Learn the lessons

Since the American people are not the smartest when it comes to voting, and since it is inevitable that over the next 2-4 years the Democratic majority in the House and Senate will decrease or possibly end, I hope that the party of FDR is taking notes on how to run a successful opposition. While the Republicans did not manage to stop the health care bills that crawled through both houses of our legislative body, they did manage to strongly influence both the eventual law and the public perception of the majority party.

Without casting a single vote in its favor, the minority managed to get over 160 amendments added to the senate health care bill and push the resulting legislation far to the right of what those of us who voted for "hope" and "change" wanted. The health insurance bill that Obama signed into law was a far cry from anything the late Ted Kennedy had strongly advocated for all those years that he was in office. It was a far cry from anything Representative Dennis Kucinich could support with a clean conscience. And it fell far short of what the country needs in order to say we have substantively improved our health care system.

One of the reasons was the failure of the Democratic leadership to fight back against the minority's talking points, and their fear of being seen as partisan after the GOP made such a big deal of how post-partisan President Obama had promised to be. But in this sad tale there is at least the redeeming element that perhaps a lesson can be learned. The party of Nixon and Duke Cunningham has shown that if you play the game correctly, 41 senators can be almost as powerful as a super majority. They have shown that withholding money from our soldiers in times of war can be done for political reasons without repercussions. And they have shown that despite years of leading the charge to kneecap the public insurance plans that exist today (Medicare and Medicaid) it is still possible to pretend to be its stalwart defender in order to confuse voters.

So I hope that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Steny Hoyer, and Tim Kaine have been taking notes because it probably won't be too long before they will be counted on to oppose Speaker Boehner, and senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, and when they do, I hope they can do half as good a job at getting their way.

Presenting, the next Senator from the state of Massachusetts....

Way to go Massholes! To all those morons that complained that Obama had not delivered enough change yet, and that things were moving too slowly in Congress, you should be real happy now. With the GOP gaining their crucial 41st vote, all legislation will now suffer one of two fates: grind to a halt or get gutted to the the point where it is no longer worth passing.

One such piece of legislation is the current health care reform bill, aka, the health insurance bill. I call it that because in order to get even members of their own party on board, the Democratic leadership tore out the soul of health care reform and turned what could have been a great advance in American politics and society into little more than a handout to insurance companies. With Scott Brown joining the Senate, Democrats will either need to find something incriminating on Olympia Snow and Susan Collins, or rip out even more of the health insurance bill.

The biggest problem with the health care bill (Senate version) is that it has already been compromised to death. The American people are proving themselves to be dumber than a box of rocks by buying (and then stuffing into their mouths) the echo chamber feces that tells them that this bill was written by Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. The false outrage at things like Harry Reid's comments and the efforts to provide health care to America's poor is sickening and needs to stop.

But it won't. The party of "No" is finding power in the ability to deny and delay. Tactics that would not work if people would simply pay attention and turn off American Idol, Top Chef, or the 20th season of Flavor of Love. Chances are that come November, the Republicans will be hammering home the fact that the Democrats haven't done anything despite majorities in both houses of Congress and the oval office. And the public will continue to eat that shit up and holler back "yeah! they haven't done anything!"

*****AUTHOR'S NOTE*****

The closing to this post contains language not suitable for all audiences. If you do not want to see any offensive language you may as well just stop reading here. Take a look at C-SPAN or Google News.

If you still want to read on, don't complain about the language used.

*****AUTHOR'S NOTE*****

So fuck you Joe Lieberman for dragging your feet before Christmas.

And fuck you Ben Nelson for trying to block insurance companies from covering abortions.

And fuck you Max Baucus for gutting the public option.

And fuck you Tom Coburn for forcing the reading of Senator Sanders' amendment and then leaving the room while it was being read.

And finally, fuck you Senate Democrats for being spineless, gutless, cowardly little wimps who can't even get a decent bill passed with 60 votes. Maybe you need to learn some lessons from your colleagues across the aisle who seem to be able to pass whatever piece of shit legislation Karl Rove and Dick Cheney could dream up.

Thank you C-SPAN

My apologies if this post does not load quickly or correctly but there are a number of video clips that all should see.

By now, you have hopefully heard of or seen this little fracas between Senator Lieberman (back stabbing asshole) of Connecticut and the wonderful junior senator from Minnesota, Al Franken. In the exchange, Joe "Droopy" Lieberman asks for more time to drone on some more and Al Franken, presiding over the senate objects in his capacity as Minnesota's senator.

After Lieberman is denied his extra "moment" Republican John McCain expresses his disgust at someone being denied that extra time. He goes so far as to say he has never, in his 20 years in the senate seen someone denied time to finish their remarks. Poor old John, but it would seem that his memory is fading, or he is lying through his teeth because look at who objected to a similar request from the senior senator from West Virginia.

Thanks C-SPAN.

GOP Bullshit: Paying now for health care later

Over and over again we hear the GOP senators on the floor continue to whine and moan about how the health care reform bill would have money going into the system years before the bulk of the services would be provided. They sit there making speeches about how unfair it is to the taxpayer to make them pay for something before they get to use it. We have heard every tired analogy from paying for a car a year before getting to drive it, to buying a bus ticket without any buses. Maybe it's all of these Senators' first day on the job and they don't understand how things work in this world.

When the government takes a big chunk of taxpayer dollars and gives it to Boeing, the Boeing executives do not hand the government hundreds of fighter jets before they leave the capitol. Unless the GOP wants the government to act like a California or Florida home buyer and give nothing for something. That works real well until you eventually have to pay up and you don't have any money. The more responsible course, and the best course for the government to take is to pay for things up front. I think that the GOP senators raising this stink know that too, but they are wrapping themselves in a cynical, disingenuous blanket of lies so that their insurance/pharmaceutical lobbyist puppet masters can continue to fleece the American people.

If the health reform bill were to go into effect immediately, then they would be constantly rewriting the bill as it was supposed to be passed in August. Picking a start date in 2013 might not even be that far in the future once the bill actually passes if Senator Coburn keeps asking for a full reading of every amendment into the Senate record. Then we might not be done with the readings before 2014.

Oh yeah, and before I forget, these are the assholes of the week: Senator Coburn (OK) and Senator Lieberman (CT).

If you don't like abortions then don't get one

Now that the massive Health Reform bill is shaping up to be something everyone can hate, the anti-choicers are clearly overdue for a smackdown. Unfortunately due to that magical mix of cowardice and inaction that have become the Democrats' rallying call, it's looking like women's reproductive rights are about to get backhanded into last century.

While an LA Times OP-ED downplays the notion that the Stupak Amendment is a total victory for the anti-choice forces, it still points out that "it's undeniable that the amendment threatens the availability of insurance coverage for elective abortions for the working poor and lower middle class." By accepting this amendment into the final bill, Congress will be stripping those strata of society the ability to receive an abortion, while keeping it within reach of the wealthy.

People across the nation should be outraged by this, even if they are afflicted with a crippling mental defect that prohibits logic and reason from taking root (religious belief), by its very class oriented approach at limiting medical services. Supposing various other groups decided to take this approach to the health care reform bill, there are a whole range of other medical procedures and services that could be whittled out.

Those that eat healthy and exercise regularly might not see any good reason for plans receiving federal money to be providing care for heart surgeries, diabetes, or other ailments related to an unhealthy lifestyle. Similarly, the argument could be made that smokers should have to pay for any lung cancer treatments out of pocket as well. Perhaps lobbyists for women's issues should request that funding for prostate cancer come directly from the patients as well. Equally absurd as the "abortion rider" being proposed would be "drug rehab rider", or a "mental health supplemental" because they are all things that one doesn't plan for.

What's even more troubling to those of us who actually want real reform that produces an environment of universal access to health care (not insurance) is that these provisions are being placed in the bill under the auspices of winning over votes from across the aisle. But like previous attempts to reach out the opposition, this isn't going to succeed in getting more than a handful of Republican votes, some of whom would have voted for the reform without the amendment. It's time for the Democrats to start acting like, as former Green Jobs Czar Van Jones put it, "assholes" so that they can get shit done. It is a disheartening slap to the face that President Bush with 51 seats in the Senate was able to get so much regressive legislation passed but President Obama with 59-60 "fellow" Democrats can't get the most basic of progressive initiatives passed.

The fact remains that the only reason to put these restrictions into the bill isn't because Stupak and his friends are terrified that some of their income tax dollars are somehow going to end up paying for someone's abortion, but because they want to see abortions outlawed/banned/discontinued altogether. They are exercising their cunning right now in how they go about that, and they realize that by removing the funding for it there will likely be a drop in women's ability to have an abortion.

My answer to them remains the same. If you don't like pot, don't smoke it. If you don't like alcohol, don't drink it. If you don't want an abortion, then don't get one. By giving women the option to have a safe, affordable abortion, it is in no way forcing one on those that do not want them. Organizations like NARAL aren't planning to kidnap Mrs. Stupak and force her to have an abortion so it would be really nice if Mr. Stupak could get over himself and his beliefs that were conceived in an age when people thought that the universe revolved around the Earth and those that were able to swim were witches.

Close Guantanamo...Yesterday!

Now that the spineless democrats have joined with their colleagues across the aisle in opposing the immediate closure of Camp X-ray at Guantanamo Bay, it is time for us all to snap out of this political theatrical event and realize that we must close it, and we must close it now. I decided to do my best to sum up some of the arguments against closing Gitmo immediately, coupled with my counter-arguments.

1. They're terrorists!

* Unfortunately for the proponents of this argument, and more unfortunately for many of the captives themselves, they are not all terrorists. For those of you who, unforgivably don't follow the news, there was a messy period during and after the invasion of Afghanistan when the American military was offering cash money for Al Queda or Taliban members (just like Ed McMahon does for gold). Given the extreme poverty found across much of Afghanistan, the presence of corruption, and the disinterest the American military had for fact checking, dozens, if not hundreds of people were literally sold to the invading army and labeled as terrorists. While a good number of them have since been released (some after spending over 6 years in detention without any charges) some of the remaining 250 could well fall into this category. As recently as May 2008, a journalist was finally released after being held since December of 2001. That's right, it took 6 and a half years for the American military to realize that he was not a terrorist.

2. I don't want them in my state!

* Look, let's be reasonable. The men at Gitmo are people who had AK-47s in some patch of scrub land in Afghanistan. That's what got them classified as terrorists, or, "the worst of the worst." They are not super villains with laser beams that shoot from their eyes, or possess super human strength to bend the bars of a pitiful American prison. They are no more likely to escape from an American prison than was Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kaczynski (the unibomber for those of you living in the United States of Amnesia). This fabricated notion that by putting them in American prisons, they'll somehow manage to escape and immediately blow up your precious Wal-Mart is laughable at best, and sad at its worst.

3. Well, maybe they weren't terrorists then but they are now.

* This is by far the most offensive argument made to continue to hold people at camp X-ray. The argument is essentially that we, through our over-zealous policies, have created brand spankin' new terrorists by torturing them and solidifying their hatred of the West, and specifically America. This is where we get to set an example to the future administrations that this will not be tolerated. We have had to eat so many piles of steamy, smelly shit from the previous administrations actions and it is time to say ENOUGH. We cannot continue to cement the position that even though you are warned not to do something due to the possible ramifications, and you do it anyway, that we must then absolve you of the responsibility of ownership of that mess. I believe the old adage must apply to these situations, from the invasion of Iraq to the clustf@#k that has become the detainee situation, and that is "you break it? You buy it." Instead of continuing to hold these people who were not Al Queda or Taliban or any other "terrorist" group member until the day when they will certainly want to seek revenge, we should work with programs like those of the Saudis and try to rehabilitate these young men. If successful, they would become extremely powerful voices on America's behalf in the Islamic world.