How about President Obama inviting every member of the Democratic Caucus in the Senate to the White House and getting a public commitment, televised, from each of them:

"I hereby solemnly swear that I will vote for cloture on every bill presented by our caucus whether or not I wholeheartedly endorse its aims.  I reserve the right to vote against the bill on final passage, but under no circumstances will I vote to uphold a filibuster of a bill sponsored by our caucus.  If I break this pledge I fully understand that I will be labeled a Republican swine and will forgo all privileges given to me including committee chairs and assignments.  So help me ..."

Why isn't this doable?

Norman: If the mission was to be as big an asshole for as long as politically possible, you accomplished your mission.  The party of NO got most of what they wanted here.  It would have been nice for them if they could have kept Al out of the Senate for another 3-4 months (one less vote for healthcare, cap and trade and EFCA) but Norm can leave now with his fat Republican head held high, knowing he fought the bad fight for his rapidly evaporating party.

Goodbye, good riddance, and please let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

It seemed like all the talk a few months back when the EPA finally did what the Supreme Court ordered it to do years ago, i.e. make a declaration on carbon as a pollutant, was "What a breakthrough for carbon emission regulation".

Can someone explain to me why the administration isn't just saying: "If you don't like the climate bill (and I'm talking to you, Claire McCaskill) fine.  We'll just let the good folks at EPA determine the proper amount of carbon emissions over the next 4 years."

I had thought that this climate bill was a compromise to the big polluters to ensure that EPA couldn't destroy their current business models.  If the Senate decides to gut or filibuster this bill, I say fine.  Let Lisa Jackson and her crew issue tough carbon emission restrictions and get it done that way.

Besides the ephemeral and ad nauseam desire for bipartisanship, what's the downside to effective carbon control if this bill just doesn't pass?  Might that in the end be a better result?

It's amazing to me that I suddenly don't mind listening to Michael Jackson music anymore.  The idea of listening, let alone buying any of his music, repulsed me for the last 15 years until just today.  The old enabling a child molester thing I guess.

Suddenly I take great joy in the wonderful artist he truly was.  What a very sad and tragic figure.  I hope wherever he is now he has found some peace.

But what a superstar he was!  I doubt we'll ever see his like again in our lifetimes.

Here's to praying that once the major the legislative issues are resolved this summer and fall (health care, carbon cap and trade, financial reform and wouldn't it be great immigration reform, among others) that our President and his Attorney General will suddenly show their progressive stripes and:

1)  The President immediately stops the enforcement of DADT pending legislation in the Congress to permanently revoke the law;

2) Holder decides, based upon recommendations from the Intelligence Committees to appoint an Independent Counsel to investigate the unlawful torture of individuals in federal custody, in compliance with international treaties.

Methinks our Dear Leader and his administration believe that time is on their side as far as these two issues are concerned, and if we can take this once in our lifetime opportunity to set America on the glidepath to single payer health care and an effective carbon emission control regime, that those of us concerned with gay rights/national security and those of us who demand accountability for Bush War Crimes will just have to be patient and not put the cart before the horse so to speak.

I wish he had issued an executive order suspending enforcement of DADT on the afternoon of January 20th.  And I wish Holder had ordered a special prosecutor to investigate Bush War Crimes five minutes after that.

But I also know our President is a student of history, especially recent history circa 1993, and realized that starting off your tenure with gays in the military and prosecuting former administration officials for war crimes might have had a negative impact on his ability to effect real change.

Prioritize these issues to yourselves:

1) DADT
2) War Crimes Prosecutions
3) Real Health Care Reform
4) Real Energy Reform
5) Real Immigration Reform
6) Real Financial Reform

I think if I wanted to get all 6 of these things done, I would not have put the first two first.  It's a matter of practicality.  When you already have the mainstream right wing media expounding every single day on the enormous budget deficit, something they just discovered, blaming the entire mess on Obama and Geithner, and you have the Ariannas of the world as part of this echo chamber, add "gays in the military" and "Bush saved us/now Obama wants to prosecute him" to the endless reverberations and poof, no real Health Care Reform and No Real Carbon regime.

Yes I know the polls say 70% of Americans no longer oppose "gays in the military".  Trust me, the second Obama signs the Executive Order stopping its enforcement our very vocal right wing lying noise machine will be all over it, nonstop, 24 hours a day.  Watch that 70% evaporate overnight. 

Consider also that a large majority of Americans want real health care reform; it doesn't mean the right isn't demagouging it.

Our President is walking a tightrope to get his promised agenda passed through a thoroughly bought and paid for Congress.  He is asking many Congresspersons and Senators to betray the very special interests that get them elected.  The forces arrayed against him in health care and carbon alone are more than formidable.  Getting a real bill passed this year on either of these issues will be a phenomenal accomplishment considering the entrenched and powerful opposition to any change whatsoever. 

Name me one President who has taken on Big Oil, Big Pharma, or Big HMO and survived to tell the tale.  This guy wants to keep his eye on the ball, take these monstrous challenges one at a time and succeed.  I got to give him the benefit of the doubt, for now.

My guess is that sometime in November we'll see the Executive Order banning the enforcement of DADT.  Eric Holder might need a bigger push. 


 

My wife went to the hospital with massive chest pains a few weeks back. She got all the tests including the treadmill stress test.  Everything was fine, no heart attack.  We still don't know what caused it but it wasn't cardio or neuro, probably some kind of intense muscular event.

Anyway, the bill came and it was $12,600 (and that was just the hospital, not the various doctors.) If we didn't have insurance, that is the amount we would have had to pay and I can guarantee you that the next time either of us had chest pains, we would probably not even consider dialing 911.

Here's the kicker.  We have insurance.  The adjuster knocked down the overall bill, get this, to $700 and since we had met our deductible already we paid 20% of that $700 with insurance paying the rest of the $700.

That's a 95% reduction in the bill.  Think about that for a moment.  No insurance? Please pay us $12,600.  Oh, you have insurance and we are a preferred provider under your plan. Well then, the bill is now only $700.
How does this make any sense? 

68% of bankruptcies have medical bills as their root cause.  Every person in America actually paying for insurance pays $1000 per year in additional premiums just to make up for the uninsured. 

We had insurance so we called 911.  Without insurance, how many people wouldn't dare.

This couldn't be a more ridiculous system.    

The four wise men of the Republican Party: a traitor - Karl Rove for outing a CIA Agent; a serial adulterer and disgraced former Speaker of the House- Newt Gingrich; and a drug addicted radio "personality"- Rush Limbaugh are the GO TO Guys for the national, cable and print media when it comes issues of public interest.  Oh, and on issues of torture they pull out the  draft-dodging psychopath - Cheney.  Four viscerally repulsive assholes.

Could it get any better than this for Obama when these mean spirited, pot bellied jerks are your competition?  Four more years of this and Democrats will have their permanent majority.

as Vatican Ambassador! You know, kill two birds ...

Reposted from Americablog

Maybe Obama should send a Nazi sympathizer to the Vatican

by John Aravosis (DC) on 4/14/2009 06:41:00 PM

The Vatican has reportedly vetoed three of Obama's proposed ambassadors, including Caroline Kennedy, because they're pro-choice. Which is funny, since the Vatican isn't nearly as discerning about welcoming Holocaust-deniers into its ranks. Speaking of which, when does the Pope plan on doing something about the Nazi-sympathizer he's now embracing, even though he knew the man is a Holocaust denier? The Pope told him to recant or else. No recant. And nothing from the Vatican, as if we'll all just forget that the German-born Pope, who was a member of the Hitler Youth, welcomed a Holocaust-denialist into the Vatican. Fat chance.

and from the AP...

Federal court halts deportation of Demjanjuk

By M.R. KROPKO, Associated Press Writer M.r. Kropko, Associated Press Writer 33 mins ago

CLEVELAND - The return of alleged Nazi death camp guard John Demjanjuk to Germany for trial on war crimes was delayed again Tuesday by a federal court, shortly after six immigration officers removed the retired autoworker from his suburban Cleveland home in a wheelchair.

A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay until it could further consider Demjanjuk's motion to reopen the U.S. case that ordered him deported, in which he says painful medical ailments would make travel to Germany torturous.

It is clear that a new Constitutional Standard has been set for the foreseeable future.  Franken can't be seated unless he has 60% of the vote.  Obama can't pass a stimulus plan or carbon taxes unless he has 60% of the vote. Obama may not get health care passed with a public option unless he also gets 60% of the vote.  Of course I am talking about the US Senate.

There needs to be a concentrated effort among the blogosphere to get the mainstream media to recognize and ridicule the fact that the Senate as a whole is declaring in a time of severe crisis that majority rule no longer applies.  We are no longer a representative democracy; we now require supermajorities to pass any legislation, approve any appointment, and to seat a clearly elected Senator. 

This is not normal.  This is not the regular way of doing business.  Harry Reid and company are just as and more guilty than the Republicans in perpetuating the myth of "60 votes is normal".  Your average Senator adores the fact that they can individually hold up legislation and appointments.  The supermajority rule gives each of them additional power that they had not imagined even 10 years ago.

This is such a critical problem because as we have seen with too many Democratic Senators, passing progressive legislation is way down on the priority list.  Preserving individual Senatorial power is at the top.

Wow!  A President that actually impresses on the world stage and isn't universally hated by French, Czechs and Alabanians alike, and the all the Sunday Talking Heads can do is whine, bitch, fret and moan. 

Whether it's George Will and Arianna, or the sudden appearance of multiple "former Bush speechwriters", all of them seem to have just the same urgent need to be relevant and insightful (inciteful?), and to be relevant means to be an Obama hater. When "StuffinEnvelopes" has to interject regularly to defend the Obama Side you know something's wrong. When John Harwood of the WSJ is the voice of reason...

Suddenly the word "owwwns" has become the popular buzzword, such as "Obama owwwns GM", or "Obama owwwns Afghanistan" or "Obama owwwns this economy".  Not only does the guy not get a honeymoon, he gets the reverse of a honeymoon. I guess even 3 months patience is too much to ask for to attempt to ameleoriate the damage of the past eight years.

And of course "It's all theatrics in Europe, no substance. Couldn't get the Euros to join in 2% stimulus nor send more combat troops to Afghanistan.  What a colossal failure he is." It's like they all memorized that highly successful McCain commercial accusing Obama of being a "Celebrity", like that's a terrible thing in a President.

No analysis that I could find saying something as simple as: "A US President who isn't universally reviled as a dictator and torturer might actually be able to forge a better worldwide consensus on how to deal with difficult international issues likfe terrorism and nuclear proliferation."

Or, "A US President who actually answers reporters' and town hall participants' questions (as one Asian reporter declaimed to the Financial Times) might be a good thing for international understanding and cooperation." No that would be too facile and unserious.

A G-20 meeting where just not getting a lot of trade protectionism bandied about allowed the stock markets worldwide to rise.  Irrelevant!  After all Obama didn't get exactly what he wanted so he is ipso facto an abject failure.  That's the real message true insiders want to know.

For the first time in my lifetime we get a President who is not a political wind up doll (and I cast my first vote for President in 1972).  Wouldn't it be nice to have our political punditry, just for once, not be full of political wind up blowhards as well?

I hope you have/had a chance to watch Obama's news conference in London just now. He has a pretty bad head cold and was a little slower than we're used to but his quite thoughtful and detailed answers to a variety of questions from world journalists was quite remarkable.

This guy is the real deal.  He thinks deeply about virtually everything a President should think about and had to have just knocked out anybody used to the pathetic performance our former President used to deliver.

Whether you like, dislike, or absolutely hate all or any particular part of his economic, political or foreign policy program, we are very lucky to have such a thoughtful and decent human being as our political leader in these troubling times.

If the progressive blogosphere continues to berate the Obama Administration's every move to help save the economy, and to couch its criticism in the "Obama/Geithner are in bed with Wall Street" meme, the Senate will be less and less likely to pass any of his agenda.

Unfortunately, we need a strong executive to correct the dire situation we find ourselves in, and everyone who thinks Obama needs to be taken a down a peg or nudged harder to the left (I'm talking to you Krugman), will be responsible if health care, EFCA, and carbon taxes never become a reality. 

Chait's latest in the New Republic is a must read. Whether you like it or not, only Obama can slap these DINO's upside the head and force them to do the right thing.  http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=07bd4a20-60a7-44a9-ab92-115eeb62bd92

I know, I know, I've been one of his biggest supporters,  But Josh and Arianna and Sirota and Krugman have finally convinced me that Barack's got to go.

It's just taking too long.  Taking too long to fix the economy (which he could easily do today just by firing Tim Geithner).  Taking too long to get out of Iraq.  Taking too long to have health care reform.  Too long for energy reform. Too long for environmental reform.  Too long for EFCA.  Too long for tax reform.  And on top of all that, it almost April and he hasn't balanced the budget.  Sheesh!!

This is just inexcusable.  My patience is at an end.  I gave him as much time as I could.  I am sure he's decent person deep down, but we just don't have any more time to waste.  I wonder if we called John McCain and asked him "pretty please", do you think he would still want the job? 

"The buck stops with Obama. He makes the decisions. In a way, I think I've got as much input as anyone can reasonably hope to have," Krugman said. "I'm rooting for him. I hope I'm wrong in being pessimistic about this plan."

I think this is actually good news for Labor and the US in the long run.  With the incessant criticism of the Obama Administration (primarily from the left), it will take an all out effort in the 2010 elections to try and win a few more seats in the Senate, including Specter's, and get major energy legislation and a carbon tax passed in 2011 (apparently the Dems have given up on it this year, which means goodbye next year as well). 

Last week Labor said they'd back Specter if he voted for EFCA.  He stiffed them instead.  America does not need 6 more years of Specter.When Franken finally gets seated, we'll have 59 seats in the caucus of which only 51-52 are reliable.  We'll need 3-4 more to convince the Evan Bayhs and Ben Fosters of this world that "Republican lite" is not the Democratic Party.