"If we fractionalize the Republican Party, we are going to see more liberals elected."
This person went on to blame the 2008 election of Jeff Merkley over Gordon Smith on the candidacy of David Brownlow, a Constitutionalist who would likely be a Teabagger this year. I had followed that race closely and thought it had to do with Smith's legal and moral problems related to the physical maltreatment of workers at his chicken processing plant, but hey....
Give up? None other than Orrin Hatch.
Yes, that Orrin Hatch.
Since we first started looking at the fractionalization of the IIE about a year ago, we always wondered which sect would end up with the "soul" of the IIE. We talked about the old GOP rift between the Goldwater and Rockefeller camps in 1964. The rise of the evangelicals since the time of Ronnie Reagan. The fiscal conservatives, the neocons, the wingnuts.
Orrin Hatch is a conservative. See here. The kind of person we'd put IN the tea bag camp. Then again, he's a seasoned pol, and knows what it takes to stay in office. For him to talk about the need to do away with "extreme conservatives" (it's in the link above) is a little unsettling.
Here's where I'm going with this: is it possible that we have become so polarized that even the far edges of both sides are about to yell "enough"? Is it possible that we could lose the middle of our entire political structure, much in the way that entire middle class is disappearing? I mention those two seemingly disparate things because I think they may well be connected.
When I went to college, and took a political economics course, the subject matter related to class battles and their influence on revolt and political change. Political change would, in large ways, be affected by economic changes. For example, the French Revolution. Or the issue of slavery and the US Civil War. The first revisionist book I ever read was The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South by Kenneth Stampp. He contended that slavery was a dying institution due to the invention of the cotton mill, which made it more fiscally feasible to hire workers and pay them, compared to the costs of housing and feeding slaves. That the Civil War was more about land than the "morality" (or lack thereof) of slavery per se.
At the time I went to college, there was the upper class, the upper middle class, the middle class, and the impoverished. It was possible to support a family on a single salary. Women worked, but most generally as teachers, nurses, librarians and secretaries. Political affiliation was closely aligned with social strata, economic standing, and educational level.
No more.
I believe that the diminishing numbers of people considered "middle class" has a lot to do with driving the tea baggers: these people are overwhelmingly white, middle-aged to elderly, and quickly losing their hold on being "middle class." the cling tenaciously to a political movement which seems to promise a return to a world more understandable, more stable, and "better." I doubt that most teabaggers give much thought to their elected officials beyond the fact that they are in power, and are not delivering what the constituency wants. They believe that "fiscal conservatism" with an overlay of G-d, will solve all problems.
They could not be more wrong.
On the other hand, you have the elected pols who understand the eccentricities and nuances of the political structure. They understand that most change is incremental, and there are firm limits to what a single branch of government can do without causing other branches to pop-up in retaliation. (Think potential Congressional and Executive action relative to the SCOTUS decision on money and political campaigns.) You also have the political junkies who do understand the system, and make considered decisions.
But back to Orrin. He knows, as do all entrenched elected Republicans, that "fiscal moderation" to the extent the teabaggers want, is not possible given the size of the debt, and the current obligations of the government to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the military budget. Ceasing to make payments on the debt, or cutting the other programs back to nothing would cause huge problems. So he'll move as far to the middle as he can.
If Orrin and his minions fail, they will be replaced with tea bag candidates who don't understand the system, and can't come up with legislation that can work, or with an even larger Democratic majority. From our perspective, we need to determine whether running Democratic moderates or more liberal Democrats would be more effective both electorally and in terms of legislative priorities.
Greetings from snow central. The DC portion of the Federal government is closed today.
Spunky was the keynote speaker at the Tea Bag Convention on Saturday night. She put crib notes on her palm. My question is who did the actual writing? And thinking. But I digress.
It appears that she wants to run as a Republican AND a Teabagger. I understand easily that running as a Republican gives her ballot access, while running on a non-party would be difficult in many states. But it begs the question if Teabaggers are anti-government, how will they feel about voting Republican? OR if Spunky is able to BE the voice, face, and soul of the Republican Party, where do the remaining 12 Republican moderates and 37 AA Republicans go?
And what about Todd? The new email release shows that he passed proprietary data from his employer to the Alaskan government, "helped" make and break nominations and other hiring and firing decisions, and truly was a "shadow governor". And that's just what we've seen so far, much has been redacted, and more is coming.
While married couples certainly share information, do the teabaggers want Todd to have the launch codes? Maybe they don't care.
But the thing I'm really thinking about relates to the teabag supporters. I understand that people don't like paying taxes. I'm not one of those people because I believe in paying taxes. I want to pay taxes, because I believe in government services. I like roads, schools, libraries, a court system, and all the rest. I want some of the money I earn to go to services for people who need them. While I have a strict no-kill policy and therefore detest that a single dime of my money has ever gone for war, I am glad that some of my hard earned dollars have fed the hungry and provided medical care for the poor and helped to keep seniors solvent. But still, I understand the teabag rage against taxes. I understand that there is waste in government: I think we all realize it's part of the system that could use some improvement.
But the teabaggers have no implementable ideas. They seem unable to say where they would cut if they did decrease income from taxes. Do they want to do away with compulsory education? Do they feel libraries are superfluous because if you have a bible you don't need any other books? How will they pay for the wars they love so much? What will they do when children start starving to death? Have they forgotten what the world was like in the age of Upton Sinclair?
I don't think that Sarah Palin is electable for national office. Certainly not president. If she were able to capture the Republican nomination, it would be lightening rod for all of the progressives, moderates, non-voters, and anyone else who can read to rally to re-elect President Obama in 2012. But the fact that she has so much pull is indicative that we really are becoming, as my brother calls it, the United States of Entertainment. That being cute and dumb as a board plays well with far too many people.
You may remember the proposed legislation in Uganda that would kill people for being gay, and imprison people who knew that someone was gay and did not turn him/her in to the authorities. You may also remember that help for the development of this legislation came from the folks over at The Family.
Hold that thought.
Every year, there is a National Prayer Breakfast attended by the sitting US President and various domestic and foreign dignitaries and politicians. This year, the breakfast and The Family are colliding.
Usually, the annual event passes with little notice. But this year, an ethics group in Washington has asked President Obama and Congressional leaders to stay away from the breakfast, on Thursday. Religious and gay rights groups have organized competing prayer events in 17 cities, and protesters are picketing in Washington and Boston. [...]
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a government watchdog group, sent a letter this week to the president and Congressional leaders urging them to skip the prayer breakfast. They have also called on C-Span not to televise it this year. [...]
The Family has no identifiable Internet site, no office number and no official spokesman. J. Robert Hunter, a member who has spoken publicly about the group, said that it was unfair to blame the Family for the anti-gay legislation introduced by David Bahati. Mr. Hunter said that about 30 Family members, all Americans, active in Africa recently conveyed their dismay about the legislation to Ugandan politicians, including Mr. Bahati.
Likely the breakfast will go on, and will be attended by the president. Which is too bad, because appeasement of the evangelicals is just as bad as appeasement of the insurance industry in dealing with health reform.
In the past several days, I've seen a lot of news items wherein the Republican leadership has been proven to have their facts wrong. Massively wrong. Here's an example: the underwear bomber became radicalized because of the Bush administration, but cooperated with the Obama administration, and provided current, legitimate intelligence, because his family was convinced that this administration would follow the rule of law. They then convinced the bomber. No torture. When you listen to the IIE leadership, they seem to have their facts backwards.
They seem, in discussing budgets and finance, to conveniently forget the deficit growth due to the Bush administration, which dwarfed everything else. They deny anything and everything that does not fit into what they want their view of the world to be.
My question is whether this is an actual belief system on the part of the IIE and the minions who follow them, or perhaps they actually are that stupid. I don't know. And I want to understand.
I have a 7-year-old niece who recently tried to convince me that I could leave her alone at the house while I picked up her younger sister at day care because "mommy and daddy let me use the oven when they're gone, and I can bake cookies for all of us." Now, I know she wanted cookies, and I give her credit for taking the shot, but what I was unable to figure out was whether or not she actually BELIEVED that she was capable of using the oven or whether she believed she could convince me. I know the actual truth, which is that the stove is question is some specially-designed electronic marvel which has a magnetic knob on the top. When you remove the knob (and put it, say, on top of the fridge where 7-year-olds cannot find it) the stove and oven cannot turn on. It's a child safety device. Even if you don't know my brother, you can see that the objective truth is that parents do not buy stoves with that level of child-proofing if they'll leave a little kid (not tall enough to clear the cook top) alone with a hot oven.
It's not that different with the GOP/IIE - do they actually believe that torture is a better idea, or have they just reached the point of trying to convince the rest of us because they think it will help them win elections?
And what of the minions who actually believe the )*#@&^@$) being fed them by the GOP? Do they believe that the KSM trial would be an aberration in NY after the 20+ civil trials of other terrorists which occurred without incident over the past 25 years? Go all the way back to 1993 and the first World Trade Center bombing: those people were arrested, tried in NY civil court, convicted and are now still in jail.
How do so many Republicans and tea baggers believe that Medicare is good, but extending it as far down as age 62 would ruin the country?
Why do they believe that Obama is not American? Still?
Even in 2008, when someone would say "I know Obama says X and McCain says Y" it was possible to pull up their campaign materials and show the voter what the truth was.
But now, more and more, I hear something akin to religion.
"The priest Mitch McConnell told me so, therefore it must be true. A priest McConnell wouldn't lie."
THAT level of blind adherence.
How do you get people to see and hear the truth, when they have been brainwashed? Can you? Do people believe the Republicans because they hate us so much that they'll cling to anything that is not the Democratic Party? Or are they really that they have lost the ability to hear/read two sides of something and intellectually determine what is true and what is false? Are the people like my niece, who wants cookies SO VERY BADLY that she'll believe her own lies?
You may think this is an abstract intelligencic ramble, but it's not: this is a real consideration. This election year, it won't just be promoting a candidate and countering a lie against said candidate, it will be trying to explain (kindly, gently) to Kool-Aid drinkers that they've been brainwashed. Or maybe they haven't been brainwashed: it's that our country has become so dumbed down that most people will believe anything that strikes their fancy on a given day.
I don't know. I honestly don't. But "stupid or brainwashed" is a bad multiple choice answer set for the question "Which word best describes the electorate in 2010?"
It's been a busy week for those wascally wepublicans. As an aside, since I get mail, if you're new "IIE" is my pet name for them: it stands for Idiots in Exile.
As you know, the House Republicans went to Baltimore. But did you know that the RNC went to Hawaii? Yup, the annual committee meeting. So much for financial responsibility. One of their actions there was to consider the Loyalty Oath 61% of you were so opposed to the last time we polled it. They didn't actually approve a loyalty oath, rather a "Platform Test". It's not a straight litmus test, but "recommends" that the RNC only provide funding to those candidates who align with the party platform.
It came from member Bill Crocker (no relation to Betty) who said:
No more Scozzafavas, please. No more Specters, please. No more Chafees, please.
The idea is to bar any funding to anyone considered not right enough. It was adopted over the more stringent 7 of 10 policy platforms which was opposed by Mike Steele and the others less, um, far right wacko than others.
At least half a dozen leaders of the Republican Party have joined forces to create a new political group with the goal of organizing grass-roots support and raising funds ahead of the 2010 midterm elections, according to people familiar with the effort.
The organizational details of the group, expected to be called the American Action Network, are still being worked out, but it is expected to contain both a 501(c)3 and a 501(c)4 component. In simpler terms, a 501(c)3 can advocate on policy matters while a 501(c)4 is an election arm.
Republican leaders expected to be affiliated with the group include former Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, former Bush adviser Karl Rove, Republican strategist Ed Gillespie, and Republican donor Fred Malek.
A House leadership aide told Washington Wire today that Rob Collins, a political operative and senior aide to House Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia, is leaving Capitol Hill to be the executive director of the 501(c)4.
But that's not the end of the internecine warfare. Nope - remember that Tuesday election in Illinois? You've certainly heard that Mark Kirk is the front runner in the GOP Senatorial primary. Well, it appears that he lacks appeal to one sect of the GOP: that's right, Tea Party Nation is urging their members to vote against him. They're calling him a RINO with a consistently liberal voting record.
Remember, the Tea Bag Convention kicks off on Thursday. We've heard that they can't fill the seats, but the party is contending there is a waiting list. I have a sense of which is true, and if you want to check that there are still empty seats, have your pay pal account ready so your money can go into the direct account of the wife of the founder. Yummers! Wasn't this something Jim and Tammy Faye Baker did, or do I have my evangelicals confused? It's so hard between the extortion, the money laundering and the philandering.
Last week, two major players said things they should not have said. On the Democratic side, we have Harry Reid, In Mark Halperin and John Heilemann's book Game Change, he is quoted as describing the president as a "light skinned" African-American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one".
He apologized, and said apology was immediately accepted by the President. I believe there is not one of us who has never said anything we should not have said. Not one. The president knows this...in fact, can you think of a sentence using the words "bitter" and "religion" said by a candidate.....in San Fransisco? About a month before the Pennsylvania primary? At a theoretically closed-press meeting? You get the idea.
I doubt Harry Reid will take a huge hit for this. That doesn't mean he'll keep his seat this year, but if he loses the election, it won't be because of his comment about Obama. His numbers stink. His approval rating is under 50, and here are the latest match-ups:
Sue Lowden, former Nevada Republican Party chairwoman, would get 50 percent of the vote to Reid's 40 percent with 10 percent undecided.
Danny Tarkanian, a businessman and former UNLV basketball star, would gain 49 percent of the vote to Reid's 41 percent.
Sharron Angle, a former Reno assemblywoman, would get 45 percent of the vote to Reid's 40 percent, a strong showing given her low name recognition statewide -- 42 percent don't know her.
That's all health care, housing prices and economics.
On the Republican side, we have Michael Steele, who said many, many things he shouldn't have. In fact, he wrote a book he shouldn't have, and then went on a press tour. Probably the biggest misstep was saying that the GOP can't win the House back this year. the Chair of the RNC is supposed to be a cheerleader for his party. He's supposed to at least TRY to find a path to victory, not just give up the first month of an election year. What he said has a 99.9% chance of being true, but he still should not have said it.
He also said that Harry Reid should resign over the Obama comment. This makes me chuckle. I'm lying, it made me laugh out loud. Harry Reid was an Obama supporter. He has carried water since Day 1 of Obama's presidency in all matters legislative. While you can fault him for a lack of spine, often that was what the administration wanted. He has walked a tough line in his dual roles as Senator representing Nevada and Senate Majority Leader (and without having an affair -- how is it that Ensign pays no price for that.....) And Mike Steele thinks he should resign for being a racist????
Mike Steele - chair of the party who brought you "Barack the Magic Negro" sung to the tune of "Puff the Magic Dragon." Mike, who believes that being gay is a choice and that black people would riot if a Starbucks closed in a black neighborhood. I told you I loved this guy as RNC chair - back when he was searching for urban-suburban hip-hop types and one-armed midgets. It was in large part because of him that I renamed the GOP the IIE for "Idiots in Exile" - and now, he AGREES -- exiled to the point that they have no shot at retaking the House.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want the GOP to retake the House (nor the Senate, nor the White House, nor ANY elected position unless Edward Brooke runs for office.) But talk about things you shouldn't say....
We all make choices every day. Not just in what we say, but in how we live our lives: for good or not. I'm pleased that Scott is planning on working the Coakley election, and is asking other moderate Democrats to join him. It's a good choice. I saw this, and it really struck me. It's all a choice. Harry and Mike could have made better ones, but we all get a second chance every day.
Yesterday I met a young man who has never registered to vote. Nice guy. Decided against registering when the table was set up in high school, now a few years later, he sees no reason to vote. NO REASON TO VOTE! You might think this is a standard "I don't want to register because then I can be called to jury duty" story, but it's not.
The man has issues with which he is concerned, specifically DOMA, DADT and gay marriage. He knew about the Prop 1 vote in Maine, and said he was disappointed that the people didn't see the need for marriage equality. I explained that if he had lived in Maine and wasn't registered, that would have been a potential vote lost. That if similar legislation ended up on the ballot here in Pennsylvania, and all the people who were in favour were unregistered, the cretins could vote it down. Epiphany.
He said the real reason he never registered was that politicians promised things, and then went back on them. He said that no one seemed to stand for anything,
I thought about that while reading an article about the RNC "Purity" Resolution. It's basically a loyalty oath which will probably be voted on at the January RNC meeting.
Republican leaders are circulating a resolution listing 10 positions Republican candidates should support to demonstrate that they “espouse conservative principles and public policies” that are in opposition to “Obama’s socialist agenda.” According to the resolution, any Republican candidate who broke with the party on three or more of these issues– in votes cast, public statements made or answering a questionnaire – would be penalized by being denied party funds or the party endorsement.
Two basic things: notice that they chose the word "purity" in lieu of "loyalty". I hear Germany in the '30's in that term, but maybe that's just me. The other thing is that the overwhelming drive of the list involves the word "opposing". The list is after the jump, so you can see what I mean. The list has no ideas, just things to oppose.
I have such mixed feelings about this that I don't even know where to begin.
On the one hand, the list represents everything I dedicate my life to fighting against. On the other hand, I actually believe there is a benefit in people reading the party platform, and then sticking with it. On some third hand, I wonder if this brings the Republican Party closer to implosion by forcing moderates out. I wonder if the Democratic Party had a loyalty oath dedicated to positive action on the part of government, would that make us stronger or weaker? If there are loyalty oaths, does that bring us closer to leaving the two-party system and moving to a set of multiple parties with different issue thrusts, and the potentiality of needing to form coalition governments on specific issues?
I wonder if we had a "loyalty oath" on the issue of health care reform, would we already have a bill ready to implement in January 2010, or fewer members? And which would be better?
Certainly I understand that it's generally a good idea to have a platform to which one adheres to receive party funding. One of the reasons I don't give money to the party is because it can go to ostensible Democrats who actively work against my interests, my issues, and my philosophy.
As for the party endorsements, in the Democratic Party, these have often led to the "preferred" candidate being a moderate or a conservadem, as opposed to a progressive, dating back to the DLC in the early '90's.
And finally, how much easier for my young friend, and many others like him, if it were possible to know where candidates stood, and to be certain that, if elected, they would remain with those positions?
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford faces ethics charges he broke state laws more than three dozen times by violating rules on airplane travel and campaign money, according to details of the allegations released Monday.
It's up to the state attorney general to decide whether to file criminal charges. Sanford's lawyers have claimed the allegations involve minor and technical aspects of the law.
It's about time.
My only question is, given the way both South Carolina and the IIE works, is THIS enough to get him impeached?
Spunky was on her book tour last week, and she gave a bunch of interviews. In one of them, she said she reads Newsmax. And here is what they wrote about her 2012 prospects:
"I can envision a couple of different combinations, if ever I were to be in a position to really even seriously consider running for anything in the future, and I'm not there yet," Palin tells Newsmax. "But Glenn Beck I have great respect for. He's a hoot. He gets his message across in such a clever way. And he's so bold — I have to respect that. He calls it like he sees it, and he's very, very, very effective."
But because the GOP primaries are winner take all, I would not rule out the possibility of Spunky capturing the 2012 nomination.
Which brings up the potential debate between President Obama and Spunky. If I were the moderator, my first question to her would be: spell Uzbekistan, name its leader, two neighboring countries, and the continent on which it resides.
Finally, this is the tape that coulda-shoulda been from the Oprah show. I've been told it's not true, but hey....
When the Stupak amendment banning payments for abortions from the Public Option, even if someone paid the premiums themselves with no government stipend, there was a hue and cry from the conservative wing of the Democratic Party that this was okay. They didn't see that this was NOT something that happened in a vacuum, but rather the evangelicals and other religious types sticking a toe in the water towards an outright ban of all legal abortions. I pointed out in the comments on Tuesday that this would be the beginning of the end of private coverage, and that this is a MEDICAL decision that should be between the woman and her doctor, NOT the government. And a government held hostage by religion, at that.
It took 48 hours for the next shoe to drop.
On Thursday, Michael Steele learned that the RNC's CIGNA health insurance plan covered abortion. They immediately opted out of this coverage, which had been in place since 1991. From Mike's statement:
Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose. I don't know why this policy existed in the past, but it will not exist under my administration. Consider this issue settled.
I hear you now..."but that's the RNC...this won't happen where I work." And..."it doesn't affect me." And.."this is good, I don't want my premium dollars paying for anyone's abortion."
The Stupak amendment was the first step in outlawing abortion. It was the most successful the religious right has been on the Federal level in a long time...I'm thinking possibly back to when the religious right had "Under G-d" inserted in the Pledge of Allegiance in 1955.
For those of you who thought this was about paying for abortions, and NOT about the separation of church and state, remember this:
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist; Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist; Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist; Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew; Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.
It may seem to be about paying for abortions, but it's really about making "religious law" the law of the land. It's creationism taught as science, it's Texas and trying to replace history in the classrooms with religious teachings, it's little steps with a master plan to eviscerate the First Amendment.
I'm sure there will be a lot of venom in the comments from those who think I've misstated this. But time will tell, kids.
My coffeemaker is on the fritz. This is neither news, nor likely of much interest to you. However, since I had to go out yesterday (and today) to buy my coffee, I picked up a copy of theUSA Today. Here are the tidbits from yesterday, I'll have today's tidbits tomorrow since I don't read the paper until the evening.
First, a South Carolina update. We told you back in December the state legislature wanted license plates to be able to sold with a cross and "I BELIEVE" on them. (Link and image of plate here.) Judge Cameron Currie, who had slapped an injunction on the state last year to preclude the plate sales, has now ruled that the license plates violate the separation of church and state, and cannot be sold.
Next up, if you live in Kent, CT, Bill O'Reilly is coming your way. A town resident who lost a son at the Twin Towers went to a local Selectwoman about putting up a plaque, inscribed with words including "Muslim terrorists." The Selectwoman, and the rest of the board, felt that would be inflammatory and rejected the request. O'Reilly is planning on marching on Kent.
If you don't live in Kent, do you live in any of the following towns?
Grand Rapids, MI*
Fort Wayne, IN
Noblesville, IN*
Cincinnati, OH*
Columbus, OH*
Washington, PA
Rochester, NY*
Roanoake, VA
Fort Bragg, NC*
Birmingham, AL*
Jacksonville, FL
The Villages, FL
Orlando, FL*
Springfield, MO
Fayetteville, AR
Plano, TX
Sioux City, IA
Sioux Falls, SD*
Bloomington, MN*
Albuquerque, NM*
First thing: the asterisks indicate cities in counties won by President Obama last year. All the cities comprise the current list of Spunky's book tour. You'd think she'd play to the base...but it looks like she's headed to blue country, too.
And finally, today's money fact. I hadn't known this. While we often look at lobbyist money in terms of how much is spent by individual industry, I'd never looked at which single entity spent the most on lobbying. Turns out it is the Chamber of Commerce, which has spnet $65.2 million so far this year, and $527.5 million from 1998-2009. This dwarfs everyone else. For example, this year, the 3 next largest lobbyists were ExxonMobil ($20.8 million), Pharmaceutical Research of America ($20.2 million) and General Electric ($19.7 million). Over the prior 10 years, the runners up were the American Medical Association ($212.6 million) General Electric ($191.3million) and AARP ($169.8 million).
I think I know where he might be going: Hazelton, Pennsylvania. It appears that Lou "Get Every Immigrant OUT of here" Barletta is planning on challenging Paul Kanjorski. Again.
Barletta is the mayor of Hazelton, has been for almost a decade. He's the one, you might remember, who became Dobbs' darling when, in 2006, he spearheaded incendiary and illegal legislation against immigrants in Hazelton. Dobbs visited, and did a number of shows from the town, in support of Barletta.
Lou actually has a number of options: the Lou and Spunky road show, anyone?
Actually, I don't really care where Dobbs goes: I'm interested in whether or not CNN replaces him with an actual newsperson, or another reactionary talking head. It's just too bad that on his way out of midtown, he won't take Glenn Beck with him.
A couple days ago, I told you I wasn't going to read the new GOP health care plan because I was pretty sure I knew what it was going to say. And here we go, courtesy of this morning's DSCC e-mail:
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE TO ROY BLUNT: YOUR HEALTH CARE PLAN INCREASES UNINSURED BY 6 MILLION, HIKES COSTS 50%
Many months after he was named Chair of the Republican House Health Care Solutions Group, Congressman Roy Blunt finally unveiled his health care plan – problem is, it would cause serious harm to Missouri families by swelling the ranks of the uninsured, increasing premiums, and allowing insurance companies to continue their abuses unchecked. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office recently scored Blunt’s bill and concluded that by 2019 the number of uninsured would actually increase to about 52 million. Blunt’s plan also allows insurers to continue denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, with some people paying up to 50 percent more for insurance coverage. This is what happens when you let the insurance industry write your bill for you. Blunt has received nearly $600,000 from the insurance industry over his career and has close connections to a number of registered lobbyists. Blunt’s health care plan shows once again that he spends his time in Washington fighting not for the people of Missouri, but for special interests.
“Months after promising to release a health care bill, Roy Blunt finally cobbled together a plan that only the insurance lobby could love,” said Eric Schultz, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Communications Director. “Instead of offering solutions to the health care crisis, Congressman Blunt’s plan makes it worse. Missourians are looking for a Senator who will put their interests first, not one who is only looking out for the interests of K Street.”
Yes, well, that was expected.
Call me an optimist, but I'd like to believe that elected officials can name all 50 state capitals, all 9 Supreme Court justices, and have a working knowledge of the US Constitution.
I know, I'm a dreamer....
He's from Ohio...what do you think the chance is he knows which city is the state capital?
No, not about most things. And CERTAINLY NOT about standing up and yelling at President Obama. But yesterday, he said:
“If [U.S. House] Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi insists on shoving this bill through, then I believe that Members of Congress should go onto the government-run option,” Wilson said. “If it is good enough for the American people, then it is certainly good enough for Congress.”
This may well be the single thing he's ever said with which I wholeheartedly agree.
Forget for a minute that the public option, as currently envisaged, is strictly for people who don't have coverage and members of Congress have the best health insurance plans in existence, paid for by OUR TAX DOLLARS. And that Congress gets to keep those plans in retirement, and do not have to go on Medicare.
IMAGINE if Congress was designing a public option, or a revamp of Medicare, in which they were mandated to participate...they'd potentially say "gee, what I've got is fine, let's just give that to all Americans." (Works for me.) Seriously, making Congress HAVE to utilize the Public Option is the sole way to guarantee that it would be the kind of health insurance, and health care all Americans should have. (Especially that 24-hour a day house call provision.)
I would actually take this one step further: no one in Congress can have access to health insurance or care SINCE IT'S PAID FOR WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS until they make sure that 100% of their constituents have equal access and care. That would include not just elected officials, but their employees/staffers. Remember, it is NOT against the law to NOT provide insurance to your employees. And they AREOUR employees.
The spinmeisters will be out today making things look as rosy as they can for each individual agenda. At least most of them are going to miss a few overriding points.
The Virginia Gubernatorial race was unwinnable ever since Criegh Deeds said if elected, he'd opt-out Virginia from the Public Option. CW will say "this is a mandate on Obama" or "this is the Sabato law" - but it's not. It was a poorly-run, underfunded campaign and a candidate who either wouldn't or couldn't play well with the Democrats in the DC suburbs.
The lesson of the New Jersey Gubernatorial race was that, as James Carville famously said: "It's the economy, stupid." There is a side issue of Corzine spending a bit too much time insulting Christie, but mostly it was a message problem. Not enough time was spent touting how he was able to keep the senior homestead exemption, increase student achievement, and everything else positive accomplished by his administration.
The lesson in Maine is less clear. It may be that a lot of people will accept gay marriage when it's a fait accompli more than they will personally vote for it. I don't know, but I know time will tell.
In the NY-23, the lesson is that evil is squelched when a few good people stand up and say NO.
But there is a more important lesson. A MUCH more important lesson. Whether or not the Democratic Party and registered Democrats learn it will be the difference between whether or not we hold the dual chamber Congressional majority next year, not to the mention the state houses.
It is the lesson of the grassroots, and the lesson of organization.
The parable is my little precinct. Last year, the precinct voted for Obama overwhelmingly. It was the first time in history (including 1936 and 1964) that the town voted for a Democratic presidential candidate. Albeit, in the 1930's, the "town" was actually something like the population of three big farms, one Inn, and a few thousand deer.
Last year, voter turnout was huge, this year it was minimal. The registration advantage in our precinct went from about 80% Republican 20 years ago to +7 Democrats today. That's not 7%, that's 7 voters. This year, 569 people voted in the precinct, or 20.3%. 145 people voted a straight Democratic ballot, 143 voted a straight Republican ticket. Of those 145 straight Democratic tickets, I knew 45 of them. They live in the area in which I serve as block captain. I know how they voted because they either came and told me as they were leaving, texted, emailed or called me. (And one of them was me, stub number 01). So when I say that getting "my" voters out mattered...in the school board race, our candidate received 290 votes, to the 274 the creationist garnered. She lost because it was a multi-precinct race, but she won here. In fact, except for ONE school board seat, the Democrats lost every single other position.
The reason we lost is the lesson we should have learned last year: grassroots organizing works. Without organization and constant contact, the voters stay home. Getting them to register as Democrats is not enough.
Guess who said 
Last week, two major players said things they should not have said. On the Democratic side, we have Harry Reid, In Mark Halperin and John Heilemann's book Game Change, he is quoted as describing the president as a "light skinned" African-American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one".
No, not about most things. And CERTAINLY NOT about standing up and yelling at President Obama. But yesterday, he 
