It's Just A Flesh Wound

Yeah, Joe "Noun, Verb, Unconstitutional" Miller is still trying to win in Alaska.

Republican Senate candidate Joe Miller announced late Sunday that he would continue his challenge in federal court of the write-in election of rival Sen. Lisa Murkowski, but added he would not oppose certification of Murkowski's victory by state election officials.

U.S. District Court Judge Ralph Beistline, who is hearing Miller's federal challenge, had already said he would probably lift his order staying certification, allowing Murkowski to assume office Jan. 5 without losing seniority or leaving the state short a U.S. Senator. In a prepared statement e-mailed to the media about 10:20 p.m., Miller said he planned to go ahead with his federal lawsuit "for the sake of the integrity of the election."

Integrity?

Miller's modern interpretation of the "Black Knight" from Monty Python isn't really helping him within the modern conservative movement - unless we are talking about people that think that anytime a conservative loses an election that it must mean that The Black Panthers, ACORN, Jeremiah Wright, and William Ayers met in a secret bunker in China to ensure that only the "socialist" would win.

Here's your visual aid for the day......

Procedural Playground

I've been reading over several conservative opinions about how the reconciliation process is going to be made all the more difficult because of parliamentary procedure.

On cue, Ed Morrissey points out that the procedural nature of the Senate could be reforms undoing.

Call this the Blind Faith conundrum in the Democratic strategy to pass ObamaCare. In order to get the House to sign off on the Senate version of the bill, they have to trust that the Senate will actually pass a parallel series of fixes through reconciliation. Some House Democrats don’t trust the Senate to act or Obama to push the issue once he has a bill he can sign into law, which has led the House to plan a hostage strategy — passing the bill but holding it until the Senate completes the reconciliation process. However, parliamentarians in both chambers of Congress have to decide whether the Senate can actually amend a law that hasn’t been signed yet through that budget process, and the signs don’t look good.

So let me get this straight, there could be healthcare legislation SIGNED INTO LAW before this? Would this just be the Senate version or would the it already be blended with the House version? I'm almost certain that I'm looking at this wrong, but if Obama signs this, this means that healthcare reform has passed, and all that will have to be done is amend the Senate's horrendous language that was put in. Again, I'm sure I have this wrong.

But Digby points out something that I had not thought of before, and it's a tactic that some will be taken aback by. Republicans would likely vote WITH Democrats against putting specific and more harsh abortion language into the Senate bill - namely the Stupak amendment. However, I'm in agreement with her that this is not shocking.

So what happens now? I'm assuming that they will use the "point of order" option that the Catholic Bishops are pushing and then the entire Democratic establishment will expend a great deal of pressure on pro-choice Democrats to vote for Stupak. If they can get the women to slit their own throats it would be especially delicious.

I keep hearing that the Republicans will pay a price for not voting for the amendment (or allowing it to proceed.) But that totally misapprehends how the right wing thinks. They don't care if their representatives vote hypocritically, especially the social conservatives who care far more about defeating the godless liberals on health care than they do about the Stupak amendment. There will be no price. They will be cheered.

Let's get back to Morrissey's "if" laden perspective on this. One would think that if Obama HAS to sign this into law before any amendments could be made to it, wouldln't that be more of an incentive for Republicans to stop being obstructionists? Then again, they could potentially start the repeal process, as it would already be law. It's all a bit confusing, I know.

Here's a final thought: Considering the arcane and overtly complex nature of the Senate and their procedural policies, it makes one wonder how ANYTHING is signed into law.

Majority Is The New Minority

At least when it comes to the United State Senate.

I've never read the Village Voice, and now I know why. Apparently they see Brown's win last night as not only transformational in the political sense but in the numerical sense, as their title for the linked article references a 41 Seat Majority for Republicans.

The election of Republican Scott Brown to replace the deceased Ted Kennedy in the Senate from Massachusetts yesterday destroys the Democrats' 60-vote super majority, widely presumed to be needed for passage of a health care bill, or so it would seem from headlines ("House Dems largely reject idea of passing Senate health care bill"), from Republicans who cheered "41!" at Brown's victory as if it were some kind of milestone, and from conservative Democrats like Evan Bayh, who portrays the election as a "wake-up call," indicating that Democrats should propose a weaker health care bill that will not piss off insurance lobbyists and other powerful Republican constituencies.

And while the article isn't too terribly written, the premise laid out in the title suggests that Republicans can have more power than Democrats no matter how many asses they have in seats in the Senate.

But just think about this - during the Bush administration, there wasn't a super-majority amongst Republican members of the Senate and that clown got EVERYTHING he wanted. Why is that? Is there some irrational fear that Senate Dems have when it comes to the legislative process? I hardly think so, but there is certainly a procedural clusterfuck that happens with every Senate action that largely favors the Republicans. That's why I say it should be a majority vote, no filibuster, no cloture vote, no excessive "debate" ( read: obstructionist tactics based on parliamentary procedure ) and just a series of 10 minute speeches with a final vote.

Proof That Empty Slogans Rule The Modern GOP

While last night's "victory" for Scott Brown was ultimately expected these last few weeks, one begins to realize that conservatives are more than willing to elect a gimmick, a slogan, or a "pretty face" in favor of someone with actual leadership qualities. I'll forgo rehashing the well established examples of Scott Brown's "priorities" that he holds close to his heart and focus more on what the GOP has to do now.

After all the drool and hype has dried off in a few days, conservatives have to come to grips that they really aren't leaps and bounds ahead of the Democrats like they have convinced themselves they are since just around 930EST last night. What really have they gained aside from the ability to filibuster in the Senate? And that aside, Democrats hadn't been fairing well at all with 60 votes. But such is the nature of the Senate, a boondoggle no matter who holds the high ground in terms of numbers.

Brown's got a lot of work ahead of him if he wants to hold true to his "people's seat" meme. After all, the "people" of Massachusetts have a very different perspective on politics than just about any other state. Last night was proof that a fickle cross-section of voters can sway an election one way, even if it means slitting their own metaphorical throats.

Once question I do have regarding Brown's time in his new "people's seat" - does he start an all new 6 year term or was he elected simply as a placeholder to ride-out Kennedy's remaining time? If the former is true, then he runs to risk of falling into the trappings of government ( that same government that he and other teabaggers claim to not trust ) and becoming more of a poison pill to his state than people realize at this point. If the later is true, then it's likely that Brown will play the part of pure obstructionist to it's hilt in order to prove some school-yard bully type point that he can do what he wants, consequences be damned. The again, the same is more than likely true for the first, unless of course a Republican wins the Presidency in 2012, then we will likely see Republicans overly eager to repeal any and everything that Democrats have accomplished. But that's another story for another time.

So what is Brown's bringing to the Senate that already isn't there. Again, aside from being "Mr. 41", he really hasn't enumerated anything that other Republicans have before him. In other words, Republicans have gained no new ideas, no fresh perspectives, and no solid ground so to speak. Coverage of what Brown does now will most assuredly be quite ironic for conservative media outlets. After all their accusations that "the mainstream media" had some slobbering love affair with Barack Obama, Fox"News" will be nothing but wall-to-wall Brown. It has to be in order for them to burnish his image enough that the average conservative voter will completely ignore his faults and his short-comings. As of last night, he has the ultimate PR agent - Roger Ailes.

At this point, Democrats have to not just show their supporters that Brown's is nothing to be afraid of, they have to ask Brown what he has to offer. Is he really a "man of the people"? Is he willing to "work together" for a "common goal"? Or is he as he readily appears to be, nothing more than another obstructionist who ascended to his new "people's seat" on gimmicks and slogans?

Partisan Polling Practices

There's definitely a close relationship with Scott Rasmussen and the entirety of the GOP. The love is showcased on a daily basis ( quite literally ) on Fox"News" and HotAir. But why do they consistently cite this pollster and not others?

Nate Silver over at 538.com has discussed, at length, how Rasmussen polls and how this could potentially show bias. Not simply due to the way the poll is conducted ( it's an IVR - robocall setup that has a lower completion rate than traditional 1-on-1 interview polling ) but in how the persons are chosen for the sample.

One reason why Rasmussen is so favored by conservatives is largely due to his contribution to Bush's 2000 election. Secondly, the style of questions used by Rasmussen tend to reflect conservative positions on various causes. But are his results as solid as many claim?

From the special Senate election coming up in 8 days to the popularity of healthcare reform, Scott Rasmussen taps into how conservative media ( like Fox"News" ) frames a particular debate and then translates that into polling data for Fox to use to further their standpoint.

But one thing that Rasmussen, Fox, and conservatives to rely exclusively on them for information don't realize is that polls are literal snapshots in time that only show how people feel at that precise moment in time. Polls do not and never have shown how a person is going to act.

5 Big Things Obama Did Wrong In 2009

One common misconception that conservatives have about liberals/progressives is that we don't hold our leadership accountable, that we follow them blindly like mindless creatures of habit. And while that glaring piece of projection tells us more about Conservatives than they would care to admit, it should be pointed out that during Obama's first year as President, those that voted for and supported him throughout the year have let it be known that we are holding him accountable.

Michelle Malkin took a break from her daily, metaphorical ping-pong-ball show that usually delights her mouth-agape followers to claim that is was in fact the Democrats, not the GOP, that were breaking apart like the chips at the bottom of the bag. All that piece did was reveal that Malkin and her ilk prefer the paranoid, conspiratorial, shouting rather than substantive debate on issue - which was precisely what Democrats were engaging in with one another. However, Malkin seems to think that by saying "no they're not" that that makes it true. Sad to say that some people believe her, but these are the same people that think that Interpol is going to come to their homes with a census worker and take away all the books written by conservative authors and put them in FEMA concentration camps.

But let's get back to the topic at hand - things Obama has done wrong this year. In no particular order, here we go:

1 - He's sending more troops to Afghanistan

This isn't the first troop increase of Obama's presidency. Back in March, he put through orders to increase troop levels that were originally requested back when Buch/Cheney were still in office. That request sat idle for 8 months until Obama implemented it, and then was accused of "dithering" by Dick Cheney and conservatives had a new toy word to play with on television.

The reason that Obama's second troop increase is wrong is because of where we are in that area of the world. We are in a place that has a massively corrupt government and a military force that is far away from being prepared to take on the task of securing their nation on their own. We don't need to get sucked into "nation building" like we did with Iraq. But more so than that, those that we are fighting have moved into other countries, have began to reconstitute in many ways and we are literally inches away from dropping the ball because we are putting too sharp a focus on a place that has a rich history of bringing failure to occupying forces.

There was a time when I thought that putting more effort into Afghanistan was right. Not so much that it would require putting more boots on the ground, but focus more on targeted strikes, and the utilization of Special Ops. But I'm not even sure that that is what is needed anymore.

The one things that makes me think that a complete pullout would do us more good that staying and injecting more troops is that we lose perspective on other areas, like Yemen. Conservative war-hawks think the one and only solution is preemptive strikes and an occupying force that takes over a nation in order to destabilize it so private American interests can come in a wreak economic and socio-political havoc in order to "win the hearts and minds" of that country's people. That tactic has never worked to benefit the US so why do they think it will now?

Focus more on national security and get the hell out to Afghanistan right now. And for those conservatives that may be reading this, take a look at your history and find out what Reagan did after the terrorist bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut : he got us the fuck out of there.

The only caveat that Obama has offered is what appears to be an exit strategy within the next calendar year, but that may appear to be subject to change.


2 - He didn't repeal DADT

One giant piece of conservative legislation, that was enacted by a Democratic president, is Dont' Ask, Don't Tell. On it's face, it appeared to be a way for gays to serve in the military without the fear that they would be discovered. But the reality was much more sinister - they were denied their own identity and ability to serve their country openly and proudly. And for that reason, DADT should have never been put into place to begin with.

But there is a slippery slope with this sort of legislation. One of the main problems that people have with politicians is that they sometimes make decisions based solely on the how one thing or another will harm or benefit them politically. Many within the conservative Republicans operate on this platform more so than those within the Democratic party. From benefiting special interest groups and ensuring that big business holds power over the American public, Republicans are certainly not the ones to be pointing fingers when it comes to thinking politically instead of thinking of the American public.

Obama's primary weakness is that he is far too eager to try and reach out to people that are against him politically. This has been seen in literally every piece of legislation that he has signed off on. And to that point, it is beyond me why he would not just simply repeal this with only Democratic support. After all, the Republicans have shown time and again that the entire time Obama sits at the desk in the Oval Office that they have absolutely no desire to hear, or even consider, one thing he says. And if Obama isn't doing away with DADT, then it's a political move that is going to gain him no points.

3 - He didn't repeal DOMA

Rather than repeat my statements on DADT, it's far easier to understand that DOMA and DADT have not been removed for the same reasons which they were implemented to begin with.

4 - He seemed to have caved on the Public Option in healthcare reform

Far too many things have been stated about proposed healthcare reform that simply aren't true. From the death-panel meme, to rationing, to doctors across the country suddenly deciding to stop practicing medicine is this passes, conservatives have muddied the waters to such an extent that one can hardly penetrate the surface with any facts. One fact, thought, is indisputable - Barack Obama campaigned on a Public Option in healthcare reform.

It appears that Obama is simply eager to get some semblance of healthcare reform passed as quickly as possible, with the ability for it to be amended later on to include such things as a robust public option, to makes improvements along the way. But this has even been a topic of discussion of late - can it even be amended?

The only thing that gives me pause when considering the fact that Obama has completely scrapped his initial plan is that he can still use the line-item veto if he so chooses. Not only that, but the completely abhorrent Senate version of the bill still has to be put through conference and combined with the Congressional bill that is light-years away better.

Since this was such a key portion of his platform for election to begin with, I find it hard to understand why he seemingly has removed it as an option all together. Again, could this be because he is hoping to gain some Republican support? If so, he's fooling himself into thinking it's going to work.

5 - He called for and hoped for bipartisanship all year

This could arguably be Obama's biggest mistake since gaining the office of the President. In his inaugural speech, he famously said that he would "extend a hand if you would unclench your fist". A great line and a great ideal to hold, but when the opposition has both fists not only clenched but flailing around like a rabid monkey, what good is bipartisanship?

From many people's point of view, simply believing that the members of the Republican party have even the tiniest desire to work with Obama is not only naive, but utterly ignorant. Not only that, but responding to the likes of Fox"News" and even going on their network to do an interview does nothing but validate their reactionary blathering.

Far too many within the conservative movement are banking on the fact that 2010 will be the start of their come-back, that they will regain control of both houses of Congress with landslide victories. Mathematically this is plausible, but is a goal that isn't as easily attainable as they appear to have convinced themselves it is. Rather than extending his hand, Obama should have taken the stance that if Republicans were going to obstruct any and everything for whatever paranoid, delusional, reason they could, that they were of no benefit to the American public and simply gone on without them.

In this country, we still - for the most part - operate on a system of "majority rule". That's how elections are won, and that's how important decisions are made in everyday life. In Congress, it's called "reconciliation". Conservatives call it the "nuclear" option. Within those halls in Washington, it would seem that a majority means nothing - that you must have a "super-majority" to get anything done. Why is this? What good is having more seats than the other party if you can't use them or refuse to use them.

Obama should have, but he needs to, remove any and all preconceived notions that he can have bipartisan support for his plans. The Republican party, in many respects, has won several battles, but the metaphorical war has yet to be completed. And if Obama continues to think that Republicans will work for him then he is fooling himself.

-------------------------------------------

There are certainly more things to be written about, but these five things have harmed Obama and the Democratic party in more ways than they might first realize. His presidency and the party which supports him are not lost, there is time to rebuild, reorganize, and regain ground that was lost. It's been a tough year and there are surely to be tough days within the next three years, and that's all the incentive that Obama should need to be a more effective leader for his party and this country.

Shorter John McCain

Someone Seems To Have A Bad Memory

In all my years here in the Senate being all mavericky, I don't recall someone objecting to a few seconds more time. But my far maverickier brain should have reminded me that I was being uber-mavericky back in 2002 when I objected. See, I'm mavericky right now for not listening to my brain. MARVERICKY!

Objection Versus Obstruction

This is apparently the hot story of the moment, and it's fair to say that people on the Right are inflating this into more of a controversy than it really is. But progressives and liberals seem to be crowing a bit to much as well.



In terms of parliamentary procedure, Franken is most certainly in right in voicing his objection. And whether John McCain likes it or not, Franken didn't break the rules simply because he alleges that this hasn't happened in the entirety of his time in the Senate. And it obviously didn't bother Lieberman at all, as he laughed it off.

But liberals/progressives are missing a big point on this. While it's great that Franken is utilizing his right to object to Lieberman's incessant and ultimately pointless blathering, where have all the other Democratic Senators been? Why are they allowing members of the opposition to take control of this debate by being pure obstructionists? It's fine to laud Franken for his ability to speak with the voice of the majority that not only want but need affordable healthcare, but it's sad that not enough people within the Democratic caucus have the same passion and willingness to tell people like Lieberman to basically shut the fuck up.

The Distinguished Gentleman From Minnesota

Why can't Kentucky have a senator like Al Franken?



People like O'Reilly think they diminish Franken's knowledge and his abilities as a Senator by pointing out that he started out as a comedian. The reality of this is in fact, yes, he was a comedian and now he's a fantastic Senator that knows more about policy than a thousand O'Reillys.

I won't say that conservatives that continually downplay Franken's political acumen are afraid of him, but they certainly aren't going to admit that he knows more than them and does not fall prey to the trappings of inflammatory rhetoric and fear-mongering like his Republican counterparts.

Obstructionism and Fear: A Primer on the Modern Conservative Movement

Here's my latest Op-Ed piece that will appear in my local paper this week.

I have to ask myself why people would even align themselves with modern conservatives. The meaning behind the term conservative has morphed into something that, should people take time to see what modern conservatives do, would rightfully make them rethink their standpoint on a variety of issues

In the ongoing “debate” over healthcare reform, a variety of polls show people ( between 61% and 71% ) favoring a Public Option, with the CBO scoring the Public Option to show that it will reduce the deficit, with insurance companies fighting to keep their anti-trust exemption – a sure sign there is more concerned with monopolistic powers rather than customers - how can conservatives in the House and Senate not want to support their electorate?

Are conservatives are more interested in protecting big business rather than the average American? While it would be an over-simplification to just say “yes”, it’s not to be discounted that the insurance lobby has had ample amounts of currency flowing to select members of the Republican party. Seeing and hearing people like Mitch McConnell and John McCain continually going to bat for insurance giants and promoting the tactics of fear and irrational thought, it’s no surprise to know that these men are dripping wet with insurance lobbyist cash.

But what of other issues? From the continued fight in Afganistan and remaining occupying forces in Iraq – which conservatives aren’t the least bit concerned in knowing where those trillions of dollars are going to come from – to issues like Net Neutrality and our struggling economy, conservatives are more than willing to fabricate memes, conspiracy theories, and patent lies than address the issues themselves.

They want a “surge” in Afganistan when the “surge” in Iraq only prove to be a band-aid on a massive wound that is still bleeding to this day. They want to ignore the fact that our military strategy needs to be rethought and implemented in a more targeted, coordinated, fashion. They claim that Obama is playing politics with Afganistan when that entire conflict was botched to begin with and summarily ignored for nearly 8 years. The economy is slowly reviving and conservatives are still ignoring how we got in this financial mess to begin with, some even suggesting that Bush is responsible for the DOWs rebound. And there are more issues that conservatives are ignoring or twisting in order to promote fear.

Aside from continuing to play the victim and attempting to convince their audience that White House representatives calling them out for what they are – a propaganda arm of the Republican party – Fox”News” has gone full-tilt conspiracy theory. The man leading the charge is the new bright star of the conservative movement – Glenn Beck. Every night since his debut, Beck has weaved an intricate and often unintellegable web of deception, trickery, and malicious intent within the Obama administration. He’s linked them to everyone from the communist party, Nazis, fascists, and Maoists. Beck is the perfect example of what the conservative party has become – a completely unhinged movement that claims that progress and change means the death of America. They are a movement ripe with willful ignorance, willing to believe anything they hear from their leadership. They welcome and consume fear as a new and useful commodity.

The last true conservative leader this country had was one that you might not expect. Bill Clinton implemented ideals that modern conservatives claim to embrace but never approach with any honesty. From balancing the federal budget, leaving us with a trillion-plus surplus, lowering the welfare rolls, massively expanding the economy, and even making Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act a reality, Bill Clinton was more conservative than liberal. Had he been from Kentucky, there surely would have been an R after his name rather than the D that Republicans continually attacked.

So what does the word conservative mean to you? These days it means a person that is not willing to look forward, someone that is more concerned with the status quo, with creating a climate of fear instead of working to improve this country.

Classic Republican Strategy : Support Troops "There" So You Don't Have To Support Them "Here"

WASHINGTON — The House approved a homeless veterans housing bill overwhelmingly Wednesday, even though White House advisers warned they'd urge President Bush to veto it.

The bill sponsored by Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, authorizes spending $200 million on housing and services for veterans, requires 20,000 rental vouchers a year for low-income housing for veterans and authorizes $1 million for grants to nonprofit groups to provide housing and services for veterans.

The bill, which passed 412-9, also creates a job in the Department of Housing and Urban Development for someone to coordinate with Veterans Affairs on homelessness and make regular reports to Congress on the issue.

The Senate version of the bill is sponsored by Democrat Barack Obama, the Illinois lawmaker who is the party's presumptive presidential nominee.

Click here to read the bill.

More here.

Seems to be standard operating procedure with the Bush Administration. The conservative media seems to have a tough time realizing that homelessness among returning military personel as well.

The man at the forefront of the "there is not a homeless vet problem" is - you guessed it - Bill O'Reilly.
For the better part of the first of the year, O'Reilly was claiming that there was not a homeless vet problem. Quite possibly the main reason that O'Reilly considered such a claim ridiculous was the fact that Presidential candidate John Edwards was championing the rights of homeless vets.

And when several of these same vets came to Fox News headquarters, rather than speaking with them about their issues, Bill O'Reilly ( via his ambush-hungry producers ) berated the vets for not watching Fox"News".



The proposed legislation passed overwhelmingly within in the Congress - only 9 people voted against it. It's a pretty safe bet that most or all of those 9 votes were from Republican congressmen(women). The question remains - why is the Bush administration threatening a veto on this?

Because, silly, if we admit that there is a problem with returning vets the terrorists win.

I thought you knew that already.