Wilsonville Pundit

phttt-more from the lunatic party

2011-12-05T19:45:00.000-08:00

Who REALLY cares if the president mentions/thanks God in a Thanksgiving speech? That is what FOX News/Republicans were screaming about last week. With all of the problems this country is facing, throwing out such a red herring is ridiculous. I'm going to call a press conference and announce that I am OUTRAGED that the president did not mention UFOs or thank aliens from space in his Thanksgiving speech.

Silly thoughts on Herman Cain's name

2011-11-04T18:14:00.000-07:00

Or "Desperate for Anything Easy and Mildly Interesting to Blog About"

"Herman Cain loves Koch Cain"

"Herman Cain or Hurricane?"

Moammar Loves Condi

2011-10-02T21:14:00.000-07:00

From the Huffington Post:

"Among the many bizarre items uncovered as Libyan rebels ransacked Muammar Gaddafi's Tripoli compound: an album filled with photos of former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The discovery was perhaps not surprising given Gaddafi's much-professed admiration of Rice, MSNBC is noting. "I support my darling black African woman," Gaddafi told al-Jazeera television in 2007, according to The Guardian. "I admire and am very proud of the way she leans back and gives orders to the Arab leaders...Leezza, Leezza, Leezza. I love her very much. I admire her and I'm proud of her because she's a black woman of African origin."

In 2008, Rice historically became the first U.S. Secretary of State to visit Tripoli since 1953. She and Gaddafi are reported to have enjoyed a private dinner, during which a State Department report indicates the Libyan leader also showered his visitor with an estimated $212,000 worth of gifts -- including a diamond ring in a wooden box, a lute and an accompanying DVD, and a locket with Gaddafi's own picture inside.

Also included among the gifts: "Wonder-Womanesque wristbands" and an autographed copy of his revolutionary Green Book with an inscription that expressed his "respect and admiration," according to The New York Times.

There are, of course, strict rules about the acceptance of gifts by public officials but when it comes to foreign leaders, diplomatic concerns take priority, as "non-acceptance would cause embarrassment to donor and U.S. Government."

Though Rice praised the meeting with the Libyan leader as "a historic moment," her gift to Gaddafi was considerably less opulent: a plate with the U.S. seal, The Atlantic notes."

How creepy is this? Poor Condi, this may creep her out for the rest of her life.

2011-09-03T20:28:00.000-07:00

AUGUST 30, 2011Cheney’s Book Features Foreword by Satan
‘Couldn’t Put it Down,’ Says Prince of Darkness

NEW YORK The Borowitz Report

Publishing circles were abuzz today with the news that the new memoir by former Vice President Dick Cheney features a foreword by an unusual contributor: Satan.

In his introduction, the Prince of Darkness said he rarely reads political memoirs but made an exception in the case of Mr. Cheney “because we had worked so closely together in the past.”

When he began to read the Cheney manuscript, however, the Lord of Misrule said he was “surprised” by what he found.

“Quite honestly, I couldn’t put it down,” Satan wrote. “It was almost like a book I would have written myself.”

In what could be construed as minor criticism of the book, Satan admitted he was “miffed” that Mr. Cheney took total credit for the idea of invading Iraq, but added, “We were such close collaborators at the time, it may be hard for Dick to remember whose idea was whose – half the time we were finishing each other’s sentences.”

While Satan said he is unlikely to make a habit of writing introductions to books, he said that he could foresee making another exception in the future: “I’ve heard Rupert Murdoch is working on his memoir.”

Elsewhere, after Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn) said God created last week’s earthquake and hurricane to punish America, God issued this rebuttal: “Actually, that’s why I created Michele Bachmann.”

My Angst

2011-08-22T22:15:00.000-07:00

Why oh why are we letting a tiny little group of ignorant, uninformed people dictate our nation's policies?

Give. Me. A. Break.

2011-03-24T01:10:00.000-07:00

CNN's Personal No Fly Zone

Being the news and political junkie that I am, I have spent many hours glued to the television these last few weeks. First it was Wisconsin and Egypt, then Japan and Libya. From the beginning of the Libyan rebellion, when Muammar Qaddafi’s military started firing on civilians, broadcast media asked frequently and  fervently, " What about a no fly zone?" and "Some say that a o fly one is necessary for the Libyan people (blah blah blah ). . ."   CNN  reporters and anchors were almost hysterical in their angst over the no fly zone, wanting, no, needing the president to establish the no fly zone. I got so tired of hearing about it. When UN announced the no fly zone, the press then started with the "too little, too late" questions. It was irritating to hear them ask, "Why did it take so long?" and "Why didn't they do this last week?"   Hmmm . . . Let's give that one some thought. Maybe they had to convince the other countries on the UN Security Council (China and Russia) to abstain rather than vote no to avoid a possible subsequent Security Council veto?   Okay, perhaps the people asking these questions had never heard of the UN or felt that the questions had to be asked. (Although I note for the record, that the press asked Bush & Company NO Questions during the run-up to and prosecution of the Iraq war.)

Then came the typical, "What is our exit strategy" questions. (Again, not asked by the mainstream media of Bush & Co. . . I'm just sayin'. )   The reporters and anchors appeared genuinely confused, as did the Republican politicians they interviewed, as to why the US was involved in the conflict. They demanded to know if it is to protect the Libyan people or to get rid of Muammar Qaddafi? Don't you think that's kind of a no brainer? We're there for both reasons and we will be done when Qaddafi is done! The president cannot just come out and say that because there are world-wide political consequences.  So CNN, keep your pants on. Remember, you asked for this no fly zone. Don't act so stupid when it happens.

Most Americans Against Spending Cuts to Social Programs

2011-02-27T23:53:00.000-08:00

Pew Poll: Majority Sentiment Clear, "Leave Our Social Programs Alone!"

The Lowest Common Denominator

2011-02-21T03:23:00.000-08:00

I think it is fascinating that Joe the plumber, intellectual pea brain, was the keynote speaker at the tea party anti-union rally in Madison, Wisconsin on Saturday. What does that say about this group? What is up with that anyway? Why would a group of political activists pick such a pea brain for their inspiration? Let’s think about that for a moment. Well, it is the same group that picked a self-proclaimed witch who told three separate lies about colleges she went to; candidates who believe that Dearborn, Michigan is governed by Shari'a Law; that Mexican drug cartels were beheading people in the Arizona desert; and who, while criticizing an opponent for opposing the teaching of creationism in the schools, did not know that the establishment clause is in the constitution. These are the same people who insist on carrying guns to presidential campaign rallies and into the local statehouses, just to prove they can. These are the same people who, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, believe that the president was not born in this country. This is the lowest common denominator approach to politics. Instead of electing the best and brightest to solve our nation’s problems and steer us into the future, tea partiers gravitate toward the least experienced, least intelligent, least educated, least talented candidate. They are impressed by the candidate's ordinariness and average to below average abilities. It is important to tea partiers that they would feel comfortable having a cup of coffee with their candidate and that they can identify with the candidate. They want someone just like them. Someone they can relate to.

A Movement

2011-02-21T03:14:00.000-08:00

Reuters reports that the 55,000 people attended the protest rally against the governor's attempt to destroy the public employee unions Saturday in Madison, Wisconsin and that of those 55,000 attendees, only 5000 were tea partiers, who were brought in on 10 buses to protest the protesters. (Bussed in, hmmm . . . kind of reminds me of November 2000 Bush Gore election when protesters were being boarded onto buses in Atlanta, bound for Florida to intimidate election officials down there.) On Friday, 30,000 people were present in Madison to protest the governor’s plan. I recall all the media attention that the tea partiers received in their early days when only 17, 25, 60, but never more than 100 people, would show up at tea party rallies. Despite the small crowds, the media dubbed it a movement, and became so obsessed with it that their coverage actually created a movement. Without the obsessive media coverage, none of those people would have bothered to attend those rallies.

So, why hasn’t the media declared this a revolution, revolt or populist uprising?

Why GOP Governors Want to Break the Unions

2011-02-21T02:41:00.000-08:00

There is nothing altruistic about it. Although Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker claims that the state is in crisis and needs the money it stands to gain from this action, he neglects to explain that the previous Democratic governor left office with a surplus in the state treasury. In less than two months in office, Walker has burned through the surplus left by the previous governor. He has also created a budget shortfall by giving out tax cuts to the wealthy. Had he not given out those tax cuts, there would be no shortfall. So, why is he is blaming public employees unions for the budget shortfall? Because the Democrats out raised the Republicans in 2006 and 2008 campaign contributions and the big three public employee unions were the biggest donor groups to the Democrats. And the Democrats won those two years. By eliminating public employees’ collective bargaining rights, you eliminate the unions or at the very least, the large amounts of money that they have available to donate to Democrats. The GOP will continue to rake in obscene amounts of money in corporate donations. Without the union money, the Democrats will not win. That is why GOP governors Florida, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and are elbowing their way down this path.

Time to Change the Channel

2011-02-11T23:37:00.000-08:00

I find myself watching Fox news tonight. I don't know why-it's on and I don't want to think about what else to watch. First, there was Sean Hannity, followed by Greta Van Susteren, both engaging in fear mongering, suggesting over and over again that the Muslim Brotherhood is going to take control of Egypt and other countries in the middle east. Now, Glenn Beck declares that the revolution in Egypt is a communist plot by Obama's friends . . . What kind of nuts do they have over there at Fox?! And why do the nuts even have a platform to perform on?

Civility Movement May Be Lost on Right Wing

2011-02-11T03:22:00.000-08:00

In the days that followed the Tuscon shootings, I listened to the media talk about the ugly, violent rhetoric that has permeated the airwaves these last couple of years. The thing that irked me about these discussions is that one of the republican panelists almost always said something to the effect of "Let's face it, both sides are guilty of this," a statement that with one exception, was accepted by the host at face value. My response is "No, let's not face it, both sides are not guilty." We can think of many dozens of examples of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and others not only spreading lies to incite the right wing, but also inviting sedition, revolution and violence. The right wing has only cited one example to support their claim that democrats do it, too-Alan Grayson's speech on health care reform in which he explained the republican plan for health care. There was nothing incendiary about that speech. Democratic party politicians are always civil. With the notable exception of Randi Rhodes, most liberal talk show hosts have, for the most part, been civilized in their discussions.

Someone pointed me to a website, http://www.nolabels.org/, which is a group of moderate republicans and moderate democrats who want to support a more bi-partisan, civilized way of governing. This sounds like a great idea if they can influence the right wing to stop their crazy talk and lies. I joined this group, but with a mindful eye on the right wing and what they do to tone down their talk. I have always believed that the democrats are too nice and not sufficiently assertive; and that the party has suffered for this. I am not confident that the the right wing is going to be tamed by No Labels and other such groups. I hope that I am wrong.

Fox News: Leading the Lambs

2011-01-15T02:04:00.000-08:00

A new University of Maryland study found that Fox News viewers are significantly more likely than others to believe false information about American politics. The study judged how likely consumers of a number of different news sources were to believe misinformation about a wide range of political issues. Specifically, Fox News viewers were "significantly more likely" to believe the misinformation disseminated by Fox News, such as: most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses; most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit; the economy is getting worse; most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring; the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts; most Republicans opposed TARP at the time Congress voted on it; and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States. Also according to the study, increased viewership of Fox News led to increased belief in such false stories.

Anecdotally, many of us have known this for years. You will note that I discussed this issue specifically with regard to members of my own family in my September 2, 2010 post. It is nice to have some independent, scientific research to cite to now.

This is America . . .

2011-01-09T15:49:00.000-08:00

. . . where Sarah Palin has the constitutional right to graphically encourage the shooting and killing of her political foes. It is now more than a day following the tragic, right wing inspired shooting of Representative Giffords, and Palin continues to promote her graphic map with the gun targets trained on Democratic politicians around the country.

Respecting the Will of Voters

2010-11-18T16:12:00.000-08:00

Referring to the recent mid-term elections as a "repudiation of politicians who refuse to listen to the American people” (meaning Democrats), House Minority Leader John Boehner pledged a GOP House that would respect the will of voters. He further proclaimed “The people’s priorities will be our priorities, and the people’s agenda will be our agenda.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said before the Heritage Foundation that they must "listen to the people who sent us here" and that "Democrats are ignoring the wishes of the American people."

Okay.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Wednesday revealed that only a third of all Americans think Bush-era tax cuts should be extended for families regardless of how much money they make.

Forty-nine percent of people questioned in the poll say the tax cuts should be extended for families making less than $250,000 a year, with another 15 percent saying the cuts should not be extended for anyone. That leaves 35 percent who favor an extension of the tax cuts for all Americans regardless of how much money they make.

The poll "also indicates a vast majority of the public is in favor of allowing openly gay people to serve in the U.S. military."

John? Mitch? Are you listening?

They're At It Again

2010-11-09T00:03:00.000-08:00

"Republican Anger Over Cost of Obama’s Trip to India Will Not Be Stopped by Facts."

That was New York magazine's headline to a short article on its website November 5, 2010. I can't say this any better myself and there's no point in re-inventing the wheel, so here is the article, verbatim.

Here is what an anonymous Indian official told the Press Trust of India on Tuesday: President Obama would be traveling to India with about 3,000 people, including Secret Service agents, government officials, and journalists at the cost of approximately $200 million a day. Here's what the White House said about those "wildly inflated" figures: "The numbers reported in this article have no basis in reality." Other experts also chimed in. A former Los Angeles Times reporter who covered numerous foreign trips by U.S. presidents said the dollar amount sounded "inflated by a factor of 10," the size of the entourage was "grossly inflated," and pointed out that reporters would actually pay their own way. The Wall Street Journal called it "demonstrably incorrect." FactCheck.org said the accuracy of the anonymous estimates were "highly doubtful," pointing out that the cost of keeping 100,000 troops in Afghanistan costs $190 million per day. Here's where the GOP — and the Fox News pundits — went with it. Glenn Beck wondered if maybe we should have been worried about Obama's Hindu connection, expressing distaste over "$2 billion for ten days so [Obama] can go see the festival of lights." Sean Hannity pointed out that that sure was a lot of money to visit "one of the biggest mosques in Indonesia." Michele Bachmann told Anderson Cooper, "I think it's not a good signal to send to the American people, when the American people are, quite frankly, struggling right now with high job losses." When Cooper pressed her on the inaccuracy of the figures she was quoting, Bachmann responded, "Well these are the numbers that have been coming out in the press." Ah, yes, that historically trusting bond between the GOP and "the press."

Sparky Anderson

2010-11-05T03:00:00.000-07:00

"Sparky was, by far, the best manager I ever played for. He understood people better than anyone I ever met. His players loved him, he loved his players, and he loved the game of baseball. There isn't another person in baseball like Sparky Anderson."

Pete Rose, former Cincinnati Reds baseball player

Crazy Republican "Beeatch" Scares and Confuses Six Year Olds

2010-10-28T00:03:00.000-07:00

Rep. Jean Schmidt (Republican) represents the congressional district covering Cincinnati, Ohio and its eastern suburbs. This is the same crazy woman who, in her first year in Congress, called Representative John Murtha a coward for introducing a bill requiring re-deployment of the troops from Iraq. Trouble was, Murtha was a 38 year Marine Corp veteran and a hawk when it came to defense. More from Mean Jean as reported by the NY Daily News:

Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) ventured into the age-inappropriate territory during a speech at a Cincinnati Catholic school, where she addressed a room of students ranging from first to eighth graders.

"Unexpectedly, towards the end of her address, Congresswoman Schmidt brought up the topic of abortion," Prinicipal Dan Teller wrote in a letter to parents, obtained by Cincinnati's WLWT.com. "Your children may come home with questions, especially if this is a topic that has not been broached in your home."

Though the abortion-related portion of the speech was reported to last under two minutes, it may be the only part anyone will remember.

“She defined abortion as the taking of a child's life in the mother's womb,” Teller wrote in the letter. "She indicated that abortion involves the killing of a child before it is born."

Noting that Schmidt "was not invited to further any political agenda,” he apologized to parents "for any confusion or fear that this may elicit on the part of your child, and for the awkward position this may put you in of introducing a difficult issue at a time that may be premature for you."

Totally inappropriate. This woman is not only crazy but lacks good judgment. Would you want her representing your interests in Congress?

Political Advertising At Its Best

2010-10-27T09:43:00.000-07:00

This excellent ad by Portland Oregon Congressman Earl Blumenauer is so positive! It gets the point across without negative comments about others! I wish that other Democrats had used similar ads-and done it early on. It might have gone a long way to quell the voter anger the press keeps talking about.

A Vote For a Tea Partier Is a Vote For-

2010-10-26T22:36:00.000-07:00

This is what a Republican/tea party vote gets us:

Privatization of Social Security. All of these candidates want to privatize Social Security. Had George W. Bush's efforts to do this been successful, there would be no Social Security today because all of the money would have been lost in the Wall Street crash of 2009. Also interesting is that many who support these candidates also carried signs to the town hall meetings during the summer of 2009 that read, "Keep the government's hands off my Medicare!" It makes no sense.
Extremists with kooky fringe beliefs running our country. We have Sharron Angle, Republican and tea party candidate for Senate from Nevada, who claims that Dearborn, Michigan is governed by Shari'a Law. Although there is a large population of Muslims there, it is not governed by Shari'a Law. Then, there's Christine O'Donnell, Republican and tea party candidate for Vice President Joe Biden's Senate seat in Delaware. First, she admits to having "dabbled" in witchcraft when she was younger. Second, she falsely claimed to have studied at Oxford University, Princeton University and Claremont Graduate University. Although she criticizes her opponent for opposing the teaching of creationism in the schools, she did not know that the establishment clause is in the constitution. Ohio Republican House candidate Rich Iott dresses up like a Nazi officer. Jan Brewer, Republican governor of Arizona insisted that illegal-immigrants are responsible for a reign of terror in Arizona, including beheadings. And, don't forget those who claim that Barack Obama was not born in the United States and that he is a Muslim, with absolutely no evidence to support such claims. Republican Congressman and tp'er Trent Frank said, referring to Obama, "He has no place in any station of government and we need to realize that he is an ENEMY OF HUMANITY." Tea Party member and Delaware congressional candidate Glen Urquhart: "The exact phrase 'separation of Church and State' came out of Adolph Hitler's mouth, that's where it comes from. So the next time your liberal friends talk about the separation of Church and State, ASK THEM WHY THEY'RE NAZIS." South Dakota tea party U.S. House candidate Kristi Noem on her 30 traffic and multiple arrest warrants for skipping court: "Obviously, I'm not proud of my driving record, but I've been working hard to be a better example to young kids and young drivers out there." Carl Paladino, New York Republican gubernatorial candidate, said the following in support of housing poor people in prisons: "These are beautiful properties with basketball courts, bathroom facilities, toilet facilities. Many young people would love to get the hell out of cities."
Unqualified leaders. When was the last time you applied for a job where having no experience or any other qualifications is a good thing? A common sentiment in the tea party movement is first and foremost, the ideal candidate is a "Washington outsider" who is not a politician. Why? And the less educated, more below average intelligence the candidate the better. Smart, intellectual people scare the tp'ers. I don't know about you, but that goes against my grain. I think it is important to have leadership consisting of people who are much smarter than I am and who have experience.

If that doesn't scare the bejeebers out of you, I don't know what will. Think about it. Please. Before you vote.

ThinkProgress » Republican House Candidate Calls For Violent Government Overthrow If GOP Loses Election

2010-10-22T10:15:00.000-07:00

ThinkProgress » Republican House Candidate Calls For Violent Government Overthrow If GOP Loses Election

What about ME??!

2010-10-20T19:43:00.000-07:00

The Democrats are the party of "we."
The Republicans, however, are the party of "me. me. me. me. me. me. I don't care that these unemployed people have steadily worked hard all their lives, can't find jobs, have gone through their savings and are losing their homes to foreclosure. I don't care that children don't have health care. Who cares about these old people on Social Security? What about me?! Me, me, me??! Screw everybody else, I want MY tax break!"

More Tea Party Shenanigans

2010-10-17T22:27:00.000-07:00

From the Huffington Post:

Security guards for Alaska senate candidate Joe Miller handcuffed and detained the editor of the online magazine "Alaska Dispatch" on Sunday while he tried to interview the Republican nominee, according to multiple reports. The Anchorage Daily News reports that Tony Hopfinger, who founded and edits "Alaska Dispatch," was arrested by Miller's private guards at an Anchorage school. The senate hopeful was on hand as part of a town hall event. The firm that handles Miller's security says that Hopfinger shoved a man, but Hopfinger claims that he only pushed back at a guard after the guard began pushing him. According to an article at the website for "Alaska Dispatch," Hopfinger was warned that he would be charged with trespassing if he did not cease asking questions and leave the premises:

"Hopfinger had been trying to ask Miller questions when two or three guards told him to leave or risk being charged with trespassing. When Hopfinger continued to try to ask questions, one of the guards put the reporter in an arm-bar and then handcuffed him. Hopfinger was released after police arrived. The reporter was on public property where a public event was being held at the time of the incident."

The incident occurs one week after Miller, a Tea Party favorite who stunned incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski in the state's Republican Primary in August, abruptly announced that he would no longer answer questions from the press. "We've drawn a line in the sand. You can ask me about background, you can ask me about personal issues, I'm not going to answer them. I'm not," he said at the time.

Miller has recently faced accusations of an ethics breach. Last week, the former mayor of Fairbanks said that Miller nearly lost his job after a 2008 incident. Miller, Murkowski and Democratic nominee Scott McAdams are currently locked in a close three-way race for the seat.

Geezz Louise, these Republican/tea partiers have a lot of nerve don't they? They are lucky Hopfinger didn't have them arrested. They think they are the law. So typical. I hope Hopfinger sues Miller for false imprisonment, violating his civil rights and whatever else will hold up in court.

National Debt: Republican Hypocrisy

2010-10-17T00:13:00.000-07:00

Republicans/tea partiers are screaming about the national debt. Perhaps they should find this money first. It is a crime that the Republicans got away with this. How can we give these people the keys to the vault when they could not account for $2.3 trillion in one year alone? And, how can they ask for the keys back with straight faces? Because a sizable majority of American voters are lazy and uninformed, and would willingly go to their own slaughter if it is packaged right. Anyway, here is a video with Rumsfeld's testimony about the missing money. Looks like he was real concerned about the missing money. Not!

Another $1,000,000 from Fox to . . .

2010-10-01T18:06:00.000-07:00

The New York Times reports:

The News Corporation, whose holdings include The Wall Street Journal and the Fox News Channel, has donated $1 million to the United States Chamber of Commerce, the business advocacy group that is among the heaviest anti-Democratic advertisers in this year’s elections.

The donation, first reported by The Politico last night and confirmed by a person with knowledge of the transaction, is News Corp.’s second known contribution to a group that is advertising heavily to support Republicans this year. In August, News Corp. confirmed that it had donated $1 million to the Republican Governors Association.

Must we still continue to treat Fox as if they were a legitimate news organization?

In Defense of Barack Obama

2010-10-01T17:44:00.000-07:00

First, let me say that I did not support President Obama in the primary, but I did vote for him in the general election. So, I was not one of those starry-eyed Obama supporters. But I was so relieved when he was elected. Finally, a smart, analytical, well-spoken president! He is still all those things. Unfortunately, he has been under siege by the Republicans since day one and Obama was naive enough to believe he could obtain bi-partisan support on issues such as health care. I don't know why he was so naive about that, perhaps his inexperience. Anyway, the Republicans have manipulated the media brilliantly to cast doubt in the minds of the American people regarding almost every Obama proposal. They create controversy using false indignation and lies. They hide behind all of these little special interest groups, which are funded by conservative Republicans. The news media (except, of late, NBC's David Gregory) does not challenge any of the Republicans' misstatements of the facts, even the most outrageous ones. Thus, we are left with stories about people claiming that Obama was not born in the U.S., that Obama is a Muslim that Obama was going to take away all the guns that the health care reforms will result in death panels and people going to jail if they did not buy insurance. The news media did not do their own research on the health care reform bill. These were all unsubstantiated claims. It didn't matter that, 25 years ago, we would have recognized that the people making these claims were mentally unbalanced, lying or just plain stupid. Their friends and neighbors would have walked away, laughing and shaking their heads and ignored them. It never would have made it to the news. Instead, the news media treats these claims as "legitimate points of view" and gives these "fingers" a national forum from which to proselytize, thus legitimizing these groundless claims. Now, they are seeking office.

Then, there are the spineless and spin-less Democrats in Congress, who, with some exceptions, are scared of their own shadows. They deserted Obama on the health care reform bill and on the issue of the Bush tax cuts. They acted in pure self-interest, choosing to please corporate donors rather than improve the lives of their constituents. Instead of being out there on Meet the Press, Face the Nation or The Situation Room, enthusiastically and aggressively supporting the president's legislative proposals, they went into hiding. How is President Obama expected to pass any effective legislation without his own party spinning it?

Now, progressives, many of whom were those starry-eyed Obama supporters, are upset at Obama's performance because he hasn't done enough. The progressives are disappointed that he increased the troops and stepped up the fighting in Afghanistan. However, he said he was going to do this in many campaign speeches and during the debates. I was disappointed that he did not repeal the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy too, but I realize that Congress is filled with homophobes who are laden with testosterone. One can just do so much.

Let's review the good things President Obama has done: he picked Hillary Clinton for his Secretary of State; his Justice Department filed a brief urging the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act as discriminatory; he supported/passed/signed the health care reform bill, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Small Business Jobs Act and Wall Street reform. He signed an Executive Order revoking President Bush’s Executive Order that limited federal funding of research involving human embryonic stem cells. President Obama's intelligence and demeanor immediately restored much of the international admiration and respect for this nation that had been corroded down to nothing under Bush.

Barack Obama has been President only twenty months. He came into office with his own agenda, but he has also had to contend with two wars and an economic crisis the extent of which this country had not seen in almost 80 years. During the primary and election season, I opined that many of the most ardent progressives had unrealistic expectations of Obama. Clearly, they did. Recall his words from his November 2008 victory speech:

This is your victory. And I know you didn't do this just to win an election. And I know you didn't do it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime -- two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century. . . The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even in one term. . . There will be setbacks and false starts.

To expect President Obama to solve all of the problems facing this nation in twenty short months, particularly considering the incredibly effective Republican interference, lies and propaganda machine, as well as the spineless, spin-less Democrats of the House and Senate, is unrealistic and unfair. This nation gave George Bush eight years to bring us to the eve of destruction. We should give President Obama more than twenty months to mop up Bush’s mess and we should support him in his efforts.

Here We Go Again

2010-09-14T20:42:00.000-07:00

The rise and fall of the spineless Democrats

An AP article reports that Congressional Democrats are wrestling "over whether to abandon President Barack Obama's tax cut plan" and that some House moderates are joining Republicans "in calling for an extension of Bush-era breaks for the wealthy as well as middle-income earners." Say what??!!

Although "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi remained solidly behind Obama's proposal to allow tax cuts for upper-income people to expire as scheduled at the end of the year", leaders met behind closed doors today with "members concerned that voters would punish Democrats on Election Day if tax cuts are extended for some Americans, but not all." WTF?!

Please!! This is why the Democrats got very little done during their first year and a half reigning over the House and Senate with a Democratic president. They are scared of their own shadows. They don't understand that the American people fully support extending the middle class tax cut and believe that the wealthy should pay more. Instead, they believe the Republicans' claim that the majority of Americans want a tax cut for the rich. Huh?? The Democrats need to take a couple of lessons from the Republicans in party unity and in sticking to their guns. Come on people, do the right thing. Vote for Obama's bill. Otherwise, you will lose control of Congress not because voters are mad at you for taxing the rich, but because you don't know how to lead like Democrats should lead.

Fair and Balanced to the Tune of $1,000,000

2010-09-02T20:34:00.000-07:00

I have Republican relatives. And, they are big fans of FOX "news". While I have always been baffled by their political views, they have been shaking their heads and saying, "What's wrong with you?" Thus, I suppose it is not surprising that my warnings about FOX "news" content have gone unheeded. They laugh at my claims of bias and my assertions that FOX just makes up the news as it suits Republican talking points. They continue to watch FOX and rely on it as their primary source of news. There does not appear to be any critical thinking involved.

With the recent revelation that News Corporation, FOX "News' '' parent company, recently donated an unprecedented $1 million to the Republican Governors Association, however, one can no longer deny reality: there is nothing fair and balanced about FOX "News" and there never has been. I don't expect these people to stop watching FOX completely. After all, it takes people of a certain bent to believe what FOX shovels in the first place. Nor do I expect them to suddenly become Facebook fans of Rachel Maddow. Now that FOX has shown its true color (red), however, I just hope that they will look at FOX coverage with a more critical eye. Perhaps they will consult with multiple sources for their news so that they can get "just the facts." It's as easy as going online and reading the stories from the Associated Press, Reuters, Bloomberg, CNN, NY Times and the Washington Post. I built my Google home page with feeds from a number of news organizations so that I can see how each is treating the story. Of course, since FOX "News" made almost no mention of the contribution in their broadcasts, my Republican relatives and other FOX viewers may not even be aware of the contribution, despite the wide dissemination of the information by legitimate news outlets. Damn! Nevermind.

The Tea Party

2010-08-28T08:50:00.000-07:00

Brooklyn Beagle wants to remind readers that, historically, American tea parties have been a custom of the very rich High Society who liked to accompany their tea with fat desserts, expensive high-calorie mini sandwiches, and imported scones.

Yes, the tea party is for the rich and for little girls who like to pretend to be rich.

Howling,
Brooklyn Beagle

Gregory Makes McConnell Squirm

2010-08-24T19:55:00.000-07:00

Drug Cartels have Not Invaded

2010-08-05T11:49:00.000-07:00

As I said in an earlier post, I have been watching the increase in drug cartel related violence in Mexico for the past couple of years and it is alarming. I fear that it will spill over into this country. But, as Rachel Maddow so eloquently points out-it has not happened yet! Unfortunately, the Republicans would have us believe differently, spreading false stories and touting fake statistics to whip up the anti-immigration frenzy. Watch this:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Beating Up On Babies

2010-08-03T16:53:00.000-07:00

Now the Republicans are beating up on babies.

Senators Jeff Sessions (R. AL), Lindsey Graham (R. SC) and Mitch McConnell (R. Kentucky) want to revoke the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment which says if you're born here, you're a citizen - no matter what. Graham says "they" just come over here to "drop babies" meaning that Mexican pregnant women storm the border as soon as their water breaks to insure that their babies are born on U.S. soil and are born U.S. citizens. Graham claims that our forefathers didn't know that immigration would develop into such a problem and they didn't intend the birthright citizenship clause to be taken literally.

That's kind of funny because the Republicans claim that our forefathers clearly meant that the "right to bear arms" of the Second Amendment was indeed literal in all respects. We're shooting ourselves and each other every day over nothing and everything and clearly have let the violence get out of control. But the Republicans say tsk, tsk, the right to have a gun is in the constitution which, by the way, allows babies born here to illegal aliens to have guns, too.

Scary, really scary.

Howling,

Brooklyn Beagle

Chelsea's Wedding

2010-07-31T18:00:00.000-07:00

First of all, we don't know how much it's all costing – every dollar amount quoted for every item so far has been a blind guess published by the media which wouldn't get much attention if it said something like "The cake came from Target and cost $150 and Chelsea made her own dress out of old curtains from her grandmother's windows." That just isn't news. Of course, the media is exaggerating.

So if a few million bucks are spent on a lavish wedding, that's a few million bucks pumped into the coughing economy. Waiters, florists, cooks, valets, manicurists, hairdressers, cleaning staff, the local Starbucks — all of these people and businesses benefit. How many extra ice coffees and bottles of water and ice cream were sold to the hounding press camped out in town?

Bill and Hillary should spend a whopping wad on this wedding. The country needs it. Now . . . if they are not also paying for all the extra Secret Service protection, well, that's a different story. And that WOULD BE a story.

Howling,
Brooklyn Beagle

The Mexico Situation

2010-07-29T02:37:00.001-07:00

Over the past couple of years, I have been watching, with great interest and alarm, the increase in drug cartel related violence in Mexico. Most alarming is how brazen they are about it and how close to our border much of this is occurring. Killings of police and journalists are common, and gang members have resorted to barbaric tactics including decapitations and killing their enemies' relatives in hopes of intimidating opposition. They have armored vehicles, explosive devices and grenade launchers. Experts believe that the Gulf cartel and its former allies, the Zetas, are battling for trafficking routes in the northern border states and trying to get the military patrols out of the way.

In Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, a border city located just across the river from El Paso, Texas, a drug cartel vowed to kill an officer every 48 hours until police chief Roberto Orduña Cruz, resigned. He initially refused to do so. On February 20, 2009, after the third murder of one of his officers, the chief resigned. The cartel also threatened to decapitate Ciudad Juárez' Mayor José Reyes Ferriz and his family unless he ended his efforts to clean up the corruption in the city's police department. The note told the mayor, who had homes in El Paso, Texas and Cuidad Juárez, that they were willing cross the border into the U.S. to kill them. Around the same time, gunmen shot at a car in Chihuahua Gov. José Reyes Baeza's motorcade, killing a bodyguard and wounding two agents. After these inccidents, the federal government took over the functions of police chief in Ciudad Juárez.

On July 1, 2010, there was a shootout between rival drug gangs on a deserted road between the villages of Tubutama and Saric, just 12 miles south of the U.S. (Arizona)-Mexican border, leaving 21 people dead and 6 wounded. Nearby Nogales, which is across the border from Nogales, Arizona, had 135 murders in 2009 and has had 131 murders so far this year.

In May 2009, a journalist from Torreón, in the state of Coahuila,which borders Texas was abducted and killed by kidnappers that investigators suspect were members of the Zetas drug gang. In January 2010, gunmen killed 10 young people in an attack in a bar Torreón. In May 2010, eight young people were killed in an attack in another Torreón bar. Several of those who were killed were students and did not appear to have any links to drugs. On Sunday, July 18, 2010, gunmen associated with a cartel burst into a birthday party and opened fire, killing at least 17 people.

On March 18 and 19, 2010, in Monterrey, Mexico, drug cartel members hijacked trucks and buses, then used the vehicles to block four lane highways in an effort to disrupt army operations near the U.S.-Mexico border. Also in March 2010, gangs in the northeastern states of Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas used automatic weapons and erected blockades at checkpoints to prevent soldiers from coming to the aid of soldiers already under attack.

More recently, a drug gang actually used a car bomb in a planned attack on law enforcement. On July 16, 2010 the gang dressed a bound, wounded man in a police uniform and called in a false report of an officer shot. When the police arrived, the gang exploded a car killing the decoy, a rescue worker and two police officers.

Then there was the March 13, 2010 attack on the U.S. Consulate employees as they headed home to El Paso after attending a birthday party in Cuidad Juárez. Jesús Ernesto Chávez, leader of the Barrio Azteca organization, a violent gang originating in Texas prisons with members on both sides of the border and which supplies contract killers to the Juarez drug cartel, was arrested for masterminding the killings of U.S. Consulate staffer Lesley Ann Enriquez and her husband.

There are many other incidents involving mass executions, shootouts between rival gangs, shootouts between gangs and the police, discoveries of mass graves and reports of gangs entering weddings and parties to kill or kidnap people. Almost 25,000 people have been killed in drug-related violence since President Felipe Calderón took office at the end of 2006. This violence could easily spill over into the U.S. and is a very dangerous threat to our national security. It appears that simply cracking down on drug cartels will not work, as much of this violence started when Mexico's president began doing just that. The U.S. has poured $1.6 billion into Mexico's efforts to stop the activity. The cartels have infiltrated every level of the Mexican government and there are allegations that the Ms. Enriquez, the U.S. Consulate staffer murdered in Cuidad Juárez, may have been compromised. We are sending 1200 National Guard troops to help patrol the border with the dual purpose of curbing illegal immigration and drug trafficking. But that is not enough. We need to do two additional things:

1. Use unmanned drone aircraft to patrol the borders. This will help the Border Patrol and National Guard locate the smugglers quickly.

2. Take the profit motive out of smuggling marijuana by legalizing it. Our experience during prohibition taught us that banning alcohol created a black market for the product and resulted in the growth of gangs and violence. The government can also then tax it and add to our revenue.

How shall we pay for this? As noted,the tax on marijuana sales will help pay for it, as will the restored revenue from the Bush tax cuts, which are scheduled to sunset soon. Using the restored revenue for this purpose is an investment in the security of our country and our way of life.

I Miss Ted Koppel

2010-07-26T23:56:00.000-07:00

I do. I miss Ted Koppel. I loved the way he would stop the guest in the middle of a totally non-responsive answer, call attention to the fact that a guest was not answering his question and repeat the question several times until the guest answered. He held their feet to the fire. Since Ted retired, I have spent too much time heckling my t.v. set during news shows as the reporter or host allowed the guest to weasel around a question and instead use it as an opportunity to propagandize. No one presses these people anymore. Everyone is afraid of confrontation, afraid to call these people on their crap. So, it gave me great pleasure to watch David Gregory do a Ted Koppel with NRCC chairman Pete Sessions on Sunday's Meet the Press. Watch the video below. Its fun.

WELL SAID !

2010-07-16T11:52:00.000-07:00

Why GOP Is Not the Answer

Mitchell Bard said it well on his blog today over at Huffington Post:

"As the partisan cable networks breathlessly discuss what will happen in the midterm elections in November, there is much talk about how Americans are angry and, as a result, the Republicans are set for major gains in Congress. But the connection between these two assertions -- Americans' dissatisfaction and GOP success -- strikes me as incredibly lazy, both by the media and the voters.

Nowhere is this disconnect more clear than in the financial regulation battle, which finally concluded with a bill passing the Senate yesterday.

Americans have every right to be angry. Oil has been spewing into the Gulf of Mexico for nearly three months (hopefully, it's finally been contained). Islamic extremists seek to kill Americans. We have such a muddy immigration situation, that, no matter which side of the ideological fence you sit on (pun intended), you can't be happy with the way things currently operate.

But the main point of anger is the economy. The official unemployment rate is hovering around 10 percent (with millions more not counted because they've given up on looking for a job). People are concerned about their ability to pay their bills and see an unfair system that rewards Wall Street's reckless risks while punishing middle class workers.

But if Americans want to assess blame for these woes, and if they want to choose who should help get us out of these messes, they have an obligation in a democracy to make an effort to really look at the issues before making a decision. And the media, likewise, has an obligation to sort through these complicated issues more carefully.

If the Republican campaign message for 2010 was something like, "Yes, we know that we caused all these problems in the Bush years, but we've learned our lesson, and now we are offering these new ideas to fix things in the future," I would understand (if not agree with) the equating of the problems with Republican gains. But that's not what the Republicans are offering. Rather, the GOP campaign message for 2010 is essentially the same message as the Bush years, only more militant (and more wacky, thanks to the Angle-Paul tea party influence). Their pitch is built around deregulation, lower taxes for the rich, and less government, the very things that got us into this mess in the first place.

The Republican congressional record for the Obama years consists of opposing any initiative the president offered (in an effort to make him look ineffectual), even if he proposed something the GOP itself had supported earlier, and to offer as solutions the same tired policies from the Bush years (tax cuts, even if they add to the deficit, as Sen. Jon Kyl suggested). That shouldn't be a winning election argument. But with incendiary rhetoric and right-wing-propaganda-machine-fueled lies taking center stage, the focus for the midterms hasn't been on the facts (how we got here and what the two parties have offered since).

In fact, the Republicans have been at the heart of the causes of these problems, and they have offered little other than the same policies as solutions.

Which brings us back to financial regulation, an issue directly tied to the current economic problems. We did not magically morph from prosperity to recession. Rather, the current recession and massive job loss began with the near collapse of the financial system in 2008. Wall Street played a win-lose game (they won no matter what, but we all lost) with risky financial instruments. The housing market collapsed under the weight of subprime mortgages. So the deregulation trumpeted by Republicans caused this mess, and yet the party still touts deregulation.

Certainly, Americans should be angry. And it would seem obvious that action was needed. Nevertheless, all but three Republicans in the Senate didn't think so. Given a choice of standing with the banks or the American people, the Republicans announced their allegiance loud and clear: It is the party of the financial institutions.

So what is the Republican solution to our economic woes? Based on the actions of their leaders, it seems to be to blame the victims, cut taxes and protect the banks. Not only have Republicans opposed extending unemployment benefits, they have tried to blame the unemployed for their plight, particularly cruel since it was their policies that put them out of work in the first place. Arthur Delaney pointed out two examples in HuffPost last week: Sen. John Kyl said unemployment benefits provide a disincentive for the unemployed to seek work, and Sen. Judd Gregg claimed that unemployment insurance encourages the unemployed to stay out of work. (Again, Kyl won't support adding to the deficit for unemployment insurance, but he is fine with doing so for tax cuts for the wealthy.)

Republicans have used increasing government debt as a pro-GOP argument. Generally, it is, of course, better for the government not to run large deficits. But the Republican argument ignores history and is overly simplistic. After all, Bill Clinton handed a surplus to George W. Bush, who proceeded to leave Obama with a gaping deficit. Republicans were happy to run up debt in the 2000s on tax cuts for the rich and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, none of which were paid for. But now that the tens of millions of Americans face unemployment, these same GOP leaders complain about the deficit and say we can't afford any programs to help. How is it that we could afford to spend when it was for tax cuts (and still can, according to Kyl), but not to help those hurt by the Republican-policy-induced recession?

Two polls released on Tuesday showed that Americans care more about unemployment than the deficit. Which party is more concerned with each of those issues? So why should the anger translate to GOP votes? It shouldn't.

In general, Republican policies precipitated the recession, and the party's solutions are to offer more of the same. And when it came to deciding who to stand up for, the Republicans attacked the unemployed and stood with the banks. Americans' anger is legitimate, but directing that anger by giving power back to the GOP is misplaced. The connection makes no sense.

(You could run the same arguments for the oil disaster, immigration and terrorism, showing the Republican culpability and the lack of new solutions offered by the GOP to address the problems.)

I harbor no illusions that Obama and the Democratic Congress are above critique. But I'm saddened that there seems to be no recognition that most of the messes we find ourselves in were created, by and large, by the policies instituted by Bush and his Republican allies in Congress, and that the Republicans are offering those very same policies as the solution in the current campaign. It seems to me handing the reins back to the people who created the problems in the first place (and, more importantly, are only offering more of the same) is a horrible way to respond to the challenges. I'm further saddened that GOP strategy of obstructing and lying, putting rhetoric in front of facts, seems to be working.

You would think that with an oil disaster ravaging his state's already hurting economy, Sen. David Vitter would have better things to do than vote against financial reform and endorse bogus "birther" lawsuits against the president. But this is the essence of the Republican party in 2010."

Thank you, Mr. Bard.

Check out this article from DailyFinance

2010-07-01T00:39:00.000-07:00

Check out this article from DailyFinance

Outrageous Republican Statements 5/23/2010

2010-05-23T21:28:00.000-07:00

Tea Party leader Mark Williams on the plans to build a 13-story mosque and Islamic cultural center near ground zero: "The monument would consist of a Mosque for the worship of the terrorists' monkey-god." After it was pointed out to Mark Williams that his comment was not only offensive, but incorrect as it is Hindus who worship Hanuman, the Monkey God,apologized to "my Hindu friends" and acknowledged that Hanuman was "worshipped as a symbol of perseverance, strength and devotion." No apology to Muslims, however.

Obama: GOP Drove The Country Into A Ditch. 'Now They Want The Keys Back'

2010-05-20T11:25:00.000-07:00

Of Local (Portland) Interest

2010-05-18T11:35:00.000-07:00

Check out Dan Rather's piece on child prostitution in Portland, Oregon (at Huffington Post.)

Outrageous Republican Statements-5/7/2010

2010-05-07T16:14:00.000-07:00

Limbaugh's Lies
On his May 4 program, Rush Limbaugh said: "Guess what? Faisal Shahzad is a registered Democrat. I wonder if this SUV had an Obama sticker on it. Faisal Shahzad is a registered Democrat."

Faisal Shahzad is not even a registered voter, let alone a registered democrat.

Joe Lieberman Furthers bin Laden's Cause

2010-05-06T20:48:00.000-07:00

I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in -- and the West in general -- into an unbearable hell and a choking life.

Osama bin Laden, October 2001 interview with Al-Jazeera.
Innocent until proven guilty has long been a one of those coveted rights. "The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law." Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895). Joe Lieberman wants to change that. Lieberman wants to strip citizens of their citizenship for associating with alleged terrorists before the citizens are even tried and convicted. Lieberman hopes that in doing so, the government would not be required to advise American citizens suspected of associating with alleged terrorists of the Miranda warning and could then deny them their constitutional rights to consult an attorney, to remain silent, to a speedy trial, etc. This would effectively result in convictions of Americans for heinous crimes by unfair trials based on illegally obtained evidence. The mere suggestion of such a law shows just how little Joe Lieberman values the freedoms and principles that have made America a truly great country. The warrantless surveillance of telephone communications by the NSA, the "Patriot Act", now this. Is bin Laden getting what he wants?

Manufacturing the News

2010-05-05T13:25:00.000-07:00

And it ain't just FOX!
I have long been suspicious that the mainstream media was creating false controversy where none existed. When they state, "Some people are saying . . ." without any identifying information about their sources, I always wonder if the "some people" were fictitious, created in some media producer's office in an effort to boost ratings or circulation. Well, Eric Boehlert from Media Matters caught them in the act:

(I)t was mostly the mainstream media that concocted the absurd "Obama's Katrina" claim in the first place, and then helped actively push it. Journalists did it by pointing to mostly faceless, imaginary "critics" of the Obama administration in order to float the phony storyline.

Reporters and pundits last week couldn't find independent experts on disaster or emergency response who criticized the government's actions in the Gulf of Mexico. Reporters and pundits couldn't even find Republican members of Congress to blast Obama and his team. So instead, the press just decided to do that on its own and pretend it was news.
. . .
(A)fter going back and looking at more of the coverage of the politics of the oil spill, it's now clear that in this disturbing case it was the Beltway press that hatched the bogus "Obama's Katrina" meme, and then served up on a platter to the appreciative Noise Machine, which happily amplified it. In this instance, the sloppy misinformation campaign was concocted not by feral, Obama Derangement Syndrome bloggers, but by corporate journalists working from some of the biggest names in the news business; New York Times, the AP, ABC and CBS.
Journalists had virtually no factual foundation upon which to build the "Obama's Katrina" story. But that didn't seem to stop many.

It was the Associated Press that helped kick off the misguided "Obama's Katrina" talking point with a spin-heavy report by Calvin Woodward, which hit the news wire on the night of April 29. The article rather breathlessly suggested there would be all kinds of dire political consequences for the White House (not the oil industry) because many more millions of gallons of oil were spilling into the ocean than previous believed [emphasis added]:

Did you notice the nifty trick? The AP couldn't point to anyone of importance who had actually raised serious questions about self-policing. But the AP was confident somebody would, so the AP included that claim in a news article.

That speculation-as-news approach then allowed the AP's Woodward -- based on no actual reporting -- to wonder out loud, "Will this be Obama's Katrina?" Keep in mind, nobody quoted or mentioned in the article ever raised the Katrina specter. That was introduced by the AP, and the AP alone. So with the help of the AP, the "Obama's Katrina" ball began to roll.

A few hours later on the night of April 29, the Washington Times published an article by Joseph Curl, which leaned hard on the Katrina angle:
But like the AP, Curl and the Times couldn't actually point to anybody who was making that connection with the oil spill. In fact, nowhere in the Times article were any Obama aides seen defending the oil spill response to forestall Katrina comparisons, for the simple reasons that nobody was making those comparisons.
Now questions are sure to be raised about a self-policing system that trusted a commercial operator to take care of its own mishap.
The rapidly expanding environmental catastrophe caused by the oil spill off the coast of Louisiana is presenting a growing political challenge to the Obama White House, with Mr. Obama and his aides at pains to defend the response and forestall comparisons to the Hurricane Katrina crisis.
It probably shouldn't have to be noted, but I'll do it here anyway: Journalists are supposed to be in the business of reporting news, not manufacturing it. But in this case, the "Obama's Katrina" angle appeared to be too alluring for journalists to ignore and to not manufacture. The next morning, on Friday, on ABC's Good Morning America, George Stephanopoulos interviewed Obama advisor David Axelrod and launched the Katrina meme into the big time: "Here's this morning's Associated Press: 'Will this be Obama's Katrina?' Should the federal and state governments have done more and earlier?"

That question then became the news. Meaning, the fact that the White House was now being asked to defend the "Obama's Katrina" comparison (a comparison that nobody besides journalists were actually making at that time), meant that the 'story' had entered the media bloodstream and that it was now completely legitimate to raise questions about something that nobody was actually saying. (Limbaugh followed Stephanopoulos' lead and began pushing the "Obama's Katrina last Friday.)

For example, here was the Los Angeles Times on May 1, one day after Stephanopoulos asked about "Obama's Katrina" on ABC: Slight problem: The Times article did not include any criticism that federal agencies had acted too slowly. None. So if the Times couldn't find any relevant officials making a connection to Katrina, why did the Times feel it was okay to make that connection on its own?

That same day, this New York Times headline was quite clear: "Shadow of Hurricane Katrina Hangs Over Obama After Spill." By whose estimate did the "shadow of Hurricane Katrina" suddenly hang over the oil spill? Answer: By the New York Times' own estimation, of course. Because nobody in the article ever mentioned Katrina. The best the daily could do was point to faceless "critics": "The fact that Mr. Obama has no plans to visit the Gulf Coast in the next few days has already raised the eyebrows of some administration critics, in particular as it relates to the president's plans this weekend." The Times then promptly failed to quote a single administration "critic" making that claim.
Criticism of the federal agencies as too slow to recognize the seriousness of the spill reflects the difficult balancing act faced by the Obama administration as it increasingly takes ownership of disaster response in a region still angry over the Bush administration's reaction to Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Boehlert goes on to quote the Christian Science Monitor, Jake Tapper of ABC News and Katie Couric of CBS News "reporting" the same story using the "some people" reference without any identifying information or indication that "some people" really existed. There is more to read in Boehlert's piece. Click here to read the entire column.

The Charges

2010-05-04T16:15:00.000-07:00

Click here to see the charges against Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square car bomber. It sets forth details of the investigation and evidence supporting probable cause to arrest Faisal Shahzad.

If Employers Don't Hire, They Won't Come

2010-05-02T11:04:00.000-07:00

The flood of illegal aliens into this country is problematic. It drives down wages and contributes to a higher unemployment rate for Americans and legal immigrants. However, the new Arizona "Papers Please" law is unconstitutional and downright un-American. It will clog the criminal courts and take the police away from other more essential enforcement duties. Erecting a fence along the 1969 mile US-Mexico border is not likely to be effective, unless we put up a Berlin-type concrete wall and put guards along its entire length. Such an undertaking is unrealistic and just plain creepy.

We have laws on the books to prevent illegal immigration. The federal Immigration and Nationalization Act provides for the imposition of monetary penalties between $250 and $10,000 per alien against an employer who hires them. The federal government should add staff as required to enforce this provision and raise the penalties to cover the actual costs of enforcement and make it more expensive for them to hire illegal workers than legal workers. We have been letting the employers get away with breaking the law at the expense of everyone else for too long.

Lance Orton: Reluctant Hero

2010-05-02T09:46:00.000-07:00

Americans, and particularly New Yorkers, owe a big debt of gratitude to Lance Orton, the t-shirt vendor who observed and reported the car bomb in Times Square last evening. Excellent job, Lance!!

Thank you Harry Reid!

2010-04-30T14:01:00.000-07:00

I have been very critical of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's lack of backbone due to his failure to stand up to the Republicans and or to use his pulpit to push through legislation. Well, this week, Senate Democrats led by Harry Reid stood up to Republicans in a big way. After weeks of Republicans blocking the Wall Street reform bill, Majority Leader Reid called their bluff by threatening to require votes throughout the night so the filibustering senators could not go home. He also called them on their obstructionism and exposed them for siding with the big banks by making statements to the press such as:

"The games of stalling are over";
"All the talk by Republicans about wanting to do something about this bill before it gets on the floor is really anti-Senate, anti-American. It appears they're more concerned about taking care of the fat cats on Wall Street";
When asked about the finance bill and the moderate Republicans, he replied, "There aren't any.."

and he won! MoveOn.org is circulating a thank you card. As they said, it would have been easy to give in, cut a deal and weaken reform. But this time, Senator Reid and the Democrats did the right thing, and we should thank them. I signed this 'Thank You' card. Please take a minute, click on the link below and sign the card!
http://pol.moveon.org/thanksreiddems/?r_by=20102-4265401-T2eVwVx&rc=paste

Outrageous Republican Statements 4/29/2010: Microchip 'em!

2010-04-29T21:40:00.000-07:00

Dr. Pat BertrocheI, who is running for an Iowa Republican Congressional seat, told an audience regarding illegal immigrants: "I think we should catch 'em, we should document 'em, make sure we know where they are and where they are going. I actually support microchipping them. I can microchip my dog so I can find it. Why can't I microchip an illegal?"

New Feature: Outrageous Republican Statements

2010-04-29T17:11:00.000-07:00

Also known as ORS, this is a new feature that will likely appear frequently but not at regularly scheduled intervals. I will bring to your attention false, ignorant, scary and/or ridiculous statements made by Republicans that need little or no commentary. We know there are many. I hope this is fun!

Arizona Has History of Racist Legislation

2010-04-23T17:20:00.000-07:00

In 1986, the Arizona state legislature rejected efforts to establish Martin Luther King, Jr. Day as a holiday. That same year, Governor Bruce Babbitt declared MLK day a holiday. In 1987, Arizona had a new governor, Evan Mecham, who rescinded Governor Babbitt's declaration. In 1989, the state legislature finally passed legislation establishing the holiday, but it was subsequently rejected by voters via ballot measure. It wasn't until after the NFL voted to pull the 1993 Super Bowl from Tempe, Arizona and award it to Pasadena that Arizona voters approved the holiday.

Sarah Palin over-brewed

2010-04-19T15:56:00.000-07:00

Brooklyn Beagle thinks that we've all been listening to Sarah Palin and her tea partiers Oolong. And as every tea-degreed citizen knows, over-brewed tea not only tastes bitter, it is harmful to the health.

Howling,
Brooklyn Beagle

Rachel Maddow's Special on The McVeigh Tapes

2010-04-19T12:15:00.000-07:00

On this, the 15th anniversary of the bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma City, Rachel Maddow has a special that airs at 9:00 p.m. eastern time/6:00 p.m. pacific time tonight on MSNBC, "The McVeigh Tapes: Confessions of an American Terrorist." According to Hank Stuever's Washington Post review, it is quite chilling. It is probably worth watching, particularly in light of the current anti-government hoo-ha.

Where's the beef?

2010-04-18T12:27:00.000-07:00

Tantrums by angry white men
Okay, so they aren't all men. But, last week's New York Times/CBS poll was quite telling. As it turns out, tea partiers are wealthier and better educated than the general public. And, regardless of their signs and slogans, they think that the amount of taxes they paid last year was fair. So, what's their real beef? They are simply racists who are angry that we have a black president.*    Nevermind that his IQ is higher than everyone in the Republican party put together. Forget that he can actually construct a sentence, read, think and has the respect of world leaders, unlike gee dubya.

*According to the NY Times/CBS poll, Tea Party supporters are convinced that:
   • the policies of the Obama administration are disproportionately directed at helping the poor rather than the middle class or the rich;
   • that President Obama does not share the values most Americans live by;
   • that he does not understand the problems of people like themselves. "More than half say the policies of the administration favor the poor, and 25 percent think that the administration favors blacks over whites — compared with 11 percent of the general public.
   • Tea partiers are more likely than the general public, and Republicans, to say that too much has been made of the problems facing black people.

Absence

2010-04-18T11:26:00.000-07:00

My conspicuous absence for the last several months was due to health problems and long periods of hospitalization. But, the pundit is BACK and ready to pundicize!

Cheney Welcomes Terrorist Attacks

2010-03-10T12:11:00.000-08:00

The day after Christmas, I said to my spouse, "I wonder how long it will take Dick Cheney to start spouting off and blaming President Obama for the attempted attack" on the jet over Detroit on Christmas Day. Cheney has been all over the airwaves predicting a terror attack and pre-judging it as Obama's fault since before President Obama took office. As time went on, as did his doom and gloom appearances in the media, it became increasingly clear that Dick Cheney hopes that terrorists attack this nation.

(Written January 4, 2010)

Interesting Question

2009-12-31T09:03:00.000-08:00

Rush Limbaugh, who is vacationing in Hawaii, was rushed to Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii yesterday with chest pains. According to thinkprogress.org,this is

the same medical center that a United Press International reporter misidentified in an article published in 2008 as the facility in which President Obama was born. Though the error was corrected to accurately indicate that Obama was born in the Kapi’olani Medical Center, the mistake fueled “birther” conspiracy theories that Limbaugh then dedicated significant airtime to promoting. Since then, Limbaugh has gone as far to state that Hawaii “morphed into Kenya one day in 1961 [the year Obama was born] and reverted back to Hawaii the next day.”

Meanwhile, some of Limbaugh’s right-wing colleagues have spent the past week slamming Obama for vacationing in Hawaii over the holidays, which “to many Americans seems like a foreign place.”

My question is, will birthers believe Limbaugh was admitted to the hospital if the Hawaiian government fails to release a hospital admission form?

Some Positive Information from the Health Care Bills

2009-12-28T08:17:00.000-08:00

FYI-David M. Herszenhorn summarizes some immediate benefits of the Senate and House health care bills at http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/health-bill-benefits-for-the-impatient :

--Within six months, the Senate bill approved last week would allow dependent, unmarried children to remain on their parents’ policies until their 26th birthday; the House bill would allow an additional year of dependent coverage, until the 27th birthday. Right now it varies from state to state.
--The Senate bill would also bar insurers from denying coverage to children under 19 years of age based on pre-existing medical conditions. And the House bill would require insurers to cover reconstructive surgery for children born with deformities.
--In many cases, the requirements, including the extended coverage for adult children, would apply only to new insurance plans, though insurers could apply the changes to existing policies.
--Many major provisions in the health care legislation would not take effect for several years. New federal subsidies to help moderate-income Americans afford coverage would not begin until 2013 under the House bill, and 2014 under the Senate bill. A new requirement that nearly all Americans obtain insurance would take effect at the same time that the subsidies become available.
--No annual or lifetime limits. Both the Senate and House versions of the legislation ultimately seek to prevent insurers from imposing annual or lifetime limits on coverage in new health policies. In the final package of amendments to the Senate bill, the majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, added new language giving the secretary of health and human services the authority to regulate annual limits from six months after the bill is enacted until the broader insurance provisions take effect in 2014. Such limits are a serious concern to people with chronic illnesses like cancer that can require expensive treatments within a relatively short period of time, and the change proposed by Mr. Reid was prompted by inquiries from the American Cancer Society.
--Limits on insurance company profits. Beginning in 2011, the Senate bill would set tight restrictions to force insurance companies to spend the bulk of their revenues on providing medical care to beneficiaries. The legislation would require insurance companies in the large group market to spend at least 85 percent of their revenues on care and insurers in the individual market to spend at least 80 percent of revenues on care. Critics of the private health insurance, including Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia, and Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, said setting such requirements on what insurers call “medical loss ratios” was needed to tamp down on profiteering.
--Short-term expansion of state high risk pools. To help people who cannot obtain insurance because of pre-existing conditions, both the Senate and House bills would provide $5 billion to increase the availability of coverage through state high-risk insurance pools. This provision would take effect 90 days after enactment of the legislation, but many details remain to be worked out.style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
--New financing for community health centers. The House bill provides $12 billion in additional financing for community health centers, which serve needy populations, particularly in rural areas. Senator Bernard Sanders, independent of Vermont, won the inclusion of $10 billion in financing for community health centers in the Senate bill. The final dollar amount will be decided in negotiations between House and Senate leaders, but the money would be available for five years beginning in the current fiscal year.
--Closing the Medicare drug “doughnut hole”. The legislation would increase the amount of drug costs covered by Medicare by $500 in 2010. And beginning on July 1, 2010, the bill would provide 50 percent discounts on brand-name drugs and biologics that low- and middle-income beneficiaries have to pay for themselves once the coverage gap known as the doughnut hole begins.
--Prohibition on rescinding existing coverage. Both the House and Senate bills would bar insurance companies -from rescinding existing coverage other than “in cases of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of material fact.”
--Small business tax credits. The Senate bill would offer tax credits to small businesses beginning in 2010 for up to 35 percent of premium costs. The full credit would be available to firms with 10 or fewer employees and average annual wages of $25,000. Reduced credits would be available to firms with up to 25 employees and with average annual wages of up to $50,000.
--Patient protections. For new health plans, beginning six months after enactment of the legislation, the Senate bill would prohibit insurers from requiring prior authorization before a woman sees an obstetrician or gynecologist. The bill would also require coverage for emergency care.
--Discrimination protections for lower-income workers. The Senate bill would bar group health plans from setting any eligibility rules for coverage that favor higher-wage employees. This provision would take effect six months after enactment of the legislation.
--Cobra extension through 2013. Anyone currently paying for an extension of health benefits as permitted under federal law — for instance, after a loss of employment — would be permitted under the House legislation to continue Cobra coverage until the major insurance coverage provisions of the legislation take effect in 2013.
--Reinsurance program for early retirees. Both the House and Senate bills would provide federal financing for a new reinsurance program to encourage employers to maintain health benefits for employees and early retirees age 55 to 64.
--Consumer assistance provisions. Both the House and Senate bills would begin to impose new requirements aimed at making it easier for consumers to interact with insurers, including a requirement that health plans adopt uniform descriptions of plan benefits and appeals procedures and that they begin using identical forms.

The Senate's Health Care Bill

2009-12-22T16:47:00.000-08:00

No public option. No expansion of Medicare to people 55+ years old. No prohibition on the ability of companies to raise premiums for people with pre-existing conditions or older people. In fact, it ALLOWS them to do this. Requires me to buy insurance even when I'm broke.

Rahm Emanuel SELLS OUT AMERICA

2009-12-15T18:25:00.000-08:00

From Brian Beutler at talkingpointsmemo.com:

Obama administration officials were not pleased when word leaked out earlier today that the White House was leaning on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to cut a deal with Joe Lieberman on a public option alternative--and they gave their counterparts on the other end of Pennsylvania Ave. an earful about it. But in the end, sources are unanimous: The White House wants Reid to hand Joe Lieberman the farm.

An aide briefed on discussions with the White House says that there would be no story if Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel hadn't interceded. The aide confirmed an account, reported by Huffington Post, that Emanuel visited Reid personally, telling him to cut a deal with Lieberman.

Then the aide provided more detail.

Emanuel didn't just leave it to Reid to find a solution. Emanuel specifically suggested Reid give Lieberman the concessions he seeks on issues like the Medicare buy-in and triggers. "It was all about 'do what you've got to do to get it done. Drop whatever you've got to drop to get it done," the aide said. All of Emanuel's prescriptions, the source said, were aimed at appeasing Lieberman--not twisting his arm.

This is the second Senate aide to provide nearly identical accounts of the White House's intervention. It seems very much as if officials there desperately want the Senate to pass a bill, at all costs.

At this point, the Medicare buy-in isn't in exactly what you'd call "good health." But the fact that it hasn't been officially nixed by Reid suggest there's some remaining tension between Reid and the White House over this issue. We'll know soon who wins.

Interestingly, this is consistent with what I, Presiding Pundit, heard early this summer-that Rahm Emanuel was advocating dropping the public option before the blue dogs or republicans even thought of it. Is Emanuel in bed with the insurance companies? Maybe he was the real architect of the town hall meeting protests! (You know I love a good conspiracy story!) When the democrats lose control of the house and/or senate in 2010 for jerking us around on health care, will Rahm Emanuel lose his job?

Excuse my language

2009-12-15T00:52:00.000-08:00

But now I am really pissed!

I have not liked that the senate democrats have been watering down the health care reform legislation. I admit that I have felt defeated during the last several weeks and that it didn't matter what I wrote in this blog, how many times I wrote or called my senators, the Senate Majority Leader or the White House. Thus, I did not feel sufficiently moved to write in this blog and I turned my attention to other aspects of life. But when the senate democrats dropped the Medicare expansion portion (allowing people 55+ years old buy into Medicare) of the newest version of the bill because egomaniac, attention-whore Joe Lieberman indicated that he was against it (despite being in favor of it a few months ago), my head exploded. It is time to pull Lieberman's chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. The democrats have caved on everything that would make this an effective piece of legislation. We are left with a bag of dead bones, the only thing alive being the requirement that we all get health insurance, a windfall for the insurance companies and a burden on many of us. Further, there is nothing to keep them from raising the premiums through the roof. This is a victory for the insurance industry and the republicans. Thanks senate democrats, you have royally screwed your supporters and constituents.

Through the Megaphone-

2009-11-30T22:32:00.001-08:00

Hey Progressives, weren't you listening?
As President Obama's decision about America's continued involvement in Afghanistan became increasingly imminent, I have heard many angry and angst-filled progressives complaining on the radio and on television about the prospect of the president sending more troops to Afghanistan. Even Keith Olberman sternly pontificated. As anticipation of the decision increased, many of these people act as if a decision to increase troops would be a betrayal of their vote. I find this attitude interesting because throughout his campaign, President Obama consistently stated that he would increase the troops in Afghanistan. On August 1, 2007,in Washington, D.C., then-Senator Obama made the following remarks:

"And so, a little more than a year after that bright September day, I was in the streets of Chicago again, this time speaking at a rally in opposition to war in Iraq. I did not oppose all wars, I said. I was a strong supporter of the war in Afghanistan. But I said I could not support "a dumb war, a rash war" in Iraq."

"It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland."

"The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

"As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban. As we step up our commitment, our European friends must do the same, and without the burdensome restrictions that have hampered NATO's efforts. We must also put more of an Afghan face on security by improving the training and equipping of the Afghan Army and Police, and including Afghan soldiers in U.S. and NATO operations."

Obama made similar remarks on September 12, 2007 in Clinton, Iowa:

"Osama bin Ladin and his top lieutenants have rebuilt a new base in Pakistan where they freely train recruits, plot new attacks, and disseminate propaganda. The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan."

"When we end this war in Iraq, we can finally finish the fight in Afghanistan. That is why I propose stepping up our commitment there, with at least two additional combat brigades and a comprehensive program of aid and support to help Afghans help themselves."

On August 19, 2008, Obama said the following in a speech at the VFW National Convention in Orlando, Florida:

"Ending the war will allow us to invest in America, to strengthen our military, and to finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and the border region of Pakistan. We must also recognize that we cannot succeed in Afghanistan or secure America as long as there is a terrorist safe-haven in northwest Pakistan. A year ago, I said that we must take action against bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights and Pakistan cannot or will not act.

"Six years ago, I stood up at a time when it was politically difficult to oppose going to war in Iraq, and argued that our first priority had to be finishing the fight against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda in Afghanistan."

"Ending the war will allow us to invest in America, to strengthen our military, and to finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and the border region of Pakistan. And as Commander-in-Chief, I will have no greater priority than taking out these terrorists who threaten America, and finishing the job against the Taliban."

Not only was President Obama on the record as being in support of sending more troops to Afghanistan for several years before his election, he campaigned on it. If he announces that he is going to send additional troops as is widely speculated, he is doing exactly what the he told us he would do. So, I don't understand this feeling of surprise and betrayal in the progressive community. Did they not listen to his speeches? Did they misunderstand? Did they purposely ignore it? Did they think that he did not mean what he said?

OMG! Do these people actually vote?!

2009-11-26T02:16:00.000-08:00

This would be amusing if it was not so sad and scary. This is clear and convincing evidence that we have a block of people (voters? I hope not!) who are uninformed, but pick up catch phrases from conservative talk shows and throw them around without knowing what they mean. This is also an indictment of our educational system because they did not teach these people how to pick up a newspaper and read it, or how to find news on the Internet. Most important, they did not teach critical thinking.

The Time Is Now

2009-11-24T03:37:00.000-08:00

We must press on!

I have not heard of any corporations lining up in support of the proposed health care reform legislation. In fact, they have been spending millions of dollars paying off republicans and "blue dog" democrats to do their bidding for them, financing commercials and staging demonstrations at town hall meetings and elsewhere to spread their lies in an effort to defeat the legislation. Unless the government takes action with a strong public option, there will be no competition for the insurance companies and they will continue to strangle us all. Without a public option in place, their will be no motivation for the industry to bring down costs. If we don't do this now, there may never be another chance in our lifetimes. Every day we wait, more people die because they do not have health insurance coverage. Every day that we waste battling, the chances that we will ever have effective change get smaller and people continue to die. Rolling back the Bush tax cuts will go a long way toward paying for the changes.

***The Presiding Pundit is back after several weeks of absence due to illness. Thanks to Brooklyn Beagle for making sure the blog did not die from lack of entries during this time.

Still sizzling

2009-11-23T16:11:00.001-08:00

Here is a recent e-mail exchange that took place among Presiding Pundit's relatives. I changed the names to protect the innocent . . . and the guilty.

----- Original Message -----
From: Dash
Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2009 9:54 PM
Subject: healthcare
As much as I would like to support Obama on healthcare reform, this bill is 2074 pages of misguided crap. It disingenuously claims not to raise the deficit, but does so through accounting trickery:
1. it accounts for two years of increased revenue via hiked taxes before subsidies kicks in. If you adjust the revenue and spending to start at the same time, it is not revenue neutral.
2. In order to get doctors to support it, it prevents scheduled cuts in Medicare payments, but does so by moving the $274 billion in costs into a different bill to hide the issue.
Mainly, it focuses on expanding coverage to the poor yet does nothing to control the ridiculous costs of the existing system. Rather, Obama should focus on cutting costs of the system first. Instead, we are now adding millions of people onto a taxpayer supported system with artificially high costs that benefits lawyers, doctors, insurance and pharmaceuticals. The system sucked long before Obama came to office, but he needs to not add more people onto a broken system. These are real reasons why the democratic bill is crap. Most of the reasons put forth by the republicans on why the bill is bad (supposed lost jobs, gov't run healthcare, etc) are also disingenuous and false.
Here's the -- http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act.pdf

From: Kit
Sent: Sun, November 22, 2009 7:59:33 AM
Subject: Re: healthcare
You obviously have not been reading the Wilsonville Pundit. Presiding Pundit and Brooklyn Beagle have espoused the health care reform bill with great wisdom - basically, it doesn't matter how much it costs, do it.

From: Dash
Sent: Sun, Nov 22, 2009 10:23 AM
Subject: Re: healthcare
Yep, I can understand the desire for healthcare reform and to fix the terrible existing system. It's a good idea. The problem is that the order in which reform happens is important. They need to bring costs under control before adding 30-40 million more people to the system. We can't bring the wasted money on the Iraq war into this. It's irrelevant, as the old saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right!

From: Presiding Pundit
Sent: Mon, November 23, 2009 6:48:41 AM
Subject: Re: healthcare
I have not had a chance to read the entire bill, but the Congressional Budget Office did they actually gave it a good rating. Here is their report: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10731/Reid_letter_11_18_09.pdf

We have a very small window of time in which to get this done. If we don't do it now, the republicans and health insurance companies will make sure it will never get done. I don't care how much it costs, it is necessary. It is the moral thing to do. We should be ashamed as a country that we have not done this until now. All of the other western countries have universal health care. Due to greed, we are the lone holdout. I don't think that one can ignore the money spent on the Iraq war, all of the money that went into the pockets of Dick Cheney and his friends and how we almost lost our freedoms because of their assault on our constitutional rights. The people who supported and voted for Bush/Cheney TWICE are the same people who rant, rave and lie (or are eager to believe the lies) about Barak Obama and the Democrats' efforts to provide good quality health care to all Americans. According to Harvard Medical School researchers, 45,000 people per year (that's one person every 12 minutes) die due to lack of adequate health care because they do not have insurance. No matter what the cost, we do not have the moral right to refuse to change a system that sees fit to let people die due to lack of health insurance.

From: George
Sent: Mon. November 23, 2009 9:01 AM
Subject: Re: healthcare
I intend to organize and track local, state and federal officials that vote "yes" or "present" to any part of this stupid idiotic spending spree and, accordingly, oppose in any and every way possible their continuation in public office. These people have to be stopped. We can't community organize and spend our way out of this mess. Stop the spending; send the special interest groups, unions, bleeding heart AH insurance companies and, especially, the ever loving litigating Washington lawyers to hell. I am serious. I hate them all. I do not trust anyone right now. Not even Sarah and particularly anyone that claims they are a democrat or republican.

From: Dash
Sent: Mon, November 23, 2009 9:45:08 AM
Subject: Re: healthcare
By adding on tens of millions to the existing system, it will only make service worse and pump more money into the doctors, insurance and legal industries. This makes them more powerful and means that it will be even harder to control costs in the future. Why else would the corporations be lining up behind this bill? It funnels taxpayer money, which we will have to borrow at high rates, to these industry groups by way of 30-40 million people who otherwise couldn't afford it. Instead, wouldn't it be better to get the skyrocketing costs down first, and then afterward move to implement broad coverage? To me they have this backwards. It's akin to guaranteeing everyone the right to subsidized gasoline when prices are $5 a gallon.

What's all the screaming about ?!

2009-11-12T13:38:00.000-08:00

$1.1 Trillion over 10 years for a national health care plan that covers everyone – WHAT IS EVERYONE SCREAMING ABOUT? We've already spent $1 Trillion on the Iraq and Afghan wars and plan to spend $2-3 Trillion before they're over, if they're ever over. Brooklyn Beagle thinks that anyone who wants to spend more on Iraq and Afghanistan than on the health and well-being of this country's citizens should be voted out of office. We need to spend so much on health care in this country that we CANNOT AFFORD to fuel a war in another part of the world.

Howling,
Brooklyn Beagle

Let Insurance Companies Fail

2009-10-24T06:51:00.000-07:00

The insurance companies are claiming that a public option that would make insurance available to everyone and inject competition into the marketplace would put them out of business. Well, if a few fat, weak, poorly run insurance companies have to fail, so be it. The US government should not financially support insurance companies by withholding health care from citizens and preventing competition just so a poorly run insurance company doesn't fail. 80% of all new businesses fail in this country due to the competitiveness of the marketplace. Failing businesses are as natural a part of this economy as the dime or nickel. That's the natural consequence of competition - adapt or die. The government should not only let the fat, poorly run insurance businesses fail, but it should help make it happen.

Howling,
Brooklyn Beagle

Opting-out

2009-10-10T01:29:00.000-07:00

I am not convinced that an opt-out provision (allowing states to opt-out of the public option) is the best way to garner sixty votes in the senate to pass meaningful and effective health care reform.

First, why would a state want to opt-out? It is likely because the insurance industry has sufficiently lined the pockets of the state politicians. It is a good chunk of money to fund the re-election campaign. Also, on principle, Republicans just hate the idea of government involvement in anything, except of course, what we do in our bedrooms, what we say and to whom in our telephone conversations and e-mail, and which sites we visit on the internet. So, the state GOP would opt-out as soon as it had the majority in the state legislatures and the governor’s office. When I first heard about this op-out provision, I thought that it might work if the opt-out had to be passed by two-thirds of the state’s voters. But, given the lack of informed voters, the gullibility of the general public, and the vast sums of money the insurance industry has spent on campaigns in the past, I have no doubt that the industry will dedicate obscenely large sums of money spreading disinformation through wide media campaigns to convince the public to vote to opt-out. Out of ignorance and/or laziness, people vote against their own interests all the time.

Second, there seems to be a consensus among liberal pundits that smaller, poorer states like Alabama and other southern states are the most likely states to opt-out. So, if they do opt-out, what happens to their citizens who are now required to have medical insurance and are at the mercy of the one or two insurance companies who do business in their small states? To be sure, health care reform would not have improved the lives of those citizens, it would have imposed additional burdens on them and made their lives worse.

So , I urge the Senate leaders to pass a meaningful and effective health care reform bill (with a robust public option and without triggers, opt-in or opt-out provisions) through the reconciliation process, not by selling out the citizens in order to get a few, if any, Republicans to vote for it. As for the Blue Dogs, just tell them that you will revoke their committee chairmanships and other influential positions that they hold if they try to block it. Then do it. It is that important.

Glenn Beck Is a Fake!

2009-10-04T03:46:00.000-07:00

Finally! Proof that Glenn Beck fakes his tears! Watch the video below, taken during a photo shoot. At Beck's request (first line of the video) they put Vaseline under his eyes to make tears form.

Won't Back Down

2009-10-02T12:11:00.000-07:00

More on Rep. Alan Grayson's call out of the Republican health care plan: As always, the Republicans expressed their outrage and accused Rep. Grayson of degrading "the integrity and proceedings of the House." In their typical self-serving manner, the Republicans ignored the fact that their own had made numerous false claims on the floor about Democratic plans:

– “Last week Democrats released a health care bill which essentially said to America’s seniors: Drop dead.” [Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL), 7/21/09]
– “They’re going to save money by rationing care, getting you in a long line. Places like Canada, United Kingdom, and Europe. People die when they’re in line.” [Rep. Steve King (R-IA), 7/15/09]
– “The Republican plan will make sure we bring down the cost of health care for all Americans and that ensures affordable access for all Americans and is pro-life because it will not put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government.” [Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), 7/28/09]
– “That’s exactly what’s going on in Canada and Great Britain today…and a lot of people are going to die.” [Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA), 7/10/09]
– “One in five people have to die because they went to socialized medicine! … I would hate to think that among five women, one of ‘em is gonna die because we go to socialized care.” [Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), 7/15/09]

The Republicans nevertheless demanded an that Rep. Grayson apologize for Tuesday's call out. Nancy Pelosi refused to tell Rep. Grayson to apologize. In response to the Republican demand, Grayson said that he did not plan to apologize. "It is just another example of how they are constantly trying to change the subject. Nobody really cares about their feelings," Grayson said. "We are not sent here to make the other members feel good," he said. "We are sent here to solve America's problems. Only in their own narrow minds would they think what matters here is how they feel."

On Wednesday, Grayson took to the house floor to apologize, but it was not what the Republicans expected. This video is a must see.

I guess we can still have heroes.

Tell It Like It Is

2009-10-02T10:07:00.000-07:00

Republicans CALLED OUT on health care "plan"

In a controversial speech on the House floor Tuesday night, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) accurately summed up the Republican alternative health care proposal: “die quickly.” The short two minute presentation is well worth watching:

The Right Thing to Do

2009-09-29T20:00:00.000-07:00

Four out of five health care reform bills coming out of congressional committees contain a public option.

According to the most recent New York Times/CBS poll, 65 percent of Americans are in favor of a public option.

A survey of doctors published by the New England Journal of Medicine this month revealed that 73 percent of doctors support a public option.

According to Harvard Medical School researchers, 45,000 people per year (that's one person every 12 minutes ) die due to lack of adequate health care because they do not have insurance.

Thus, there is no reason that a bill without a public option should appear on the president's desk. A health care bill with a public option is a necessity. It is the right thing to do. It is what the people want.

Senator Chuck Schumer to Wilsonville Pundit

2009-09-29T15:37:00.000-07:00

I wanted to give you quick update about our work to pass a public health care option.

My amendment to add a public option to the Senate Finance Committee bill came up just two votes short of being adopted by the full committee this afternoon.

This is unfortunate news but not a surprise. Remember, the Senate Finance Committee is more conservative than the Senate as a whole. And 4 out of 5 Congressional committees with jurisdiction over health care reform have passed a public option.

This is the opening day of our fight, and I will continue to work to improve the health care reform bill as we take the legislation to the Senate floor.

The more the people hear the facts about the public option, the more they support our efforts. We must continue to work together and speak out. If we continue to fight, I am confident we will pass health care reform with a robust public option.

Chuck Schumer
U.S. Senate

A Public Option is the ONLY Option

2009-09-24T09:42:00.000-07:00

Thank you for inviting Brooklyn Beagle to contribute to the Wilsonville Pundit. I wish to share with your readers an email I recently received from New York Senator Charles Schumer:

Thank you for contacting me and expressing your support for government-run public option in health care reform. I wholeheartedly agree that a public option will help enhance access to quality and affordable health care for every American.

Our country is facing a crisis in health care. The cost of health insurance is skyrocketing, and too many New York families are caught in the middle. Like you, I believe it is absolutely unacceptable that more than forty-six million Americans do not have health care coverage. Both the health of our citizens and the health of our nation are at stake, and we must act soon.

I strongly support the establishment of a public health insurance option which would create a not-for-profit insurance plan, started by the government, which would compete on a level playing field with existing private health insurance plans. Because the public health insurance option would be not-for-profit, it should require lower premiums and, therefore, exert downward pressure on the premiums of existing insurance plans. This change is pro-consumer because it adds competition to insurance markets, allowing New Yorkers and all Americans one more choice of affordable and comprehensive health insurance.

Too many Americans are either uninsured or underinsured and Congress must act soon to provide the necessary catalyst we need. The Senate Finance Committee, of which I am a member, is working with all stakeholders in the health care community to develop a strong bill that can help solve our current health crisis.

Thank you for contacting me about this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me again if I can ever be of assistance to you on this, or any other matter.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Schumer
United States Senator

This blog is great! Keep up the heat!

Brooklyn Beagle

A Slip of the Republican Tongue

2009-09-24T02:31:00.000-07:00

The Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee argued for additional time to read the Baucus health care bill before voting on it. Although they asked for 72 hours, the work and procedures arising out of that time could add up to three weeks to the process, according to press accounts. I note that none of the Republicans cared to read George Bush's Patriot Act and they ignored similar requests by Democrats for more time to review. In fact, the Republican leadership forced it through to a floor vote in the House in just one day.

In support of the Republicans' request to delay the health care bill, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), revealed that the Republicans did not ask for the time so that the senators and/or their staff members could read the bill, but so the insurance lobbyists could read the bill and have time to come up with additional roadblocks. Mike Madden at Salon.com reports that Roberts stated the following:

All the Senator from Kentucky is asking is for 72 hours to determine the cost. Senator Snowe has spoken eloquently about sunshine, and the openness, and the fact that the American people would support this 90 percent, 95 percent. But the thing that I’m trying to point out is we would have at least 72 hours for the people that the providers have hired to keep up with all of the legislation that we pass around here, and the regulations that we pass around here, to say “hey, wait a minute. Have you considered this?”

oops.

2009-09-23T17:58:00.000-07:00

Thank you for inviting me to contribute to your blog. I look forward to commenting on both Oregon and National political issues. This is a serious time for America but, I hope not to lose my sense of humor. See you all soon!

The Impact of Race on Today's Political Climate

2009-09-20T00:02:00.000-07:00

Carter and Obama are both right

This past week, former President Carter told NBC news, "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man . . . racism inclination still exists. And I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of the belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It's an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply."

I applaud former President Carter's "calling out" of these racists. I made the same observation myself in my September 7th entry about the hysteria over President Obama's address to the nation's school children  when I wrote, "This is a pure and very sad case of racism. These people cannot stand the fact that we elected a black president. They cannot tolerate the thought of a black president speaking to their children and possibly inspiring them, because it would disrupt the hate that they are spewing and teaching their children."

In an interview with CNN's John King, to be broadcast on Sunday, President Obama said that he assumes some people don’t like him because of his race but said it is not the “overriding issue.” He said the intense public reaction reflects a long-standing debate about the role of government, which gets more fierce “when presidents are trying to bring about big changes.”

The resulting headlines stating that Obama rejects Carter's statement, were wrong. The Republicans oppose health care reform and most of the other changes that Obama has proposed.  They are angry that they lost the election. They will do anything to regain their power. So, as they did with the Christian right and the issues of abortion and homosexuality in prior elections, they are now stoking the pent up racism of Americans who resent having a black man as our president. Then, they feed one lie after another to these people, via the internet and people like Glenn "Joe McCarthy" Beck and Rush Limbaugh, to create angry mobs at town hall meetings and giant temper-tantrums in Washington D.C. This keeps negative Obama stories in the media and drags down his approval ratings.

Thus, Obama and Carter were both correct in their statements.

2009-09-16T02:31:00.000-07:00

Crystal Lee Sutton, died on September 11, 2009 in Burlington North Carolina from brain cancer. In the early 1970s, Sutton was fired from her job after trying to organize a union at the JP Stevens plant in North Carolina. Her final act at the plant was writing the word "UNION" on a piece of cardboard, standing up on her work table and holding the sign up, while her co-workers turned off their machines in solidarity. She was then physically removed from the plant by police. Sutton was the inspiration for the title character in the 1979 movie, Norma Rae, played by Sally Field. Sutton was denied possible life-saving medication for two months because her insurance company would not pay for it. Eventually, the insurance company agreed to pay for the medication but by then, the cancer had taken its toll on her. She told the Burlington Times-News that the insurance company's action was an example of abuse of the working poor. According to the Times-News, Sutton said:

How in the world can it take so long to find out [whether they would cover the medicine or not] when it could be a matter of life or death. It is almost like, in a way, committing murder.

But hey, don't let a government bureaucrat get between my doctor and I. Better to have insurance company bean counters get between my doctor and I. They have such a good record. Oh, and those government death panels? I would rather continue with the insurance company death panels. They are so effective.

A Question of Balance

2009-09-15T14:47:00.000-07:00

Baucus and Grassley accept millions from health care and insurance interests

As Senator Max Baucus claims that he is working on a health care bill with his bipartisan panel, I thought that it would be a good time to review his connections to health care and insurance companies. In a June 14, 2009 article in the Montana Standard, Mike Dennison summarized data from the Center for Responsive Politics, which is a nonprofit group that tracks campaign donations. Mr. Dennison's summary, in pertinent part, is as follows:

In the past six years, nearly one-fourth of every dime raised by Baucus, D-Mont., and his political-action committee has come from groups and individuals associated with drug companies, insurers, hospitals, medical-supply firms, health-service companies and other health professionals.

These donations total about $3.4 million, or $1,500 a day, every day, from January 2003 through 2008.
. . . . .

From 2003-2008, the Baucus campaign and his Glacier PAC, which raises money and distributes it to other candidates, received 23 percent of their $14.8 million from health-care and insurance interests.

The $3.4 million from these sectors includes $853,000 from pharmaceutical and health-products, $851,000 from health professionals; $467,000 from hospitals and nursing homes, $466,000 from health-service and HMO interests, and $784,000 from insurance.

The insurance-sector money includes donations from all types of insurance-company interests, including health insurance.

Five of the top 10 specific donor sources for Baucus were drug companies, health insurers or health-related firms. For example, employees of Schering-Plough Corp., a major drug firm, gave him $92,000 over the period, more than any other single source.

Mr. Dennison also pointed out that Senator Charles Grassley received 23.5% of his total donations from health and insurance interests, $2.3 million out of $9.8 million total funds.

By contrast, the late great Senator Edward M. Kennedy received only 7.5 % of his donations from such interests. Also, President Barack Obama received only 2.5% from health care interests and 0.3% from insurance interests during his presidential campaign.

So, when faced with the choice of a plan with an effective pubic option supported by President Obama and the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy or a plan without an effective public option, if any, written by Senators Baucus and Grassley, which plan is most likely to help all Americans? Hmmm....
*Thanks to Patti for all the research.

It Ain't Over 'Til It's Over

2009-09-13T14:04:00.000-07:00

At various points in the past month and a half, I was sure that the public option was dead, or alive, depending on which message the White House was putting out at the time.  With all of the trial balloons and the clarifications issued the next day, it was a real roller-coaster.   The day of Obama's speech, I read a dozen different stories about what the president was going to say about the public option that night.  Each with a source, each claiming to know, each with a different prognostication. After President Obama's speech on Wednesday night, I felt renewed hope. Even though the President gave himself wiggle room, I believed that unless the Republicans could come up with a constructive and workable method of accomplishing the goals set forth that night, the public option was in. And, given the fact that the Republicans had no intention of coming up with such a solution, we would have an effective  public option.

Then, it started. First, David Axelrod told Rachel Maddow in an interview immediately after the speech that he thought there would be some sort of public option in the bill, but he did not know whether there would be a trigger mechanism. Then, on Friday, I read reports that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were "softening" on requiring a public option in the President's new health plan. Only four days after the President's speech, a New York Times analysis suggested, that the idea of a public option "appears to be dying, a victim of an ineffectual White House strategy, the president’s failure to argue passionately for the 'public option' and all-out opposition by the insurance industry and much of the health care industry." Over the weekend, I have read or heard several accounts of the White House, the Congressional leadership or the Democrats "caving" on the public option. Some indicated that this meant no public option. Some indicated that there was a new receptiveness to a trigger mechanism.  An Associated Press report by Charles Babington, acknowledged the hurdles that the public option faces, but did not say or imply that anyone was caving or that a trigger-less public option is dead. This article, as do many, speaks of the President's appearance this evening on 60 Minutes and the cross country trips that the President is making to press his case.

So who do we believe? Should we believe any press accounts? Or, is this all just case of speculation written to sound authoritative?  I don't know. Perhaps that is because the battle has not yet ended.

Keep the Pressure On for Public Option

2009-09-11T08:43:00.000-07:00

We still need to keep the pressure on the White House and Congress (specially the Senate) to assure that the Obama health care plan contains an effective public option (no trigger). CNN is already reporting that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are "softening" on requiring a public option in the President's new health plan. Please call and/or write the White House and your representatives in the house and senate and tell them how essential a public option is to you.

You can call the White House comment line at 202-456-1111. You can also leave a comment online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ .
.
The number for the Capital switchboard is 202-224-3121, who can put you through to your congressman and your senators. Also, you can obtain their e-mail addresses and direct office numbers (DC and local) at http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt .

E-mail/call early and often.

Going, Going, Gone!!

2009-09-10T13:48:00.000-07:00

A CNN Poll conducted after President Obama's 's address last night to a joint session of Congress revealed that two out of three Americans who watched President Barack Obama's health care reform speech Wednesday night favor his health care plans. Sixty-seven percent of people questioned in the survey say they support Obama's health care reform proposals outlined in his address. This is a 14-point gain among speech-watchers, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation national poll of people who tuned into Obama's address Wednesday night to a joint session of Congress. "Going into the speech, a bare majority of his audience — 53 percent — favored his proposals. Immediately after the speech, that figure rose to 67 percent," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. Only 29 percent opposed Obama's proposals. 70 percent of those polled said that Obama's policies will move the country in the right direction, which is an increase of 10 points from before the speech. The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll of 427 American adults was conducted by telephone immediately before and immediately after President Obama's speech.

I'd say that the President hit this one out of the park.

President Meeting With Problem Dems

2009-09-10T13:07:00.000-07:00

It is being reported that President Obama is meeting with 16 Democratic senators + Joe Lieberman at 4:15 pm ET today, presumably to discuss their opposition to the various health care proposals and to get them on board with the President's proposal which he revealed in his address to a joint session of congress last night. In addition to Joe Lieberman, the President is meeting with Senators Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Mark Warner of Virginia, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Tom Carper of Delaware, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Mark Begich of Alaska, Mark Udall and Michael Bennet of Colorado, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, and Herb Kohl of Wisconsin.

I'm not sure we can trust Lieberman. He is likely to go back to the Republicans and tell them everything that transpired.

Americans Want a Public Option

2009-09-09T08:43:00.000-07:00

After all of the staged protests at televised town hall meetings and all of the lies propagated in an effort to defeat a public option, 60 percent of Americans still want a public option according to the latest CBS poll on the subject, conducted August 27-31. Only 34 percent are against a public option.

Baucus Scrambling

2009-09-09T07:28:00.000-07:00

It is being reported that Max Baucus is gathering his gang of six for a meeting today to try to find a compromise on health care reform. The reports also indicate, however, that Baucus said that they are meeting today because he believes any proposal they have would carry more weight if they are passed out of his panel before the President speaks. Interestingly, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, said yesterday that a Baucus bill was already on K Street (being reviewed by lobbyists) but the White House had not seen it yet.

Teach Your Children

2009-09-07T03:07:00.000-07:00

In 1991, George H.W. Bush gave a speech to schoolchildren across the nation. The speech was intended "to motivate America's students to strive for excellence; to increase students' as well as parents' awareness of the educational challenge we face." The White house sent letters to schools across the nation encouraging the schools to allow students to listen to the speech. The Education Department arranged for live television and radio coverage. Washington Post, October 2, 2001.

Simon Maloy at Media Matters points out that George W. Bush posted a "teacher's guide" on the White House website for teachers to use to help their students understand the "freedom timeline" for the Iraq war and encouraged them to "explore the biographies of the President, Mrs. Bush, Vice President and Mrs. Cheney."

In 1988, Ronald Reagan addressed schoolchildren in a speech that was broadcast live and rerun by C-Span. The Instructional Television Network fed the program to schools nationwide on three different days. At one point in the broadcast, Reagan used the occasion to speak in favor of his tax cuts.

Following the tradition, President Obama will give a speech to American schoolchildren on the first day of school, in which he will "challenge students to work hard, set educational goals and take responsibility for their own learning. He will also call for a shared responsibility and commitment on the part of students, parents and educators to ensure that every child in every school receives the best education possible so they can compete in the global economy for good jobs and live rewarding and productive lives as American citizens." U.S. Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan.

So why, pray tell, did Jim Greer, chairman of the Florida Republican Party, lash out at President Obama for his plans to give a speech to the nation's school children about the importance of working hard in school? Why would he accuse the president of trying to "indoctrinate America's children to his socialist agenda?" Why would he call President Obama's planned speech an "an invasive abuse of power?" Why all this coming from Mr. Greer, who, himself, went into classrooms and talked about Republican values? Why are conservative Republicans all over the country condemning and spouting off conspiracy theories about the speech, which they haven't even read?

Matthew Yglesias at Think Progress astutely concluded, "Probably the biggest moral of the story is that the contemporary conservative movement is run by crazy people with no scruples, who’ll turn anything into a pretext to level wild accusations. "

For this to to cause so much hysteria from the right, I can't help but conclude that if Obama was a white male president, the reaction would not be so hateful and venomous. In fact, there would be no opposition. This is a pure and very sad case of racism. These people cannot stand the fact that we elected a black president. They cannot tolerate the thought of a black president speaking to their children and possibly inspiring them, because it would disrupt the hate that they are spewing and teaching their children.

It sickens me.

Terrorism-

2009-09-01T03:25:00.000-07:00

Legitimized??

We are in crazy-town folks! That is where we must be living if a U.S. congressman can get away with publicly endorsing a constituent's pronouncement that he (the constituent) is a terrorist!

Remember when there were cries from the right to arrest anti-war protesters for terrorism and jail them for up to 25 years because they were disrupting traffic? (See Oregon Senate Bill 742, which was considered but not passed in 2003. It defined a terrorist as a person who "plans or participates in an act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to disrupt" business, transportation, schools, government, or free assembly.) Republicans have conveniently forgotten that they are against terrorism.

In case you missed it, Rep. Wally Herger (R-CA) held a town hall meeting last week during which Bert Stead, a tea-partier and birther (read lun-a-tic) declared himself to be a "proud right-wing terrorist." Herger then looked around the room, smiled and nodded his head in approval. Following the confessed terrorist's ant-Obama and anti-government remarks, Herger said, "Amen. God bless you. There's a great American!" In response to criticism in the media, Herger's office released the following statement: "Congressman Herger stands by his statement in support of his constituent. Mr. Bert Stead is a taxpayer and veteran, who, like so many others, is rightfully fed up with being called 'un-American', or 'extremist' or a 'political terrorist' by liberals in Washington, for simply exercising his First Amendment rights. Mr. Stead served his country and therefore he is a great American. The Congressman doesn't at all regret commending him for standing up, exercising his free speech rights, and expressing his strong concerns with the direction liberals in Washington are taking our country."

Didn't Stead call himself a "proud right wing terrorist?" If he calls himself a terrorist, why is he fed up with other people calling him a terrorist? And, substitute left wing for right wing, switch Herger with Barney Frank, and the Republicans would be screaming for the Democrats to condemn the congressman, for the congressman's resignation and for a full investigation of him for aiding and abetting terrorism! Did we hear any such demands from the Rs on this one? Nope. Not a peep.

VINDICATION!

2009-08-23T02:53:00.000-07:00

Hey! I'm not a paranoid conspiracy theorist in need of psychological help after all!

Well, maybe I am, a little. But with Tom Ridge's recent revelations about the Bush administration issuing terror warnings to strike fear in the public in order to manipulate the election, I feel so vindicated. I just want to jump up and down, pointing, and shout, "I told you so! I told you so! I told you so!" But, that would be immature of me and besides, I was certainly not the only one saying that the Bush administration was putting out phony terror alerts for political gain. Right-wing media called us paranoid, conspiracy theorists and unbalanced for voicing such an opinion. Shall we review?

In the year leading up to the election, there were no less than 16 warnings/alerts issued by the government. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but frankly, I'm exhausted and need to post this before it goes on longer and I get totally disgusted.

December 4, 2003-Foxnews.com reports that the FBI warns that terrorists could be developing plans to hijack airplanes to use as weapons.

December 13, 2003-FBI warns that terrorist operatives may rely on almanacs to assist with target selection and pre-operational plannings and suggests the possibility of attacks against the United States by early 2004 that could rival the terrorist attack of September 11 in scope and impact.

March 4, 2004-Fox News obtains FBI bulletin that terrorists may use pen guns containing poisonous chemicals and biological toxins.

April 2, 2004-FBI warns that terrorists might attempt to slip into the U.S. using cultural, arts or sports visas.

May 20, 2004-FBI issues a bulletin advising police to be on the lookout for suicide bombers attempting to strike inside the U.S. Warned to look for people wearing bulky Jackets on warm days, smell of chemicals, trailing wires from jackets, bombers disguised as pregnant women or in stolen military, police, or firefighters garb.

May 26, 2004-The Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department issue a joint statement that "credible intelligence from multiple sources" indicates that al Qaeda plans to attempt an attack on the United States during the period leading up to the November elections. The New York Times subsequently reports that "Some federal officials and terrorism experts questioned the credibility and the timing of the announcement, noting that much of Mr. Ashcroft's information had been widely disseminated for months." According to the New York Times,Tom Ridge, the homeland security secretary, was not with Mr. Ashcroft for the news conference and suggested that the announcement might have averted required consultation between agencies on domestic threats . . . Late Friday, apparently in an effort to counter the perception of a split, Mr. Ashcroft and Mr. Ridge put out a joint statement saying that 'we are working together' to deter terrorist attacks.

May 28, 2004-The FBI issues an urgent bulletin to several cities warning of a terrorist attack within 24 hours. According to the New York Times, the FBI rescinds the alert hours later because the intelligence proves unfounded, officials said.

June 14, 2004- Attorney General John Ashcroft announces that a shopping mall in Columbus, Ohio, has been threatened by Al Qaeda bomber, stating dramatically, "The American heartland was targeted for death and destruction." It is subsequently revealed that the suspect to whom Ashcroft referred had been in custody for seven months at the time of the announcement and that there was nothing in the indictment about a shopping mall.The charges against him made no mention of a shopping mall.

June 25, 2004-The FBI issues a warning to be on the lookout for booby-trapped floating material in and around the nation's marinas, warning they could contain explosives, explaining that plastic-foam containers, inner tubes and buoys could be rigged to blow up on contact. On June 27, 2004, a homeland security official tells CNN that there is "no intelligence terrorists are planning to or want to do this."

July 6, 2004-Senator John Kerry selects Senator John Edwards as his running mate, monopolizing most of the media attention.

July 8, 2004-Tom Ridge announces that, "Al Qaeda is moving forward with its plans to carry out a large-scale attack in the United States in an effort to disrupt our democratic process." There was no such plot.

July 12, 2004-Deforest B. Soaries Jr., the head of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, confirms he has written to Ridge about the prospect of postponing the upcoming presidential election in the event it is interrupted by terrorist acts.

July 16, 2004-The FBI warns local authorities that the al- Qaida terror network may be recruiting non-Arabs less likely to attract notice as they carry out attacks in the United States and specifically, that Al-Qaida wants operatives who have American citizenship or legal residency status.

July 29, 2004-The Democratic Party nominates Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards as their Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, respectively. Again, the media attention focuses on the Democratic ticket.

August 1, 2004-The Department of Homeland Security raises the terror alert for financial centers in New York, New Jersey, and Washington to orange based on very out-of-date evidence..

August 7, 2004-The FBI issues a pair of warnings to 18,000 police agencies nationwide that al-Qaida could try launching attacks in the United States by packing explosives into rental limos or helicopters, which could help terrorists sneak near targeted buildings.

September 8, 2004-Vice President Dick Cheney tells a town hall audience in Des Moines, Iowa, Tuesday that there will be an increased risk of terrorist attacks if Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., is elected president.

September 22, 2004-A report from a joint CIA-FBI agency called the Terrorist Threat Integration Center. describes a scenario whereby Al Qaeda would use “weapons of mass destruction to launch multiple simultaneous attacks on the United States and overwhelm the US government.”

The weekend before the November 2004 Presidential election- Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft push Ridge to raise the color-coded warning for what Ridge believed were political reasons. In his new book, Ridge writes, "An election-eve drama was being played out at the highest levels of our government" after Osama bin Laden released a pre-election message critical of President George W. Bush, and we weren't seeing any additional intelligence that justified it. In fact, we were incredulous... I wondered, 'Is this about security or politics?'" This incident prompted Ridge to resign shortly after Bush was re-elected.

Even though I do feel vindicated, it still scares the crap out of me that the top echelons of the government conspired to manipulate the public in order to stay in power. It is equally scary that the general public was so gullible and that these people vote. The reluctance of the Obama administration to launch a full scale investigation of this matter seemingly assures that these former government officials got away with their abuse of power.

Obsessed

2009-08-21T08:30:00.000-07:00

It must seem that I am obsessed about health care reform and the public option. At this time, I may be. But, the sleazy manipulation of the public by the Republicans and the health care industry, the curiously naive handling of the issue by the Obama administration and the grave necessity for serious health care reform with a public option have captured and monopolized my attention.

I do not understand how or why the Obama Administration has allowed the process to get so out of control. I knew that the Republicans would never agree to a public option or effective and meaningful health care reform. (See my July 29 and July 31 blog entries.) It was so clear that any such efforts would be futile and that the Republicans were being manipulative. If I could see that so clearly, why didn't President Obama see it? (By the way, I am dropping off my resume for the position of resident pundit at the White House this afternoon.) And, after all that has transpired since the last days of July, why is he still talking about a bipartisan agreement? Why is he still acting as if Grassley is negotiating in good faith? It really makes the president appear naive and weak. Then, there is spineless Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Well, he just needs to be replaced. Frankly, I think that Reid and the White House should take a page out of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's book. She is the only one who seems to have control of her troops.

WP's First PUNDIT'S PICK Award!!

2009-08-19T18:26:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, at Congressman Barney Frank's town hall meeting on health care reform, a woman holding a picture of President Obama with a Hitler-like mustache stood up and after branding various health care reform proposals as "Nazi policy," asked Rep. Frank why he continued to support them. Bless him, Rep. Frank replied:

“When you ask me that question, I’m going to revert to my ethnic heritage and answer your question with a question: On what planet do you spend most of your time? ... You stand there with a picture of the president defaced to look like Hitler and compare the effort to increase health care to the Nazis. My answer, as I said before, it is a tribute to the First Amendment that this vile, contemptible nonsense is so freely propagated. Ma’am, trying to have a conversation with you is like trying to talk to a dining room table. I have no interest in doing it. ... This notion that something in this bill would require people who are elderly or sick to be denied medical care and killed is the single stupidest argument I have heard in all my years of public office. There is nothing remotely relevant to it.”

Guts! Spine! Courage! This is why Wilsonville Pundit's first PUNDIT'S PICK Award goes to Congressman Barney Frank! You can thank Congressman Frank for being one of the few democratic leaders to actually have a back bone by clicking here. You can also take a peek at the video from the meeting below:

YES!!!!

2009-08-18T13:02:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, the US Justice Department filed its reply brief in Smelt v. United States, urging the repeal of DOMA, the Defense of Marriage (anti-gay) Act!! This act denies benefits to domestic partners of federal employees and allows states to reject same-sex marriages performed in other states. The White House released President Obama's statement in conjunction with the filing:

Today, the Department of Justice has filed a response to a legal challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged. This brief makes clear, however, that my Administration believes that the Act is discriminatory and should be repealed by Congress. I have long held that DOMA prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. While we work with Congress to repeal DOMA, my Administration will continue to examine and implement measures that will help extend rights and benefits to LGBT couples under existing law.

YES!!!!

Noting that the government has a duty to defend the rule of law and is therefore doing so, the DOJ states in its reply brief:

With respect to the merits, this Administration does not support DOMA as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory, and supports its repeal. Consistent with the rule of law, however, the Department of Justice has long followed the practice of defending federal statutes as long as reasonable arguments can be made in support of their constitutionality, even if the Department disagrees with a particular statute as a policy matter, as it does here.

Smelt, DOJ reply, at 2. The DOJ nevertheless asserts:

[T]he United States does not believe that DOMA is rationally related to any legitimate government interests in procreation and child-rearing and is therefore not relying upon any such interests to defend DOMA’s constitutionality.

Smelt, DOJ reply, at 6-7. This is a good first step toward granting equal rights and benefits to gay couples!

2009-08-17T19:08:00.000-07:00

At this point, all that stands in the way of universal health care in America are the greed of the medical-industrial complex, the lies of the right-wing propaganda machine, and the gullibility of voters who believe those lies.
Paul Krugman, New York Times Op-Ed August 16, 2009

As Gomer Pyle once said, "SURPRISE, SURPRISE, SURPRISE!"

2009-08-15T14:15:00.000-07:00

FOX News surprises with accurate report on the history of GOP support of and disingenuous GOP opposition to end-of-life-counseling

I was pleased as punch to stumble across this article (well, maybe I actually found myself on the ground after reading it, having been knocked off my rocker). I found it on the FOX News site, of all places. Granted, it is an AP wire piece by Ben Evans, but who'dah thunk it would be published on the web site of the "crazy and unbalanced" network? Here it is:

GOP Backs Away From Promoting End-of-Life Counseling

Republicans who eagerly backed the idea of end-of-life counseling in government health care programs like Medicare are distancing themselves from it or lying low in the face of a backlash from the right.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Until last week, Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson was among the most enthusiastic backers of end-of-life counseling in government health care programs like Medicare. That was before conservatives called it a step toward euthanasia and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin likened the idea to a bureaucratic "death panel" that would decide whether sick people get to live. And even though those claims have been widely discredited, the issue remains a political weapon in the increasingly bitter health care debate.

Now, Isakson and other Republicans who eagerly backed the idea are distancing themselves from it or lying low in the face of a backlash from the right. "Until last week this was basically a nonpartisan issue," said John Rother, executive vice president for policy at AARP, the seniors lobbying group. "People across the political spectrum recognize that far too often people's wishes aren't respected at the end of life and there is a lot of unnecessary suffering." The idea for government-backed end-of-life counseling - while delicate given the subject matter - has garnered significant consensus on Capitol Hill, fueled in part by cases such as that of Terri Schiavo, whose divided family fought for years over whether she would want to be kept alive in a vegetative state. Just a year ago, Congress overwhelmingly approved legislation requiring doctors to discuss issues like living wills and advance directives with new Medicare enrollees. And the government already requires hospitals and nursing homes to help patients with those legal documents if they want support, under a 1992 law passed under Republican President George H.W. Bush.

Supporters say the current House proposal just goes one step further by paying for the counseling, with the idea that doctors and patients would spend more time on it instead of just having a cursory discussion in an initial Medicare visit. The counseling is voluntary. Isakson and other Republicans such as Sens. Richard Lugar of Indiana and Susan Collins of Maine have co-sponsored legislation in recent years promoting the counseling, including in initial Medicare visits and through a proposed government-run insurance program for long-term care. In the House, Republican Reps. Charles Boustany of Louisiana, Geoff Davis of Kentucky and Patrick Tiberi of Ohio co-sponsored legislation from Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., that would authorize Medicare to pay for the counseling. That measure served as a model for the current House language.

Earlier this summer, Isakson sponsored an arguably more far-reaching measure that would have required that new Medicare patients have a living will or other advance directive. But the Georgia conservative found himself in a storm of criticism when President Barack Obama said at a town hall meeting this week that Isakson was a chief architect of the House approach. Isakson quickly issued a statement repudiating the proposal. "The House provision is merely another ill-advised attempt at more government mandates, more government intrusion and more government involvement in what should be an individual choice," he said. Pressed later to explain his opposition, Isakson and his spokeswoman, Joan Kirchner, said he doesn't like the fact that the House bill would expand Medicare costs by paying for the consultations and giving doctors an incentive to conduct them. He also said the House bill is too specific in detailing what must be discussed in the sessions. "There are similarities ... but there are substantial difference," Isakson said. "I'm not running away from anything but I'm not going to accept the president of the United States telling people I wrote something that I didn't." Isakson, who initially called Palin's "death panel" characterization "nuts" in an interview Monday, declined later in the week to criticize Palin's statement, in which she said the measure would force people like her baby Trig, who has Down syndrome, "to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide ... whether they are worthy of health care." "The best I can read she's applying the House bill and using her child with Down syndrome as an example," Isakson said. "I would never question anyone's defense of their child."

Spokesmen for Lugar and Collins-two other longtime proponents of end-of-life planning-declined to comment on the House bill. Sen. Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican and a lead negotiator on health care legislation, told constituents at a community meeting last week that they have good reason to fear the proposal. "I don't have any problem with things like living wills, but they ought to be done within the family," he said. "We should not have a government program that determines you're going to pull the plug on grandma." Grassley said Thursday that lawmakers negotiating on the Senate version of the health care bill had dropped the provision from consideration, citing how it could be misinterpreted.

Comments like Grassley's puzzle Rother, who said "it's been a little disappointing" that more Republicans haven't stepped forward to defend the legislation. He and Jon Keyserling, a vice president at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, say there is little difference between the current proposal and past legislation that Republicans have supported. The current bill specifies that the counseling would be covered only every five years to prevent people from overusing it, and describes what the consultations must include. Keyserling said many people wrongly assume that end-of-life counseling is about terminating treatment. But it really is about making sure a patient's wishes are known, he said, including if that means continuing life-sustaining treatment in all circumstances. He said he's been surprised at the backlash, particularly given the close attention that Congress paid to Schiavo's case, which he said clearly highlighted the need for better end-of-life planning. Schiavo was removed from life support in 2005, though the Republican-led Congress and President George W. Bush had intervened in the family dispute in an effort to continue her care. "I think the House bill is about as innocuous and helpful as possible," Keyserling said. "It's about making sure people are prepared and informed to make decisions."

Associated Press

Dupes for the health care industry

2009-08-13T00:14:00.001-07:00

Adele M. Stan, has a well-researched, informative piece on Alternet which exposes the identities and relationships among the town hall wingnuts, Republicans and the health care industry lobby: Inside Story on Town Hall Riots: Right-Wing Shock Troops Do Corporate America's Dirty Work ( How the health-care industry, the GOP and one media mogul made common cause with the anti-government fringe.) From the introductory paragraphs:

The recent spate of town hall dustups may look like an overnight sensation, but they've been years, even decades, in the making.
Since the days in the late 1970s, when the New Right began its takeover of the Republican Party, it has cultivated a militia of white people armed with a grudge against those who brought forth the social changes of the '60s.
These malcontents have been promised their day of retribution, a day for which they are more than ready. Few seem to understand that they are merely dupes for a corporate agenda that will only worsen the conditions in which they live.
Why, you may ask, would men of power and fame shake the rough, unmanicured hands of gun enthusiasts, conspiracy theorists, gay-haters, misogynists and racists?

Read the post and find the answer! It is good reading!

Extra! Extra! Read all about it!

2009-08-11T03:05:00.000-07:00

Get the House health care reform bill here!

House bill. If you have questions about a particular provision, you can even search the bill for key words to bring you to the applicable section(s).

More Republican fear-mongering

2009-08-09T00:47:00.000-07:00

A New York reader called my attention to a very funny posting at the Wonkette regarding the most recent Republican dirty tricks campaign to convince the public that the Obama White House is compiling an Enemies List of those spreading disinformation about the health insurance reform:

(T)his notion of the “enemies list” has become the hot new well-funded wingnut con-job from Republican operatives over the last 24 hours. * * * This stems from the Democrats’ recent pushback against the anti-health care reform movement’s operation to (a) shout violent nonsense at town hall meetings and (b) spread lies to America’s old people about how the government will first “take over their Medicare” and then murder each of them, for pleasure, well before that first sniffle becomes a full-blown cold or pancreatic cancer.
Emphasis added.

Seriously, these Republican dirty tricks operatives are dishonest, desperate, dangerous people. They are paid by the health insurance industry to stop President Obama's efforts to reform health care/health insurance. The facts do not support their position (which is simply, "no"). So, as they always do, the Republicans started cooking up lies and embarked on a campaign of disinformation and fearmongering. They will stop at nothing.

"Balloon-head talk"

2009-08-07T09:37:00.000-07:00

Last night, Chris Matthews made mincemeat out of Max Pappas, spokesman for FreedomWorks, manufacturer/organizer of the phony public outrage displays disrupting recent congressional town hall meetings.

Chris Matthews asked Max Pappas:

"What are they just saying no to?"

"Are they saying 'just say no' to reforms to stop people from being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions?"

"Are they saying 'just say no' to portability-to change jobs and maintain the same health care plan?"

"Do they really know or is it only what you feed them?"

Regarding the idiots who get up at these meetings and shout, "Keep government out of Medicare!", Chris Matthews said, "That's balloon-head talk." (Referring to the fact that these idiots do not realize that Medicare is a government program.)

By the end of the 9+ minute segment, Max Pappas was tongue tied. Check it out. It is great t.v.

Tyranny of the minority

2009-08-02T01:17:00.000-07:00

Tyranny rules in health insurance reform debate, according to David Sirota, in his August 1 opinion piece.

The facts on health insurance reform and why we need it

2009-08-01T13:41:00.000-07:00

There is a great article debunking myths on health insurance reform over at Media Matters.
Very informative article setting forth the results of a Harvard University study regarding health insurance, illness and bankruptcy from the The American Journal of Medicine.
Also, the case for health insurance reform is made on a state by state basis by the Center for American Progress.

Dump Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader!

2009-07-31T19:27:00.000-07:00

As I wrote the other day, Harry Reid is an ineffective majority leader. He is useless. He is spineless. The Democrats need a majority leader with some savvy. The Democrats need a leader who will not let the Republicans, who are in the minority mind you, run the Senate. Reid let them run the Senate after the Democrats won the majority in 2006 because the Democrats did not have the votes to stop a filabuster. Well, we now have the votes to stop a filabuster. But we do not need 60 votes to pass bills. Yet, Reid won't use a little muscle to push things through. He is weakening the Democratic party and President Obama. He should step aside as majority leader.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE SENATE DEMOCRATS?

2009-07-29T11:47:00.000-07:00

It appears, today at least, that the Senate DEMOCRATS have all but killed the prospect of a health care reform bill with a strong (if any) public option. All in the name "bipartisanship." I have news for them: there is no hope of getting the Republicans to sign on to any health care reform legislation that is meaningful and effective for the middle and lower working classes.

I do not believe for a minute that the Senate Democrats truly believe they will attain a bipartisan agreement on meaningful and effective health care reform. It is quite obvious that such a thing is hopeless, given the fact that the Republicans have two intertwined goals:

1) to "break" President Obama -"If we are able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him." Senator Jim DeMint, R-S.C.; and
2) to regain control of Congress in 2010- "We can stall it. And that's going to be a huge gain for those of us who want to turn this thing over in the 2010 election;" and "If he is unsuccessful, which I anticipate and will predict he is, on getting a vole prior to the August recess, then I would say there's no way in the world they're going to get this done this year. And next year would not be any easier." Senator Jim Inhofe, R-OK.

So, why are the Senate Democrats being such obstructionists to REAL health care reform?? Why are they, of all people, playing into the hands of the Republicans? Is it because Senator Harry Reid is a spineless, ineffective majority leader? Are these Senators too indebted to the pharmacy and health insurance lobbies?