You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (421)

PLAYS: (1641)

(h/t Heather)

Did you know that the Congress is made up of only one elected body of representatives that crafts our legislation? I didn't know that. I thought we had two co-equal legislatures--a House and Senate.

Each of the 435 members of the House of Representatives represents a district and serves a two-year term. House seats are apportioned among the states by population. The 100 Senators serve staggered six-year terms. Each state has two senators, regardless of population. Every two years, approximately one-third of the Senate is elected at a time. Reelection rates for incumbents often exceed 90%.[1] Article I of the Constitution vests all legislative power in Congress. The House and Senate are equal partners in the legislative process (legislation cannot be enacted without the consent of both chambers)

But that's not what Kent Conrad told me on Fox News Sunday.

WALLACE: Senator Conrad, what do you expect to happen? Because now this isn’t the end of the process. It’s just another step in the “Perils of Pauline.”

What do you expect to happen in the House-Senate conference next month? After struggling for months to get Senate Democrats on board to accept this, what are you going to do for Democrats who have a bill which is considerably to the left of your bill?

CONRAD: I think any bill is going to have to be very close to what the Senate has passed because we’re still going to have to get 60 votes. And anybody who’s watched this process can see how challenging it has been to get 60 votes...

WALLACE: But to go back to the question of the conference, you’re saying that you don’t -- you can’t go further, that the House is basically going to have to accept -- the House is going to have to accept the Senate bill?

CONRAD: It is very clear that the bill, the final bill, to pass in the United States Senate is going to be -- have to be very close to the bill that has been negotiated here. Otherwise you will not get 60 votes in the United States Senate.

Kent Conrad is telling the House of Representatives to go "Cheney" themselves. Are Nancy Pelosi and the progressive members of Congress listening? I wrote this last week and Conrad just made my point for me.

How does the House feel after being rendered useless in 'Health Care Reform' by the Senate?

When the House and Senate committee members meet in conference and supposedly merge their bills, exactly what can they do to influence it at all? If the Senate bill is as far as the Gang of Four, or Six or Ten or whatever it is, are willing to go, then is the House bill nothing more than a stage prop?

Do members of the House of Representatives feel jubilation at the thought that any pieces of major legislation they are asked to put together will ultimately be decided by President Lieberman, Queen Snowe, Mary Landrone, Ben "floppy hair" Nelson and Max Baucus? I'm sure more names will be added to the list.

I really want to know how they feel.

The White House needs to understand that there are many progressive members of the House who will not vote for the Senate bill as it stands. When they meet up in conference there is supposed to be a compromise struck on the bill between both bodies. What Conrad, President Lieberman and the hairpiece known as Ben Nelson are telling 435 elected members of the HOR is that they don't matter.

Well I say to Conrad that he can "Cheney" himself -- and that's what the House should say.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (215)

PLAYS: (3685)

I've never said to "kill the bill," as many are arguing liberals have been advocating like Howard Dean. But I do want to improve the Senate version of it and there's still time. I'm sorry that I do have some principles and want to keep on fighting. I always knew as liberals that we would be disappointed in the end, but it still can help millions of Americans in need of health care. And I would like my own premiums to stop being jacked up too.

Digby writes an excellent post that should be read in its entirety called "Clarifying Debate"

As for the internecine politics, there were numerous graceful concessions from the left from the beginning on health care that were not exactly easy to make, from single payer to the abortion language to immigrants. But it was the late dangling of a swap on the long held dream of a medicare buy-in, getting liberals to sign on and then allowing the loathed Lieberman, of all people, to capriciously snatch it away that was the real gut punch. And admonishing them to "get with the program" within minutes of that outrage while Lieberman preened that the president thanked him was gratuitous. Lucy and the football is an overused metaphor, but this was a classic. You'd have to be soulless not to be angry about that.

I'm glad Gov. Dean basically called John McCain is a damn liar after McCain spun his words into a bullshit Republican talking point. The conservative obstructionists in Congress only want to destroy health care reform for all Americans, and to me that borders on being a traitor the office they hold.

So it--you know, I respect John McCain, but it's, he wouldn't be the first person who twisted my words around and used them for something I had no intention of endorsing, which is the Republicans' behavior in this bill.

Nancy Pelosi can bring about some much needed improvement to the bill and I say go for it Nancy. Call Lieberman's bluff. If health care reform dies, it should be killed by the people who are destroying it, not by the people who have fought tooth and nail to reform a broken health-care system.

And America will know who they are.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 412

PLAYS: 189

(Not you? Then who? Not me - Couldn't be. Then who? Not you?)

Twenty three Christmases ago, beginning in November, the Iran-Contra Affair was bubbling to the surface. Stories of secret arms caches, money laundering, clandestine operations, deals - all the stuff of mediocre spy novels.

But alas, it was the Reagan Years, so anything could be and was possible.

Ike Pappas (CBS News): “Secord spent less than fifteen minutes in the closed hearing room. Enough time to listen to opening statements and then claim the Fifth Amendment, refusing to answer questions as have several other key players in the case. Secord, now a businessman is said to have helped to arrange the Iran arms sales, and has been linked in documents to the clandestine privately financed network that sent arms and equipment to the Contra rebels in Nicaragua when Congress cut off funds.”

These two news reports from December of 1986 give some indication where this all was headed. 1987 was promising to be a fun year. Sandbags and all.

. . .and boy, do we need 'em now! (donations, that is - we're full up on sandbags)

You can always count on Congress to do the wrong thing when conservative hissy fits come into play, but at least a judge saw the light.

A Brooklyn judge Friday delayed enforcement of a new federal law that cut off funding to the controversial community organization ACORN.

Judge Nina Gershon said the government violated ACORN's right to due process before enacting a law that threatened to financially destroy the organization.

"The question here is only whether the Constitution allows Congress to declare that a single, named organization is barred from all federal funding in the absence of a trial," Gershon wrote in a 21-page decision.

She said ACORN had proved it would suffer "irreparable harm" if the money was cut off.

ACORN lawyers expect the feds to open the purse strings soon. The Justice Department said the decision is under review.

Here's the pdf of the ruling.

On another matter, ColorofChange threatened to sue the defamatory website that was started to defend "phony tears" Glenn Beck because they used false information supplied by extremist sites like NewsMax. DefendGlenn was forced to post an apology on their website stating that they used patently false information -- lies, basically, to attack their opponents.

ColorofChange:

After ColorOfChange.org took on Glenn Beck for his race-baiting and fear-mongering, Beck's supporters fought back using lies, distortions, and more race-baiting to defend him. DefendGlenn.com was the worst, mounting a campaign to scare advertisers into staying on his show.

After we threatened them with a lawsuit, DefendGlenn.com has backpedalled. It should make clear to advertisers who have pulled their support that they've done the right thing...read on

Conservatives will say and do anything to smear and destroy a contrary belief. It's right out the Nixon "dirty tricks" book club.
Take a look at a screen grab of their apology below to Color of Change.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (43)

PLAYS: (128)

December 11, 2009 C-SPAN

Ten years ago, D.C. residents overwhelmingly passed a medical marijuana ballot initiative, but the law’s implementation was blocked by Congress. The bill released today — a large omnibus spending bill — lifts the ban on medical marijuana in the nation’s capitol. Read more at MPP Blog

Howard Dean writes at DK why he's so encouraged by the Senate healthcare reform bill. And remember, unlike us, he's actually worked on providing universal care:

Medicare is a government-run, single-payer system. What the Senate is working out could move the ball forward, if people under 65 will -- for the first time -- have the option of signing up for such a program under certain circumstances. The specifics of those circumstances matter a lot. The under-65 pool should not be limited to high-risk people only, and subsidies will ultimately be needed for those who cannot afford the premiums.

The other groundbreaking piece of the current Senate proposal is that a significant number of Americans over 55 who do not have access to health insurance today, would be able to get it within six months of the final bill being signed. Of course, more reform and access to choices are needed. However, this proposal moves us in a very good direction. The realities are Congress rarely passes reform that is not incremental and it is important that the increments they pass are headed in a direction we ultimately want to go. Expanding Medicare would do that.

The proposal to expand the Federal Employee Healthcare system could also be a step in the right direction. While I am not a fan of the private health insurance market, with the proper regulations, this could work. The OPM has done a reasonably good job of running the current plan, but Senator Rockefeller’s proposal to require insurance companies to spend 90 percent of their revenues on healthcare is absolutely essential.

This is the Medical Loss Ratio amendment that Jay Rockefeller and Al Franken are working on. It's the most important piece in this compromise. Without it, it won't work.

We must continue to work towards a system that gives Americans real choices. The truth is America already has a socialist system (the Veterans Administration with 25 million people). We already have a single-payer system (Medicare with 50 million people). And we already have a private insurance system (with almost 50 million Americans uninsured). The American people can reform healthcare by making real choices, but Congress must let us have those choices.

Both the current Senate proposal and the House bill will give us choices that Americans did not have before. The central problem will be that not enough Americans will have those choices. So while we may be able to take big steps in the right direction – the fight for healthcare reform does not end here. We must continue to pressure Congress to pass real reform.

Very good news, I think, on the climate change front. This is an excellent way to sidestep the political process and keep the necessary changes from getting bogged down in the politics:

The Obama administration will formally declare Monday that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions pose a danger to the public's health and welfare, a move that lays the groundwork for an economy-wide carbon cap even if Congress fails to enact climate legislation, sources familiar with the process said.

The move, which Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa P. Jackson will announce at an afternoon press conference, comes as the largest climate change conference in history gets underway in Copenhagen. It will finalize an initial "endangerment finding" by the government in April.

While an EPA spokeswoman declined to comment on the matter, the agency sent out a press advisory that Jackson will make "a significant climate announcement at a press briefing" at 1:15 p.m. at EPA headquarters. Jackson will also speak at the U.N.-sponsored climate conference Wednesday; her address is titled "Taking Action at Home." Obama, who will attend the end of the U.N. talks Dec. 18, has sent a series of recent signals to the international community that the United States will curb its carbon output as part of a new global climate deal.

The endangerment finding stems from a 2007 Supreme Court decision in which the court ordered the EPA to determine whether greenhouse gases qualify as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. It could trigger a series of federal regulations affecting polluters, from vehicles to coal-fired power plants.

Businesses argue that such a finding would mean even emitters as small as a mom-and-pop grocery store would be forced to comply with onerous greenhouse gas regulations. The administration has crafted rules that would exempt facilities that emit less than 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide or its equivalent annually. But it remains unclear if that exemption would hold up in court.

"An endangerment finding from the EPA could result in a top-down command-and-control regime that will choke off growth by adding new mandates to virtually every major construction and renovation project," Thomas Donohue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said in a statement. "The devil will be in the details, and we look forward to working with the government to ensure we don't stifle our economic recovery."

You know, I always said the Democrats would be just as easily bought as the Bush Republicans, but that doesn't make it any easier on my stomach. Howie Klein:

Or, you might want a different kind of candidate from one who isn't even in Congress yet and already selling her ass to K Street whores who represent Countrywide Mortgage and Morgan Stanley. How about making a donation today to the grassroots candidate for the seat, Doug Tudor? You can do it here.

By the way, if you can't quite remember who Allen Boyd (Blue Dog-FL) is, please recall that when George W. Bush wanted to push his bill to kill Social Security as "bipartisan" he only managed to find one "Democrat" to co-sponsor it. That's Boyd, the fella bringing Lori Edwards around Washington to meet all the lobbyists. Boyd is on the Budget Committee and on the Appropriations Committee. He's taken in $1,048,609 from the financial sector-- but not because they're buying his votes; only because he's so handsome and debonair.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (59)

PLAYS: (101)

December 01, 2009 C-SPAN

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (55)

PLAYS: (300)

November 25, 2009 FOX and Friends

Cartoon from Walt Handelsman at Newsday (reg. required for some pages).

No one can predict how today will go, there is some hope that since the Senate likes to appear to be the royalty of the Congress, we might avoid some of the circus antics that Saturday in the House brought. It's unlikely anyone will use procedural objections over and over to silence Barbara Boxer or Olympia Snowe.

It's an open thread for what you're seeing in, and thinking about, today's procedures.

Mike Stark catches up with Blanche Lincoln in Congress and asks her if she'll join the Republican filibuster. She has been virtually silent throughout the whole health care debate and Mike does a great job of getting her to say something on the record. What she said of course was nothing.

Stark: Can you see yourself filibustering or joining a filibuster?

Lincoln: I don't even know what the bill is going to be and I'm going to do what I think is most important for Arkansans and that is to look at the bill, to see if it's going to be helpful to Arkansans and the country in expanding health care...

She knows what's going on in this debate and gives a typical non-answer about supporting the public option like many have given up to this point. We at Blue America are running a brand new ad all over her state starting today so we can help her decide that filibustering health care is not in any one's best interests except the health insurance corporations that she's taken huge contributions from.

Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post writes:

The squeeze is on for Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) on health care in the form of a new series of ads paid for by the liberal Blue America PAC that cast the Arkansas Democrat as bought and paid for by insurers. "Blanche Lincoln claims to fight for health care reform but whose interests does she really represent," asks the ad's narrator before noting that Lincoln has taken more than $2 million in campaign contributions from the health and insurance industries. The narrator concludes the ad by asking viewers to call Lincoln and "demand she allow an up or down vote on the public option." (This is the fourth ad paid for by Blue America targeting Lincoln this year.)

Polling shows Lincoln, who is up for re-election in 2010, holding relatively slim margins over a series of unknown Republican candidates. Lincoln's dilemma? How to walk the line between the conservative leanings of the Razorback State -- Obama took just 39 percent there in 2009 -- and the increasingly vocal and well-funded left within her own party who see the inclusion of a public option as a sine qua non for health care reform.

Her primary is the reason we targeted her originally and it's worked out very well so far.

Please help us continue running this ad and many more to come and join in on Blue America's Campaign for Health Care Choice. Donations are much appreciated.

And Digby writes:

Perhaps Lincoln should start worrying just a bit about what will happen if her Democratic base stays home. The numbers aren't looking all that good for her right now.

She's between little rock and a hard place but it seems to me that's easily solved at this point. She should vote for cloture, thus appeasing her base and then she can vote against the bill if she needs to appeal to neanderthals who want people to die quickly.

Believe me, none of her constituents will hold it against her. Most people think cloture is unpasteurized sour cream. And they like it.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1261)

PLAYS: (2095)

Donna Edwards tells her story of being a young mother without health insurance and how she is paying America back with her vote for health care reform.

Edwards: I collapsed and was taken to an emergency room. Without health care I was treated as one of those uncompensated and now it's time for me to pay the American people back with a vote for comprehensive health care reform. This bill will take the burden off of providers and Americans for paying the costs of uncompensated care and safeguards for the health of all Americans.

She's been a solid progressive voice in Congress. We need more like her. I watched the endless insanity of the Republicans in the House on full display all day and night Saturday. It made me sick, watching them line up like replicants, making sure they used the same talking points over and over again. When they talk about "freedom," all they do is smear what that word means to the world. C&L Annette emailed me and said we should start calling them the Republick Party. I like that.

You won't read much about their behavior during a crucial time in our history because the media shields the nuts who are loose in the halls of Congress.

Howie Klein writes:

I love Donna Edwards. Her short speech about why she was voting for health care reform made me cry last night-- and not fake Glenn Beck tears. Like Donna, there was a time in my life when I couldn't afford health insurance-- or health care-- either. Americans deserve better than predatory insurance companies thriving on misery. This is why America needs more members of Congress like Donna Edwards and less like Paul Ryan, Suzanne Kosmas and John Barrow

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1218)

PLAYS: (1496)

So nice to see Sean Hannity isn't too concerned about ClusterFox being seen as an arm of the Republican Party with this latest hackery. On his Friday evening show on Fox he brought on Michele Bachmann to help promote her call for people to come protest the halls of Congress against the health care bill--as though they don't have enough problems with dealing with security as it is. If she wants people to show up in the Congressional halls next week, I hope they're showing up at her office to tell her to quit upping the ante with whipping up the crazies out there. The only time I've heard someone use the phrase "the whites of their eyes", it had to do with shooting someone.

Given Bachmann's lack of concern for her previous inflammatory rhetoric this is of little surprise. It seems she's not going to stop this stuff until someone gets hurt or killed out there. What's absolutely disgusting is the lack of will of from anyone in the GOP to tell her to stop it. While I certainly do not think that Michele Bachmann is hoping any harm will come to another member of Congress, she obviously is either oblivious to or just doesn't care what sort of response using this type of language might invoke.

From The Hill--Bachmann urges confronting lawmakers on healthcare bill:

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) is urging Americans to come to Washington, D.C., next week to roam the halls of Congress and lobby lawmakers against the House Democrats' healthcare reform plan.

The strategy aims at resurrecting the momentum Republicans enjoyed during the August recess, when many critics challenged their members of Congress on healthcare reform. Since then, Democrats have regained their footing and have captured some political momentum to pass a bill.

During an appearance on Fox's "Hannity," Bachmann on Friday night said the plan can be defeated, but only if critics make their case face-to-face with legislators.

Bachmann told conservative commentator Sean Hannity, "The clock is ticking 11:59 ...I've never done this before but I am asking people to come to Washington, D.C., by the carload and next Thursday at noon I'll be at a press conference on the steps of the Capitol.

"I'd love to have every one of your viewers to join me so we can go up and down through the halls, find members of Congress, look at the whites of their eyes and say, 'Don't take away my healthcare.'"

And from Think Progress--Bachmann Calls For Health Care Protest Rally In DC Next Week: ‘We’re Going To Have A Big Party’:

In an interview with the Washington News Observer, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) revealed that, next week in Washington, D.C., the right wing is trying to galvanize yet another mass protest rally against health reform.

Following in the spirit of the “tea party” protests in April and the Glenn Beck-inspired 9/12 rally, Bachmann announced, “We’re going to have a ‘house call’ and a big party out on the National Mall [next week], and we’re going to tell Congress what they can do with their health care bill.”

Fashioning herself as the leader of this mass protest, Bachmann exhorted everyone to “get off the couch, get in your car, get a van together, get a bus together, but get here! We’re going to have a ‘house call’ next week, and we need every American to be here.” She then issued this dire warning (infused with pop culture references):

The American people realize this is it. Just like that brand new Michael Jackson movie came out, ‘This Is It.’ This is it for freedom. If you believe in liberty, and if you’re rejecting tyranny, this is it. Dr. Mark Levin wrote a seminal book that really swept this country called Liberty and Tyranny. And that’s what this debate is about next week. Liberty and tyranny.

Newshounds also had a nice run down of the entire interview Bachmann did on Hannity's show and had this to add:

As the segment ended, Bachmann could barely contain her joy as she said that the Blue Dog Democrats “are clearly on the fence.” She added, “That’s why this is such an exciting opportunity for us… This is our liberty and tyranny moment. This is it! This is about patriotism and manning up. And if we can get Americans literally by the busload to come to Washington, D.C. next week, look their Member of Congress in the eye, pay a house call on Congress, and say ‘Don’t you dare take away my health care,’ … we’ll stop this.”

After another plug for her event, Hannity said, “Maybe I’ll have to show up and observe this so our cameras can see democracy in action.”

It's funny, but while Bachmann was crowing about patriotism and participation in democracy, and asking Americans from all over the country to visit different Representatives (not just their own, presumably), she refuses to accept emails from anyone outside her district. But you can telephone. So if you can't make it to Washington either to support the bill or to let Bachmann know she does not represent the country which consistently supports a public option for health insurance, you can call her office at (202) 225-2331.

Looks like we're going to see a push to open the public option. Get on the phones and let your congress creatures know you're behind it:

Sen. Ron Wyden has doubts about the scope of the public option plan announced Monday.

"I agree with Senator Reid that health reform should give Americans more options. Now, I want to work with him to ensure that all Americans can choose those options," Wyden said. "The bottom line is that the public option can’t really hold private insurers accountable if it is only competing for 10 percent of the insurance market, because private insurance companies aren’t going to change their business practices if 90 percent of their customers can’t take their business elsewhere.

"Real reform means empowering Americans to choose insurance that works well for them and their family, while rejecting plans that don’t. Including a public option is a step in the right direction, now let’s remove the firewalls in this bill that prevent Americans from choosing it," Wyden said in a statement.

[...][Jeff] Merkley, for example, said he would be unhappy if more Americans weren't able to select the so-called public option. As a member of one of the committees that wrote a health care bill, Merkley actively supported a government-option as the best way to maintain costs and provide greater choice. Merkley said in an interview Monday that he would press for any public option to be broadly available along the lines of an amendment he successfully offered in July when the bill was in committee.

Merkley's amendment is designed to give small businesses access to newly created health insurance exchanges that, in theory, breed competition by pooling the number of customers in a specific region. Merkley estimated that his amendment would allow nearly 25,000 more businesses – employing 485,000 workers – to enter the exchanges and 32 million people nationwide.
...

That amendment would increase the size of small businesses eligible for enter the national exchange that includes a public options. He also supports giving states the right expand the size of eligible businesses even more.

"What sense does it make to keep companies from going into the exchange?" he said.

TPM reports that Reid is close to pulling off senatorial support for the public option - and the White House wants Olympia Snowe's trigger option instead.

In other words, the White House wants the plan that won't work, so they can claim it's a bipartisan plan. Or is it that the administration wants a plan that won't really work, and they're using bipartisanship as a cover? Just asking the obvious question, here:

Multiple sources tell TPMDC that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is very close to rounding up 60 members in support of a public option with an opt out clause, and are continuing to push skeptical members. But they also say that the White House is pushing back against the idea, in a bid to retain the support of Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME).

"They're skeptical of opt out and are generally deferential to the Snowe strategy that involves the trigger," said one source close to negotiations between the Senate and the White House. "They're certainly not calming moderate's concerns on opt-out."

This new development, which casts the White House as an opponent of all but the most watered down form of public option, is likely to yield backlash from progressives, especially those in the House who have been pushing for a more maximal version of reform.

It also suggests for perhaps the first time that the White House's supposed hands off approach that ostensibly allowed the two chambers in Congress to craft their own bill has been discarded.

High level White House officials have floated the trigger idea a number of times, and it seems they continue to do so, even at this, crucial stage of the health care reform process, when their involvement is greatest. That has senators who support the public option concerned.

UPDATE: Big Tent Democrat has another take. So does Nate Silver.