The conventional wisdom about the Stupak bill among the male-dominated media: Why won't the women just sit down, shut up and let the men folk do their political bidness? What is all this talk about "rights"?

Instead, ask yourself these questions: Why is it that the moderates conservatives always get their way - at the expense of liberals, and of alleged Democratic party values? Why is the compromise always on our end? Why aren't people like Bart Stupak being told to "put on their big boy pants" and swallow compromise to get health care reform?

And why isn't some progressive politician introducing a bill to cut off funding for special education or any other services at Catholic schools? After all, how is providing the services from a trailer at the far end of the school parking lot not an "accounting trick"? Why aren't liberals aggressively challenging the tax-exempt status of the Catholic church?

I was under the impression we had freedom of religion in this country. Apparently, I was wrong.

WORCESTER - Opening up a major fissure in the US Senate race, Attorney General Martha Coakley said yesterday that she opposes the landmark health care bill approved by the House Saturday because it contains a provision restricting federal funding for abortion.

Coakley, in her boldest gamble of the campaign, said that fighting for women’s access to abortions was more important than passing the overall bill, despite its aim of providing coverage for 36 million people, establishing a public insurance option, and prohibiting insurers from discriminating against patients with preexisting conditions.

“To pretend that now the House has passed this bill is real progress - it’s at the expense of women’s access to reproductive rights," Coakley said in an interview, after making similar comments yesterday morning on Boston radio station WTKK-FM.

[...] Coakley’s opposition to the bill put her squarely at odds with her three rivals for the Democratic nomination, including US Representative Michael E. Capuano, who voted in favor of the plan and blasted Coakley’s stance yesterday, calling it “manna from heaven" for his campaign.

“I find it interesting and amazing, and she would have stood alone among all the prochoice members of Congress, all the members of the Massachusetts delegation," Capuano said in an interview. “She claims she wants to honor Ted Kennedy’s legacy on health care. It’s pretty clear that a major portion of this was his bill."

He went on: “If she’s not going to vote for any bill that’s not perfect, she wouldn’t vote for any bill in history. She would have voted against Medicare, the Civil Rights bill. . . . Realism is something you have to deal with in Washington."

Why is it that "realism" is always and inevitably at the expense of women, gays and minorities? Is that the new Democratic value?

UPDATE: Apparently Capuano has since changed his position, saying he'll vote against the bill if Stupak amendment stays.

Apparently the Catholic Church, just like the other Beltway lobbyists, now writes our legislation.

The drama had built for months, pitting a group of Democrats against the Catholic Church. Priests and bishops were calling members to lobby for stricter language to limit abortion coverage, members and aides said last week.

But the final decision played out over a few furious hours Friday night as the fate of the broader bill still hung in the balance and stirred up long-dormant tensions within the Democratic Party over reproductive rights.

The beneficiary of this impasse was Stupak, an outspoken abortion-rights opponent whom the leadership had tried to circumvent, in order to pick up the votes he claimed to represent. After months of stalemate, the speaker was forced to accept language Stupak first drafted over the summer that would bar any insurance company that participates in the exchange — including the government option — from offering insurance plans that would cover abortions.

“Normally, at the end of the day, you’re arguing over fine-tuning,” said an aide whose boss was involved in the negotiations. “But this is a sizable change to current policy. So everyone was kind of stunned.”

For more than a decade, the Hyde amendment has prohibited the federal government from paying for abortions through any existing government program. The law needs to be reauthorized each year as part of the appropriations process, but the two sides had come to something of a détente.

The health care fight, however, disrupted that balance, and a big bloc of anti-abortion Democrats were threatening to derail the entire bill unless party leaders agreed to stronger restrictions the church could accept. Since mid-September, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer had been working closely with Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.) to craft language that would thread what proved to be an impossible needle.

Ellsworth, in consultation with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, was trying to amend legislation passed out of the Energy and Commerce Committee to make sure insurance companies that receive federal funds under the programs created by the bill don’t use any of that money to pay for abortions.

Continue reading »

Who didn't see this orgy of media "analysis" coming? According to the media, anything at all that happens is good news for Republicans, as Atrios says.

You know how crazy it is when Bob Schieffer's making sense.

But the question is, why are Democrats such wankers? Really. We just gained two more proudly progressive seats in Congress (one of them replacing a Blue Dog), but instead they're fixated on 1) a state that has always voted for the out-of-power party in gubernatorial races, helped along by a very bad Democratic candidate and 2) another state that, like the self-destructive electorate of California, loves to vote for anyone who says they have a magic secret formula to cut property taxes. Sheesh.

Do they really not understand the point of healthcare reform? There are many reasons, but the economic argument is simple: It's so people who lose their jobs won't have to worry. It's so employers who are afraid to hire because of premium costs can afford to do so. This has everything to do with jobs - and it's their job to make that clear.

Are they really that appallingly bad at the sales and marketing of this simple idea?

Democrats on Capitol Hill began a nervous debate Wednesday about the course President Obama has set for their party, with some questioning whether they should emphasize job creation over some of the more ambitious items on the president's agenda.

The conversations came as White House officials insisted that the party's gubernatorial defeats in Virginia and New Jersey had few implications for Obama's standing or for Democratic prospects in the 2010 midterm elections.

But moderate and conservative Democrats (Editor's note: Or, as we like to call them, aspiring Republicans) took a clear signal from Tuesday's voting, warning that the results prove that independent voters are wary of Obama's far-reaching proposals and mounting spending, as well as the growing federal debt. Liberal lawmakers, meanwhile, said the party's shortcoming came in moving too slowly on health-care reform and other items that would satisfy a base becoming disenchanted with the failure to deliver rapid change in government.

Voters in both states cited the economy as by far their top concern, and many lawmakers said the outcomes were a blunt wake-up call to put the issue front and center.

"The question is, do people think we're tending to the things they care about?" said Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) as he left a meeting of Senate leaders. He said there was palpable concern among his colleagues Wednesday that the main agenda items Democrats are pursuing -- health care and climate change -- resonate very little with voters focused on finding or keeping jobs.

Are they kidding me? Do they actually know any unemployed people? Because I do, a ton of 'em. And every single one over 40 talks about how they can't wait until they get some help with health care.

Why, oh why are Democrats so out of touch with reality? I guess because they don't have to worry about paying for health care or getting another job if they lose this one - they can always become lobbyists. Really, they need to sit down with some bloggers and stop listening to Beltway soothsayers.

From the comment section of C&L:

Fleischer on CNN Tue, 11/03/2009 - 19:16 — fastfeat

Can we finally nix guests, hosts that call the Democratic Party the 'Democrat' Party?

I'm truly sick and tired of the hosts being limp-d*&ked on the terminology.

Networks that cover politics should at least have their "experts" get the name of the party they are talking about correct. Is that too much to ask? I know we all at times say "Democrat," but there's is a conscious effort to smear the party by the Karl Roves of the right. Is it OK if every Democratic strategist and party member refer to Republican party members as "Repukes?"

CNN Democratic Strategist: Yes, well the teabaggers led by Palin and Beck with help from the Club for Growth chased away Scozzafava, a moderate "Repuke" in NY-23 and replaced her with Doug Hoffman, a much crazier 'Repuke.' Now the Repukes are involved in a bitter civil war which will bode well for the Democratic Party.

I wonder if that would be acceptable to Joe Klein of CNN. I mean, he does book the most vile right wing teabagger of all with no reservations.

I was writing something pretty close to this and decided to link to the Great Orange Satan.

KOS:

There will be much number-crunching tomorrow, but preliminary numbers (at least in Virginia) show that GOP turnout remained the same as last year, but Democratic turnout collapsed. This is a base problem, and this is what Democrats better take from tonight:

1. If you abandon Democratic principles in a bid for unnecessary "bipartisanship", you will lose votes.

2. If you water down reform in favor of Blue Dogs and their corporate benefactors, you will lose votes.

3. If you forget why you were elected -- health care, financial services, energy policy and immigration reform -- you will lose votes.

Tonight proved conclusively that we're not going to turn out just because you have a (D) next to your name, or because Obama tells us to. We'll turn out if we feel it's worth our time and effort to vote, and we'll work hard to make sure others turn out if you inspire us with bold and decisive action.

The choice is yours. Give us a reason to vote for you, or we sit home. And you aren't going to make up the margins with conservative voters. They already know exactly who they're voting for, and it ain't you.

Health care should have been passed by the August recess, but to have it go on and on has been a huge mistake. And waiting until next year only makes it worse.

Amazing. They don't know why people are angry - and their feelings are hurt. All over the country, people are losing their homes, their life savings and their jobs - and they're upset that the Obama administration is criticizing them over the latest round of million-dollar bonuses.

I think the word I'm groping for here is "narcissists":

WASHINGTON — The Wall Street giants that received a financial lifeline from Washington may have no compunction about paying big bonuses to their dealmakers and traders. But their willingness to deliver “thank you” gifts to President Obama and the Democrats is another question altogether.

Mr. Obama will fly to New York on Tuesday for a lavish Democratic Party fund-raising dinner at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel for about 200 big donors. Each donor is paying the legal maximum of $30,400 and is allowed to take a date. Four of the seven “co-chairs” listed on the invitation work in finance, and Democratic Party organizers say they expect that about a third of the attendees will come from the industry.

But from the financial giants like Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup that received federal bailout money — and whose bankers raised millions of dollars for Mr. Obama’s election — only a half-dozen or fewer are expected to attend (estimated total contribution: $91,200).

Part of the reason, several Democratic fund-raisers and executives said, is a fear of getting caught in the public rage over the perception that Wall Street titans profiting from their government bailout may use their winnings to give back to Washington in return. And the timing of the event, as the industry lobbies against proposals for tighter regulations to address the underlying causes of last year’s meltdown on Wall Street, has only added to the worry over public appearances.

“There are sensitivities there,” said Scott Talbot, a lobbyist for the industry’s Financial Services Roundtable. Political contributions “can make a donor a target,” Mr. Talbot said. Many involved, though, say the low attendance from those Wall Street giants also reflected a broader disenchantment with Mr. Obama over the angry language emanating from the White House over the million-dollar bonuses and anti-regulatory lobbying.

“There is some failure in the finance industry to appreciate the level of public antagonism toward whatever Wall Street symbolizes,” said Orin Kramer, a partner in an investment firm who is a Democratic fund-raiser and one of the event’s chairmen. “But in order to save the capitalist system, the administration has to be responsive to the public mood, and that is a nuance which can get lost on Wall Street.”

Sen. Arlen Specter told Fox News' Chris Wallace that the Republican Party was the party of "no, no, no" when it comes to passing meaningful health care reform. While Specter believes the public option is "gaining momentum" within the Democratic Party, the GOP is the "party of obstructionism," said Specter.

UPDATE: Joe Sestak and Ned Lamont will be on C&L live chatting with us tomorrow, Monday Oct. 19th at 3pm PST/6pm EST so don't miss it.

Ann Coulter revealed her inner Lyndon LaRouche last night on Sean Hannity's Fox News show:

Coulter: This has nothing to do with reality. There -- I mean, most of the things, it's not a matter of forgiving Rush for saying them, he never said them -- but one thing that I think might be, I don't know, in my book, unforgivable, would be being a Nazi collaborator. And oh yeah, part of the consortium trying to buy the St. Louis Rams is still George Soros, who admitted on TV to having collaborated with the Nazis. But he's fine, because he owns the Democratic Party.

... But in any event, I would wager that a fair number of the players would agree more with Rush Limbaugh's politics than with George Soros' politics. I mean, not for nothing, a lot of them are Christians, point one. Point two -- and I mean real Christians, you know, Christ Christians -- and point two, they make a lot of money. I don't know that they like all these tax-and-spend plans of the Democrats. So I wouldn't hold it against the players. It's just these wussy owners --

Hannity: I want to know if Dave Checketts is now going to tell Soros to take a hike. Maybe that's the next question. Somebody needs to ask the NFL if they want George Soros to be a part owner. If this is the world we live in --

Coulter: An admitted -- right -- and he's an admitted Nazi collaborator. He pointed out who the Jews were in Hungary when he was 15 years old. He admitted that to Steve Croft on TV.

She's right, this explanation certainly had nothing to do with reality. Leaving aside the absurdity of claiming that NFL owners -- who are probably some of the most right-wing rock-ribbed group of Republicans in business -- were being "politically correct" and "prejudiced against conservatives" (as Hannity put it) ... And the absurdity of claiming that "he didn't say those things" by cherry-picking two fake racist quotes while ignoring the twenty genuine racist quotes ...

Coulter is not just grossly, immorally distorting Soros' story, she is also flat-out lying about it too. The claim that Soros was a "Nazi collaborator" originated with the LaRouche organization and has since spread to the likes of David Horowitz.

The facts: Soros was a Hungarian Jew who survived the Holocaust. From Media Matters:

Michael T. Kaufman wrote in a biography of Soros, Soros: The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire (Knopf, 2002), that Soros' father attempted to protect his family from Nazi persecution by paying an employee of Hungary's Ministry of Agriculture named Baumbach to take in Soros, "ostensibly as his godson." Soros accompanied his "godfather" as he went to oversee the confiscation of property from Hungarian Jews, as Media Matters has noted.

This is also where Coulter actually lies about Soros, too -- and it's an outrageous lie, too. Soros never was involved in "pointing out Jews" -- he simply accompanied his protector while he carried out his civic duties, which included confiscating property from Jews.

Here's the relevant passage from the 60 Minutes interview in question:

Continue reading »

From the Democratic Party Convention in Florida.

h/t TheManimalMan

(Tip O'Neil - always wondering when Reagan was going to leave the pony)

In the 1940s up to the 60s we had that segment of the Democratic Party known as Dixiecrats, the ones who appeared to have no party unity and seemed to march to their own sets of erratic drummers. Now we have the Blue Dogs who, much like the Dixiecrats, seem incapable of following their party affiliation and are, for some bizarre reason, intent on undermining what they were elected for in the first place. But I almost forgot about the Boll Weevils of the 1980s, those conservative Democrats, like their brethren before and after who almost always voted with Republicans and actively supported Reagan programs.

There's been a lot of talk of late about recriminations for the Blue Dogs, particularly with their seeming contempt of the party that brought them there.

It appears Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neil had much the same predicament on his hands during the Reagan Years with the Boll Weevils. It cost the party quite a lot during those years, especially since the Republicans had adopted a lock-step approach, much as they do now.

Here is a "Face The Nation" episode from June 27, 1982 featuring Tip O'Neil and a panel of CBS reporters asking about the current state of the Democrats on the Hill.

O’Neil: “Approximately 90 percent of the Democratic party has always stayed with us. Through the years . . . we never needed the Boll Weevils, we always had twenty-five or thirty Republicans, moderates and liberals, particularly from the Northeast of the country who always voted with the Democrats. We lost 43 Democratic seats last year, And so the discipline in our party has been good. Now that the Boll Weevils haven’t been voting with us . . but for thirty years they have been voting with us. The Republicans interestingly, have voted in robot step – all of those Northeastern and city Republicans , they have voted the . . .the Republicans have also had better discipline than they ever had before. Now, there are those who want to criticize the Boll Weevils and say we should punish them. That the Speaker should remove them from the committee. Our day of reckoning is the week of . . . the first week in December of every other year when we meet to formulate the rules. That is the particular time when we elect the members to the committee. That is the time for the people to stand up, if they want to write in to the rules of our caucus that you must go along with the rules as offered by the leadership, the previous question and things like that and punish somebody for that reason . . it’s not in our rules at the present time. Secondly, I’ve seen punishment along the line. I saw a man leave our party and go to the Republican party and get elected and take a Democratic . . .I saw a man removed from the second spot in the committee to the last spot in the committee, go home and become the Governor of his state. Punishment hasn’t worked out there, to be perfectly truthful. But the interesting factor – it’s in the caucus where these things should be done. There is no way in which we can remove a man from a committee. Because it goes from the policy committee to the caucus. And after the caucus it then goes to the floor, it’s a perfunctory matter when it goes to the floor. But in order to remove a man you’ve got to start where you finished. You’ve got to start and remove him from the committee by a vote of the Congress, and that’s an impossible thing to do”

Although the circumstance are different, my guess is O'Neil had much the same problems as Pelosi does now.

That unwillingness to dance with the one what brought them there.

I would like to see more stories like this please.

Maddow: But, first, it‘s time for a couple of holy mackerel stories in the news today.

If there is a benefit to the maddening Democratic Party failure on the issue of the public health insurance option, it could be the revival of the once believed to be extinct hard line liberal base. The AFL-CIO yesterday drew its own line in the sand by saying it would not support Democratic candidates who do not support the public option in health reform. And as David Sirota notes at “Huffington Post” today, threats from the left have shifted the rhetoric of incumbent Democratic Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado.

Here‘s where Senator Bennet started. At a town hall meeting in Pueblo on Saturday, Senator Bennet gave flimsy support to the idea of the public option. He said then that he favored the option, but, quote, “As I stand here today, I think it‘s very unlikely that the public option part of this will pass.” In other words, he was saying he would probably vote for health reform without the public option.

Then, reports circulated that Senator Bennet will likely face a primary challenge from Democratic House Speaker Andrew Romanoff. And now, look at what Senator Bennet has posted at his Web site.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MICHAEL BENNET (D), COLORADO: I do support a public option as part of this.

(APPLAUSE)

BENNET: I have said I support a public option. I‘ve supported a public option. I support a public option. I‘ve supported a public option. Why? I also support having a public plan.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: So, the senator supports the public option after all. Yes.

You know, having been taken for granted and triangulated and on occasion just stomped on during decades of Democratic Party policy decisions, the left may be learning its lesson. If you don‘t lie down in front of the door, you‘re less likely to get used as a door mat.

(Newt - Would you buy a used promise from this man?)

Gingrich:"Think about a party whose last stand is to frighten 85-year-olds, and you'll understand how totally morally bankrupt the modern Democratic Party is,"

Oh?

In case you forgot - the Republicans did try their hand at Health Care reform in 1995. Then it was Medicare and the intention was to gut it, although they (as always) offered no details. They were quick to lob fear into the monologue - as they seem so willing to do at every opportunity.

Below is a summary (h/t Jon)

G.O.P. ANNOUNCES PLAN TO OVERHAUL MEDICARE SYSTEM

By ROBERT PEAR

Published: Friday, September 15, 1995

House Republican leaders unveiled their proposal to redesign Medicare today,
but it was surprisingly short on details and had none of the expected
financial incentives for elderly people to join health maintenance
organizations or other private health plans.

The package is supposed to cut projected Medicare spending by $270 billion,
or 14 percent, over the next seven years, and Republicans had hoped to
achieve much of the savings through greater use of H.M.O.'s and other forms
of managed care.

They said affluent beneficiaries should pay much higher premiums, but they
acknowledged that they were still struggling to achieve the savings they
need to meet their self-imposed goal.

Continue reading »

Rachel Maddow talks to Matt Taibbi about what is going to happen to the Democratic Party if the White House settles for a bill with no public option. Taibbi feels that this is the moment the progressive wing of the party draws a line in the sand. They note that Bernie Sanders in the Senate and Anthony Weiner in the House have both said that if there's no public option, there will be no bill at all.

Taibbi thinks a deal was cut from the beginning between the White House and the insurance and pharmaceutical industries and that they never intended to have a public option. As both Taibbi and Maddow note it doesn't matter what the Democrats do, they're not going to get any Republican support for the health care bill, so wooing Republicans doesn't make any sense.

Taibbi has an article coming out at Rolling Stone Friday titled Sick and Wrong: How Washington is Screwing up Health Care Reform and Why It May Take a Revolt to Fix It. Sounds about right.

Cokie Roberts and her husband just penned an article that attacks liberals who have gone after the Ben Nelson's of the Democratic Party that are sabotaging health care reform. Steve and Cokie Roberts: Blessed are the majority makers. You see in Villagese, it's the few Ben Nelson's that has given President Obama the majority in Congress and not the other 257 House members and 59 Senators that actually give him the majority. To Cokie, the public option is nothing more than a gift to liberals that has no inherent significant in it that will impact health care reform. Sitting from her desk on the set of ABC, Cokie says she can craft the perfect health care bill without blinking an eye. Isn't she special?

STEPHANOPOULOS: it'll force him to go slower, which is probably a good thing, but the problem he may have is actually managing his liberal base.

ROBERTS: Absolutely, I think that is going to be the problem because look....you could sit here right now, even though it's complicated we can sit at this table and write a bill...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Insurance reforms, some costs control...

ROBERTS: And, but no public option and it's a bill that's actually been there for a very long time. You can take the Wyden-Bennett, it is a bipartisan bill. And Howard Baker and Bob Dole have a bill, you know there are bills out there that are doable. And if I had to guess in the end I think that's probably what is going to happen is something much more watered down ...

STEPHANOPOULOS:...But will the Howard Dean wing of the party go along?

ROBERTS: No, they are going to be absolutely furious and that is the problem that he's got right now. He's already got the liberals

NOONAN: Maybe it would be good for the president if he got absolutely furious about something.

ROBERTS: Well, I think that's the middle advantage. (Cokie's last words were tough to hear)

NOONAN: I understand what's going on, we got a little middle stuff going on around here, we got some centrism. That ain't so bad.

Peggy Noonan is so cute talking about centrism. That's a word she would never use if Reagan and Bush were in charge. Cokie is insufferable with her rant because it makes no sense, but that's a Villager for you. See, any elitist gasbag can craft sweeping health care reforms in an hour. I'm shocked that ABC didn't devote a ten minute segment so that Cokie could lead the round table to write the exact legislation that Congress should vote on and President Obama would sign into law. It would have saved the country so much time and energy. Why didn't she think of that? That Cokie is so brilliant.

In Cokie's world, we're the problem. It's not the obstructionist Republicans and all the health care establishment groups that have fought to block health care reform since 1948. Naw, it's OK for them to destroy it just like ABC's first guest---Newt Gingrich did. What Gingrich does is perfectly acceptable to the beltway weenies because that's the way she likes it. It's those dirty f*&king hippies that want true health care reform that are the problem. We actually have a voice at the table now and that's too much for her. How dare we ask for a good bill and not some watered down piece of crap that Roberts has a hankering for? The serious people in Washington think that Obama should trash his base while Bush should embrace his. Typical 1988 conventional wisdom. Conservative opposition to everything Democratic is the way the world turns under Cokie and the DC insiders. Oh, and what type of health care does she enjoy today? Conservative opposition to everything Democratic is the way the world turns under Cokie. Oh, and what type of health care does she enjoy?

Rush Limbaugh went on an insane rant today that really is up there with his very best:

Limbaugh: It's right out of Adolf Hitler's playbook. Now, what are the similarities between the Democrat Party today and the Nazi Party in Germany? Well, the Nazis were against big business. They hated big business and of course we all know that they were opposed to Jewish capitalism. They were insanely, irrationally against pollution. They were for two years mandatory voluntary service to Germany. They had a whole bunch of make-work projects to keep people working, one of which was the Autobahn. They were against cruelty and vivisection of animals, but in the radical sense of devaluing human life, they banned smoking. They were totally against that. They were for abortion and euthanasia of the undesirables, as we all know, and they were for cradle-to-grave nationalized healthcare.

Tweety tries to paint Rush-Bo as an entertainer after he played this clip, but listening to him masturbate to a Nazi/Hitler/Democratic party parallel just leaves you feeling sick. It was Big Business that financed Hitler and they all smoked cigarettes, fergawdsake. Being against pollution means you're part of the SS? And, what, was Rush in business with Michael Vick or something?

Limbaugh has flipped his lid, ladies and gentlemen.