Filed under: Conservatives, Economics, Health Care, House, Right-Wing Noise Machine | Tags: Congress, Health, Health Insurance, House, Medicaid, Medicare, Republicans, Roy Blunt
Republican Congressman–and former House Minority Whip–Roy Blunt says this about health care reform:
Well, you could certainly argue that government should have never have gotten in the health care business, and that might have been the best argument of all, to figure out how people could have had more access to a competitive marketplace.
Government did get into the health care business in a big way in 1965 with Medicare, and later with Medicaid, and government already distorts the marketplace.
That’s brilliant Republican policy for you: not only should we not reform health care, but we should eliminate government-provided forms of health care like Medicare and Medicaid.
Because eliminating Medicare and Medicaid is really going to fix the health care crisis, isn’t it?
UPDATE: And where can you get some of the best medical care in America?
At the government-funded Veterans Health Administration:
Yet here’s a curious fact that few conservatives or liberals know. Who do you think receives higher-quality health care. Medicare patients who are free to pick their own doctors and specialists? Or aging veterans stuck in those presumably filthy VA hospitals with their antiquated equipment, uncaring administrators, and incompetent staff? An answer came in 2003, when the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine published a study that compared veterans health facilities on 11 measures of quality with fee-for-service Medicare. On all 11 measures, the quality of care in veterans facilities proved to be “significantly better.”
Here’s another curious fact. The Annals of Internal Medicine recently published a study that compared veterans health facilities with commercial managed-care systems in their treatment of diabetes patients. In seven out of seven measures of quality, the VA provided better care.
[...]
But when it comes to health care, it’s a government bureaucracy that’s setting the standard for maintaining best practices while reducing costs, and it’s the private sector that’s lagging in quality. That unexpected reality needs examining if we’re to have any hope of understanding what’s wrong with America’s health-care system and how to fix it. It turns out that precisely because the VHA is a big, government-run system that has nearly a lifetime relationship with its patients, it has incentives for investing in quality and keeping its patients well–incentives that are lacking in for-profit medicine.
[Emphasis added]
Filed under: 2012 Election, Breaking, Conservatives, Corruption, Governors, Scandal, Senate | Tags: 2012, Affair, Bribery, Cindy Hampton, Doug Hampton, Extramarital Affair, John Ensign, Mark Sanford, Nevada, Paul Coggins, Republicans, Sarah Palin, Senate, Senate Ethics Committee
It looks like Republican Sen. John Ensign didn’t just have an extramarital affair with a married campaign staffer–he also paid her a substantial amount of hush money:
Sen. John Ensign’s attorney acknowledged Thursday that the Nevada Republican’s parents paid nearly $100,000 to the family of his mistress around the time she and her husband left his staff in April 2008.
Paul Coggins, Ensign’s attorney, said in a statement that the senator gave Doug Hampton, Cindy Hampton and their two children gifts worth $96,000 and that “each gift was limited to $12,000.”
[...]
His disclosure comes as the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington called on the Justice Department to investigate potential criminal wrongdoing of Ensign reportedly giving Cindy Hampton more than $25,000 in a severance package. The group says that under federal law, failing to report contributions of more than $25,000 can result in five years in jail.
[Emphasis mine]
I would be surprised if this hush money payout didn’t land Sen. Ensign before the Senate Ethics Committee–this is at least a serious breach of the public trust, if not a violation of public disclosure and accountability laws.
Mark Sanford, Sarah Palin, John Ensign–it looks like the GOP is continuing their long, slow collapse. At this rate, there won’t be anyone left to run for President in 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Election, Conservatives, Corruption, Government, Governors, Polls, Right-Wing Noise Machine, Scandal | Tags: 2012, Alaska, Corruption, David Frum, Ethics, Numbers, Quitter, Republicans, Sarah Palin
The verdict on Gov. Sarah Palin’s resignation is in–and things are not looking good for the soon-to-be ex Governor:
At the same time just 37% of Americans now say they believe Palin is fit to be President, while 55% say she is not. And while her move last week may not have hurt her overall favorability, it does seem to have negatively impacted voters’ inclination to some day put her in the White House. 57% of respondents said her resignation makes them less likely to support her in a future Presidential bid.
[Emphasis mine]
And, still, the reason for Gov. Palin’s resignation still isn’t clear. Was it for a presidential bid? To get her family out of the limelight? To deal with the various ethical charges that have been brought against her?
Well, subsequent interviews with Palin appear to point to the latter, with Palin basically claiming that the ethics charges against her were paralyzing. But that’s a pretty damn poor justification–resigning because there are so many ethical charges against you that you can’t possibly fight them all and still do your job. And it certainly doesn’t bode well for your political future when you basically have to admit that your state would be better off without you running it.
But, more importantly, Palin’s allegations that fighting the ethical charges against her would be too costly for the people of Alaska appears to be completely false:
During her resignation speech last week, Palin presented herself as a heroic defender of the taxpayer. She said that money being spent on government lawyers to defend against these “frivolous ethics violations” could be “going to things that are very important, like troopers and roads and teachers and fish research.” Palin repeated exactly the same point this week.
But David Murrow, a spokesperson for the Governor, said in an interview that much of this money was budgeted to the lawyers in advance and would have gone to them anyway, even if state lawyers hadn’t been defending against these ethics complaints.
In response to our questions, the Governor’s office provided us with a detailed breakdown of the millions Palin has claimed has gone to defending against ethics complaints. It does list roughly $1.9 million in expenditures.
But Murrow, the spokesperson, acknowledged to our reporter, Amanda Erickson, that this total was arrived at by adding up attorney hours spent on fending off complaints — based on the fixed salaries of lawyers in the governor’s office and the Department of Law. The money would have gone to the lawyers no matter what they were doing. The complaints are “just distracting them from other duties,” Murrow said.
In other words, while these lawyers might have been free to do other legal work for the state, the ethics complaints have apparently not had the real world impact Palin has claimed, and didn’t drain money away from cops, teachers, roads and other things.
[Emphasis mine]
Plus–according to TPM–there are only three outstanding ethics complaints against Palin, anyway.
Even conservative commentator and former Bush speechwriter David Frum thinks Palin is toast:
Between her speeches and her book deal, [Palin] can reasonably hope to earn $10 million over the next two years. She’ll fly in private jets, sleep in sumptuous hotel suites, receive rhapsodic applause.
Yet there will be no escaping another story line. Faced with exasperating criticism and the accumulating cares of public office—she quit to cash in. Her admirers can excuse anything, but to the much larger audience of non-admirers, Palin will look a lot like those CEOs who wrecked their banks and the national economy while accepting huge bonuses for themselves. John McCain’s slogan in 2008 was “Country First.” Palin’s in 2012? “I seen my opportunities, and I took ‘em.”
[Emphasis added]
Sarah Palin has become a fascinating story again; her abrupt resignation is so bizarre–there is no positive way to spin it, there is no real upside in quitting unless she plans never to hold elected office again.
Like I remarked a few days ago, we might have just borne witness to the steepest rise and fastest fall of any politician in modern American history; much like a meteorite crashing to earth, it’s hard not to watch in awe.
UPDATE: And then there’s this:
David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, told Newsmax that Palin has to stop complaining. “You’ve got to recognize that there are people who want you to fail,” he said. “And if you spend your time worrying about them, or whining about what they say, at the very least it’ll get you off your game.”
Filed under: 2010 Election, 2012 Election, Conservatives, Governors, Polls | Tags: 2010, 2012, Alaska, Fail, Gallup, Numbers, Quitter, Republicans, Sarah Palin
A new USA Today/Gallup poll has found that “Sarah Palin’s bombshell that she is resigning as Alaska governor actually has boosted her a bit among Republicans.” According to the poll, “two-thirds of Republicans want Palin…to be ‘a major national political figure‘ in the future”
[...]
Seventy-two percent of Republicans surveyed said they are “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to vote for her if she runs for president
[Emphasis mine]
So, there you have it–if you stab your constituents in the back, leaving them high and dry in the middle of a financial crisis, and quit your job two-thirds of the way through, Republicans will love you.
But I just can’t see Palin winning higher office. While her resignation will give her time to fly around giving speeches and raising money, it has all but destroyed her credibility–if she couldn’t even be trusted to serve out her one single term as Governor, how could she be trusted to fulfill any other promise or commitment she makes?
If Palin runs in 2012, her rivals are going to destroy her for having abandoned her responsibilities to her constituents. Beyond that, I don’t see how she could have a shot at the Presidency without holding another elected office–31 months as Governor of Alaska (several of those which she spent campaigning for the Vice Presidency) is not anywhere near enough experience for anyone to get close to the White House.
The GOP may love Sarah Palin, but the GOP isn’t the majority anymore, and Palin’s disappearing act destroyed any semblance of credibility or appearance of competence she may have had among Democrats and Independents. Nobody can predict the future, of course, but it looks to me that Sarah Palin’s career as an elected official is over.
And it speaks volumes about the GOP that being irresponsible makes you more popular among Republicans.
Filed under: Conservatives, Health Care, Progressives, Senate | Tags: Bipartisanship, Chuck Grassley, Congress, Democrats, Harry Reid, Health Care, Health Care Reform, Max Baucus, Republicans
Sen. Harry Reid is finally acting like Majority Leader–he’s instructing Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus to stop futilely chasing Republican votes for health care reform:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Tuesday ordered Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) to drop a proposal to tax health benefits and stop chasing Republican votes on a massive health care reform bill.
Reid, whose leadership is considered crucial if President Barack Obama is to deliver on his promise of enacting health care reform this year, offered the directive to Baucus through an intermediary after consulting with Senate Democratic leaders during Tuesday morning’s regularly scheduled leadership meeting. Baucus was meeting with Finance ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) Tuesday afternoon to relay the information.
According to Democratic sources, Reid told Baucus that taxing health benefits and failing to include a strong government-run insurance option of some sort in his bill would cost 10 to 15 Democratic votes; Reid told Baucus it wasn’t worth securing the support of Grassley and at best a few additional Republicans.
[Emphasis mine]
First off, it’s nice to see Reid showing some spine, particularly against conservative Democrats–since the GOP is so weak, they’re really the only ones who can stand in the way of progressive reform.
But this is all part of a greater issue, a recurring problem when it comes to conservative Democrats in Congress–the cult of bipartisanship.
Don’t get me wrong, bipartisanship is a good thing–it’s great to be able to call a particular bill or initiative as ‘bipartisan.’ But bipartisanship should be a means to an end, not an end in and of itself–it should be a way to help you pass a bill, not a condition for passing that bill.
But sometimes, conservative Democrats appear to care more about how many Republicans vote for a bill than for what the bill itself is supposed to accomplish, which is a problem when you can’t drum up Republican votes for a necessary piece of legislation.
Look, the Republican caucus in Congress is very small–the smallest it’s been in decades, smaller than at any other point in my entire lifetime. And because of that–and because most Republican moderates were defeated and replaced with Democrats–the Republicans who are left in Congress are far more conservative and in ideological lockstep than usual.
In other words, getting GOP support for major progressive initiatives like health care reform is going to be difficult, far more difficult than it was just a few years ago.
And, in the end, the American people don’t care about bipartisanship. They want Congress to be effective; they want Congress to solve the significant problems our nation is facing. When it’s all said and done, few people will remember whether or not a major initiative was passed with bipartisan support–but they will remember what that initiative did to help themselves and their families.
Democrats, don’t get caught up in the inside baseball. Bipartisanship is good, but it isn’t necessary; with the current crop of Republicans in Congress, it certainly isn’t expected. Just buckle down and pass legislation; if the GOP isn’t on board, that’s their loss, not yours.
Filed under: Conservatives, Government, Progressives, Right-Wing Noise Machine, Senate | Tags: ABA, American Bar Association, Congress, Democrats, John Roberts, Judge Sotomayor, Judiciary, Pat Leahy, Republicans, Samuel Alito, SCOTUS, Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court
Today, the American Bar Association voted–unanimously–to grant Judge Sonia Sotomayor a “well-qualified” rating, the highest rating they give to judicial nominees:
The ABA committee that reviewed her qualifications came out with that unanimous rating of the federal appeals court judge and released it in a letter to White House lawyer Greg Craig.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is set to begin hearings Monday on President Barack Obama’s choice to replace retired Justice David Souter.
[...]
“The American Bar Association’s unanimous, well-qualified rating of Judge Sotomayor is further evidence of the outstanding experience she will bring to the Supreme Court,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“The ABA’s rating _ an evaluation of integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament _ should eliminate the doubts of naysayers who have questioned Judge Sotomayor’s disposition on the bench.”
So all the Republican attempts to paint Judge Sotomayor as unfit to sit on the Supreme Court were nothing but hollow talking points with no grounds in reality (and in case anyone tries to argue that the ABA has some kind of liberal bias, they also found both John Roberts and Samuel Alito to be “well-qualified”).
Filed under: Conservatives, Corruption, Government, Scandal | Tags: Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General, Fail, George W. Bush, Republicans, Texas, Texas Tech University
Former Bush administration Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has landed a teaching gig at Texas Tech:
Alberto Gonzales, who resigned as the Bush administration’s embattled attorney general nearly two years ago, has lined up a fall-semester teaching spot at Texas Tech University, the university confirmed today.
Gonzales, who was Gov. George W. Bush’s lawyer, Texas secretary of state and then a Texas Supreme Court justice before joining Bush in Washington, will be working in the university’s political science department, teaching a “special topics” course on contemporary issues in the executive branch, according to Dora Rodriguez, a senior business assistant in the department.
Filed under: 2010 Election, 2012 Election, Conservatives, Governors, Media, Progressives, Right-Wing Noise Machine | Tags: 2010, 2012, Alaska, Barack Obama, Chelsea Clinton, Democrats, Fail, Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, Mitt Romney, Republicans, Resignation, Sarah Palin
I’ve spent some time in the past few days thinking about Gov. Sarah Palin’s sudden resignation, and I still think that her decision stemmed from either an impending scandal or an impending Presidential campaign.
But there have been a few other explanations I’ve heard and dismissed. For instance, some people are claiming that Palin is facing huge legal bills fighting off all the ethics complaints against her, which explains her resignation. But I find that hard to believe—her term as Governor is done in just a year and a half, meaning that she could hit up the paid lecture circuit and make those costs back several-fold come January, 2011.
Others are saying that being Governor would prevent Palin from going out there and campaigning for Republicans in 2010, putting her at a disadvantage against folks like Mitt Romney who no longer hold an office and thus have the time to campaign.
But, remember, Palin campaigned for Vice President while remaining Governor of Alaska; I find it hard to believe that she couldn’t just hand things over to her staff or her Lt. Governor every once in a while in order to speak at a rally or a speech.
Plus, being an effective Governor would probably help your presidential ambitions far more than quitting in order to fly around stumping for Congressional candidates–that’s something you do when you leave office, not something you leave office in order to do. Double plus, if 2010 isn’t a good year for the GOP—which it doesn’t look like it will be—then Palin would be better off staying in the Governor’s mansion.
Some people are saying that it’s normal for politicians to quit their current job to run for higher office. While that may be the case, they don’t usually quit 40 months before the election.
And a number of people are claiming that Sarah Palin is resigning in order to protect her family, but I don’t entirely buy that, either. When you run for office you become a public figure; you and your family are going to be in the spotlight.
Personally, I think families should be off-limits. To me, we should be focusing on the person running for office, not their husbands or wives or children; I don’t see the political point to be made in going after someone’s family. Still, we have to deal with the political reality we have, not the political reality we want—and in the political world we live in, the families of politicians are given a fair amount of scrutiny.
Palin should have known that, by being a public figure, she was putting her own family in the spotlight for good or ill. Plus, I feel that a lot of right-wing victimhood on this front seems awfully overblown–a lot of Palin’s supporters seem to believe that Sarah Palin is the most unfairly-attacked people in modern American history.
In that regard, I agree with ABC’s Cynthia Tucker, who said on Meet the Press this past weekend:
If [Palin] thinks she’s had it tough, I have two words for you: Hillary Clinton!
Conservatives are attacking Palin’s critics for allegedly targeting her family, but if you were to page through nearly any conservative blog out there and you’ll find plenty of unhinged attacks on Michelle Obama. And some of these same conservatives who are defending Palin and her family are the very same conservatives who spent the 1990’s unfairly attacking both Chelsea and Hillary Clinton.
Sarah Palin may have been subjected to some unfair criticism (and I should note that she was also subjected to a lot of perfectly fair, valid criticism as well), but she is not the first person to have dealt with that, and resigning her Governorship is an extremely poor way to deal with it. Hillary Clinton was a fighter; Sarah Palin is a quitter.
I also don’t believe the right-wing talking point that Sarah Palin’s early resignation is some kind of brilliant Nixonian political maneuver.
I mean, just think about the timing—if this was part of a brilliant political strategy, why announce it the Friday before Independence Day? Why try to bury it in the news cycle—why not make it front and center, try to draw as much publicity as possible that you can then take advantage of?
And if this was Palin’s brilliant political move, why did she sound like she was close to tears during her speech on Friday? Go listen–Palin sounds like she’s going to break down, not like she’s launching a cunning political strategy that will catapult her into the White House:
In the end, it just looks like Sarah Palin couldn’t take the heat so she quit. She promised the people of Alaska to serve as their Governor for 4 years but she broke that promise. If Palin does run for President, it should be remembered that, when things got tough, Sarah Palin turned tail and fled–not a quality any of us want in a President.
Honestly, though, I don’t think we have to worry about Sarah Palin running for President–I don’t think she’s going to recover from this. Whatever political career she may have had is probably over now; America loves fighters and hates quitters.
To make an analogy fitting of Gov. Palin, she grabbed the basketball and took off in the middle of the third quarter, leaving both teams to stand in the middle of the court, watching in utter befuddlement as she disappears off into the locker room.
UPDATE: Not only is Gov. Palin a quitter, she’s a hypocrite:
During a Women and Leadership event back in March 2008, Governor Palin was asked about Senator Clinton’s response to media scrutiny – and criticism – she received on the campaign trail during the Democratic primaries. Palin made it clear to moderator Karen Breslau of Newsweek that she considered Clinton’s conduct unbecoming. Hillary, she insisted, needed to just “plow through”:
“Fair or unfair, I think she does herself a disservice to even mention it…When I hear a statement like that coming from a woman candidate with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism or, you know, maybe a sharper microscope put on her, I think, man, that doesn’t do us any good. Women in politics, women in general wanting to progress this country. I don’t think it’s, it bodes well for her — a statement like that…It bothers me a little bit hearing her bring that attention to herself on that level.”
[Emphasis mine]
So when Hillary Clinton gets media scrutiny, Sarah Palin thinks she should just shut up and push through it. But when Sarah Palin gets media scrutiny, she thinks it’s okay to play victim and quit.
Filed under: 2010 Election, 2012 Election, Breaking, Conservatives, Corruption, Government, Polls, Scandal | Tags: 2010, 2012, Alaska, Alaska Lieutenant Governor, Elections, Republicans, Sarah Palin, Sean Parnell
Alaska Governor (and 2008 GOP VP candidate) Sarah Palin announced that she will resign the Governorship of Alaska later this month, transferring power to Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell
Developing…
UPDATE: Palin has confirmed that she will resign the Governorship on July 26th.
Personally, I can think of only two reasons for her abrupt resignation. The first is that Palin wants to focus on a candidacy for President. But if that’s the case, then this is perhaps the worst move she can make, abandoning the people who elected her before her first term is even over. It makes her look feckless and untrustworthy and ruthlessly ambitious; it certainly doesn’t make her look the least bit Presidential.
And even if Palin wants to run for President, her term ends in January, 2011–which would give her plenty of time to campaign if she simply chose to wait her first term out. But abandoning her office like this is putting nails in her Presidential coffin.
Or, it could be the case that there’s a major scandal coming down the pipeline that is likely to sink Palin’s political career and she’s trying to head it off at the pass–I mean, if she already resigned then there can’t be any pressure on her to resign, regardless of how bad her scandal is.
We don’t know for sure why Palin stepped down the way she did (though there are rumors) but it’s likely her resignation signals the end of her political career. Considering that Sarah Palin was a virtual unknown just one year go, it looks like she may have been the steepest rise and fastest fall of anyone in modern political history.
Filed under: Conservatives, Government, Health Care, IOKIYAR, Progressives, Senate | Tags: Chuck Grassley, Congress, Greed, Health Care, Health Care Reform, Hypocrisy, Iowa, Republicans
Republican Senator Chuck Grassley (IA) had a bit of difficulty when asked about health care reform at a recent townhall meeting.
See for yourself:
After sharing his family’s personal struggle with the burden of high health care costs, an audience member asked, “My question is… why is your insurance so much cheaper than my insurance and so better than my insurance?”
The question made Grassley cranky.
He responded, first, by suggesting the questioner “go work for John Deere,” since they “don’t pay anything” for their insurance plan.
When the questioner refused to let the senator wriggle out of answering the question, Grassley revealed how little he knew about his own insurance plan.
Another audience member had to help the senator out by describing the details of the plan. After she finished, the original questioner again asked, “Okay, so how come I can’t have the same thing you have?”
Grassley’s response: “You can. Just go work for the Federal government.”
[Emphasis added]
Well, that’s one way to cover the 45 million uninsured Americans–create 45 million new federal jobs with health benefits and then hire all of them to work for the government.
Of course, it would be quite expensive to pay 45 additional salaries plus health benefits. If only someone had a plan that would provide those 45 million uninsured Americans with health coverage without having to hire them to work for the federal government…
In all seriousness, though, keep in mind that Sen. Grassley and every other Republican in Congress all get publicly-funded health care. So they have no problem accepting public health care for themselves and their families, yet they’ll fight tooth and nail to prevent those same benefits from being extended to all Americans.
The GOP has theirs, so why should they worry about the millions of Americans with no health insurance or not enough health insurance? While the Democrats try to reform health care, the GOP is content to sit back and yell ‘let them eat cake!’
No wonder these guys are the minority…
Filed under: Conservatives, Economics, Government, Health Care, Progressives, Right-Wing Noise Machine, Senate | Tags: Budget, CBO, Chris Dodd, Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Edward Kennedy, Health Care, Health Care Reform, Senate Health Education Labor & Pensions Committee
Previously, the Congressional Budget Office released an analysis supposedly examining the Democratic health care reform proposal. Their conclusions found the proposal would cost nearly $1 trillion and still leave millions of Americans uncovered.
But, as it turns out, the CBO’s analysis was flawed–it was based not on what the Democrats were proposing but on old, outdated information. Conservatives, of course, jumped all over the CBO’s flawed analysis as proof that health care reform with a public option was untenable.
Well, the CBO just released an updated analysis–based on the plan Democrats are actually proposing–and guess what they found:
The plan carries a 10-year price tag of slightly over $600 billion, and would lead toward an estimated 97 percent of all Americans having coverage, according to the Congressional Budget Office, Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and Chris Dodd said in a letter to other members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. The AP obtained a copy.
[...]
The letter indicated the cost and coverage improvements resulted from two changes. The first calls for a government-run health insurance option to compete with private coverage plans, an option that has drawn intense opposition from Republicans.
[...]
Additionally, the revised proposal calls for a $750 annual fee on employers for each full-time worker not offered coverage through their job. The fee would be set at $375 for part-time workers. Companies with fewer than 25 employees would be exempt. The fee was forecast to generate $52 billion over 10 years, money the government would use to help provide subsidies to those who cannot afford insurance.
The same provision is also estimated to greatly reduce the number of workers whose employers would drop coverage, thus addressing a major concern noted by CBO when it reviewed the earlier proposals.
[...]
In their letter, Kennedy and Dodd said the Congressional Budget Office “has carefully reviewed our complete bill, and we are pleased to report that CBO has scored it at $611.4 billion over 10 years, with the new coverage provisions scored at $597 billion. …The completed bill virtually eliminates the dropping of currently covered employees from employer-sponsored health plans.
[Emphasis mine]
The crux of Republican opposition to health care reform are that it would cost huge amounts of money and it would (allegedly) drive private insurance out of business by causing a large amount of employers to dump their employees onto the public option.
But this new CBO analysis shows that both of those talking points are untrue. The GOP now has no solid ground upon which to oppose health care reform beyond simple, craven, conservative obstruction.
In fact, the cost of health care reform is so low that we can already pay for it out of the funds allotted in Obama’s budget:
President Barack Obama’s first budget will seek $634 billion over 10 years as a down payment on health care reform, a senior administration official said Wednesday.
Down payment? The Democratic health care reform proposal is so good that the down payment is going to be the only payment.
Of course, Republicans will still obstruct the plan. But with 60 Democrats in the Senate, the GOP will no longer be able to stand in the way of sensible, necessary health care reform.
Filed under: 2010 Election, Breaking, Conservatives, House, Progressives, Senate | Tags: 2010, Arlen Specter, Congress, Democrats, Joe Sestak, Pat Toomey, Pennsylvania, Primaries, Republicans
Congressman Joe Sestak has decided that he will mount a primary challenge against newly-minted Democratic Senator Arlen Specter:
Wayne County, Pa. – A congressman from the Philadelphia suburbs will challenge U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter in the Democratic Senate primary.
In an interview with The Wayne Independent Wednesday morning, U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa.,confirmed his intention to run against Specter, a long-time Republican who switched to the Democratic party earlier this year.
“I am going to get into the race against Arlen Specter … for senator,” said Sestak in his first media interview as part of a three-week tour through all of the Commonwealth’s 67 counties.
[Emphasis mine]
I’m glad to see Sestak enter the race against Specter, because no matter who emerges victorious from the Democratic primary we will be in better shape for it.
Honestly, I’m no fan of Arlen Specter–I would rather have an actual Democrat like Joe Sestak in that seat than someone who only became a Democrat to save his otherwise-doomed career.
Plus–as we learned when Pat Toomey was mounting a challenge against Republican Senator Specter–Arlen Specter is highly susceptible to partisan pressure. It’s likely that–if he believes Sestak has a shot at beating him–he’s going to start towing the Democratic line more often in order to ensure he wins the primary.
In other words, no matter who wins, we all win–either we end up with a more progressive Democratic candidate or we pressure Specter into being a more progressive Democratic candidate.
So I say welcome to the race, Congressman Sestak.
Filed under: 2008 Election, Breaking, Conservatives, Governors, Polls, Progressives, Senate | Tags: 2008, Al Franken, Democrats, Judiciary, Minnesota, Minnesota Supreme Court, Norm Coleman, Republicans, Tim Pawlenty
It’s been nearly 8 months since Election Day.
It’s been more than 6 months since Inauguration Day.
And, finally, Minnesota’s outstanding Senate race has been decided.
Minnesota’s Supreme Court has affirmed [PDF] that Al Franken is the duly-elected junior Senator from Minnesota, having garnered more votes than former Senator Norm Coleman.
Of course, Franken still needs a certificate of election signed by his state’s governor, Republican Tim Pawlenty. But Pawlenty said that he would abide by the Supreme Court’s decision:
Minnesota law does not allow the governor to sign an election certificate until the state court process is complete. And when it is, and they direct me to sign the certificate, I’m going to sign it. There’s not going to be any undue delay or the like. But I’m going to follow the direction of the courts in that regard and we’re going to be having a decision here in the coming weeks … I have to follow the law. If the Minnesota Supreme Court says, “You sign the certificate” — and there’s not an appeal or some other contrary direction from a federal court — you know, that’s my duty. I can’t just ignore that or say I don’t feel like following a directive from the Minnesota Supreme Court. That would not be the responsible thing to do.
[Emphasis mine]
There’s a chance that Coleman could appeal this decision to the federal judiciary, which may give Pawlenty room to once again put off signing a certificate.
But the Minnesota Supreme Court should be the final say in this case, and they have resoundingly affirmed that Al Franken is the junior Senator from Minnesota.
UPDATE: I should note that the decision was unanimous–the court ruled 5-0 in Franken’s favor.
Here’s the key part of the ruling:
For all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court that Al Franken received the highest number of votes legally cast and is entitled under Minn. Stat. § 204C.40 (2008) to receive the certificate of election as United States Senator from the State of Minnesota.
UPDATE II: Norm Coleman just conceded; congratulations to Senator Al Franken!
Filed under: Breaking, Conservatives, International | Tags: Barack Obama, Elections, Foreign Policy, Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, Protests, Revolution, Reza Aslan, Suzanne Maloney, Violence
In Foreign Policy, the Brookings Institution’s Suzanne Maloney bolsters the case that Iran’s political unrest isn’t about the United States–and that the Iranian people alone can decide their country’s destiny:
If anyone needs another reminder of how minimal Americans’ understanding of and access to Iran has become, the discourse in Washington over the past week certainly provides one. As scenes of Iranian bravery and bloodshed have unfolded, American pundits and politicians have fixated on President Obama’s syntax and inflection. Although a passing familiarity with Iranian history, as well as Iranians’ appeals for Washington not to meddle in their nascent movement, buttress the case for caution, the tempest over presidential semantics is at best a pointless exercise and at worst a distraction from the serious question ahead: How will Iran’s internal crisis will impact U.S. policy?
The fact is, no matter how much Americans like to think they are the ones shaping events in Iran, it’s just not true. The dramatic events in Iran have been wholly internally driven. They are the product of three decades of semi-competitive Iranian elections, a sophisticated population that warily guards its limited rights and freedoms, the tensions of a longstanding elite power struggle, and the ever-important force of unintended consequences – among other factors. Better for the United States, then, to focus on those areas where it actually has some capacity for influence: namely, its own Iran policy, and more specifically, how Washington can move forward with engaging Tehran in light of the dramatic changes of the past 10 days.
As profound as recent events have been, engagement remains the only path forward for Washington. Whenever the dust settles in the tumultuous battle on the streets and behind the scenes, direct U.S. diplomacy continues to represent the most viable mechanism for addressing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. After all, Obama’s interest in engagement was never about the Iranian leadership, and until very recently, most experts expected a second Ahmadinejad term. Instead, the case for engagement was – and still is – rooted in the urgency of the world’s concerns about Iran’s ambitions and the even-less promising U.S. policy alternatives, such as military action or externally sponsored regime change.
[...]
But what about Iran’s burgeoning democracy movement? And what useful role can and should the United States can play in advancing it? Given recent events, it was inevitable that some American pundits and policymakers would renew their calls for additional U.S. democracy assistance programs for Iranian reformers. This would be precisely the wrong move – not because it would compromise the climate for nuclear negotiations, but because Iran’s own activists have consistently rejected such funding. They don’t want it, and elections-related news such as the massive reformist vote monitoring effort suggests they don’t need it. Better for Washington to focus efforts on where it can be both useful and welcome, such as last week’s timely intervention to encourage Twitter to defer network maintenance during a crucial moment of the protests.
[Emphasis mine]
In an interview with Al Hunt, both former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger side with President Obama:
HUNT: What the critics say is that we wouldn’t have taken that attitude in South Africa in the 1980s, we wouldn’t have taken – shouldn’t have taken that attitude in Tiananmen in 1989, or in Hungary or in Czechoslovakia in the ’50s.
ALBRIGHT: I think very different. And I think the point here is you have to understand the differences.
So for instance, I know a lot about Czechoslovakia and Poland. Those were very different kinds of bottom up revolutions against the Soviet Union. And frankly, there was a very big issue in Hungary. And this is something that people have to be careful of.
The administration in the 1950s kept saying to the Hungarian people, we will help you if you rise up. And then we didn’t. And so there’s a lot of blame that goes around. Czechoslovakia in 1968, same thing.
So first of all, they’re very different. Those revolutions were very nationalistic. And just a different situation.
BERGER: Now the fact of the matter is what the President has said has been very tough. And he’s escalated his rhetoric as the situation has escalated. In the early first days, it was not appropriate to prejudge how this thing would unfold. But his rhetoric over the past few days and his statements have been clear, have been strong, and have been appropriate.
[Emphasis mine]
HuffPo brings us a 10-minute long video of yesterday’s brutal crackdown:
And Reza Aslan writes about the possibility of a compromise solution emerging:
Reliable sources in Iran are suggesting that a possible compromise to put an end to the violent uprising that has rocked Iran for the past two weeks may be in the works. I have previously reported that the second most powerful man in Iran, Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani, the head of the Assembly of Experts (the body with the power to choose and dismiss the supreme leader) is in the city of Qom—the country’s religious center—trying to rally enough votes from his fellow assembly members to remove the current supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei from power. News out of Iran suggests that he may be succeeding. At the very least, it seems he may have gained enough support from the clerical establishment to force a compromise from Khamenei, one that would entail a runoff election between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his main reformist rival Mir Hossein Mousavi.
[Emphasis added]
Filed under: Conservatives, Government, Health Care, IOKIYAR, Progressives, Right-Wing Noise Machine | Tags: Barack Obama, Budget, Congress, Democrats, George W. Bush, Health Care, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, Hypocrisy, Iraq, Republicans, Taxes
There is a lot of misinformation and garbage talking points on health care reform being spread around by conservatives. But, despite all the sound and the noise, there doesn’t seem to be a single worthwhile argument against health care reform buried anywhere in there.
Republicans claim–falsely–that a public option would result in the “rationing” of health care. But what is rationing?
ra⋅tion
1. a fixed allowance.
2. an allotted amount.
By that definition, isn’t health care already rationed? Health care isn’t unlimited–first, whether or not you even have health insurance depends on where you work and how much money you have. And both of those influence the quality of coverage you can get.
Second, even if you have the means to get health insurance, the insurance companies can still deny you coverage for a variety of reasons–a pre-existing condition, for instance.
Third, even if you have health insurance, insurance companies can deny your claim for a particular medical treatment for a variety of reasons. So, even if you are covered you might not be able to get the treatment you need.
Health insurance companies make a profit by denying as much coverage as possible to as many people as possible; their entire business model is centered around rationing.
Conservatives also argue–falsely–that a public option would put “government bureaucrats” between citizens and their doctors in terms of making health care decisions.
Yet, bureaucrats are already between people and their doctors–instead of being government bureaucrats whose jobs are to serve the American people, it’s private health industry bureaucrats whose jobs are to try to deny you as much health care as they can. That is how they make money, after all.
Conservatives are also asking where the money for health care reform is going to come from, claiming a plan including a public option would cost somewhere between $1.5 and $2 trillion.
Of course, that crowd includes a fair number of newly-minted deficit hawks who didn’t seem to care very much when George Bush and the Republican Congress were spending huge amounts of money on utterly frivolous things.
Where were these guys when Bush was pushing his $1.6 trillion tax cut package through Congress? Why weren’t any of these conservatives complaining about the cost of the Iraq War, which will cost us nearly $3 trillion?
Of course health care reform will be expensive–it’s going to help insure tens of millions of Americans who are currently going without health care. The question isn’t simply how much it will cost, but whether or not the benefit is worth it. For instance, to an average middle-class family buying a house is incredibly expensive, but the benefit they receive from that purchase justifies the cost.
Plus, we already pay a significant portion of what health care reform would cost in other ways–our salaries are lower because our employers have to pay greater health care costs. We pay more in taxes to help support overburdened hospitals that have to treat a large number of uninsured Americans. We pay higher health insurance costs and premiums to a veritable monopoly with no competition and massively-high prices, which would be challenged and kept honest by a public health insurance option.
I wonder just how much of that $1.5-$2 trillion would come from costs that the American people already pay in some form or another?
On one hand, conservatives–falsely–claim that a public health care plan would be massively inefficient, resulting in long waits for treatment, reduced choice in doctors, limited treatment options, etc.
But on the other hand, they claim that the public option will drive the private insurance industry out of business. That’s right–they claim that public option will be terrible, but so many people will opt into it that the entire private health insurance industry will go bankrupt.
They also claim that private insurance will go out of business because it’s impossible for a private entity to compete with a government program. Except:
I immediately thought of the U.S. Postal Service. Here’s a government-run service that can deliver a paper document to any remote location you choose for 42 cents. They can also deliver packages quickly and at a very competitive rate. Impressive.
But even with this efficiency the “public option” for package delivery has a number of healthy competitors. There’s FedEx (started in 1971 as Federal Express), DHL (founded in 1969), UPS (founded in 1907) among others.
Somehow, despite the government-run program, these private delivery services have managed to survive by offering customers something they found worthy of their business.
Conservatives don’t want to admit it, but America is facing a health care crisis. Costs are rising because there’s nobody to compete with the insurance industry. Tens of millions of Americans go without health insurance for themselves and their families, relying on overburdened, understaffed hospitals to be their first–and last–resort in the event of injury or illness. The time for change has come, yet conservatives are content to simply drag their feet and say “No.”
UPDATE: And keep in mind that there is already a public option for health care–it’s just restricted to members of Congress. That’s right–every member of Congress currently receives taxpayer-funded, government-provided health insurance.
So any Senator or Representative who opposes a public health insurance option is a complete and utter hypocrite, unless they put their money where their mouth is and reject their free government health care in favor of buying private insurance out-of-pocket.
But I guess those are conservatives for you–they have no problem accepting free government handouts hand-over-fist when it benefits them and their families, but will fight tooth and nail to prevent those same benefits from being extended to regular, everyday Americans.
Filed under: Breaking, Conservatives, Government, IOKIYAR, International, Progressives, Right-Wing Noise Machine, Rights | Tags: Arrogance, Barack Obama, Democrats, Elections, Foreign Policy, George W. Bush, Iran, Neoconservatives, Republicans, Revolution, Violence
Conservatives are hitting President Obama over Iran, arguing that he should be doing more to support the opposition there. I bristle at the politicization of the situation in Iran because, ultimately, what the Iranian people are going through isn’t about us, it isn’t about American politics and we shouldn’t be making it about us.
First off, I find it pretty disingenuous for conservatives–who spent years calling for the United States to bomb Iran–to suddenly show so much concern for the Iranian people. As Glenn Greenwald pointed out a few days ago:
During the presidential campaign, John McCain infamously sang about Bomb, Bomb, Bomb-ing Iran. The Wall St. Journal published a war screed from Commentary’s Norman Podhoretz entitled “The Case for Bombing Iran,” and following that, Podhoretz said in an interview that he “hopes and prays” that the U.S. “bombs the Iranians.” John Bolton and Joe Lieberman advocated the same bombing campaign, while Bill Kristol — with typical prescience — hopefully suggested that Bush might bomb Iran if Obama were elected. Rudy Giuliani actually said he would be open to a first-strike nuclear attack on Iran in order to stop their nuclear program.
[…]
Advocating a so-called “attack on Iran” or “bombing Iran” in fact means slaughtering huge numbers of the very same people who are on the streets of Tehran inspiring so many — obliterating their homes and workplaces, destroying their communities, shattering the infrastructure of their society and their lives.
Second, like I said, this isn’t about us. It’s about Iran and the Iranian people. The uprising in Iran is really two simultaneous conflicts–the fist is pro-democracy demonstrators facing off against an oppressive government. To that extent, Obama has done what should be expected of a President of the United States—he spoke out in favor of democracy, in favor of free speech and free assembly, and denounced the Iranian government for their violent, brutal crackdown against their own people.
But there’s another conflict here that conservatives are not seeing or not acknowledging–the political conflict over the disputed election. The major players in Iran’s unrest are the ruling party and the opposition party. That’s partially why Obama hasn’t done what conservatives want and side with the demonstrators—that would, in effect, be telling the Iranian people who their next president should be.
One of the basic tenets of democracy is that sovereign states should be able to hold elections without interference. The Iranian people have a right to decide—as much as they are allowed to—who should govern them; it’s not the job of the United States (or anyone else) to declare winner.
Iran’s election occurred, was stolen, and resulted in violence. But, in the end, this is still an Iranian political dispute, though a decidedly violent one. Iran–and only Iran–should determine the course their country takes. They have that right, and Obama has said from the start he isn’t going to take that right away from them.
Honestly, if Iran’s conflict didn’t involve a disputed election, I too would be criticizing Obama for not doing more. But the fact that the core of this fight is about who will run Iran makes it infinitely more complex.
Third, if Iran’s opposition wanted America to get involved they would ask us to. Mousavi and his movement are the center of the world’s attention at the moment; they have a large microphone at their disposal. Yet, we’re not hearing the opposition call for the United States to get involved. As the National Iranian American Council says,
People in Iran have told NIAC’s Iranian-American membership that they don’t want the US to get itself involved in the conflict, but they do want to see the government’s use of violence condemned
[...]
If America’s posture returns to that of the Bush administration, these indigenous forces for change may be quelled by the forces of fear and ultranationalism
I trust the opposition to understand more than anyone how American involvement would affect their movement. The the fact that they haven’t called on Obama to do what conservatives say he should do is telling.
Fourth, it’s funny how conservatives–who like to dismiss Barack Obama as nothing but lofty rhetoric–are now suddenly believers in the power of a speech. But even if Obama did what conservatives wanted and spoke out in favor of the opposition, nothing would change. The opposition would still demonstrate; the government would still crack down; the situation would be as bloody and violent as it currently is if not moreso. As it is, the Iranian government is trying to portray the protesters as puppets for America and the West; if Obama came out fully on the side of the opposition, it would vindicate those paranoid, conspiratorial fantasies and justify even more violence and murder. Obama taking the opposition’s side would do little to help but a lot to hurt; the opposition knows this and that’s why they aren’t asking for Obama’s support.
As an additional note, conservatives are outraged that the administration is going ahead with a planned diplomatic meeting with Iranian representatives on July 4th. But that shouldn’t be surprising or controversial—Obama has always said that America shouldn’t talk only to its friends and that diplomacy shouldn’t be a reward for good behavior. And Obama’s foreign policy was the one chosen by the American people last November.
And how idiotic is it that conservatives are calling for Obama to make a speech, which would accomplish very little, yet they attack him for wanting to engage iwth Iranian diplomats, even though that would actually give us a chance to affect Iran’s polity. And for anyone who would claim that a despotic, terrorism-supporting nation cannot be changed through diplomacy, all I have to say is: Libya.
The arrogant conservatives who would have America further meddle in Iranian affairs don’t know what they’re talking about; they’re the same arrogant conservatives who engineered the Bush administration’s failed, disastrous foreign policy. Iran isn’t about us. It isn’t about Barack Obama or the Democrats or the Republicans; it’s about Iran and the Iranian people. If you truly believe in democracy, then you must believe that the Iranians should decide their own fate instead of having America decide it for them.
UPDATE: Super special note to Sen. John McCain: you lost the election. Get over it.
Filed under: Conservatives, Government, Polls, Progressives, Race, Right-Wing Noise Machine, Senate | Tags: Congress, Democrats, Fail, Florida, Hispanics, Judge Sotomayor, Judiciary, Lindsey Graham, Mel Martinez, Numbers, Republicans, South Carolina
Turning back to domestic politics for a bit, the GOP is failing to reap political benefits from opposing Judge Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court:
Nearly a month after President Barack Obama picked her for the Supreme Court, Republican senators say Sonia Sotomayor isn’t serving as the political lightning rod some in their party had hoped she would be.
“She doesn’t have the punch out there in terms of fundraising and recruiting, I think — at least so far,” said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who most likely will be elected as the No. 4 Republican in Senate leadership this week.
[...]
“Right now, you don’t have the fever pitch you did over the filibuster,” said [Sen. Lindsey]Graham, a member of the Judiciary Committee. “It depends on how she does [at the hearings]. If she performs well, no. If she performs poorly, potentially, yes.”
“I don’t think she’s the kind of person that invites that kind of reaction,” said Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) of the possibility of making major political gains over Sotomayor’s nomination. “I don’t think her judicial record warrants the ability to do that with her.”
Who could have imagined that an experienced, talented, highly-accomplished judge with a history of moderate, sensible decisions would turn out to be completely uncontroversial?
The GOP bungled this from the start. They only had two options–filibuster or let Sotomayor slide. It would have been extremely hard for them to filibuster; in fact, it’s likely Sotomayor will be confirmed by a wide margin.
Therefore, conservatives would have been smart just to let Obama have his nominee and avoid a political battle. Plus, going along with him on this one would have helped dispel the perception that the GOP is made up of kneejerk obstructionists; sometimes, a little bipartisanship can go a long way.
Instead, conservatives attacked Judge Sotomayor from the start, desperately grasping at one ineffective attack after the next, clearly lacking any semblance of a strategy. Now conservatives are being forced to eat their words as the likelihood of Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation looms.
It looks like Republicans have become completely politically tone-deaf. They obstruct for the sake of obstructing without giving a single thought to whether or not they can succeed; they waste political capital on battles they can never hope to win, and then pat themselves on the back for their self-defeating and ultimately pointless opposition. Once again, the GOP has failed to deliver; no wonder people are abandoning their party in droves.
UPDATE: Hispanics, especially, are abandoning the GOP in droves:
The latest numbers from the nonpartisan Research 2000 for Daily Kos find that only eight percent of Latinos view the [GOP] favorably, while an astonishing 86 percent view it unfavorably.
That’s a real shift from what were already pretty bad numbers from before the Sotomayor nominatino, when 11% of Latinos viewed the GOP favorably, and 79% viewed it unfavorably.
One of the big stories today is that Republicans are realizing that there’s no political percentage in fighting the Sotomayor nomination. It’s striking that Latino opinion about the GOP is dropping so fast, even at a moment when GOP opposition to Sotomayor appears to be flagging, as opposed to intensifying.
This continuing drop among Latinos, coming at a time when many party strategists recognize the party’s desperate need to broaden its appeal, only reminds us that not only are there few apparent upsides in opposing Sotomayor, there are potentially serious costs, too.
[Emphasis mine]
Filed under: Conservatives, Government, Health Care | Tags: Fail, Healthcare, Healthcare Reform, Party Of No, Republicans, Stupidity
The Party of No Ideas strikes again:
House Republicans presented a four-page outline of their health care reform plan Wednesday but said they didn’t know yet how much it would cost, how they would pay for it and how many of the nearly 50 million Americans without insurance would be covered by it.
Was it written in crayon, too? Or was it scrawled on a series of cocktail napkins?
And you mean to tell me that we’re supposed to take these guys seriously and make concessions to them? Give me a break–all the GOP knows about health care are the Frank Luntz talking points they’ve been spoon-fed.
Filed under: 2012 Election, Breaking, Conservatives, Media, Scandal, Senate | Tags: Affair, Congress, John Ensign, Las Vegas Sun, Nevada, Republicans
In the wake of Sen. John Ensign admitting that he had an extramarital affair with a campaign staffer, the Las Vegas Sun is now reporting that he has resigned his leadership position as the 4th highest-ranking Republican in the Senate:
Nevada Sen. John Ensign resigned his leadership positition today as chair of his party’s policy committee in the Senate after admitting having an extramarital affair with a former member of his campaign staff.
Ensign had been a rising star in his party Republican Policy Committee chairman, the the fourth-ranking leader of his party in the Senate. This year, he was mentioned as a possible presidential contender in 2012.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell released a brief statement, saying Ensign has “accepted responsibility for his actions and apologized to his family and constituents. He offered, and I accepted, his resignation as chairman of the Policy Committee.”
Filed under: 2012 Election, Breaking, Conservatives, IOKIYAR, Rights, Scandal, Senate | Tags: Affair, Hypocrisy, John Ensign, Nevada, NRSC, Republicans, Same-Sex Marriage, Senate
See those Republican family values in action:
Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) has acknowledged an extramarital affair with a campaign staffer in a statement released by his office. “I deeply regret and am very sorry for my actions,” said Ensign.
[...]
The affair, which was with a woman who worked for both Ensign’s re-election campaign and his Battle Born leadership political action committee, began in December 2007 and ended in August 2008.
Of course, Ensign opposes same-sex marriage–in 2006, he voted for a constitutional amendment that would have banned it. In 2004, Ensign took to the Senate floor and said:
Marriage recognizes the ideal of a father and mother living together to raise their children. Marriage is the cornerstone on which our society was founded.
[...]
I would simply point out that marriage, and the sanctity of that institution, predates the American Constitution and the founding of our nation. Marriage, as a social institution, predates every other institution on which ordered society in America has relied.
So John Ensign believes in the “sanctity of marriage” enough to want to deny same-sex couples the right to marry, but not so much that he won’t have an extramarital affair with a campaign staffer. Hypocrite, much?
And keep in mind that John Ensign isn’t just another Republican Senator–he’s the former Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee and serves as the 4th highest-ranking Republican in the United States Senate.
I wonder what Ensign’s Republican colleagues think of his interpretation of the “sanctity of marriage”?
UPDATED: And the sanctimony and hypocrisy continue:
During the height of the scandal surrounding Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky, the Nevada Republican denounced the president’s conduct as “an embarrassing moment for the country.”
‘I think we have to feel very sad for the American people and Hillary and Chelsea,’ he said.
Weeks later, Ensign would call on Clinton to resign. “I came to that conclusion recently, and frankly it’s because of what he put his whole Cabinet through and what he has put the country through,” he was quoted saying at the time. “He has no credibility left,” he added.
[...]
In fact, not only did Ensign envision the Lewinksy affair as a political boon for Republicans, he actively made it an issue in his campaign against Reid. At one point during the campaign, Ensign accused his opponent of having a double standard when it came to politicians and sexual dalliances. Reid, he argued, had been much tougher on former Sen. Robert Packwood — who resigned from the Senate under allegations of sexual harassment — than he was with Clinton.
[Emphasis mine]
So, according to John Ensign himself:
- This is an embarrassing moment for the country.
- John Ensign has no credibility left.
- John Ensign has to resign.
You heard it from the horse’s mouth, folks.
Filed under: 2009 Election, 2010 Election, Conservatives, Governors, Polls, Progressives | Tags: 2005, 2009, Attorney General, Bob McDonnell, Brian Moran, Creigh Deeds, Democrats, Republicans, Terry McAuliffe, VA-GOV, Virginia
With 60% of precincts reporting, Creigh Deeds (50%) leads Terry McAuliffe (26%) and Brian Moran (24%) in VA’s Democratic gubernatorial primary. That’s a pretty insurmountable lead, even with 40% of precincts outstanding; at the risk of being premature, I’m going to call this one for Deeds (who, in the interest of full disclosure, I voted for).
Deeds had a late surge in the polls to become the strong front-runner. Even though a lot of people had started to consider Deeds an also-ran due to his dismal early polling, primary elections are volatile and Deeds ended up emerging as the safest choice.
McAuliffe had a lot of money and connections but no electoral experience, and his checkered past as head of the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign flack was a major strike against him. Brian Moran portrayed himself as the progressive alternative to McAuliffe’s establishmentarian record, but Moran’s newfound progressiveness always rang somewhat hollow. And all of the sniping between presumed front-runners McAuliffe and Moran left Deeds virtually unblemished.
Deeds was the safest choice, being the only candidate in the race who had run for statewide office before. In fact, he ran against the GOP’s gubernatorial candidate, Bob McDonnell, for Attorney General; Deeds lost by only several hundred votes, the smallest margin in VA history.
A Deeds-McDonnell rematch is both poetic justice and welcome news, since VA is certainly more progressive-friendly than it was in 2005. As The Washington Post said, Creigh Deeds will be a Governor in the successful Warner-Kaine tradition.
UPDATE: File this under things I’ve never seen before–a Twitter concession from Brian Moran:
And make sure to stop on by and show your support for newly-minted Democratic gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds.
Filed under: Conservatives, Government, Progressives, Race, Right-Wing Noise Machine, Rights | Tags: Constitution, Democrats, Judge Sotomayor, Judiciary, Pappas v Giuliani, Racism, Republicans, Sonia Sotomayor
One of the prevalent anti-Sotomayor talking points on the right is that Judge Sotomayor uses race–not the letter of the law–to decide certain cases. This is the basis of the right’s ‘racism’ and ‘racialist’ attacks on Sotomayor–the assumption that she substitutes her background for the rule of law.
Of course, there is no evidence whatsoever that Judge Sotomayor actually does that. Conservatives will point to the Ricci case, where Judge Sotomayor–along with two other justices–agreed with a lower court ruling that the city of New Haven could throw out an aptitude test for promoting firefighters on the grounds that the test they were used was racially biased. But their decision was hardly controversial–they upheld a lower court’s decision that the city of New Haven could correct systematic racial bias.
A more revealing case to look at here is Judge Sotomayor’s dissent in Pappas v. Giuliani. Thomas Pappas was fired from the NYPD when they discovered he was sending racist and anti-Semitic literature through the mail while off-duty. Sotomayor’s colleagues upheld the firing, claiming that Pappas’ racist speech was of public concern and, therefore, interfered with the operations of the NYPD.
But Judge Sotomayor dissented, claiming that the NYPD infringed on Pappas’ freedom of speech by firing him for what he did while off-duty. That’s right–Judge Sonia Sotomayor sided with a white racist on 1st amendment grounds, which hardly sounds like the actions of a ‘racislist’ judge to me.
Of course, we all know that the right’s talking points aren’t grounded in reality. But Pappas v. Giuliani blows a huge hole in conservatives’ attempts to portray Judge Sotomayor as some kind of racist radical or Latino supremecist. Judge Sotomayor is a fair-minded justice who puts the law ahead of everything else. In one case, she sided with a group of minorities; in another, she sided with a white racist. To me, that’s a pattern not of racialism, but of respect for the rule of law.
Filed under: Conservatives, Right-Wing Noise Machine, Rights, Terrorism | Tags: Barack Obama, Choice, Daniel James Murray, Democrats, George Tiller, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma City Bombing, Radicalism, Republicans, Waco
Authorities have arrested a man who allegedly told bank tellers while cleaning out his savings account in Utah that he was on a mission to kill President Barack Obama.
The Secret Service said Daniel James Murray, 36, was arrested Friday outside a casino in Laughlin, Nev., a gambling town 100 miles from Las Vegas on the Nevada-Arizona line.
[...]
On May 27, as a teller counted out bills no larger than $50, Murray delivered a rambling discourse on the probability of economic and social disorder, ending with “We are on a mission to kill the president of the United States,” a bank employee told the Secret Service.
Very dangerous times:
George Tiller Funeral Attended By Hundreds
[...]
[D]emonstrators showed up from Westboro Baptist Chursh, known for picketing soldiers’ funerals to present its message that their deaths are God’s punishment for Americans’ tolerance of homosexuality.
They held signs such as “God sent the shooter” and “Abortion is bloody murder.”
[All emphasis mine]
The last time we had a Democratic President, the right-wing culture of paranoia gave us Waco, the Oklahoma City Bombing and three dead abortion doctors. Now that we have another Democratic President, it looks like the right-wing culture of paranoia is making a comeback.
People are dying, yet conservatives seem all too content to stoke the fires of right-wing paranoia. My question is, how many people have to die before conservatives reign in their radical wing and tone down their radical rhetoric? How long until we have another tragic event carried out by a conservative activist who took their rhetoric to heart and went just one step too far?
