Dianne Feinstein is doing a Pombo on the Endangered Species Act, with an Amendment to gut it in an upcoming Democratic "Bipartisanship Enhanced" jobs bill.
Like Salmon ? Too bad ! McClintock's in on it, too.
Hey, this even makes the Kansas City Star. Everything's up to date in Kansas City. Dead silence at a certain other "Democratic" blog.
Yes, our northern CA based Sen. DiFi thinks Billionaire Business Water Brokers in Kern County of Southern CA Who Donate To Her Campaign Are More Important Than Salmon. So Does Tom McClintock.
She intends to put an amendment that says we can ignore the Endangered Species Act, onto the upcoming jobs bill to let more water be pumped out of the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta. Why does this matter ? Because at certain times of the year, the nursery fish need the water to swim and feed in. And the West Coast salmon runs are at the brink of going away. Forever.
{{{ "This came as a bit of a shock that she did this," said Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Calif.
He represents California's North Coast, which has been hurt by two years of bans on commercial salmon fishing stemming from collapsing salmon stocks.
"If this were to go through, it would have a devastating impact on Northern California and other jobs and other economies in the state," Thompson said. }}}
Where the hell have you been, Blue Dog Rep. Thompson ? Didn't you notice the real reason so many people up here in northern CA 04 DIDN'T WANT Carpetbagging Tom MCCLINTOCK of Southern CA pimping for these Southern CAL business sharks to take water out of Norcal and kill off our agriculture and wildlife ? He's running the exact same playbook that former Republican Rep. John Doolittle ran with Dick Cheney and the suckerfish up in the Klamoth river drainage.
1. A traffic jam in which no vehicular movement is possible, especially one caused by the blockage of key intersections within a grid of streets.
2. A complete lack of movement or progress resulting in a backup or stagnation:
"the political gridlock that prevented ... the President and Congress from moving expeditiously to cut the budget"
gridlock - Chiefly US
noun
1. (Engineering / Automotive Engineering) obstruction of urban traffic caused by queues of vehicles forming across junctions and causing further queues to form in the intersecting streets
2. a point in a dispute at which no agreement can be reached; deadlock political gridlock
Bye, Bayh, Missed American Pie
Took My Donor to the Levee, but the Levee was Dry
Them Good Ol Boys of WellPointe were drinkin' whiskey and rye
Singing "this'll be the day that they die
This'll be the day that they die !"
Did you write the book of gov
And do you have faith in God above
If the Gruber tells you so
Do you believe in Rock n Roll
Can an excise tax save your mortal soul
Can you teach Max Baucus how to dance, real slow ?
Well, I know that you're in cahoots with him
'cause we saw you dancing in the Finance Cominn
You both kicked off your shoes
Man, we hate those Anthem Blue Cross Blues
There was a lonely teenage sickly buck
with a pink Korman ribbon but no pickup truck
With no insurance she ran out of luck
The day, the patient died
I started singing
Bye, Bayh, Missed American Pie
Drove my donation to the levee
But the legislation was dry
Them Bad Ol Dems were drinkin' whiskey and rye
And singin,' "this be the day that it dies
this will be the day that it dies"
Now for 10 years, WE'VE BEEN ON OUR OWN
And profits grow green on a rolling bone
But that's not how it used to be
When the Candidate sang for the king and queen
In a coat he borrowed from Howard Dean
and in a voice, that came from you and me
Oh, and while the WellPointe CEO was lookin' down
The Cigna stole his thorny crown
The courtroom was adjourned
No verdict was returned
And while Obama read Sunstein's book
The Gang of 4 practiced in throwing hooks
And we sang dirges in the dark
The day, the health reform died.
And we were singing
(those of us still alive)
Bye, Bayh, Missed American Pie
Drove my donor to the levee but the water's too high
Them Bad Ol Dems were making bills for nigh
And singing "This will be the day that it dies
This'll be the day that it dies"
Helter skelter winter in a summer swelter
The birds & fish flew away without ESA shelter
Eight miles high, and falling fast
The rain fell mercury tainted on the grass
The Feinstein tried for a forward pass
With the Pombo on the sidelines about to cast
Now the half time air was sweet perfume
while Billy Tauzin played a marching tune
We all got up to dance
Oh, but we never got the chance
'cause the Insurance execs tried to take the field
The lobbyists refused to yield
DO YOU RECALL WHAT WAS REVEALED ?
The day, the music died
We started singing
Bye, Bayh, Missed American Pie
Drove Our Constitution to the Levee
But the Levee was Dry
The Supreme Court Boys were drinking Money and Lies
And singin' "this will be the day that they die
this will be the day that they die."
Oh, and there we were all in one place
NASA's been outsourced, no more lost in space
with no time left to start again
So come on, Evan, make yourself nimble, make yourself quick
Call those industry donors, light your candlestick
'Cause your Senate Seat's the Devil's only friend
Oh, and as I watched him on the stage
My hands were clenched in fists of sage
No Creator born of ocean's shell
Could break that spirit's spell
As the smoke wafted high into the night
To light cleansing smoke in a clear blue site
I saw Satan frown in stymied might
The day the Donations Died
We are singing
Bye, Bayh, Missed American Pie
Drove my warrior to the levee
And the levees were high
The good old boys are running faster and high
Singin' this will be the day that I ride
This will be the day that We Ride
I met a girl who sang the blues
And I asked her for some Happy News
She said Evan Bayh quit and turned away
I went down to the sacred bores
Where I'd heard like music years before
But the lobbyists cried the music wouldn't play
And in the streets, the children screamed
The lovers cried, the poets dreamed
Not a word by Wellpointe spoken
The Insurance Industry might be broken
And the 3 Senators that we admire the most
(and it's not Collins, Holy Joe, and Olympia- they're toast)
They caught the last train for the coast
The day, that Bayh went bye
And we are singing
Bye, Bayh, Missed American Pie
Drove our hopes to the levees and heaved a big sigh
Those lobbyist boys, are feeding 'em whiskey and rye
Singing "this will be the day WellPointe dies
This could be the day WellPointe dies."
__________
http://motherjones.com/kevin-d... So why did he quit so suddenly? His official statement says he's frustrated with the Senate because there is "too much partisanship and not enough progress - too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem-solving......
that's pretty much Marc Ambinder's take: "He wanted to be POTUS and came to hate the Senate and liberal activists. He wanted no mas."
Recently we have seen quite a bit of controversy about the filibuster. Most folks do not even know what that term means, and with good reason. The rules for it changed, as I recall, in 1975, after damned old Nixon got booted, and, in my opinion, for ill.
However, the politicians, the pundits, and the public do not understand (or, if they do, are misleading folks) about its nature. The Republicans mostly say that it was the will of the Framers, and that is just not only incorrect, but a lie. In fairness, the Democrats said the same thing when they were in the minority. Most of the pundits have it wrong as well. Please follow and I shall explain what it was, and now is.
I've got to hand it to Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), he knocks it out of the park on this. Republicans with their phony deficit concerns want to put the blame of their failed Conservative policies on Democrats and President Obama. But the money quote is right here.
"I really don't like being lectured on deficits when you (Sen. Gregg) and many members of your party (Republicans) helped cause the situation we are in right now."
~snip~
"Please, please, spare the lectures on deficit reduction."
From today's meeting between President Obama and Senate Democrats today comes this gem . . . .
"If the price of certainty is essentially for us to adopt the exact same proposals that were in place for eight years leading up to the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression -- we don't tinker with health care, let the insurance companies do what they want, we don't put in place any insurance reforms, we don't mess with the banks, let them keep on doing what they're doing now because we don't want to stir up Wall Street -- the result is going to be the same," he said. "I don't know why we would expect a different outcome pursuing the exact same policy that got us into this fix in the first place."
Middle class Americans, Obama said, "are more and more vulnerable, and they have been for the last decade, treading water. And if our response ends up being, you know, because we don't want to -- we don't want to stir things up here, we're just going to do the same thing that was being done before, then I don't know what differentiates us from the other guys. And I don't know why people would say, boy, we really want to make sure that those Democrats are in Washington fighting for us."
From today's meeting between President Obama and Senate Democrats today comes this gem . . . .
"If the price of certainty is essentially for us to adopt the exact same proposals that were in place for eight years leading up to the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression -- we don't tinker with health care, let the insurance companies do what they want, we don't put in place any insurance reforms, we don't mess with the banks, let them keep on doing what they're doing now because we don't want to stir up Wall Street -- the result is going to be the same," he said. "I don't know why we would expect a different outcome pursuing the exact same policy that got us into this fix in the first place."
Middle class Americans, Obama said, "are more and more vulnerable, and they have been for the last decade, treading water. And if our response ends up being, you know, because we don't want to -- we don't want to stir things up here, we're just going to do the same thing that was being done before, then I don't know what differentiates us from the other guys. And I don't know why people would say, boy, we really want to make sure that those Democrats are in Washington fighting for us."
As many of you have been doing, I am nervously monitoring the special election for Massachusetts senator. By now, one would hope that no one needs reminding of the repercussions and consequences a defeat would portend both for the short term and for the long term, but one would hope also that its instantaneous impact would spur many to make long-deferred reforms. To wit, Coakley's defeat would make a powerful statement to residents in even the bluest of blue states. To wit, liberalism must self-monitor and must fortify itself against a desire to snooze and slumber. Nothing is owed to us in this world and a person is only as successful as his or her last triumph. This realization can be applied well beyond the Democratic party and all the concentric circles of influence and power that feed into it. Indeed, the ripple effects if Scott Brown wins will be felt across the country and will spawn a thousand prophets in the publication wilderness, each proclaiming that the end is nigh for a Democratic majority.
Constipated activist organizations now tapping out a panicked SOS are profuse, but as is my want, I'd like to single out one in particular. One can only hope that if, God forbid, Coakley were to lose, the mainstream Feminist™ organizations currently pushing for her election might be forced to concede that their strategies are out of date and their larger influence is negligible in the grand scheme of things. Coakley's detached Front Porch Campaign did not resonate well with voters inclined to distrust and thus to be turned off by on candidates who seem above kissing babies, shaking hands, and being highly visible to the prospective voter. Though I do not welcome the sense of helplessness that might reverberate through many workplaces come tomorrow night, I know that sometimes people have to learn their lessons the hard way. And in so doing, they have to sometimes have to learn them more than once. Still, how many times do some have to be on the losing end of easily preventable catastrophes before they recognize that the problem is with themselves, not with external factors?
Sloth and entitlement are usually fatal flaws in politics and activism, and at least one recent harsh blogosphere attack against the established players of Feminism™ was penned in an effort to shake them out of their old ways. These organizations do have a function and I'm not advocating that they need to be dismantled, but they do need to step into the times and embrace new realities. The true tragedy is that there are any number of highly qualified women who could be enlisted for the cause and be convinced to run for any number of high elective offices. Instead, someone decides to earmark and denote a particular legislative office for a Female™ and then feels obligated to advance a candidate with the highest possible degree of name-recognition, regardless of whether she is a good fit for the office. In addition to being bad policy, this is tokenism writ large. Tokenism has never truly advanced anyone's noble imperative. What it has done is appease someone's guilt and in so doing serve as a temporary concession rather than a desire to completely integrate women actively into the political process. If we were really committed to the idea of equality, then such decisions would be a matter of course, not a conscious effort towards appeasement.
In this same regard, a prior school of political theory and general leadership philosophy believed that in order to be taken seriously and to survive in a man's world, women in positions of authority ought to strive to be as tough and as masculine as their male counterparts. In effect, as the theory goes, they ought to adopt the pose and guise of a man for fear of seeming weak or being summarily discounted as ineffectual and ineffective as a leader. One would think that thirty or forty years of this would have given us the ability to recognize that sexist and misogynistic attacks come from everywhere, at any time, for any reason. Women who make no apology for "encroaching" into traditionally male spaces will find themselves insulted for any reason at all, really. For example, in the past few days, Coakley has found herself the target of a bizarre remark implying that someone ought to sodomize her with an electrical appliance. One can't get away from the offensive voices, unfortunately, but one can advance the authenticity of self as an excellent counter-weight to push back against the name-callers and childish smears.
I still recall how Hillary Clinton shed tears at a campaign stop shortly before the New Hampshire primary, showing not just a very human, vulnerable side, but also a very feminine side as well. In so doing, she transformed what was expected to be a sound drubbing into an improbable win that gave her campaign new life. Women voters related heavily with the gesture and cast their ballots accordingly; I'm not entirely dissuaded from the notion that some men might have been taken aback in a good way, recognizing that there was more to the candidate the icy, calculating stereotype that made her seem supremely unlikeable and at times threatening to the male voter. If we are ever to live in a world where the content of our character is more important than both the color of our skin and our reproductive organs, we will reach the point that no one ever feels the compulsion to pass, assimilate, or modify one's authentic self to seem more fitting to majority norms. Humanity and with it authenticity is what voters crave more than anything. Policy wonkery and strategy are lost on the average voter who seeks to identify himself or herself personally with the latest slate of candidates for elective office. When we can see ourselves clearly in those who run, then we are compelled to pull a lever for them on Election Day.
I voted, in part, for Barack Obama because I saw parallels between his life story and my own. In particular, the description of his mother closely mirrors my own---a woman passionately devoted to a cause beyond herself who sought to see the world through an optimistic lens, even though many criticized her desire as foolish and a trifle naïve. Others saw their own dreams mirrored in his rhetoric and the possibility of what he represented. Though a year later reality has set in and we are far less enthralled with the President then we were then, we continue to find his policies more objectionable than who he is as a person. Personality has limitations, but it can go a long way. A politician who is disliked as a person must rely on the political atmosphere around him or her, and sometimes only maintains power when his or her opposition is reviled even more.
Competence goes a long way, too, and I know that, speaking from a strictly women's rights perspective, we can't expect to not have reproductive rights compromised for the sake of passing a massive reform act if we are unable to break free from the scourge of tokenism. Victories are won with a collection of smaller successes that, linked together, move closer towards ultimate triumph. An occasional arm-twist, guilt-trip or, worse yet, established tradition of being granted an occasional "favor" in exchange for unwavering support are not going to get us where we need to be. No one would ever confuse that for complete integration and total parity. We should know instinctively what it will take to get there, but the question remains if we are willing to do the hard work on the ground to actualize it. The ivory tower might be cushy and familiar, but it is a universe in and of itself, one wholly removed from any semblance of the actual lives of working people. We have in front of us an opportunity to learn from what will be a debacle whether victory is won or lost. Let's not ignore it.
So just after 5 pm here on the Left Coast, I get this email:
Subject: We Want Our Money Back
From: "Vice President Joe Biden"
To: (my name, aka "Sucker")
Yesterday, President Obama announced our proposed Financial Crisis Responsibility
Fee on the country's largest banks:
"My commitment is to recover every single dime the American people are owed. And my
determination to achieve this goal is only heightened when I see reports of massive
profits and obscene bonuses at some of the very firms who owe their continued
existence to the American people... We want our money back, and we're going to get
it."
The fee would recover every penny loaned to Wall Street during the financial crisis
and stop the reckless abuses and excesses that nearly caused the collapse of our
financial system in the first place.
But the banking industry -- among the most powerful lobbies in Washington -- is
already launching attacks to stop Congress from enacting the proposal.
Barack and I aren't backing down. But to win, we'll need the American people to add
their voice right away.
Thankfully, OFA supporters are already signing on to a bold statement of support:
"We want our money back -- and we stand with President Obama to make sure we get
it." You can add your name by clicking here:
The proposal is expected to recoup billions from the big banks, most of it from the
ten largest. As the President said, "If these companies are in good enough shape to
afford massive bonuses, they are surely in good enough shape to afford paying back
every penny to taxpayers."
There is much more work to do to reform the financial system and create a new era of
accountability. But the Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee is a crucial step. And
with the banks already working to tear it down, I hope that I can count on you to
speak out to show that Americans stand with us as we take them on.
A new analysis of independent exit polls conducted in L.A. County at the November 2008 election indicates significant likelihood that the official vote counts are incorrect. It is indeed possible that the California state constitution was amended to strip marriage rights of some of the state's people as a result of vote counts that were incorrect and possibly even fraudulent.
A "no" vote for Prop 8 meant that you wanted marriage equality. In some places in Los Angeles, the difference between the official vote totals and this study were a not so alarming 2%, but in other places they approached a shocking 18%. Just to clarify, this study is saying that in some places the actual votes that people cast differed from what was recorded by the state by nearly 18%. And Prop 8 passed by a margin of less than 5% of the vote.
Or maybe C Streeter Jon Ensign can come to Harry's rescue again
Add John Ensign's parents to the list of Republicans for Reid.
Michael and Sharon Ensign donated $4,800, the maximum donation, to Nevada Sen. Harry Reid during the third fundraising quarter, according to a report from political newspaper Roll Call.
Having passed a long-overdue Health Care Reform Act, expect the media to dust off long-composed narratives it kept in cold storage until this point. The instant President Obama signs the bill into law in a massive ceremony full of important people, flashbulbs, and saturation coverage, there will be many who will seek to make the gravity of the event better understood by means of analysis and interpretation. Contrary to what some may write, I am not entirely convinced that Health Care saved Obama's Presidency, though it would certainly have removed the last of the luster around him had it failed. There will be many contentious fights to come, but the passage of the bill will likely limit GOP gains in next year's Mid-Congressional election. It will provide momentum to force through other reform measures and will be a face saving device to aid vulnerable incumbents. But like much of politics, the ultimate impact of it all is indebted to future understanding and events yet to come, of which none of us is privy.
Also to be found in copious quantity are the requisite gross of stories lamenting the end of good cheer among legislators of different parties. One would think that this health care bill has ushered in a golden age of distressing polarity, but it has not. Most people are terrified of change. Many will sign on to change in the abstract, but once the concrete is poured, their opposition hardens. Trusting in the known is much like betting on the favored horse, but trusting in the unknown possibility comes with it 50-1 odds. Most people are not riverboat gamblers, but if they were, they'd often reap the rewards of taking a chance for the sake of positive gain. This truism has no allegiance to party or ideological affinity. Nor is it an American institution.
While the Senate has always been structured to foster some degree of collegiality by its very makeup and its relatively small size, one mustn't let the myth obscure the facts. The Senate may be a family, but it is a strangely dysfunctional one, and the House equally so. This is, we needn't forget, the same collective body where Representative Preston Brooks savagely bludgeoned Senator Charles Sumner with a cane on the latter chamber's floor. At other crucial points in our nation's history, decorum has been replaced by nastiness and I think perhaps our latest group of elected representatives do not remember or have not studied precisely what happens when measures this large and all encompassing are further hyper-charged by massive displays of public sentiment and outcry. Regarding this subject, Senator Orrin Hatch strikes back at us in the blogosphere for daring to hold his feet to the fire as well as the feet of other legislators. We ought to take this as proof of a job well done and aim to keep it going.
I am also not particularly sympathetic to Representatives and Senators who have complained about the extended hours needed to pass this bill. If they had resolved it in a more timely fashion, then this matter would have been dealt with long ago. Republicans have used stalling tactics and obstructionist procedural measures, but as we all knew, the Democratic party itself was the real enemy at work. Attempting to pacify various factions within itself to hold together a fragile coalition is what took so long to reach resolution. Moreover, if this is what it takes to achieve true fairness and equality, I wish they'd be in session every year and even up until Christmas Eve, if needed. It is, of course, true that Senators need to spend a certain amount of time campaigning, raising funds, and observing for themselves the nuts-and-bolts of the policy issues upon which they will propose and vote. However, too often these are excuses cited for not being in session at all, especially when needed legislation is allowed to die a needless death or is tabled in committee with no re-introduction ever intended.
[f]or more than 30 years, the major parties - Democrats and Republicans - worked every angle to transform politics into a zero-sum numbers game. State legislatures redrew Congressional districts to take advantage of party affiliation in the local population. The two-year campaign cycle became a never-ending one.
Politics, however, has always been a game of knees to the groin and leaps to the jugular. When contentious matters and contentious times existed, collegiality was the first thing to be discarded and shed. In times of plenty with few especially pressing matters, then party lines could sometimes seem obscured or unimportant. The so-called "Culture Wars" are a partial explanation for that which we have been facing. In truth, the Republican party began to take a sharp right turn beginning with the Contract with America in 1994 and then culminating in the election of George W. Bush. When Bush played directly to the Republican base at the expense of the middle, this caused a correspondingly swift and sharp reaction in the left wing of the Democratic party, which the Progressive blogosphere correctly considers a call to arms. Returning to the idea of truth versus saccharine sugarcoating, yet again, it is tempting for all of us to invent our own mythology, particularly when it suits our cause, but this is a compulsion we must never adopt for whatever reason may be. The truth will set us free, but freedom is often pricey, especially when we remove it from circulation.
First thing is first. I am broke, totally broke, with no money for food or transportation to look for a job with. Therefore, I have been urged by others online to post a paypal account and ask for donations so that I can continue looking for work. If you can make a donation, I would greatly appreciate it, as it will help maintain my ability to live until I find work. In return, I will try to continue posting articles for your enjoyment as often as I am able to.
Anger is flying at Mach 1,000 and everybody who isn't a member of the Democratic leadership wants to punish the Democrats for their endless betrayals, broken promises, lies, and capitulations. Well, I seem to remember someone posting ideas for how we can do something more than just bitch and complain.
I wasn't sure Politico could stoop any lower than it did when it published seven highly subjective (to put it lightly) meta-narratives that the Obama Administration supposedly did not want to become public knowledge. Widely ridiculed, the column caused the periodical's credibility to take a severe hit, and unfortunately its turn towards right-wing distortion in opposition to fact seems to have continued. While none of us knows for sure what goes on behind closed doors, in true Politico style if I had to guess before I knew all the facts, I'd conclude that someone must be pushing the notion that it must incorporate more content that appeals directly to conservatives into each daily edition. Right-wing points of view have a place, but sloppy logic never does.
I do read Politico on a daily basis, if only to see media framing devices at work, and so yesterday I was incensed, to say nothing of dismayed to note that apologizing for rape apologists appears to be no big deal. Since the media is comprised of human frailties, it frequently mirrors the frustrations and the flaws of its creators. For example, an article published this week took Senator Al Franken to task for not taking questions from reporters and instead directing them to his own public relations manager. Exclusive stories and one-on-one scoops are the Holy Grails of the profession and with the continued decline of the industry, so one can understand easily why disappointment and resentment might build if one of the most colorful and newest Senators might wish to refuse to play ball.
Politico portrayed the decision to avoid contact with the media as evasive and obstructionist by implying that the Junior Senator from Minnesota was too staff-driven and not the soundbyte machine that some had hoped he would become once finally sworn in to take his seat. That the Fourth Estate would be surprised by his desire and strategy to be kept on a deliberately short leash strikes me as disingenuous at best. Candidate Franken wisely restrained himself from drawing too much undue attention during the campaign and during the exhaustive recount process that immediately followed last year's election made only short, safe statements while keeping largely out of sight until the situation was resolved. This was a carefully crafted design that did him well before and abandoning it now doesn't make much sense. Once established and having achieved some degree of seniority, Franken will have the freedom to branch out and speak his mind without fear of serious backlash or threat of losing his seat, but for the moment the most sensible solution is to for him to learn the ropes and avoid stepping on toes in the process.
The column critical of Franken's media management style took special effort to note that the Minnesota senator is one of only a very small number of elected representatives who do not stand directly at the podium to make statements to the press or undergo question and answer sessions. Reading between the lines, the column implied that perhaps the Senator had something to hide or was afraid of letting his true self and true concerns shine through. It cited an anecdote where Franken very nearly answered a reporter's questions before deciding instead to pass the inquiry along to his communications director. The disappointment and let down inherent in the entire column was clearly palpable and I have to say that while a part of me wished also for more candor from him, I also understood the Senator's dilemma and did not disagree with his choice of resolution.
Returning to the column referenced in the beginning of this post, I cite a particularly revealing segment to reveal a better understanding of the full picture.
In a chamber where relationship-building is seen as critical, some GOP senators question whether Franken's handling of the amendment could damage his ability to work across the aisle. Soon after Tennessee GOP Sens. Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander co-wrote an op-ed in a local newspaper defending their votes against the Franken measure, the Minnesota Democrat confronted each senator separately to dispute their column - and grew particularly angry in a tense exchange with Corker.
People familiar with the Corker exchange say it was heated and ended abruptly - a sharp departure from the norm on the usually clubby Senate floor.
As rendered, the entire story reeks of false concern and shame. It is certainly true that the Senate as an entity is an elite club where partisan differences are often merely for show and bi-partisan friendships help grease the wheels of legislation, but a reliance on deep background sources to make a damning point always raises alarm bells to me. Nebulously defined sources of information remind one of celebrity gossip more than hard news. Some outlets, it needs to be mentioned, won't even use anonymous sources because they leave a column's veracity quite understandably open to question. Without credibility, a news article reads as fiction, defeating its entire purpose for existing.
Here is what actually happened. Here is how Senator Franken dared to create this supposed maelstrom of ill-will and resulting uncouth broach of decorum. In particular, note the first sentence of the paragraph and how it prefaces what follows afterward.
Franken, who declined to be interviewed, has said previously that the measure was inspired by the story of former KBR employee Jamie Leigh Jones, who alleges that she was drugged, beaten and gang-raped at age 19 when stationed in Baghdad. She fought the arbitration clause in her contract, and in September the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that Jones's sexual assault allegations were not "related to" her employment, allowing her to proceed in court. KBR is fighting the ruling.
Yes, how dare Senator Franken not add a few choice bon mots to flesh out the interpretation of a contemptible act that one would think speaks quite sufficiently for itself. As for the he said/he said conflict, we are told that it didn't end up with F-bombs being dropped or with personal attacks being levied on the floor of the chamber itself, quite unlike the conduct of certain other Senators from a party that shall remain unspecified. The left-wing blogosphere has become a convenient target for Republicans and Trusted Media Outlets™, particularly if and when they get thoroughly bored with blowing spit balls at each other. People familiar with the exchange say their anger was heated and ended abruptly---a sharp departure from the norm.
"I don't know what his motivation was for taking us on, but I would hope that we won't see a lot of Daily Kos-inspired amendments in the future coming from him," said South Dakota Sen. John Thune, No. 4 in the Senate Republican leadership. "I think hopefully he'll settle down and do kind of the serious work of legislating that's important to Minnesota."
Silly me. I wasn't aware that the act of rape or violence were a bipartisan matter that might be best resolved by compromise. Could we say that a rape only traumatizes 3/5ths of a person while we're at it? Seems fair enough to me. You really confuse me, Senator Thune. You remind me of the mainstream media and its attitude towards little old us out here in the blog realm. First you say that the blogosphere isn't an objective source of news or information and is of no real consequence, but then you throw darts at us as though you were really paying attention all the time. One can't be on two sides of an issue at once, even though as a politician I'm sure you'd like to present that concept. One can be either one way or the other, but not both simultaneously.
[Franken] Aides point out that despite attacks on Republicans by liberal commentators like Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann and on blogs such as Daily Kos, Franken never appeared on any of the shows or on the blogs to make a partisan argument about the matter, saying that the senator turned down entreaties to do so. Also, they point to the 10 Republicans who voted for the amendment as proof that it wasn't a partisan measure.
Yet again, we are encouraged to believe that Senator Franken is somehow cowardly for not going on the defensive or bolstering his claims by directly speaking out in favor of them. While the blogs and the increasingly ravenous media love a contentious argument, the Minnesota Senator is wise to not draw undo attention to himself. Those who hog the spotlight risk taking the focus off of the reform measure that desperately need to be enacted and serve as an unnecessary distraction. One person is a much easier target than a collective group of people with similar goals. In addition to being common sense, this is also Public Relations 101 and the fact that Politico is either unaware of it or instead determined to provoke an exchange reveals that a once noble profession acts increasingly like a drowning man. Ignore those who are unhappily going down with the ship, because their spite and desperation reveals everything about them and almost nothing about us.
On this day where the negative news about the War in Afghanistan, fresh doubts about President Obama, and a lack of Democratic unity in the Senate regarding Health Care drives a sourly pessimistic news cycle, now is as good a time as any to push back against the doom and gloom brigade. It may be time for the Democratic party to begin to reform itself first before it can ever make a solid effort to reform the country. As much as Republicans have provided a more or less solid base of opposition and obstruction, Democrats have only appeared marginally united and only then for brief periods of time. While I am aware that this is hardly anything new, disorganization will prove to be our own undoing unless we look inward and take stock of our shortcomings. Everyone talks about this, of course, but as Mark Twain put it regarding discussions concerning weather, nobody does anything about it.
With the Senate set to begin debate Monday on health care overhaul, the all-hands-on-deck Democratic coalition that allowed the bill to advance is fracturing already. Yet majority Democrats will need 60 votes again to finish.
Some Democratic senators say they'll jump ship from the bill without tighter restrictions on abortion coverage. Others say they'll go unless a government plan to compete with private insurance companies gets tossed overboard. Such concessions would enrage liberals, the heart and soul of the party.
The first stirrings of a concept known as Intersectionality began to develop in the 1960's and 1970's in opposition to the exclusivity, post-modernism influenced arguments of a prior generation of activists and thinkers. In brief, Intersectionality rightly assumes that taking into account a variety of lenses and perspectives, as well as how they interact with each other is a much better means of attacking a problem. Instead of taking one or two issues in isolation, viewing the similarities and acknowledging the spot at which all points meet would, as it is proposed, facilitate common purpose much more easily. In that spirit, seeking to address interrelated issues that comprise a complex matter rather than focusing too heavily on quibbling details would do our Senators and Representatives well.
As the media has presented it, one would assume that the reservations brought up by individual members of Congress while in hot debate over health care have been matters of profound heft. Certainly the political football of both Stupak and the Public Option are not issues to be taken lightly, but having read many of the published reports regarding day to day conduct in committee, the substantive concerns have often taken a back seat to needless minutia or pointless hair-splitting. Threats and counter-threats in this laughably extended proceeding have ceased being coercive and might as well be duly noted in the Congressional Record without objection. The mystical filibuster, for example, once was feared and sparsely used, and now has become part of process wallpaper to such a degree that even the threat of the procedural measure when invoked produces shrugged shoulders more than abject terror. True filibusters are rare in any case.
The Democratic party might at least consider the idea of Intersectionality if it is to prevent more than nominal GOP gains in 2010 and if it deigns to rule for an extended period of time. Having won, it must now find a way to not overstay its welcome in the good graces of the American people. Democrats know very well what they do not want to be and aren't so versed on what they think they ought to be. Many activists believe that a new way of looking at established rules would push every Democratic figure forward rather than being mired in conventional modes of thought that are long past their expiration date. Many would argue that several of the long term legislators with seniority are long past their expiration date as well. It is an unfortunate fact that we have been rather frequently and alarmingly prone to factionalism in recent history, which is partially a result of a disturbing lack of more or less uniform direction. It should be noted that I do not see this as some greater trend along the same lines as peering at an ant farm, whereby what seems from a distance to be chaotic is upon closer inspection merely a method to the madness.
Seeking to find mutual purpose between individuals and individual organizations alike, rather than pointing out differences and highlighting distinctions could well be our salvation. What complicates this process, however, are the multitude of non-profits and PACs that dot the landscape, many of which are devoted to a single issue. Each was founded out of a desire to make sure that the unique concerns of a particular group or cause was not neglected in the legislative process. They were created based on an inequality or need that cried for alleviation, but with time, however, these groups began to resemble government agencies, whereby bureaus that could have been consolidated with others for the sake of efficiency were allowed to exist alongside similar departments which did more or less identical work. Networking is still a fairly foreign concept to many of the myriad of entities that compromise the Democratic party and help set its agenda. How we think influences how we govern and how we seek to influence that which governs. Though the current model may have had its place once, the time has come to modify our thinking and with it our strategy. Focusing too heavily on where we are not alike rather than how we are alike is, arguably, what led to the decline of the party post-Carter and contributed to the 1994 election debacle.
I wrote a post over the weekend which touched some nerves. In it, I discussed the way our that own fundamental structure as liberals makes getting us on the same page an exercise akin to herding cats. One of the comments left was something to the effect of "I'm a Progressive and no one tells me what to do." Fair enough, except that I wasn't suggesting that the person in question (or anyone, really) follow blindly behind any cause or personality. What I was, however, arguing is that we can't always isolate ourselves in our own identity group and assume that its concerns are of paramount concern to the whole. Until we identify as Democrats first and other identities later, we'll always have unintentionally split allegiances. Any group established for originally altruistic means quickly becomes obsessed with justifying its own existence and in so doing losing sight of the original intent. A common thread runs through so many organizations and it goes well beyond a simple label of "Progressivism". The most successful educational strategies link together a variety of subjects and show students how each is interconnected. This is where true learning begins and this might also be the point at which true unity is allowed to thrive.
I don't believe in groupthink and I certainly don't believe in playing follow-the-leader, but I do know that it is certainly easier when waste and superfluity is trimmed away. I do also know that if everyone had been on the same wavelength before Stupak, then women's rights wouldn't have been so easily bartered away for the sake of a narrow victory. If we truly lived our gospel of multiculturalism and plurality, then human rights would mean more than just the latest atrocity perpetrated in a nation far, far away. If we practiced what we preached, there wouldn't be a need for the Gay District, since LGBTs would live boringly normal lives right next door to us. If we took up the cause of intersectionality, there would be no others who are not like us in some way, shape, or fashion. While I am writing on this particular topic, I am reminded of a woman who is a contributing editor to a Feminist site I regularly visit; she uses this quote as her e-mail signature:
"Engrave this upon your heart: there isn't anyone you couldn't love once you heard their story." --Mary Lou Kownacki
Decry it as naïve optimism if you wish, but post-partisanship, if we have not thrown it upon the dungheap of history quite yet, begins with this simple statement. That which separates us is often artifice, over-reaching, or over-compensation. One President micromanages the Health Care debate, which fails miserably. Another President puts Congress in control, failing to understand that he is capable of keeping bickering legislators in line without seeming dictatorial. We are our own worst enemy, far too often. Arguably we regained both chambers of Congress due to a GOP that had been remarkably good at shooting itself in the foot, if not other members. One wonders what will be our strategy in 2010 besides praying that the economic data and unemployment numbers improve drastically and that the Health Care reform bill passes. How will we learn from four years of mixed results? I can guarantee that the existing framework and system is no viable solution. We know what we are not, now it's time to determine that which we are.
Call it "Pollution denying", or "Reality Denying", it's all the same to the Professional Liars who are Senate Republicans.
In a touchdown celebration of "told you so" that is the equivalent of blowing your ACL while dancing after a homerun that went foul, Inhofe proceeds to insult the esteemed Senator from California, Barbara Boxer, by saying "We Won, You Lost, Get a Life."
This is what a stupid dick does, he gloats. The fact that he is dead wrong and corrupt just makes it worse.
Except climate change is FACT, you didn't win and you're a stupid towel, James InhoFAIL.
It is with no small discouragement that I put my thoughts down today. I never expected to be this disappointed with President Obama's leadership ability and his handling of the proceedings. Still, I concede that perhaps part of it is that the sheer number of daunting challenges which face us must be held in check by the realization that the legislative process is plodding and slow. Every President, to some degree or another, bases his or her definition of Executive authority in contrast to the conduct of the previous person to hold the office. Former President George W. Bush's desire to circumvent the legislative branch and concentrate power in the White House at the expense of other branches no doubt shaped Obama's desire to give Congress its fair share of say and impact. This is a noble gesture, provided it works, and thus far it has not. My hope is that our President will realize that there is a difference between ruling like a dictator and ruling like a strong Executive, and the lines between the two are neither fine, nor blurry.
Because the responsibilities of the President are rather vaguely noted in our Constitution, each occupier of the office has taken his own interpretation of what precisely his job description connotes. Those who have boldly adopted a stance that the Presidency ought to intercede directly and without apology into affairs some might consider the domain of other branches have been variously criticized for threatening to rule as an autocrat. This is inevitable, since human selfishness and common sense dictates that everyone would like as big a piece of the pie as he or she can get. Everyone will also be reliably counted on to object loudly if that piece ends up being reduced in size, especially if one thinks it owed to him or her. Throw in partisan rancor, exaggeration, and media narrative and here one has a familiar formula that has been levied at any number of Presidents who, with the passage of time, history has seen fit to denote as "Great".
The reverse of this, of course, is being too conciliatory to other branches of government, a stance that has regrettably been President Obama's undoing in recent months. Presidents before have kept a tight leash on Congress, not out of some desire for complete control, regardless of how much Senators, Representatives, and pundits scream about it, but out of a genuine understanding that the Executive branch must set the tone, the pace, and the direction. This is especially true now when though both the House and Senate have substantial Democratic majorities, the leadership tends to viscerally underwhelm and no one person has the force of personality to stand out front and be the face of Congressional mettle and resolve. With so much that needs to be done, the President cannot afford to sit on the sidelines and watch with his hands on his hips. He needs to take an active role in the game and if that means that the other players feel as though someone's trying to grab the headlines from them, then so be it.
Public opinion of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and of Congress in general reflects this dire situation of which we are faced. A do-nothing accusation lends itself easily to guilty-until-proven-innocent when no one has yet successfully sold Health Care Reform, Financial Reform, Environmental Reform, or any other measure now on the docket. What we have in its place are overly cautious and thoroughly uninspiring pronouncements that promise ultimate success in the wimpiest possible construction ever devised. They almost beg to not offend the hearer. The clear implication is that the latest version of the bill is a coalition of the fragile affair that could break apart at any moment. This does not exactly foment trust, devotion, and fidelity in the eyes of voters.
As is my wont, in instances like these, my mind drifts to similar struggles in different ages. Historical events roughly four and a half centuries ago shaped the formation of our Union and indeed, mirror ours in certain ways.
The climax of the English Civil War was the ascent of a commoner, Oliver Cromwell, to head the island nation. A member of Parliament before the war, Cromwell successfully lead the forces of the legislative body into battle against those supporting the crown and in so doing won eventual victory. A brilliant military strategist and general, Cromwell held little patience for the delays and cross-currents which bogged down passage and enactment of reforms, which meant that with time Cromwell concentrated more and more authority into his own hands. Though he might have been impatient, one cannot help but sympathize to a degree with his dilemma, particularly right now when partisan or even inter-party bickering has brought even the most modest reform measure to a complete halt.
As for the legislative frustrations that typified the times, they first began in the form of the Long Parliament, which was compromised of an expansive group of dissatisfied legislators aghast at the base incompetence of a heavily unpopular King. This then gave way to the high drama of Pride's Purge. The Long Parliament was dissolved in large part because it met for eight years solid but, due to factionalism and indecisiveness, could never manage to come to a solid conclusion or resolution regarding much of anything. The largely deposed King, Charles I, stalled every negotiation by playing different factions in the Parliamentary alliance against each other to his own advantage. When a significant faction sought to keep the King in control, albeit as only a figurehead, thereby disregarding the authority of the army, a coup d'état commenced. The Purge brutally, skillfully removed fully half of the body, leaving behind only those who supported the army, at which point the monarchy was effectively dissolved, the King beheaded, and England's first and only attempt to rule without a sovereign instituted.
What came next was the so-called "Rump Parliament", a term that, as is sometimes the case, was made by its opposition as a means of derision but stuck nonetheless. To this day, the phrase survives and is used to mean a gathering comprised of remnants of a much larger group or organization. Though initially successful, the Rump met its end four years later. Its undoing was a combination of its failure to come up with a new, working Constitution and its flagrant disregard of the wishes of Cromwell, who commanded that the body dissolve, which it refused to do. After personally observing the stalemate for himself, the soon-to-be Lord Protector bellowed,
You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately ... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!
After the Rump came the appropriately-titled Barebones Parliament, which was even less successful. In disgust, Cromwell took control as a near-dictator and was kept in power by the backing by the army until his death five years later. The complexities of those times are fascinating and cannot be done justice by a brief synopsis, but my greater point is to note the morass between then and now and, in so doing, note how much easier would be our lot if Congress could ever get a thing accomplished without bogging down into a state of maddening paralysis. The Cromwellian Protectorate lasted only slightly longer than one modern-day Presidential term in office, at which point English citizens grew weary of it and re-established the monarchy. It is that lesson above all others which I wish I could impart to our elected representatives and the current occupant of the White House, else they squander a golden opportunity.
How tempting it would be if the ability existed to instantly call for new elections or even a way to rid ourselves of Representative and Senators whose stated agenda seems to be obstructionism and baseless fear-peddling. To return to how I began this post, I know that we are stuck with the men and women we have in Congress. I also understand that we have the theoretical right to throw these people out if they fail to be satisfactory stewards of our trust and our concerns, but one would be remiss to not note how they are often more indebted to the sway of fund raising, high value donors, and corporate interest. Moreover, I concede that the system as it exists is patently not designed for the kind of major overhauls we desperately require. The safeguards in place are designed in part for wiser, paternalistic heads to soberly contemplate, stroke beards meaningfully, and then cautiously proceed. There are too many procedural rules, stalling tactics, and needless esoterica embedded deeply in a branch of government whose ways and means are frequently noted as "arcane".
However, the time for real leadership arrived about four or five months ago. While I concede that President Obama picked his strategy for Health Care Reform based on the failed example of President Clinton, it is long past due for a change in strategy. Sometimes in seeking to avoid a mistake, we over-compensate and create new problems in the process. Cautiousness is sometimes a viable public option, but as regards a Democratic caucus that is beholden to so many different identity groups, so much ideological difference, and a big tent that strains to be wide enough to accept everyone, else they pitch their own somewhere else, Presidential authority is the only way to get everyone on board. If the Left has a true skill, it is in finding hairline cracks in party unity. If the Obama of 2008 can return, then all will be forgiven and we can move forward. Otherwise, we will be stuck with mealy-mouthed, soft-pedaled promises and over-cautious optimism.
The MSM has duly taken note that the North Carolina legal firm of Moore & Van Allen is doing work for "AQAH," aka "Americans for Quality Affordable Healthcare," which is anything but, as it's fighting to kill the reform legislation, but its spokesperson refuses to name the clients who have hired them. In the ways of the MSM, the search engine is broken... or lacks motivation. We do have confirmed sightings in NV, ME, and LA. It was named as Republican astroturf in a front page post at GOS, a start, but didn't go any further.
It's going to be the same special interests, just using more identity masks.
Nevada, Maine, Louisiana.
First thing that makes me think of is the Tea Party Patriots doing their tour bus routine with the Russo Marsh/Move America Forward Republican PR firm, because that PAC did a bunch of anti Harry Reid advertising this summer and toured thru Nevada doing teaparty rallies (which the FEC is all over their butts for with that filing of Our Country Deserves Better PAC ). And Prop 8 money from Utah and CA was recently in Maine, letting the 2 moderate lady Republican Senators, Snowe & Collins, know that the Tea Party apparatus was gearing up for Maine 2010. Louisiana, that's easy, Sen. Landrieu is on the Republican's list of mostly likely to be swingable, and she's also a top recipient of Dem Senate Campaign Committee funding. Louisiana is an oil state.
Reform Immigration -
March on Washington
grid·lock
