Obama and Democracy

So, this month has marked some excursions from my ususal commenting grounds. My first comments at Balloon Juice and Lawyers, Guns and Money. Prompted by the shit sandwich that is debt ceiling Super Congress cutty Mc cut cut bullshit deficit OMG deficit - it's not like we're skirting around a fucking double dip recession or worse here. Anywho, what with all that, it's been a pretty Obama-bashing gay old time. And it's probably way too late at this point to clarify my position on Obama for folks who have only seen my nym for teh first time on some HE SOLD US OUT rant, but thinking about itand getting it down into words has been an intersting learning experience for me, so wev.

Firstly - yes, what some anonymous foul-mouthed d00d in Canuckistani land thinks about teh preznit? Who fucking cares? Well, I do. And it's my blog and I'll cry if I want to. Okay, here we go:

Item: As I said over at fish's

I am still very relieved that it's him and not Bomb Iran in teh Oval Office. Or, IPU forbid - Grifter McQuitsalot.

Even if you gone on the assumption that Obama is a corporatist tool, and nothing more, he is still way preferable over JiSM3. And for all you Obamapologists with your President Bachmann ooga-booga-boo! this is what we call "grading on a curve". And it is a crazy curve that yields nothing informative or enlightening. Like when folks tell you that whatever you're being forced to settle for is "better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick". Great, thanks. When someone offer to trade me for said eye poking, I'll now know to pass.

Item: I'm not a PUMA. This isn't about Hillary being teh better choice. Ask anyone who knew me from back when I switched to this nym in ought eight. And I'm glad that we've got Barry instead if Hillary, notwithstanding that we'll never really know for sure how Hillary would have done things. LG&M moved onto this question after I decided to write this post but well before I finished it. Anyways, here's what I think about Obama v Hillary.

I'm pretty bullish about Obama on gay rights. Sure he moved really slowly on it, but I really don't know if Hillary would have been better. On DADT, I think she'd have been worse - and not because of Bill, but because she seems even more deferential to teh military than Obama does (IMO - can't be arsed to find back-up). This covers too, Iraq and Afghanistan. It's hard to imagine, but I believe that Obama is the least hawkish of anyone who had a reasonable shot at 2008.

I think HRC might well have pushed harder for HCR. It's hard to imagine someone pushing less than Obama did. Actively berating the people supporting what was then the strongest bit of leverage he had. Even if he was set on flushing teh robust public option, he could have let teh Leftsies rant and rave and shift the Overton and gotten a better price for killing the most effective cost control method being debated at the time.

Ugh, sorry for the Obama bashing diversion - where was I? Right, I think Hillary would have fought harder for HCR, but I also think that with Hillary pushing, the opposition would have fought harder as well. I think we'd probably have ended up with a dead reform bill. Although this isn't necessarily a bad thing. I believe I'm on record as a Kill Bill during HCR Shit Sandwich - not strongly but my feeling was there was too much graft. I seem to recall that my final position was pass the thing anyways, not on its own merits, but to add momentum going into Fin Reg. Yeah, that worked out fan-fucking-tastic. Still, my feelings about the HCR that passed, I'd have to say is it woulda wash if we had Hills instead.

In Hillary's defense, I would say that I'd have been less disappointed by Hillary if we ended up in the same Debt Ceiling Austerity Growth Dada play we're in. Not to say that I didn't expect much from her - for sure her election would have been historic - and coming out of the dark years that marked teh beginning of teh new millenium, anything would have seemed glorious. But not like Barack. d00d just has so much charisma and he so captured the imaginations of not only America, but teh whole world.

Okay, battle with ancient history done with - what's my beef with Obama? There's a bunch of specific things, but I think there's a separate common item to it all. I think teh word for it is establishmentarianism. A strong bias towards those already in power.

Here's teh thing - democracies are only as strong as their institutions, otherwise it's just mob rule. This is why, for example, plebiscites on minority rights are seen as uncouth. "Minority rights" is an institution that is respected in functional democracies. The problem with teh US is that some of those institutions have gained outsized importance - those being the usual suspects - Wall Street, The Military-Industrial Complex, &c..

And my problem with Obama is his whole hearted embrace of that paradigm. Hence the lack of accountability for war crimes. The campaign against whistleblowers. The continued record high deployment fractions of the armed forces. The financial bailouts that favour giant mega corporations over families with tough mortgages. Everything he does now is in this protect-the-hierarchy-and-expand-its-reach mode. HCR favours teh insurance industry and hospitals more than it does the uninsured. The outrage against entitlement program cuts only seem to want to protect Social Security and Medicare, neither of which are means tested (note that I am most definitely NOT endorsing means testing these programs). Medicaid, which is for helping the neediest is fine for chopping.

Even his approach to doing things is different. OFA, that grassroots machine that helped him get elected - practically sat out the first fight and then got mothballed. Everything is decided by small groups of appointees working in the back rooms. He received his transparency in government award in one of those back rooms. But it's this working group or that special Presidential Commission or its Super Congress - twice the authority and about 2% of the membership! Super!

That's the complaint really. What happened to the community organizer? To small donations? To the wide base of motivated volunteers? To listening to the people that worked their assess off three years ago instead of teh Republicans?

Loughner

A potential political assassination leaving six dead any more wounded and the first thing we hear from the right (after finding out the shooter wasn't brown) is outrage about how people are politcizing the event. It was a political event.

The second thing we hear is about how Loughner isn't a Tea Party d00d, he's a deranged psycho nutcase. In fact he ain't even a conservative! He's a pot smoking, flag burning, Communist Manifesto reading leftsist. (And Mein Kampf too, the most liberal lefty book written since Jonah Goldberg said it was).

There are actually delusional idiots who are saying that this is payback for Giffords' symbolic anti-Pelosi vote.

Nevermind the deranged rants about the Gold Standard. Nevermind the obsession with declaring anything he dislikes as being "not in the Constitution". Nevermind the Ayn Rand book also on his list. Clearly a leftsist.

These idiots are completely missing the point. Loughner is a deranged paranoid delusional. Possibly schizophrenic, possibly a host of assorted crazy, possibly a victim of the government's grammar based mind-control experiments. Anyways, crazy-go-nuts bonkers woohoo woohoo ooga booga boo. It doesn't matter if he's a conservative loonytoon or a liberal loonytoon, he's a demented individual.

Loughner's politics don't matter to the criticism being levelled at the voices of conservatism right now. The problem and complaint is that too many on the right have been wallowing in violent rhetoric - in responding to every last slight as yet another rallying cry for WAR! Tip of the hat to the apparently gracious Bouffant who seems to have a magic index card for the memory hole, and is reminding us all of what that rhetoric was.

When you use gun sights to target people, with the chant of "Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD" that says something. And to people who are suffering from paranoid delusions, it says something pretty large. Incidentally, reloading was what Jared Loughner was doing when he was finally stopped.

Don't kid yourselves conservatives. Go ahead and search all you want for the scraplings of violently angry lefty comments - the basic fact is that it's the right that constantly wallows in gun culture and mindless devotion to all things military and related to war.

But I'm a lefty liberal loonie. Free Speech is one of those important concepts for me. Maybe this is a good time to talk about what reasonable limits on that are, like yelling Fire! in a crowded theatre or libel or more relevantly, hate speech and the incitement of violent crime. But those are contentious points and society redraws the lines defining those categories everyday. Perhaps this tragic incident will put a bit more emphasis the line marking "incitement of violent crime". But I can understand how a rational person might see that as a negative, even now.

Instead, what I'd like to address is something that shouldn't be contentious or controversial at all right now. MBouffant again (days if not weeks ahead of me on this one) gets to the point. I think we're pretty much all agreed that Loughner is seriously mentally disturbed and could have used some professional psychiatric help and possibly pharmaceutical treatment. This attack clearly shows that providing treatment for mental illness is a societal good, it's a strong argument in favour of government funded mental health.

I admit that I am not a fan of Obama's final Health Care Reform package, but credit where due - mental health and treatment for addiction are both part of the Essential Benefits package. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has endorsements from the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association Practice Organization, Mental Health America, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, and who knows how many others. In the wake of yet another senseless attack on civilians by a mentally disturbed individual, perhaps we can all agree on the need to treat these people, regardless of who's on the hook for the bill, before incidents like this happen.

Noted Without Comment.

Apparently, when Obama officially made health care reform the law of the land, he said I'm signing this bill on behalf of my mom.

Sunday Audition: Unprecedented Ramming

Today is a momentous day in history since it is the day that marks the complete breakdown of the Americac political system.  The pure gamesmanship and procedural follies being employed by the government are shocking and simply unprecedented.

First, there's the the fact that he's tackling health care at all.  At a time when the nation has much more important issues to deal with.  Two wars, a financial meltdown, a housing crisis, unemployment levels through the roof, a loss in the Olympic gold medal hockey game, something about Sandra Bullock and Jesse James and the whole Tiger Woods thing - America has much more important things on her plate.

It's a bait and switch of epic proportions.  Candidate Obama didn't run on reforming health care, in fact Obama's health care platform during the 2008 campaign was very sparse and proposed no major changes.  Chasing this completely unrelated issue from out of the blue is unprecedented.

Secondly, the use of reconciliation.  This arcane and almost never used procedure sets up a horribly undemocratic precedent whereby measures supported by a majority of Senators can be passed.  It's never been used for health care before.  In a word, unprecedented.

Thirdly, the Slaughter Rule.  Slaughter of the Constitution if you ask me.  This is where the House of Representatives will vote on two related measures at the same time.  Another completely unprecedented use of an arcane almost never used procedure.

Fourthly, the House now intends on not using the self-executing Slaughter Rule.  Although it is no surprise to see Democrats completely abandon their convictions, the sheer scope of this reversal is unprecedented.  It's a size 20, EEEEE-wide flip-flop.

These are certainly enough points to demonstrate how the Democrats are subverting the legislative process, but much more importantly is the behaviour of Barack Hussein Obama Junior himself.  Obama has forcefully inserted himself into the debate.  Although we would expect Obama to meddle in the affairs of others, he is a Democrat after all, the size of his footprint on this issue (and you know what they say about big footprints) is unprecedented.

The Framers wrote the Constitution very carefully and defined several distinct and separate branches of government.  There is the judicial branch, the legislative branch, the executive branch and the vice-presidential branch.  The important factor is that these are separate arms of the government - separate.  The President does not write legislation, Congress does.  And Barack Obama's attempts to manipulate Congress - his unconstitutional over-reach in pressuring the House and Senate into passing legislation - these actions erode the very foundation of the Republic.

Never before has a President even considered attempting to influence Congress - and every health care reform speech made by Obama is yet another direct assault on the Constitution.  He is acting as a traitor to his own country, and all for the sake of ramming his huge reform package down the throats of the American people.  Unprecedented.

Pass The Bill

So yesterday was pretty crazy. Not teh win-est of threads - perhaps this was what was meant by the Breitbartocalypse. HCR has really been shitty for building community - one of those excellent signs for any progressive reform.


Still, this is actually looking like the one last final ultimate push - the do or die, the next six days are critical to the fate of &c. Time for progressives to take a big bite of the shit sandwich and proclaim it the yummiest EVAR. I've made my feelings about the Senate bill pretty clear, and the reconcilliation bits being bandied around do very little to sway me. I think it's a bad bill. I think that passing it may have some great short term effects, but by itself - this HCR package has more potential for harm than good.

Still, this is what's on the table. Single payer was apparently never an option, and the public option was basically the bait for the insurance industry bribery switch. Basically - this is as good as it's going to get right now. And despite the fact that I believe that the basis and foundation of this reform is bad - I'm now lining up behind the centrists. Pass this fucker.

Why? Well first, it's not going to get any better. At the rate that this legislation has been developed, sooner or later it was going to turn into mandatory organ donation by anyone making less than six figures. Secondly, despite this bill being a victory for conservatives (it's an affirmation of the twin ideals that teh poor are evil and markets will solve everything) it'll be seen, even by our stupid media, as a victory for liberals.

Okay, it's a mark in the win column, bestowed by the geniuses of teh liberal media establishment. That and a bottle of Coke gets you a bottle of Coke to wash down the shame. What's the big deal then, why is this something that might make me change my position on the HCR package?

Well, firstly - the cost of my waffling is small. It's not like there are policy-making gurus who know that I exist, let alone hang on my every endorsement. Second, and more importantly - it's because Health Care isn't the be-all-end-all. Democratic leadership has decided that it's going to tackle Education and fix the mess that is No Child Left Behind. They are currently working on regulatory reforms for financials. They still have to get DADT repeal passed. Sure the useless wads stinking up the place with their brilliant political maneuvering are probably still going to try and give away anything worthwhile in those reform efforts - although there are some indications that patience is a little thinner for courting GOP senators. But the momentum from passing the LIBERALEST SOCIALISM OF ALL TIME!!exclamationpoint1! might mean that some good stuff might get rammed in there too.

TL;DR version - meaningful Health Care reform is dead - but we should pass the bill as a means of reanimating the corpse to supply momentum for progress on other reform efforts.

The Moral of The Wise Pants

Josh Marshall asks a question:

Still, with all that, is it really moral, let alone wise politically to kill legislation that would provide insurance for 30 million people because immigrants in the country illegally would be barred from access?

Moral?  Yes, it is.  Josh (unlike the way Yglesias has been acting) recognizes that there's a lot of crappy garbage in the Senate bill - but he still supports it.  It's the "30 million uninsured hostages" scenario.  But what if the bill provided insurance only for 30 people?  Would it still be moral to support such an anti-abortion anti-immigrant piece of legislation?

It's like that Winston Churchill fable that ends “Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price”.

Here's how I read your question:  if we can help enough others in need - isn't it immoral to prevent government from further codifying illegal immigrants as non-people.  Not that I believe that Josh Marshall thinks illegal immigrants ought to be treated like sub-humans and I do apologize if I'm even close to implying it.  Which is certainly a better deal than what he's offering to the Unwise and Immoral.

Also, Republican and Reconciliation Start With the Same Letter!

UPDATE:  Man, I gotta lurn how to count.

http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/29138.html.

McArdle.  Someone that BM Matt listens too ought to point out this post and then ask him if he regrets not spitting in her face.  Extra special bonus points to James Joyner who did the original heavy lifting on this EPIC FAIL of anal-izing.  Super double-score multi-ball face-spitting regrets for BM Matt, since it was one of his posts that set the ball rolling - although in Matt's defense (I can't believe I'm doing that again) he managed to read the graphic and/or accompanying description.

D.A.'s point about 8/15ths being "almost every act" is just the tip of the iceberg.  Sure, based on that standard, using reconciliation is just a method of enacting legislation that "almost every" Senator is going to vote for anyways.  But the awesome deadly part is that these idiots are basing their smug "Dummy-craps are dummies" on evidence that totally refutes their point.

So anyways, keep in mind that we're talking about work where the final conclusion is:

The history is clear: While the use of reconciliation in this case — amending a bill that has already passed the Senate via cloture — is new, it is compatible with the law, Senate rules and the framers’ intent.

Anyways, here's Joyner moving on from his "almost every act" bullshit:

The argument that Republicans were more likely to use the process than Democrats is meaningless, simply reflecting the fact that Republicans have dominated the Senate over the period in question.

Really JJ?  Really?  To borrow a phrase Sadly, No!  From 1980 to 2007 there have been 12 15 sessions of Congress with six Dem majority Senates and six eight GOP majority senates (UPDATE: the 107th is the Jim Jeffords Session).  Talk about domination!  If they could have squeezed in one extra year of control, the Republicans would have had the Senate for "almost every year for the period in question".

Anyways, let's get back to the point - just how unprecedented is this reconciliation attempt?

As it turns out, not at all.  Here's Joyner again:

The two outliers: The 1996 welfare reform act and the 2007 student aid package. Why those were passed under reconciliation isn’t made clear.

IOW, other than the two other times it happened, including the most recent application - totally unprecedented.  Never before, except for those two times.  Nope.  But, let's pretend that those don't count, I mean it's only fair that he be allowed to totally ignore at least some facts before trying to make an argument.

Okay, let's ignore that Joyner has already proven himself fundamentally wrong on this.  Next he says that it's only been used for that purpose 7 times since 1980.  Well, that may be 7 more times than he's said anything correct in his post, but it aint' really "rare".  For example, the Yankees have only made it to the World Series 7 times in that time frame, so that's also "rare", right?  Nevermind the point that these cases only represent times when the threat of reconciliation hasn't made the minority shift it's position - nor the times when shitbag Senators switch to supporting actions they wanted to filibuster.  Regardless, let's use his bullshit metric and consider just those seven occasions.  If you look at the NYT graphic, it lists out what the policy effects of the reconcilliation bill are laid in a column titled "Policy".  Now I know that these jerkwads want to ignore policy, but let's just take a glance and see how omany of those seven occassions were related to health care... it's four.  4/7.  ALMOST EVERY TIME !!!!111one!

I'd say that this type of garbage, this level of incredible stupidity is unprecedented but:
1.  I know what unprecedented means
2.  I've read McArdle before.

You Shoulda Just Spit in Her Face.

UPDATE:  Some clarification.  Also, please do read comment #42 on Matt's bullshit post.  Also, bolded last line as it didn't seem strong enough before.  Also, too.

I've defended BM Matt several times before, but this time here's gone too far.  What a fucking doosh. 

It's not like he thinks Kucinich is wrong or doesn't have a point.  He's blockquoted the big problem with this garbage HCR on the table - "$70 billion a year, and no guarantees of any control over premiums, forcing people to buy private insurance…I’m sorry, I just don’t see that this bill is the solution."  Then, magical handwave - Kucinich is now an AHIP toadie!

FUCK YOU YGLESIAS!

ME-gan McArdle is Universal Catastrophic Health Care

I still kinda like Yglesias despite his not spitting in McArdle's face before leaving the Atlantic.  But that's because I'm an optimist and one of those bleeding hearts that tries to see the good in everyone, giving folks the benefit of the doubt whenever possible.  I assumed that Matt's treatment of ME-gan is due to his being a passive-aggresive pansy who's frightful afeared of confrontation, even with a pathetic lightweight and brainless vapid wreck like the McArdle thing.  Srsly, I meant that in a good way, I'm totes about avoiding conflict and confrontation whenever possible (except for you, Whale Chowder.  Your due for a good thrashing, once I'm done having intercourse with your mother).

Then again, this sort of bullshit reminds me that I've been wrong about things before.  First, let me start off with the disclaimer that there is no fucking way I am going to read McArdle's bullshit.  No.  Fucking.  Way.

Okay, that out of the way, let's go on to tearing it apart.  I'm guessing that the gist of it is legally codifying the GOP answer to the uninsured - "Everyone has health care, you can just go to hospital emergency rooms."  IOW, if you have an easily treatable condition, all you've got to do is ignore it until it becomes serious and then they'll take care of you at Emerg.  ME-gan's kind enough to believe that if you're unlucky enough to be in this situation, you shouldn't also have to declare bankruptcy because of it (unless you have a shitty job and the lost wages while you're convalescing do in your finances - but she really doesn't hate poor people - she just wishes they would go away).  Yeah, that's a great fucking plan - if it were twenty-five years ago.  Wait, let me guess - ME-gan's plan also expands this coverage to people who have been diagnosed with very expensive to treat conditions (incidentally with no provision to screen people who aren't already seeing a GP regularly).  Fan-fucking-tastic.  Even if she's proposing to pay for this program with a special tax on asshole-douchebaggery that bankrupts Cheney and that Blackwater Xe Prince guy, I'd still think it's a useless proposal.

TL:DR version - ME-gan thinks that the best way to help the uninsured and down on their luck is to provide a benefit that helps folks in proportion to how much health care they already have.  Also, preventative medicine is a crock and you can keep costs down by letting things develop into Emergency Room situations before doing anything about them.

I've already acknowledged that I've been wrong before, so if I'm wrong about the ME-gan plan To Save The World And Make Everyone Happy, I'd be glad to recant.  Forgive me if I don't hold my breath waiting.

You Can See The Summit, But You Can't Reach It

As if six hours wasn't long enough, they actually stretched the thing for Injury Time.

There were some bright spots - Boston Globe has a list of zingers I quite liked.  It wasn't quite the smackdown that the GOP retreat was, but you certainly reminded us againabout who the adults in the room are.

But nobody watched.  Well, nobody except the hardcore political junkies who TIVO C-SPAN.  This thing really didn't reach many folks, and considering the importance of the issue, there is surprisingly little discussion about it.

And that's because of the foregone conclusion.  Headlines about the impasse still being in place or no breakthroughs being made or the way ahead for HCR being unclear - you could have written them a week ago.  The cynical view that The Process is all just political theatre - well it was true in this case, nobody's mind was changed.  Actually, if anything this has nudged some of the GOPpers further towards reflexive hate and obstruction as some of them are slipping into conspiracy theory land.

Take note you dumbfucks in the Obama Administration - your outreach attempt has only pushed the Republicans further away (insert Overton window commentary sotto voce).  Not only are they just not that into you, they are that much into anything you aren't.  Remember the ruckus about Big Pharma?  Remember how you guys were characterizing him as the Leader of the GOP?

This is one of the reasons I haven't had much to say recently.  The utter EPIC FAIL that has been the official stance from you guys is fucking killing my will to do anything but ignore it all and drink heavily.  Sure it's great to showcase how dishonest and incompetent the morans on the other side are - but NEWSFLASH - THOSE IDIOTS ARE WINNING.  Oh, what about being on the brink of historic legislation - what about all the good stuff you managed to not yet excise from the comprehensive reform package?  Who fucking cares.  Since the summer, the narrative has been pretty much conservatives having their way with item after item of this thing.  Even shit they wanted in in the first place, they've been railing against until you finally cut it out of the package.  Fuck, even though I am opposed to this piece of shit Senate bill you've carefully crafted, I'm starting to lean towards passing the thing before you guys slip a declaration of war against Iran into it.

Your winning debates and sounding reasonable and rational is still ending up with less and less progressive reforms.  No fucking wonder people are demoralized.  Not only that, but we've crept so fucking far to the right that the whole purpose of this thing has been lost.  You put "Expanding Coverage" as the fourth of four items for the summit.  Five and a half fucking hours into a six hour debate you finally get around to talking about the uninsured.

Note to the centre-leftsists who argue that we've got to get this thing done because the GOP is holding the uninsured hostage - Fuck You.  This isn't about the uninsured anymore, not even for "the good guys" - the uninsured are now just an aside, a "free rider" on this deficit reducing, cost cutting legislation.

So yeah, that's a big part of why I haven't had much to say recently.  I'm still full of fiery pissed-off-ness, but the fuckwads that make up Democratic Leadership, and I'm talking specifically about you Barry, have blunted my righteous anger.  Because as mad as I am at them, they are still far and away better than Bomb Iran.  So I've got no targets for my ire.  I'm Mad As Hell, but apparently I've Got To Take Lots More.  Because despite having the better arguments and more capapble side - we've lost so much from what was an opportunity to fix the greivous mess that is health care in the US.  And No One Is To Blame.

Senate Bill Passes - What Now?

Conventional wisdom states that the House has to roll over during reconcilliation.  Because, hey look - the Senate only just barely managed their supermajority cloture vote at 60-39 - and even the slightest little thing can cause Lieberman or Nelson to shut it all down.

Just a reminder, the House bill passed 220-215 with two D's voting Nay because the bill wasn't progressive enough.  Maybe the Senate bill will find some support amongst the Blue Dogs, but a united Progressive caucus ought to be able to bring some pressure to the table.  A progressive stand from the Administration could make the difference.  Then again, a corporatist stand from the Administration - which is all we've seen so far - tips the scales the other way.

So then, what now?  The "we got your back" approach to strengthen the resolve of progressives ain't gonna help - Kucinich doesn't need that kind of reassurance.  Okay maybe if you're in NY-29 you can let Eric Massa know that you support him saying F.U. to the Senate.  Polling shows that the public agrees that the Senate bill is garbage.

No, what's needed isn't a good defense, but a strong offense.  That's why I still like what Jane Hamsher is doing, despite how distastefully foul it seems.

In the weeks ahead, there'll be all sorts of players pushing the bill back and forth and while the good side may seem like the underdogs, the final bill isn't written yet and every little bit to sap at the folks pushing for the insurance industry will help.

P.S.  Here's my dream scenario - progressives manage to get the House Public Option into the Conference Report, a handful of senators proclaim that they are now supporting the filibuster because of it, and Harry Reid finally grows a pair and tells them that procedural filibuster is off the table, and they're going to have to actually fucking read phone books or whatever until they give up.  Yeah, I know - not going to happen, but that there is my Christmas wish.

But that's okay because I'm only interested in motivating partisans and winning debate points.

UPDATE:  Nate Silver says that I'm wrong because The stock market's reaction to the declining prospects for the public option, however, should not be conflated with its reaction to the anticipated passage of the the public option-less reform proposal currently before the Senate. shut up that's why.

via D.A.

It really is fortunate that he's always on the side of angels because even Nate Silver can be a stupid fucking moron. 

For example Mr. 538 - remember Question 3 of 20?

3. Where is the evidence that the plan, as constructed, would substantially increase insurance industry profit margins, particularly when it is funded in part via a tax on insurers?

I checked in with a source that is really very good at reading the tea leaves.

As of 11 AM Eastern time, stocks for the six largest publicly-traded health insurance companies have risen by an average 4.49 percent, as weighted by their market capitalization.

Stock prices? What's that got to do with a Senate bill designed to optimized Health Insurance gouging?

Favorable developments for health care reform have been met with decreases in the prices of these stocks, and unfavorable developments with improved valuations.

Normally at this point I'd go into your rationalizations as to why this doesn't mean the Senate bill shouldn't have two or three shit sandwiches added to its score but I wouldn't want to accuse you of picking and choosing evidence and spinning it to support your arguments. After all when you make mistakes, "they're honest ones" and it's just anybody who disagrees with you that's being a dishonest hack.

P.S. FUCK YOU NATE SILVER.

Sunday Audition: Obama Fails Again

A comprehensive health care reform bill that creates a national health exchange, complete with an option to enroll in a government-run program, has just passed the US House of Representatives.  While the development may seem to be good news for President Barack Obama, being the realization of health care reforms he had been pressing throughout the 2008 Presidential campaign, it is in fact just another in the long line of stinging rebukes of his failing presidency.

The House bill is such an indictment of Obama's ideals that his response to it happening was a clear declaration of his intent to veto the bill, should it cross his desk.

How did this happen?  Liberals like to joke about things that "no one could have predicted", usually about some sort of situation that is truly unpredictable.  But the fact that Barack Obama has failed yet again, was easily predicted well over a year ago, when conservatives were warning the country.

Obama's audacious plan to provide near-universal health care to the public was so extreme, a pipe-dream that liberals have been pursuing for a century, that conservatives laughed at it.  Taken in context with the fact that the untried and untested freshman senator from Illinois had no experience and was unlikely to get anything accomplished had many a conservative guffawing and rolling in the aisles.

So it was very easy to predict that Obama's health care reform program would fail, and with the passing of HR 3962, it has.

9-11, the day that I honour the First Responders.

Good evening. I just listened to Dr. Charles Boustany, and I'm going to need a BRANES surgeon with more than 20 years of experience, to reassemble the bits.


Republicans are pleased that President Obama came to the Capitol tonight, because this means he’s not fucking their daughters. Did you know that he’s black? Anyways. Republicans are ready – and have always been ready – to work with the President so long as he’s not a socialist commie as indicated by the little (D) after his name.

Afford is an important word. It means Fuck You, I’ve Got Mine. Can’t afford Health Care? Neither can the government, so just die already. That’s called Personal Responsibility, i.e. if you’re poor then Fuck You. Obviously with a negro in the Oval Office, you leachers have got time enough to vote – if you instead spent that time selling your blood or scavenging returnable bottles for their deposits, you’d be able to afford health care too. Plus the recession would be over. Fucking poor folks. Get a job already.

It's clear the American people want health care reform, but the GOP doesn’t. Really, they DO NOT WANT.

Replacing your family's current health care with government-run health care is not the answer – and that’s why in the text of Obama’s speech – available well before Boustany had to churn out this POS – clearly states that he’s looking for reforms that will not replace people’s existing coverage. In fact, he's against it even though it’ll make health care much more expensive. That's the conclusion of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office – the neutral scorekeeper that determines the cost of major bills.

The President had a chance tonight to take government-run health care off the table. Republicans can do better, with a targeted approach the GOP can kill Medicare like they’ve been trying to do since it was first proposed.

This Congress can pass meaningful reform soon to reduce some of the fear and anxiety families are feeling in these very difficult times, but why bother? It sure as hell ain’t gonna get the Republicans any more campaign monies – so the only available option for the Repubs is to kill this thing with lies, scare mongering and obstructionist procedural bullshit.

I'm Dragon-King Wangchuck. Thanks for listening.