise for that. And Frank gets major props for getting Ryan to admit that at least they failed under Bush. The next question is to ask the media: why then should we give a good damn about what conservatives have to say about health care if all they do is make outrageous claims about death panels and obstruct in an effort to discredit the president?
Michael Steele has been nothing short of an embarrassment to the Republican Party. (That's just fine with me, he can stay as long as he likes) He fits right in with today's feckless GOP, but it appears there is trouble in paradise, as some party leaders are finally growing tired of his buffoonery:
GOP leaders, in a private meeting last month, delivered a blunt and at times heated message to RNC Chairman Michael Steele: quit meddling in policy.
The plea was made during what was supposed to be a routine discussion about polling matters and other priorities in House Minority Leader John Boehner’s office. But the session devolved into a heated discussion about the roles of congressional leadership and Steele, according to multiple people familiar with the meeting.
The congressional leaders were particularly miffed that Steele had in late August unveiled a seniors’ “health care bill of rights” without consulting with them. The statement of health care principles, outlined in a Washington Post op-ed, began with a robust defense of Medicare that puzzled some in a party not known for its attachment to entitlements.
It's no secret that the Republican Party is a rudderless ship, devoid of leadership, but this incident shows a deeper divide between Steele and party lawmakers:
There are larger issues at hand, though, beyond a tense exchange over strategy. Since Steele took over the party earlier this year, congressional leaders and their staff have often cringed at the voluble chairman’s gaffes and rolled their eyes at his unambiguous view that he alone leads the party.
“He’s on a short leash here,” said one top House GOP leadership aide.Read on...
Steele's very existence as RNC chairman (and subsequent failure) is merely a symptom of the party's short sighted strategy of throwing out generic personalities to match Democratic front runners. He was supposed to be a counter-balance to then Senator Obama, to try and attract black voters, and of course, there's no denying that the party made a fatal error in shoving Sarah Palin onto the 2008 presidential ticket in an attempt to counter Hillary Clinton. You get what you pay for, and the GOP is definitely suffering from buyers remorse.
