Why Conservatives Vote To Keep Getting Screwed

My first video post with Keith Olbermann since he departed from MSNBC only to go out and start his new enterprise. The video comes to you by way of http://foknewschannel.com/. Sorry once again, but the damned link will not post. Anyway, Keith will explain to you, as if you did not know already, why the conservative workers in America continue to vote for those Republican shit-heads even though they are getting screwed just like all of the rest of us are. If you happen to be here by some freak- of- nature accident and you are a conservative, listen to Keith very carefully. There will be a test.

Arizona Governor Shows Some Sense

...What are the odds of an American Taliban governor doing the right thing? While still not to high, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer vetoed not one, but two highly controversial bills on Monday, going against the general conservative idea's in the state. The first bill would have mandated that one have proof of United States citizenship in order to run for president, and the other bill would have allowed students, and everyone else, to carry guns on college campuses.

The so-called "birther bill," would have made Arizona the first state in the nation to require presidential candidates prove U.S. citizenship by providing a long form birth certificate, and other forms of proof including baptismal or circumcision certificates, to be placed on the state ballot.

"I never imagined being presented with a bill that could require candidates for president of the greatest and most powerful nation on earth to submit their 'early baptism or circumcision certificates' ... This is a bridge too far," she said..

Brewer also vetoed a bill that would have made Arizona the second state in the nation to allow an individual to carry a firearm -- either concealed or not -- in the public rights of way on higher education campuses, because it was "so poorly written." Brewer said shortcomings in the bill included a failure to define "public rights of way" and the inclusion of state schools, where firearms are prohibited by federal and state laws.

SOURCE:http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110419/pl_nm/us_arizona_birther

Brewer vetoed the gun bill only because she did not like the way that it was written, so you can expect that bill to come around at a later date, when it will pass. Currently, Utah is the only state in the country allowing handguns inside campus buildings.

Wisonsin, Michigan,Florida...

....and a few other states have had nothing but what are basically communist ideas voted into law by their American Taliban governors.

Republicans Holding Social Security, Medicare Hostage

This may be the point where all of those senior citizens who voted for those American Taliban members wish that they hadn't as it seems that the American Taliban leadership in the Senate (Mitch McConnell ) has once again stated that the GOP will block any debt ceiling raise unless the Democrats agree to cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits.

Meanwhile, on the other side of Capitol Hill, Mike Pence, chairman of the House Republican Conference, says "it's time to pick a fight" over top Republican priorities like banning family planning funding and repealing health care reform. If his party doesn't get its way, Pence says, they should refuse to fund anything at all, forcing the closure of the federal government.

You would think that after having lived 50,60,or more years on this earth that one would know when they are being conned. The sad thing is that this ignorance/stupidity has trickled down to many of the younger generation.

Wisconsin Senate Taliban Strips Workers of Collective Bargaining Rights

Wisconsin's Taliban chief Scott Walker and his Taliban sidekicks in the state Senate voted just a short time ago to take away collective bargaining rights from public workers. the Taliban voted 18-1 for this assault on Wisconsin public workers.

The Senate requires a quorum to take up any measures that spend money. But Republicans on Wednesday split from the legislation the proposal to curtail union rights,and a special conference committee of state lawmakers approved that bill a short time later. The lone Democrat present on the conference committee, Rep. Tony Barca, shouted that the surprise meeting was a violation of the state's open meetings law but Republicans voted over his objections. The Senate then convened within minutes and passed it without discussion or debate. Spectators in the gallery screamed "You are cowards."

for whatever reason the damned link will not show. I'll try to correct this as soon as is possible.

Glenn Beck and The Christian Right

“Something beyond imagination is happening. America today begins to turn back to God.”        Glenn Beck

 

    That was FoxNews Channel's own pundit Glenn Beck while he was speaking at a rally up in Washington,D.C. on this past Saturday in which 10,000’s of thousands (100’s if you ask Beck) of people attended.  Just what you and I need, another Republican rally, which is exactly what this event was.

   It was not to long ago that the Republican diehards where out touting about how godly they were and that the GOP would be turning America back towards God and that this country would once again become a great nation.

   The Republicans might have actually pulled it off if it wasn’t for all of that greed,graft,and criminal activity that they perpetrated getting in the way of things.

    Of course, the Obama administration has not been all that great either. They haven’t gotten to the corruption and crime part yet. Not that we know of yet. Give it time, the game isn’t over.

   The Democrats cannot seem to get anything accomplished in the Senate or the House for that matter. Nobody likes anyone else's idea’s because they didn’t think of it. Then of course, those darned Republicans keep sticking nails in any idea from the Liberal side of the isle. Lest you forget, there are many Republican politicians whose sole purpose is to see to it that President Obama goes down hard with as many other Democrats as possible.

   The Republicans are winning this war against you and I. Mr. Beck does his best to disparage the President at every chance that he gets.

    Sara Palin also got her shot at running her mouth at this gathering.

    When Sarah Palin, the Republican populist and former vice presidential candidate, launches into her speech, the crowd chants “USA, USA, USA.” “We must restore America and restore her honor,” demands Palin. She addresses the people as “patriots.” In recent months, Palin has emerged as the leader of the “tea party” movement and is mentioned as a possible 2012 presidential candidate. But she says she is speaking in front of the Lincoln Memorial not as a politician, but rather as the mother of a soldier. For this, too, there is warm applause.

   This is the stuff that the GOP has always been great at and I see no reason for that group to fail this time around either.

   The Dems are in deep shit and they are going down a little bit deeper if they do not get it together.

   Then there is also the influence of the Tea Party movement, another group supporting the Republicans. Easy to do since they are mostly GOPer’s in the first place.

From dailykos.com.
Your Abbreviated Pundit Round-up
by DemFromCT Sat Apr 10, 2010
Saturday punditry, and if you need a second opinion...

NY Times editorial:
President Obama might be tempted to replace Justice John Paul Stevens with someone bland enough to slip through the Republican chain of opposition in the Senate. If he is, we recommend he read a few of the opinions that Justice Stevens wrote in the last 34 years.

EJ Dionne:
Justice John Paul Stevens’s retirement is an enormous loss for the country, and particularly for progressives who have valued his brave and straightforward defense of civil liberties, equal rights and equal justice over many years.
But his departure should not lead to a bloody battle over his successor. Whomever President Obama names to the court will be no more liberal than Stevens -- and might possibly be slightly less so.

Charles Blow:
On the issue of the court being completely composed of former federal judges, she said: "In the past, we’ve had a very diverse court, at times, and typically we’ve had people on the court who didn’t serve one day as a judge. Sorry. You know. I’m a judge. I like judges. But we don’t need them all on the court. And we need people of different backgrounds."
In fact, according to a 2005 article in The Christian Science Monitor, 41 of our Supreme Court justices have had no prior judicial experience. That’s more than a third.

TAPPED:
I don't think there's any mystery about how Republicans are going to handle President Obama's nominee to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stephens. Here are some revealing quotes from a short Wall Street Journal post on the retirement announcement (all emphasis mine). Mitch McConnell: "Americans can expect Senate Republicans to make a sustained and vigorous case for judicial restraint and the fundamental importance of an even-handed reading of the law." Orrin Hatch: "[S]omeone who would be an activist judge, who would substitute their own views for what the law requires, is not qualified to serve on the federal bench." John Cornyn: "Our nation deserves a Supreme Court nominee who is committed to deciding cases impartially based on the law, not on personal politics, preferences, or what’s in the nominee’s ‘heart.’" Man, it's gonna be a great summer.

Monica Potts:
It’s not surprising that Stupak, who stood front-and-center in the health-care debate over its treatment of abortion, would want to leave after such a bruising battle. The end result of health-care reform is that access to abortion will be at least as restricted as it ever was, and likely more so. That was true without Stupak’s more restrictive amendment to the house bill, and would likely have been true even if he’d never raised a fuss over abortion.
The problem is, once you use anti-abortion rhetoric to criticize the health-care bill, the legislation's actual provisions on abortion -- that women would have to use their own money to buy abortion-riders because federal subsidies can't be used to pay for abortions, so plans in the exchanges can't offer them -- don’t matter. For voters who do not support abortion rights, the bill is forever associated with abortion, and Stupak played a roll in that. Since he ultimately voted for the bill, it was inevitable that he would be branded a sell-out.

Ezra Klein:
Compare Nelson and Stupak to people such as Mark Warner or Brad Ellsworth, both of whom are moderate Democrats who had serious concerns about the bill, but who spent their time quietly getting those concerns addressed rather than using them to get TV bookings in advance of a high-profile deal. Nelson and Stupak made themselves into targets for both the left and the right, and ended the process with lots of notoriety but even more new enemies. Warner and Ellsworth haven't suffered from the same backlash. The old model in which moderate Democrats justify their vote for a bill by talking trash about it until they get bought off doesn't work in an environment where the media and the political opposition is waiting to pounce on the buy-off.

Gail Collins:
At the Minnesota [Palin-Bachmann] rally, Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a presidential hopeful, tried to glom onto some of the glitter, but all he could come up with was "Wall Street gets a bailout, the poor get a handout and everybody else gets their wallets out," which is mean without being exciting. The crowd yawned.
Pawlenty is supposed to be one of the new breed of level-headed conservatives, but by next year he may be wearing snowshoes for his speeches and accusing Obama of surrendering our freedom to Finland.

HealthCare Bill Passes...

... and I must say that it is about damned time that something has gotten started with the health care problem in the United States!
Obama's bill is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination and it will need to be tweaked many times before this plan works to the benefit of all of us. But, it is a start which has been a long time comming.
There are parts of the plan that I do not like, and then again, there are some things which I do like. I think that all of us can say the same thing.
As is par for the course, this bill does not please everyone, which was expected. You cannot please everyone all of the time no matter what you aim to do. Healthcare is no different.
Keep one thing in mind as you begin to hear about all that is wrong with this plan. It is a beginning. As is with most things in this life of ours, you have to start somewhere. If you remember, there was no health care plan under former President Bush. President Clinton got his ass handed back to him with he and Hillary's idea of a health care plan. Ronald Reagan did....nothing about this fiasco either. Many Presidents before Reagan did nothing either.
Now is the time to take what we have been givin by our President and to make it work for the good of all of the citizens of the United States.
Let's give this plan a chance to be formed into something good for us,okay?

Obama's Health Care Bill Passes...

... so let the lawsuits begin! This is what several states are planning to do in order to stop parts of the health care plan from becoming a reality. The main opposition is the part of the plan which makes health insurance mandatory for all Americans to have. You will be fined if you do not carry some type of insurance under Obama's plan, which many states is not legal. Abortions will not be federally funded in this plan, which is one part of the plan that I do approve of. However, I would make exceptions in cases of rape or incest.
So, what are the Republicans going to do now that the bill has passed? Same as they always do, cry wolf.
Let us take a short trip over to DailyKos.com for a view of what the GOPers will be bringing to the table in the near future.

This isn't over. The wingnuts are just getting started.
by Hesiod Mon Mar 22, 2010
You have already seen a diary about how Veterans groups are claiming this bill screws over our veterans. The next step in the attack from wingnuts on health care reform is to push state constitutional changes to opt out of the new system that has been put into place.
This, of course, is unconstitutional and runs afoul of the commerce clause. But who knows how the corporate crony Supreme Court will rule? The concern I have is that nervous nellie state Democrats who think the federal constitution will invalidate these stupid opt-out laws will think they have a free vote against it.
This means these stupid laws may get passed by state legislatures with a lot of Democratic assistance. It is much better not to risk letting the rightwing Supreme Court have a crack at overturning health care reform. So, we need to keep up all of the pressure we can on state level Democrats to prevent these laws from passing.
Here in Michigan, a petition drive has started to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot for November. This, of course, will get all of the crazy teabagging wackos to turn out in droves for the vote, come hell of highwater.
Its clearly a device to drive up turnout among Republicans and conservatives. Turnout that wasn't guaranteed once health care reform became law. Expect this to be repeated in states across the country. This is a surefire way to create vote and donor lists and also fire up activists.
We have to keep fighting. We have to keep making sure the truth about this bill gets out there to the media. We have to make sure that Democrats in Washington and the Whgite House DON'T STOP FIGHTING FOR THIS BILL AND COUNTERING ALL THE LIES ABOUT IT. Its not enough just to pass it. You have to also defend it.
The other side is not giving up. They are going to keep fighting for as long as they can. We should not either. Fight until they are completely defeated and demoralized.

ADDENDUM. Oh. And here is the irony in all of this. The Health Insurance industry should be flooding the zone with money in all of these states to BLOCK this crazy crap from passing. Why? Because states that opt out of the system -- even if its just during a pending court challenge -- are going to cost insurance companies tons of money.
But, because this bill's major provisions don't kick in for several years, it will be hard to point to other states that do not opt out and show how well they are doing under the system to counteract the bullshit.
© Kos Media, LLC
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/3/22/849088/-This-isnt-over.-The-wingnuts-are-just-getting-started.

Medicare Loved By All?

Saturday, February 6, 2010 by CommonDreams.org
Repubs, Dems, Blue Dogs and Tea Partiers: Everybody Loves Medicare
by Donna Smith
President Obama keeps torturing himself and the 111th Congress by trying to come up with new ways to work together and a single healthcare reform effort that all could embrace politically, morally and fiscally. He need not struggle so hard, as the leaders in each of the groups clamoring for leadership on the issue have stated unequivocally that they love Medicare and want to protect Medicare.
Good ol' Medicare. Publicly funded, privately delivered healthcare in America. More than four decades ago, Medicare was extended to seniors and just a suggestion of diminishment of any Medicare benefit to seniors sent leading Republicans into a dither as the Tea Party participants backed them up. "Hands off my Medicare," they oft cried through the summer town halls that gave rise to the protector/defender status of the Republicans who simultaneously sold the idea that government-run healthcare equals evil things while government- administered Medicare equals protection of grandma and grandpa's hard-earned healthcare plan.
From the Washington Post, Sept. 28, 2009, "After years of trying to cut Medicare spending, Republican lawmakers have emerged as champions of the program, accusing Democrats of trying to steal from the elderly to cover the cost of health reform."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY, in December 2009 said on the Senate floor as he defended Medicare, "They are going to pay for this plan by cutting Medicare, that is cutting Seniors, and raising taxes on small businesses."
And on the House side, as reported in by The Hill in October, "The House health reform bill would ‘virtually eliminate' Medicare Advantage, Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) alleged Friday.
"The top House Republican argued that the cuts to Medicare in the House bill unveiled Thursday are so steep that it practically does away with Medicare Advantage, the popular program in which government benefits are administered through private plans."
Or how about RNC chair Michael Steele writing in the Washington Post in August 2009, "The Republican Party's contract with seniors includes tenets that Americans, regardless of political party, should support. First, we need to protect Medicare and not cut it in the name of "health-insurance reform." As the president frequently, and correctly, points out, Medicare will go deep into the red in less than a decade. But he and congressional Democrats are planning to raid, not aid, Medicare by cutting $500 billion from the program..."
Disingenuous or not, the Republicans do not want to own even an ounce of senior rage for cutting their beloved Medicare access. Seniors whose benefits are threatened are seniors who vote.
How about the Dems? And even their bluest of Blue-blooded Dogs?
Folks may remember the Blue Dog conservative-minded Democrats in the House holding up progress on the House reform bill until assurances were made to correct what they felt were unfair provider reimbursements in rural areas for, you guessed it, Medicare patient services.
NPR reported on Feb. 5, 2010, "In the House, the 10-year cancellation of doctor payment reductions was included in the broader overhaul bill after Democratic leaders cut a deal with the fiscally conservative ‘Blue Dog' Democrats. The deal was that that portion of the bill wouldn't have to be paid for as long as the House passed a separate bill to ensure that no future spending would be passed without offsetting spending cuts or increased taxes."
Even the Blue Dogs know that patients with Medicare and voters with a health plan they like, and Medicare provider rates ought to be fair too. Blue Dogs like Medicare, and they know that Medicare is consistent with fiscal conservatism and re-election. That's a good combination for them.
So what of the lefties? Well, many of the more liberal-leaning members of Congress have urged support for expansion of Medicare for some time. Even in this current debate, for several brief, shining hours, some members argued that allowing those 55 years of age and older to buy in to Medicare would be a great way to handle that difficult to insure and sometimes more in need of health services population.
Remember? Just a few weeks ago, when the "public option" folks were hitting rough waters in the Senate, the idea to expand Medicare wafted forward. Again, from the Washington Post, on December 11, 2009, "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi endorsed a proposal Thursday that would allow people in late middle age to buy insurance through Medicare, helping to sustain an idea that sprang unexpectedly from the Senate this week."
It was dashed rather quickly when Sen. Joe Lieberman expressed disagreement, though, but for many, expanding Medicare was a logical way to move forward for those 55 -64 who often cannot purchase insurance, find jobs willing to extend them coverage, or avoid losing a whole life's worth of savings and retirement security during the few years prior to current Medicare eligibility age.
Don't any of our leaders read and feel the common thread here? It's Medicare. Let's say it again. It's Medicare. Since 1965. Made in America, Medicare.
Medicare does not foist on an unwilling nation a system of government-employed doctors and government-owned providers. Medicare simply provides coverage - publicly funded, healthcare coverage that cannot be lost. The Medicare patient retains full control of where and from whom to seek care.
From the left: public funding. From the right: private delivery. In the center: patients with healthcare. Medicare for all.
If seniors are willing to protect their right to have Medicare with the ferocious energy we saw this past summer, and if Republicans recognize that well enough to claim they want to protect and defend Medicare, and if Democrats know that Medicare has been a cornerstone of social policy and justice for more than four decades, and if even the Blue Dogs understand that Medicare is so good it ought to pay fairly in rural areas and urban areas, then how far is the reach to bring everyone together and make the Medicare program work for all?
The bi-partisan, everybody in, nobody out solution has been there all along. All that remains is watching which true leader will step up and claim the victory for all.
And oh, by the way, 124 more Americans died today because they lacked access to healthcare. They added to the 124 that died yesterday and the day before and will be figured in the 45,000 this year whose lives will be sacrificed because we did not yet recognize the answer that has been before us all along.
Perhaps if we begin assigning blame for those deaths on those who have failed to act to prevent them, the Medicare for all solution will seem even more appealing. The framework is already in place, no new bureaucracy to be created, and lives saved in every Congressional district and state - Red state, Blue state, or anywhere in-between. It's the right thing to do.

Donna Smith is a community organizer for National Nurses United (the new national arm of the California Nurses Association) and National Co-Chair for the Progressive Democrats of America Healthcare Not Warfare campaign.
© Copyrighted 1997-2009

Obama's Speech: Your Reviews...

... which are comming to you by way of Dailykos.com. Sorry for the link to the story missing, I'm still not able to post the link in the way that I wish it to be shown.

"OBAMA EATS REPUBLICANS' LUNCH"! Reviews, bonus, poll, photos
by blackwaterdog
Sat Jan 30, 2010 (edited for content)
Hello,
After the last couple of days, i'm thinking maybe Monarchy is not such a bad idea.
First: best three random reactions out of hundreds, maybe thousands, that i've read all over the web yesterday:
"It was as though Obama reauthorized torture for 90 minutes—a masterful performance".
"This was like something straight from The West Wing. Glad i've been alone so i could shout to the TV: LET OBAMA BE OBAMA!"*
"I scared the bejeezus out of all three dogs cheering Obama on! That was absolutely the best political teevee I have ever seen, outside Election night last year and Inauguration Day!!
Third, all kinds of reviews:
Ambinder:
Obama's Question Time: An Amazing Moment
The moment President Obama began his address to Republicans in Baltimore today, I began to receive e-mails from Democrats: Here's an except from one of them: "I don't know whether to laugh or cry that it took a f$$@&$* year for Obama to step into the ring and start throwing some verbal blows... I'm definitely praying at mass on Sunday morning that this Obama doesn't take another 12 month vacation."
This e-mail comes from a very influential Democrat.
Accepting the invitation to speak at the House GOP retreat may turn out to be the smartest decision the White House has made in months. Debating a law professor is kind of foolish: the Republican House Caucus has managed to turn Obama's weakness -- his penchant for nuance -- into a strength. Plenty of Republicans asked good and probing questions, but Mike Pence, among others, found their arguments simply demolished by the president. (By the way: can we stop with the Obama needs a teleprompter jokes?)
More than the State of the Union -- or on top of the State of the Union -- this may be a pivotal moment for the future of the presidential agenda on Capitol Hill. (Democrats are loving this. Chris Hayes, The Nation's Washington bureau chief, tweeted that he hadn't liked Obama more since the inauguration.)
... Republicans may have wished they had spoken to John McCain about what happened to him in the presidential debates before they decided to broadcast this session. The president looked genuinely engaged, willing to discuss things. Democrats believe that he tossed away the GOP talking points and lack of real plans into a bludgeon against them. "The whole question was structured by a talking point," he told Jeb Hensarling. Obama took the blame for not living up to some of his promises on transparency in health care negotiations. He displayed a familiarity with Republican proposals that seemed to astonish those who asked questions of him. And at the end, Republicans rushed up to him, pens and photo cameras in hands, wanting autographs and pictures.
Mused one mid-level White House official: "This really is the best thing we've done in a long, long time".
Ezra:
Remember the old joke, "I was at a fight and a hockey game broke out?" Well, earlier this afternoon, I was at a photo opportunity and a policy debate broke out.
Obama's Q&A session with the House Republicans was transfixing. What should have been a banal exchange of talking points was actually a riveting reminder of how rarely you hear actual debate -- which is separate from disagreement -- between political players.
This was a surprise. The session was clearly proposed so that Obama could appear to be taking real steps to reach out to Republicans. That implied warm feelings and a studied unwillingness to cause offense. But that was not the event we just saw. Instead, Obama stood at a podium for an hour and hammered his assailants. That makes it sound partisan and disrespectful. But it wasn't. It was partisan, but respectful.
There's a value in proving that you understand the other side's ideas deeply enough to disagree with them. And that was the message of Obama's session. Not that the Republicans were right. But that he'd looked hard enough at their ideas to realize they were wrong. I'm willing to work on tort reform, Obama said, but it's not a credible way to rein in health-care spending. The GOP budget might save a lot of money in theory, he admitted, but it does that by voucher-izing Medicare and holding its spending constant even as health cost increase -- which means seniors will go without a lot of necessary care. And it's hard to take that proposal seriously coming from the party that spent the past few months saying slight decreases in Medicare Advantage reimbursement represented an unforgivable threat to seniors.
Amazed that Obama knows offhand that Ryan wants Medicare vouchers. More amazed he can explain it offhand. This is a command performance.
Yesterday, I interviewed David Axelrod and was struck by his inability to explain how the White House would highlight the the difference between disagreement and obstruction. Today's session, if it becomes a regular event rather than a one-off, provided part of the answer. He'll debate them directly. But that may be tough to do. Republicans are already spreading the word that they made a mistake allowing cameras into the event. Apparently, transparency sounds better in press releases than it does in practice.
But if this is to be the last of these we see for a while, make sure to take the time and watch it, or read the transcript. It's some of the best political television I've seen in memory.
Benen:
I'm reasonably certain I've never seen anything like it. GOP House members were fairly respectful of the president, but pressed him on a variety of policy matters. The president didn't just respond effectively, he delivered a rather powerful, masterful performance.
It was like watching a town-hall forum where all of the questions were confrontational, but Obama nevertheless just ran circles around these guys. I can only assume caucus members, by the end of the Q&A, asked themselves, "Whose bright idea was it to invite the president and let him embarrass us on national television?" .
Note, however, that this wasn't just about political theater -- it was an important back-and-forth between the president and his most forceful political detractors. They were bringing up routine far-right talking points that, most of the time, simply get repeated in the media unanswered. But in Baltimore, the president didn't just respond to the nonsense, he effectively debunked it.
Republicans thought they were throwing their toughest pitches, and Obama -- with no notes, no teleprompter, and no foreknowledge -- just kept knocking 'em out of the park.
It's easy to forget sometimes just how knowledgeable and thoughtful Obama can be on matters of substance. I don't imagine the House Republican caucus will forget anytime soon -- if the president is going to use their invitation to score big victories, he probably won't be invited back next year.
Nevertheless, the White House should schedule more of these. A lot more of these.
Yglesias:
...It was sort of like Prime Minister’s Questions and it revealed, simply put, that Barack Obama is a lot smarter and better-informed than his antagonists. A lot. He very calmly and coolly dismantled them.
To me, personally, it’s not a surprise. I debated policy with Mike Pence once and the guy is a stone-cold idiot. That was a years ago and I’ve been surprised since then to learn that conservatives consider him an unusually sharp policy mind and I take leading rightwingers at their word about that. But it’s the kind of thing that I think most Americans aren’t aware of. Obama knows what he’s talking about. A lot of the members of Congress you see on TV all the time talking smack don’t. That’s not always clear to people since the TV anchors interviewing them usually also don’t know what they’re talking about. Judd Gregg’s whining freakout on MSNBC yesterday punctured the illusion of calm confidence and so did Obama’s back-and-forth.
Mike Madden:
Before President Obama started speaking to the House Republican conference's retreat in Baltimore Friday, the GOP presented him with a little book, one that wrapped up all of the policy ideas they've had since he took office that have languished. It had a catchy title: "Better Solutions." The pamphlet may not be an ideal blueprint for governing -- it only takes 30 pages to wrap up everything from economic stimulus to national security to financial reform -- but, as it turned out, it did make for a pretty good prop.
Which Obama demonstrated about an hour into what was easily the most entertaining program C-SPAN (or any cable news network, really) has aired in a long time "You say, for example, that we've offered a health care plan, and I look up -- this is just {in} the book that you've just provided me, 'Summary of GOP Health Care Reform Bill,'" Obama said, casually flipping through the book as Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., stood by. Price had demanded the president tell Republicans how they should answer constituents who don't like the way the White House says the GOP hasn't offered any ideas. So Obama played it deadpan. '"The GOP plan will lower health care premiums for American families and small businesses, addressing America's number one priority for health reform.' I mean, that's an idea that we all embrace. But specifically it's got to work."
Two days after his feisty State of the Union speech, Obama's trip to the retreat started off slowly, with a speech that could have worked almost anywhere with only a few edits ahead of time. And then the question-and-answer session got started, and the event turned into a spectacle, the kind of thing that hasn't been seen in American politics in years -- and probably won't again, once the people responsible for putting it together go back to look at the video. (Which is too bad, because NBC does have an opening for a 10 p.m. show, and this was a lot more watchable than Leno.) Rarely has his administration done such a good job of bluntly underscoring the differences between what Obama wants to do and what Republicans would prefer if they had power. The president was funny and disarming, but he defended his policies fiercely, and he tiptoed up to the line of calling Republicans liars to their faces...
The whole thing basically went like that: Republican asks obnoxious question rooted in Glenn Beck-ian talking points; Obama swats it away, makes the questioner look silly, and then smiles at the end. It got so bad, in fact, that Fox News cut away from the event before it was over. Democratic operatives around Washington watching it had pretty much the same reaction: "Where the hell has this guy been?" One source said GOP aides probably wished they'd spoken to John McCain "about what happened to him in the presidential debates" before they broadcast the event. "It's quite a show," a White House official said, apparently going for the same deadpan tone the president was...
... By the time Obama was done, and had stayed about 30 minutes past when he was scheduled to leave, Republican leadership was ready to get him out of the room. One GOP lawmaker asked for one more question, and as Obama started to say he was out of time, Pence jumped in, too: "He's gone way over." And with that, Obama took his booklet of GOP policy proposals and left the room -- in much better political shape, possibly, than he was when he walked in...
Booman:
Obama performed as well as any British prime minister during Question Time. The same cannot be said for the Republicans who, by and large, tried to use dishonest arguments and demonstrably inaccurate statistics only to have Obama tell them to get serious and stop trying to score cheap political points. I can honestly say that if as many Americans watched today's Q & A with the Republicans as watched the State of the Union, our political problems would be over. If we had Question Time, we'd have a much easier time winning over public opinion and sustaining support for progressive policies.
The Republicans certainly will not want to repeat this extremely painful beat-down.
Drun:
Obama is adressing the GOP retreat in Baltimore right now, and it's being televised live. It's remarkable that Republicans agreed to this. The guy at the mike always has an advantage in these kinds of forums, and in any case Obama is better than most at this kind of thing. For the most part, he's running rings around them. I don't know if this will have any long-term effect, but it's good for Obama and, regardless, a good show. Presidents should do this kind of thing more often.
Sullivan:
But here's the key thing: Obama is best at this. He is best at defusing conflict; he is superb at engaging civilly with his opponents. It's part of his legacy - I remember how many conservatives respected him at the Harvard Law Review. But he needs to do more of this, even though he may get nothing in return. Why? Because unless the tone changes, unless the pure obstructionism and left-right ding-dong cycle stops, we are on a fast track to catastrophe.
That was the core message of Obama in the election. It was one of my core reasons for backing him over Clinton - because he has the capacity to reach out this way. I remain depressed at the prospects for a breakthrough, but this was good politics and good policy. More, please. Do this every month. Maybe over the long haul, the poison of the past has to be worked through with Obama as therapist in chief.
The Guardian:
Obama eats Republicans' lunch
"When the Republicans invited President Obama to address their congressional House delegation in Baltimore today, they had no idea how badly it would turn out for them.
Presumably the Republicans thought they'd get a high-profile chance to grill the president on live television. But instead, Obama – following on from his state of the union address on Wednesday night – turned the tables by highlighting the Republicans who opposed his policies and refused to bend, yet were prepared to "turn up and cut ribbons" when their constituents reaped the rewards.
Obama also displayed a rare grasp of policy and legislation, wrong-footing his questioners to their face with some stern rebuttal and in some instances quoting their own positions back to them to highlight the contradictions. He mocked the GOP for presenting healthcare reforms as a "Bolshevik plot" – and got a laugh, even from the Republican audience – and suggested that their approach was counterproductive:
I think we can confidently predict this is the last time the Republicans invite the president to a similar format. Indeed, because the hall the Republicans are holding their event seemed to have just a single TV camera, Obama literally took the spotlight away. Republican questioners showed up as shadowy figures, and when caucus leader Mike Pence kicked off the Republican questions at first he couldn't be heard at all.
At the end, shaking hands with the president, Pence's face looked as if he'd sucked a lemon for an hour – and in a way he had.
A sign of how compelling the footage was: the US cable networks, always so trigger-happy and ready to move on if an event is looking boring, stuck with the live feed, although Fox did cut away first for analysis.
The net effect is that Obama looked serious, reasonable and intelligent. The Republicans got to sound like whiners, complaining about various pet peeves and chewing over their old laundry list of tax cuts and opposition".
John Cole:
For some reason, the GOP allowed the cameras to roll at their retreat during a question time session with President Obama, and he spent the next hour and a half depantsing them. Pretty funny stuff:
If Mike Pence really is regarded as one of the deep thinkers for the GOP, I’m beginning to understand why they refused to admit Terri Schiavo was brain-dead.
Time
President Obama just spoke before the House Republican caucus and then took questions from members - live. It was amazing television - watchable, interesting, feisty and even a little dramatic. I was reminded of the campaign when, in a single speech in Philadelphia, Obama neutralized the Jeremiah Wright issue that could have sunk his candidacy. The environment and subject matter are obviously completely different now, but Obama proved again that he performs best when he's up against the wall. Today, at the caucus meeting, he went right after Republicans on their turf and, in my opinion, owned them.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/30/831961/-OBAMA-EATS-REPUBLICANS-LUNCH!-Reviews,-bonus,-poll,-photos

Bipartisanship For Health Care?

Original:http://dailykos.com/

Health care bipartisanship lives!
by David Waldman Thu Oct 15, 2009
If one Republican vote for the Baucus health insurance "reform" bill makes it bipartisan, how many Democratic "no" votes on cloture does it take to make a filibuster of the public option bipartisan?
Maybe Glenn Thrush knows. Or maybe not. After all, he granted anonymity for this important observation:
"If there really is such a groundswell of support for the public option, perhaps senator Schumer would like to show the caucus, especially the centrist Democrats, how he can come up with the 60 votes necessary to overcome the [Republican] filibuster that he damn well knows is coming," said a senior Democrat. In a full Senate, a "Republican filibuster" requires 41 "no" votes on cloture to sustain. There are only 40 Republicans in the Senate.So if there really is such a thing as a
"Republican filibuster" of the public option, perhaps SenatorAnonymous would like to show the world, especially his fellow Democrats, how they can come up with the 41 votes necessary to sustain this "Republican" filibuster that he damn well knows is every bit as "bipartisan" as the Baucus bill is.
Says me

Obama's Peace Prize And Republican Hatred

Why the Right REALLY hates Obama's Nobel
by Paganus Sat Oct 10, 2009
The conservative media's collective unravelling at the news of Obama's Nobel Peace Prize should surprise no one at this point. They have actively hated the Peace Prize since Carter won it.
But the tone and substance of the analysis from the Right clearly reveal, once again, a more deeply seated, and somewhat disturbing, basis for their criticism. Their vision of the world at peace is essentially a Roman one: the eagle victorious atop crushed 'enemies,' a fearful prospect to allies and rivals alike. "Oderint dum metuant - let them hate so long as they fear."
Of course, the problem with this approach to peacemaking is obvious. 1) It's not really peace and 2) it fools exactly no one. The Roman Historian Tacitus, in one of his more remarkable moments of empathy, has a British chieftain say of the Romans, "Auferre, trucidare, rapere falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant." - "to ravage, to kill, to steal under false pretenses they call "empire;" and when they make a desert and they call it peace."
Obama's initial rapprochement with the Muslim world, his trip to Egypt, his opening of discussions with Iran, his insistence on ending the occupation of Iraq, and his reformulating of the mission in Afghanistan have turned the basic neoconservative foreign policy formulation on its head. For that alone, for repudiating the imperial course laid by the the previous administration, he richly deserves the Nobel.
Paganus's diary
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/10/791845/-Why-the-Right-REALLY-hates-Obamas-Nobel

Rewriting The Liberal Bible

Rewriting the liberal Bible
by kos
Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 01:20:04 PM PDT
For years, the wingnuts have claimed that the Bible is the literal word of God, and that it supports conservative ideology. Problem is, the actual Bible hasn't been as hateful and bigoted as they've wished, and really, cherrypicking the right passages while ignoring other salient ones is hard work! So conservatives, rather than adjust their belief structure to better line up with the actual Bible, have decided to rewrite it and eliminate liberal "bias".
As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines:[2]
Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level[3]
Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;[4] defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".
Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";[5] using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census
Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.
Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels
Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."
Yup, they are admitting the Bible (and by extension, true Christianity) is too liberal.
So what are some examples of said liberal "bias" in the Bible?
The earliest, most authentic manuscripts lack this verse set forth at Luke 23:34:[7]
Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."
Is this a liberal corruption of the original? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing. This quotation is a favorite of liberals but should not appear in a conservative Bible.
See? The passage is a favorite of liberals, so it must be excised from the Bible, since liberals were running rampant when the Gospel of Luke was written in the year AD 70. I mean, Fox News didn't even exist then! The real Jesus would've called for the "Shock and Awe" bombing of Rome, not forgiveness. GOD the Bible is so liberal!
More:
Socialistic terminology permeates English translations of the Bible, without justification. This improperly encourages the "social justice" movement among Christians.
For example, the conservative word "volunteer" is mentioned only once in the ESV, yet the socialistic word "comrade" is used three times, "laborer(s)" is used 13 times, "labored" 15 times, and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") is used 55 times.
"Without justification". Maybe the justification, if you believe in Christ, was that Christ believe in social justice? But nah, that's a liberal plot.
And much like Fox News rewrites reality in order to better ratify conservative ideology, these jokes are now setting out to rewrite the Bible to better ratify their own hate and bigotry. It's nothing new for religion -- people have been reinterpreting holy texts from pretty much every religion imaginable to justify all manners of horrors. It's just funny seeing these conservatives so overtly admit that the religion they use to justify their own excesses doesn't really support them.
(Via Little Green Footballs)

The Healthcare Debate...

... rages on in places all over America.

http://demfromct.dailykos.com/
Health Care Tuesday
by DemFromCT Tue Sep 29, 2009
WSJ:
The health-system overhaul proposed by Sen. Max Baucus would create millions of new insurance customers without subjecting health insurers to government-run competition -- two key victories for the much-maligned industry.
It's all about the mandate. Hence, the need for the public option.
National Journal:
Congressional Republicans have worked themselves into a high dudgeon over a Health and Human Services department probe into one insurance company's controversial lobbying activities.
Not content to blast the investigation in angry letters and floor statements, GOP lawmakers have now threatened to block all HHS nominees from confirmation until the agency reverses course.
At issue is whether insurance company Humana, Inc., violated federal rules when it warned some of its Medicare Advantage clients in a mailing that pending health care legislation could slash their benefits.
I trust Humana to be telling the unvarnished truth. Don't you?
Lost in all this righteous indignation are some basic facts about Humana's role and obligations as a government contractor. Humana's communications did not take the form of a generic advertising campaign or mass mailing -- something the insurer was and remains free to do. Rather, Humana mailed a letter to Medicare Advantage members whose names and addresses were provided by the federal government.
Oopsies.
Bloomberg:
The army of industry lobbyists in the health-care battle is fighting on familiar terrain: More than half of them used to work for the government they’re trying to influence.
Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
Disturbing story:
Friends say the Miami University graduate who died this week after reportedly suffering from swine flu delayed getting medical treatment because she did not have health insurance.
Most cases of H1N1 are uncomplicated and self-limiting. You'll see similar stories both about the occasional severe case of H1N1 and the insurance issue. Keep both in perspective, but mixing them is volatile.
CIDRAP News:
Almost one third of a group of patients who died in the past 4 months from H1N1 influenza had bacterial infections that complicated their illnesses, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said today in a conference call with healthcare providers. But the agency cautioned against applying that ratio to all cases of H1N1, saying the death records it reviewed were submitted by hospitals and medical examiners and did not represent a statistically valid sample.
Nevertheless, the 22 cases (among 77 deaths confirmed to be from H1N1) emphasize that bacterial co-infections are playing a role in the ongoing pandemic, something that was not clear at first, the CDC's Dr. Matthew Moore said on the call.
Clinician calls with CDC are frequent because H1N1 interim guidance and information is always changing.
I'll be on Second Life's Virtually Speaking with Jimbo Hoyer (Jay Ackroyd) this Thursday at 8 pm ET, also simulcast on Blog Talk Radio. We'll talk about pandemic flu with guest Josh Knauer of Rhiza Labs.
Weight loss and sleep apnea
Obese people with sleep apnea who lose 10% of their weight have a good chance of improving their condition, a study shows.
"This is good news because it shows that a little bit of weight loss can go a long way when it comes to improving sleep apnea," says the study's lead author, Gary Foster, director of the Center for Obesity Research and Education at Temple University in Philadelphia.

Obama Scares The GOP

From http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/9/10/779677/-No-Wonder-the-GOP-have-gone-crazy...-This-is-a-formidable-enemy...(UPDATE)

No Wonder the GOP have gone crazy... This is a formidable enemy...(UPDATE)
by The Simple Canadian
Wed Sep 09, 2009
What have you guys done? The sun is shining through my window, I am looking at a beautiful Vancouver, British Columbia false creek waters and the boats slowly moving through, early in the morning (6am), I brush my teeth, and I say, let's check out the dailykos before heading to work... and voila, my anonymous diary that I posted last night is at the top of the rec list??? Merci tres beaucoup les gars!!!
This is really a formidable enemy (at least to them). Obama threatens to make the GOP irrelevant for many years to come. They are unable to match up with him intellectually, charismatically and politically. And unlike Kennedy, he seem to have a damn good Secret Service.
However, every time Obama speaks, Americans remember why they are a great Nation. He seems to move the entire world with him, with just one simple speech he could wipe out all the town hall demonstrations, all smear TV ads from the McCain campaign, everything, is just wiped out.
This, my friends, is for the ages. This, is what is going to pass the health care reforms:
To the GOP, this enemy, is different, and is very very scary. No wonder, they have gone crazy.
There is something that can make you better, but I can't afford it

Time To Lose The Republicans?

The following article comes from http://www.dailykos.com/

TIME TO LET THE REPUBLICANS GO.
by icebergslim Sun Aug 30, 2009
I am from Illinois, a blue state with the City of Chicago within it, a large populous state. Yet, while the White House WAITS on the Senate Finance Committee; large populous states have no representation of the committee. There are six individuals who are trying to pound out an agreement, yet all come from extremely small states and represents none of the majority of Americans. Note, we have had other bills come out of committee with the public option attached, but the bipartisanship of the White House has been a wait and see, as what comes out of the Baucus Committee.
Now the same sort of damaging retreat may be happening in the Senate Finance Committee. Three committees in the House and one in the Senate have used their Democratic majorities to approve liberal health reform bills. The only bipartisan negotiations are between a rump group of three Democrats and three Republicans on the Finance Committee who hail from largely rural states with small populations, namely Iowa, Maine, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota and Wyoming. Somehow this small, unrepresentative group has emerged as the focal point for bipartisan health care reform.
Bipartisan health care. No one is asleep here; do we actually believe that the Republicans will vote ANYTHING for Obama? When you have the likes of Grassley and Enzi, who are on this committee continuing to destroy any hope of bipartisanship, yet the White House forges along, but why? Is it for Independent votes? If that is the case, they are bleeding this group, since the Democratic Party has been all over the map in the messaging of health care and this message has clearly been yanked from the Democrats. The reality now in the Obama White House is that none of these Republicans were EVER going to be an honest broker, not for any of Barack Obama's agenda. At this time the Republicans only care about political points with hopes of recapturing the congress and hopefully the White House, so helping out President Obama is very LOW on their totem pole.
In recent weeks, it has become inescapably clear that Republicans are unlikely to vote for substantial reform this year. Many seem bent on scuttling President Obama’s signature domestic issue no matter the cost. As Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, so infamously put it: “If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.”
As we are still trying for the "bipartisanship lovey-dovey bill", the Republicans are staying on course to kill ANY health care reform bill, in the process making outrageous demands for their support EVEN THOUGH we have majorities in the House and Senate. The way things are going, you would think it is the Republicans in charge and not the Democrats.
In Salt Lake City today, Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) held a fundraiser with former Bush adviser Karl Rove, where Rove declared that “Republicans will be defined this year by their effort to block Democrats’ efforts for health care reform.” “This year is going to be defined by Republicans and conservatives by what we oppose,” said Rove. After Rove praised Bennett’s health care plan, Bennett said that he agreed with Rove’s goal of killing health care reform:
Rove said that he supports Bennett’s work on the Healthy Americans Act - the health care bill Bennett is co-sponsoring with Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon - although he said it’s “not exactly the bill that you or I would like each and every section.” Bennett said his bill is not a negotiating tool on health care, but it will be there as an alternative after Democratic reforms are blocked. “The No. 1 assignment in 2009 is to kill Obamacare,” Bennett said.
With lovey-dovey friends like these, no wonder health care is in disarray.
No one can rule out that the health care debacle or debate has hurt Obama and Democrats across the board, but I firmly believe once a health care package (with a public option) is passed by Democrats (let's be real the Republicans are not voting for ANYTHING) then we can rebound in the polling numbers. I also believe that once President Obama explains in clear lay-man speak, not that Washington, D.C. mumbo jumbo, but relay to the American Public why health care reform is not only important but what it means for THEM, we can win this battle. But, if we continue to deal with the Republican Party, which is fruitless, worthless and a waste of time, in my opinion, the public option could be a compromise if the Obama White House is hell bent on a bipartisan bill. Even though, a government run public option is what the public wants and demands, it could easily be dealt away:
The six have been working hard to reach agreement, but the concessions demanded by Republicans will most likely make the reform effort weaker and smaller. They could, for example, reduce the scale of the program and the subsidies for low-income people; drop the idea of a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers; and eliminate a requirement that employers offer coverage to their workers or pay a penalty.
Even if the group reaches an agreement, which is by no means certain, its compromise is unlikely to win support from a Republican Party that seems bent on delay. Leading Senate Republicans have seen little in the emerging compromise that they are willing to support.
Two of the Republicans working on the compromise — Charles Grassley of Iowa and Michael Enzi of Wyoming — have said they would not vote for a bill that could not win broad support, which Mr. Enzi defined as 75 to 80 senators, implying that roughly half of the Senate’s Republicans must sign on. That is unlikely — no matter how good or bipartisan or middle-of-the-road any bill may be.
After all this, does anyone believe these Republicans? And get this one, even if the Democrats and we got some very weak ones, give them everything, these Republicans will still NOT VOTE FOR ANY REFORM.
I hope President Obama and his family had a very restful vacation, even though the death of our great leader of the senate, Ted Kennedy, hurts, I am hoping that it is our former Lion of the Senate, while in his death will give some backbone or steel spine to the Democrats to forge this ahead and get on with it.
We need health care reform, desperately, but we don't need what the Republicans are trying to dish up. The Democratic Party is the leaders, majority of the congress and White House, it is time to show this leadership and get on with it.
NY Times
Think Progress
••
This Week With Barack Obama

GOP Teabaggers In Tampa...

...and they were so infantile.

http://dailykos.com/
Opponents shouted "Read the bill!" and held up signs as U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor attempted to address the crowd Thursday. There were reports of shoving and one man had his shirt ripped as a volunteer attempted to close a meeting room door. No one was arrested.
The Tampa chapter of the activist 9-12 Project says it encouraged members to show up and ask questions. The group was developed by Fox News Channel commentator Glenn Beck. The St. Petersburg Times reported the teabaggers not only said they were Beck disciples, but that the GOP had urged them to protest:Instead, hundreds of vocal critics turned out, many of them saying they had been spurred on through the Tampa 912 activist group promoted by conservative radio and television personality Glenn Beck. Others had received e-mails from the Hillsborough Republican Party that urged people to speak out against the plan and offered talking points.
So this is what the modern conservative movement has been reduced to: encouraging infantile behavior from teabaggers, practically begging them to drown out open discussion about health care reform.
What a bunch of pathetic cry-baby losers

Republicans Trying To Kill You?

Not really, but their bullshit speeches against any bill ( H.R. 2749 ) to make our food supply safer is downright funny. This is pointed out by Jill Richardson over at http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/31/760271/-Republicans-Want-You-To-Die:
Fri Jul 31, 2009
Well, that's not 100% true. It wasn't all Republicans, just most of them. And they really couldn't care less if you die or not, so long as they can obstruct the Democrats and protect the interests of Big Business. And if that results in your death, well... so be it.
Yesterday, I lost my C-SPAN virginity. I don't have a TV and I've never watched C-SPAN before, but yesterday was the House debate and vote on the most major food safety reform to the FDA since 1938. So I listened to the debate on C-SPAN, and it was FASCINATING. The Republicans who spoke had obviously received their faxes with their talking points, and they'd done a good job memorizing them... they didn't do as good a job fact checking them, but they are Republicans so what can you do?
The bill DID pass, so it will continue to be relevant to us as it moves on to the Senate. Below I've summarized the debate and also given you the pros/cons of the bill.
The bill in question is H.R. 2749. Here are some facts, before you dig into the debate.
The bill charges $500 fees to all 'food facilities' (excluding farms & restaurants).
The bill requires that the fee income is used for food safety, including inspections.
The bill calls for a dramatic increase in FDA inspections, from once a decade to as frequently as once every 6 months for the most high risk facilities. This will cost a lot of money, which the FDA does not yet have (but will get some of from the fees).
Prior to the vote on the House floor, the bill's sponsors (Dingell & Waxman) from the Energy & Commerce committee worked out a deal with House Ag Committee chair Collin Peterson and his concerns were all successfully addressed in the bill that was voted on.
Several progressives voted against the bill because there ARE legitimate problems with it for small/organic producers, but their reasons for opposing the bill are different than the stated reasons the Republicans gave for opposing it.
I liveblogged the debate here and here. Here are the highlights of the Republican arguments:
We don't like that the Democrats are manipulating the rules and stifling debate (I agree - but I bet you the Republicans wouldn't have minded one bit if Republicans were in charge and doing the same thing).
This bill does not require the FDA to spend one penny on inspections. (That's bull... it requires the inspections and gives them some cash that must be used for food safety, including inspections. They won't be able to pay for the inspections if they don't use the money from fees for them.)
This bill will not make our food supply any safer. (The bill's not perfect, but that's total BS right there. It won't be a 100% fix but it's giving us some badly needed reforms.)
The federal government can deny registration to food processors, thus deciding who can and can't sell food. (I haven't heard ANYONE from industry bring up such a fear or complaint in any of the hearings.)
We want to protect industry from big government bureaucracy. (In this case, the packaged food industry was actually FOR the bill. The meat industry opposed it but they got a bunch of exemptions that they wanted, and they are mostly regulated by USDA, which isn't included in this bill at all.)
This bill spends the money of our children and grandchildren. (Right - so does the war, and I'll bet the Republicans are for that. Food safety problems are often the worst for the very young and very old. A number of young children have died from E. coli. I think our first concern is making sure our food doesn't kill our children and grandchildren, and we can worry about the money after that.)
The bill never went through the Ag Committee. (That's because the Ag Committee's concerns were addressed by the bill via negotiations. If they weren't, the Ag Committee chair was threatening to take the bill into his committee and put the changes he wanted in there himself.)
It was pretty astounding how they all stood there with a straight face and opposed food safety. Rosa DeLauro gave perhaps the best speech in which she pointed out that more people die from food poisoning each year (5000) than from 9/11 (3000). We went to war over 9/11 - yet some are willing to do nothing about food safety?
Don't get me wrong, the bill's not perfect. In terms of its effectiveness, often food safety issues aren't discovered until much of the food in question has already been eaten. Recalls happen too late, routinely. It's very hard to link a specific food to food poisoning because there's often a lag time between eating something and getting sick from it, and if you don't have some of the food leftover for testing, then it's impossible to confirm what made you sick. Plus, a lot of people just don't report their illnesses. No bill can fix all of that.
However, in the specific case of the peanut butter outbreak this past winter, the bill does a lot of things that would have saved lives. If positive test results for salmonella were sent to the FDA, then people would not have died. Instead, PCA quietly hid its positive test results for salmonella and then went ahead selling its tainted peanut butter anyway. Eight people died. The increased FDA inspections would have made a difference too. So would allowing the FDA to look at PCA's records and mandate a recall once the problems were discovered. Those are things this bill addresses.
As for the legitimate problems in the bill - there was a great exchange on the House floor that addressed that. It was between Dingell (who sponsored the bill) and Sam Farr and Earl Blumenauer, who are concerned about small, sustainable farms. Dingell had already put some changes into the bill for them, and promised to meet their other concerns.
Dingell circulated a memo with a rebuttal to the concerns of the sustainable ag community, insisting that the bill addressed all of their needs. Today, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition put out a letter that replied to him. They appreciate a handful of exemptions given to small farmers (particularly those who sell direct to consumer) in the bill, but they feel that those exemptions are not enough, and they ask for very specific changes to the bill. This gives us a good starting place for what to ask our Senators for as they begin to debate the bill sometime after the recess.
In the end, the bill passed 283-142. 229 Dems and 54 Republicans in favor. 20 Dems and 122 Republicans opposed. 8 didn't vote. You can see how your rep voted here. I'm glad that the bill is moving forward but I hope that the National Sustainable Ag Coalition's concerns are addressed in the Senate version of the bill. Food safety is important but it shouldn't come at the expense of our small farmers who aren't the majority of the problem.

Republicans And Bankers

Thomas Frank at the Wall Street Journal said it best so I chose a few of his words as the quote of the day.

Thomas Frank:

Incentives work, all right. Just look at the way our bankers come back to bonuses, finding in every occasion a good opportunity to cut themselves a slice of largess. Their determination is unrelenting, monomaniacal. It's like Republicans returning to tax cuts, the universal solution to every problem.