Rachel Maddow points out that even the GOP's latest darling Paul Ryan who is the only member of Congress who's written a budget proposal is out there with the wingnuts and buying into Jonah Goldberg's revisionist history book Liberal Fascism. She forgot to mention that he's also a big fan of Ayn Rand.

Maddow: Congressman Paul Ryan is the Republican Party’s budget guy. He has proposed a GOP budget this year that would essentially get rid of Social Security and Medicare in the long run, slashes both programs dramatically and then privatizes them, so goodbye Medicare safety net, goodbye Social Security safety net. The Republicans are proposing to get rid of them.

Republicans like Michele Bachmann, Marsha Blackburn, Jack Kingston, Jim DeMint, these folks have been, recently been very happily arguing to kill Social Security and Medicare, but they are thought of as being on the far right of even their own party.

Paul Ryan proposing to kill Social Security and Medicare is another thing. He’s the only; his is the only budget that the Republicans have proposed for 2010. He’s supposed to be the Republican Party’s big brain on policy. He’s supposed to be a serious guy.

Well in an interview with The Daily Beast yesterday Paul Ryan was asked why if he’s so fiscally conservative he voted for the bank bailouts. In response the Republican Party’s serious, big brain policy guy explained that he voted for the bank bailout because of this.

Get it. See it’s a smiley face but it has a Hitler moustache! Because liberals seem nice but they’re really Nazis—Nazis were liberals and liberals are Nazis! Paul Ryan, the budget guy for the Republican Party tells The Daily Beast that a conservative book of revisionist history about how the Nazis were secretly liberals and liberals today are secretly Nazis, convinced him to vote for the bank bailout, because otherwise we’d have a great depression and then Obama could use that great depression as an excuse to impose his secret Nazi agenda. Obama’s liberal fascism.

And that is both an admission that even the Republicans admit that the bailout staved off the next great depression and a revelation that even the supposedly sane Republicans in Congress right now believe this stuff. Keep that in mind the next time someone proposes a bipartisan compromise with guys like Paul Ryan who proposed to kill Medicare and Social Security and who justify it by their votes on worries that Obama might secretly be Hitler.

Representatives Paul Ryan (R-Wis) and Devin Nunes (R-CA) introduce "A Roadmap to America's Future" which advocates the privatization of Social Security.

Funny thing about Republicans. They seem determined to NEVER learn lessons from the past. Which can be the only reason why Rep. Paul Ryan has reintroduced legislation to eliminate Medicare and privatize Social Security--a GOP pet project that spent all the political capital that Bush felt he earned with his re-election. His "Social Security-palooza" tour, designed to drum up populist support, actually had the opposite affect and set the administration back on its heels and backing off--a rare defeat for the destructive neo-con plans of the Bushies.

Say it with me now: THIRD RAIL. Seriously, you nimrods, you don't go after the well-being of Grandma and Grandpa without some serious negative political ramifications, no matter what the lunatic fringe teabagging set says.

Not content to let Ryan & Co. merely self-immolate on this, Representatives John Larson (D-CT) and Linda Sanchez (D-CA) have introduced a resolution clearly stating their opposition to this "roadmap" guaranteed to get Americans lost:

Today, Democratic Caucus Chair John Larson (D-CT), Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-CA) and more than 20 original co-sponsors introduced a resolution in opposition to the Republican proposal to privatize Social Security. Rep. John Larson:

Republicans are dusting off their old playbook and re-hashing old ideas like the privatization of Social Security that the American people have already rejected. Their ideas would end the program as we know it and put the retirement security of millions of America’s seniors and workers at risk.

Rep. Linda Sánchez:

When the stock market crashed in 2008, it was apparent that the Republican’s push to privatize Social Security was a bad idea. Americans have not forgotten the dangers of tying their retirement security to the whims of Wall Street. It was a bad idea then, and it is a bad idea now. This resolution supports Americans who contribute all their working life to a retirement and want income security in their golden years.

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

DOWNLOADS: (494)

PLAYS: (533)

Of course, Geithner is pushing the Very Serious Idea of reforming Social Security and Medicare. Doesn't everyone?

Considering that the Greenspan commission didn't actually work - at least, not the way that Geithner says it did - it kind of leads me to wonder what he actually means.

From This Week:

TAPPER: Do you think the fact that you guys are pushing the bipartisan commission is indicative of the fact that our political system is not capable of taking on the serious challenges our nation faces?

You and I know that the money, as Willie Sutton says, said, that -- why do you rob banks? Because that's where the money is. The money is in entitlement programs: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, things that you do not touch in this budget.

The fact that you need a bipartisan commission to recommend cuts or tax increases, doesn't that indicate that our political system is incapable of making these tough decisions?

GEITHNER: Jake, I am very confident in our ability as a country to bring people together and make sure we are solving these challenges and these problems. We've done it in the past, it is completely within our capacity to do as a country.

But of course, it requires you bringing people together across the aisle to step back from politics, to try to bring practical solutions to things that are very important to our future as a country. And the president is committed to do that.

We're going to give the Republican Party the chance to share in the responsibility and the burden and the privilege of trying to fix the things that were broken in this country.

TAPPER: Republicans are afraid this is just a back door for tax increases. Are you willing to say that tax increases are off the table for this commission? Let's sit down and talk about the long-term structural problems with entitlement spending?

GEITHNER: The president's view, and this is a view shared by many Republicans, and it builds on what we've seen with effective commissions in the past, like the Greenspan commission that President Reagan established to help restore the financial footing of Social Security, is that for this to work, you've got to bring people together to step back from politics, day-to-day politics, and to bring fresh ideas to solve these kind of problems.

That's the only way to do it, we think. And we're committed to doing that. We've got to do it on a bipartisan basis, and we're deeply serious about doing this.

Too bad we don't have a lot more politicians like Anthony Weiner in both houses of Congress. Rep. Weiner agrees with Jon Stewart -- Joe Lieberman is a dick. And Weiner says had he run against Mike Bloomberg for Mayor of New York, he'd have beaten him like a "rented mule" but he felt the health care debate was too important to leave the House.

From the Feb. 4, 2010 edition of The Daily Show.

Paul Ryan is trying to actually say he and the GOP have ideas. Soon, the media will pick up on this and also say that the GOP and Ryan have really cool ideas to take care of that nasty federal deficit and curb health care costs by 2080. Yes, I'm not kidding. 2080 I guess it is an idea even if it's batshit crazy.

The Economist lays it out for you.

Barack Obama's visit with the Republicans last week, some members of the opposition were deeply upset. They bristled at the idea that they have not proposed any serious ideas and are simply the "Party of No". In fact, the accusation is not true: Republicans have proposed some serious ideas recently. I'm going to post on two of them. The first, put forward by Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican member of the budget committee, is the "Roadmap for America's Future" budget proposal and it credibly claims to put America's federal budget in surplus by 2080. The CBO agrees. How does it do that?Simple, it slashes Medicare...top_paying_them">read on

He's shilling for Wall Street yet again as he usually does. He wants to privatize medicare and social security although he uses words like "vouchers" to mask what he's saying.

Crying John Boehner is running from it as fast as he can.

House Republicans are at pains to point out that a far-reaching budget roadmap unveiled by their top budget guy, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), isn't their budget, but when asked today at a press conference what about Ryan's budget he disagreed with, Minority Leader John Boehner couldn't name anything.

"Off the top of my head, I couldn't tell you," Boehner said.

And as Howie Klein points out, he reminds teabaggers why they aren't going to like him.

And Paul Ryan's is one of Wall Street's most devoted partisans on Capitol Hill, a veritable lobbyist inside Congress for all of their interests. Teabaggers don't like politicians who voted for the irresponsible Bush bank bailouts? Ryan didn't only vote for it-- twice-- as a high ranking member of Ways and Means and Banking Committee, the he persuaded dozens of reluctant GOP colleagues to vote for it and after it failed the first time, is said to have been the key figure in passing it the second time a week later!

Blue America just set up a page called Stop Paul Ryan. While he's a spectacular conservative hack, he's still very dangerous. If you can throw a few bucks our way. We plan to target him. Remember, he is a conservative and Wall Street golden boy.

Throughout the bitter debate over health care reform, talking points about "rationing" and "cuts to Medicare" have been the twin pillars of Republican fear mongering. For example, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in June warned of reform that "denies, delays, or rations health care," only to falsely charge weeks later that Democrats "are going to pay for this plan by cutting Medicare, that is cutting seniors." But with the publication of the Republican "shadow" budget by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the GOP is now proposing exactly what just weeks ago it claimed to decry: rationing Medicare:

Last year, 137 House Republicans voted to convert the Medicare program that provides 46 million Americans with health insurance into a system of vouchers. (In September, Sarah Palin penned a Wall Street Journal op-ed which similarly called for "providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage.") Now, as Ezra Klein, Matthew Yglesias and TPM all noted, the GOP's Paul Ryan is making the privatization of Medicare the centerpiece of a new Republican deficit reduction gambit.

Of course, because the value of Ryan's vouchers fails to keep up with the out-of-control rise in premiums in the private health insurance market, America's elderly would be forced to pay more out of pocket or accept less coverage. The Washington Post's Klein described the inexorable Republican rationing of Medicare which would then ensue:

The proposal would shift risk from the federal government to seniors themselves. The money seniors would get to buy their own policies would grow more slowly than their health-care costs, and more slowly than their expected Medicare benefits, which means that they'd need to either cut back on how comprehensive their insurance is or how much health-care they purchase. Exacerbating the situation -- and this is important -- Medicare currently pays providers less and works more efficiently than private insurers, so seniors trying to purchase a plan equivalent to Medicare would pay more for it on the private market.

It's hard, given the constraints of our current debate, to call something "rationing" without being accused of slurring it. But this is rationing, and that's not a slur. This is the government capping its payments and moderating their growth in such a way that many seniors will not get the care they need.

On Tuesday, Ryan acknowledged as much.

Continue reading »

Flashback via NPR:

ROBERTS: Well, it's always politically difficult for Democrats when they are dealing with an issue like terrorism. It remained the Republican's only winning issue through most of President Bush's second term, and it's a particular problem for a Democrat who hasn't served in the military.

It's her world and she lives in it. And you don't you.
Plus you better not dare take a ride into her Village.

DONALDSON: One third of that majority is on a government health program. I'm on Medicare. People who've been in the military are on a government health program. And yet the Republicans were able the make the idea that being on a government health program is terrible.

ROBERTS: Well, that's what I can't get over, is how the Democrats...

DONALDSON: Absurd.

ROBERTS: ... and the White House lost control of the message. I mean, that to me is phenomenal. After doing as well as they did in that campaign, they -- they let this public option -- nobody had ever heard of a public option. Suddenly it became the Holy Grail. You know, it's absurd. They should have just been out there day after day saying, "Thirty more million people insured, and you don't have pre-existing conditions on coverage."

Now I agree with her about screaming for the thirty million people who have no coverage and all, but poll after poll after poll shows that Americans love the idea of a public option. Even Scott Brown voters in Massachusetts love the public option, but not in Cokie's world.

Cokie also thinks that Obama should call John McCain and his crew into action and join the good fight because then he could embarrass them.

DOWD: ... he's going to have to say, "I embrace this. We went off a bit over the course of the last year, but I want to bring a bipartisan solution to the problems of America."

ROBERTS: He needs to call on them, you know, call them to action and ask them to be in it together for the country, you know, so that they look unpatriotic if they're not.

In Cokie's world, President Obama never reached out to republicans after he was sworn in.

In the third week of his transition to power, President-elect Barack Obama is working to build a cordial relationship with Republicans by seeking guidance on policy proposals, asking for advice on appointments and hoping to avoid perceptions of political arrogance given the wide margins of his victory. Obama has made calls to Republican leaders, and he dispatched Rahm Emanuel, his chief of staff, to meet with them on Capitol Hill.

Maybe she forgot. It happens:

For now, the Republican strategy is to praise President Obama and aim their fire at the House Democratic leadership. "It was very impressive that he came to the Congress and met with us. He was certainly very forthright," said Michigan Republican Dave Camp.

It could be that she was napping he entire month of January, 2009.

Not long after Senator John McCain returned last month from an official trip to Iraq and Pakistan, he received a phone call from President-elect Barack Obama.
{}
It was just one step in a post-election courtship that historians say has few modern parallels, beginning with a private meeting in Mr. Obama’s transition office in Chicago just two weeks after the vote. On Monday night, Mr. McCain will be the guest of honor at a black-tie dinner celebrating Mr. Obama’s inauguration.

Maybe she went to Hawaii for a vacation back then and didn't see Obama court the Queen of America, Olympia Snowe.

Or maybe, just maybe she's a blithering idiot?

Rep. Mike Pence, chair of the House Republican Conference, said Tuesday that President Obama had accepted an invitation to address GOP members of Congress at the group's retreat later this month.

"House Republicans are grateful that the President of the United States has accepted our invitation to meet with the Republican Conference later this month," Pence said in a statement released by his office. "House Republicans look forward to presenting the president with our proposals to protect our nation, create jobs, control federal spending, lower the cost of health care, achieve energy independence and strengthen families."

The House Republican Conference is slated to meet in Baltimore Jan. 28-30.

Being bipartisan and reaching out has really helped the president so far. Thanks Cokie.

There are a lot of ideas floating around about what to do with health care. President Obama's remarks aren't helping either.
There's an article in the NY Daily News that says this:

Democratic insiders say they are weighing several options to save health care reform, and one actually may be bold enough to revive a depressed, turned-off Democratic base: use the obscure reconciliation loophole to pass a public option.

“Let’s do a public option, or let’s go back and do a single-payer plan,” a frustrated senior Democrat told the Mouth. “You can have people say, ‘Look, if we’re going to do reconciliation, let’s get more, not get less.’”

“If you’re going to use reconciliation, then use it hard,” the Democrat said, adding that it’s a serious option.

We look at some of the other ideas in the paper today, but that’s the one progressives want.

For instance, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee immediately began sending around a petition last night advising Democrats not to take the wrong lesson from Massachusetts, and to use reconciliation.

“The loss of Ted Kennedy’s seat — due to a lack of enthusiasm among Democrats and Independents — sends a clear message to Congress. The Senate health care bill is not the change we were promised in 2008, and it must be improved. The Senate must use ‘reconciliation’ to pass a better bill with a strong public option.”

PCCC’s Adam Green said it got 10,000 signatures in the first hour.

I was talking to Howie Klein last night and we agreed. What about expanding Medicare and medicaid?

Ezra has the same thoughts:

There is another option.

Democrats could scrap the legislation and start over in the reconciliation process. But not to re-create the whole bill. If you go that route, you admit the whole thing seemed too opaque and complex and compromised. You also admit the limitations of the reconciliation process. So you make it real simple: Medicare buy-in between 50 and 65. Medicaid expands up to 200 percent of poverty with the federal government funding the whole of the expansion. Revenue comes from a surtax on the wealthy.

And that's it. No cost controls. No delivery-system reforms. Nothing that makes the bill long or complex or unfamiliar. Medicare buy-in had more than 51 votes as recently as a month ago. The Medicaid change is simply a larger version of what's already passed both chambers. This bill would be shorter than a Danielle Steel novel. It could take effect before the 2012 election. If health-care reform that preserves the private market is too complex and requires too many dirty deals with the existing industries, then cut both out. But get it done. Democrats have a couple of different options for passing health-care reform this year. But not passing health-care reform should not be seen as one of them.

So the Democrats lost one seat. Big deal. They had 58 seats for a long time anyway. Just don't panic and move forward and be decisive.
The Villagers don't understand that Americans want a progressive health care bill. here's some evidence.

Digby caught a weird exchange between Tweety and Howard Dean.

Somehow, I don't think Matthews or any other villager was convinced by Dean's argument. They just don't think that way. Therefore, electing a Republican will never result in the political establishment and the media understanding that it was because the Democrat wasn't liberal enough. Best not to get too fine with this stuff and just send them a message they can understand.

Yesterday Labor leaders sent Harry Reid for a National Exchange in health-care reform and Reid says they will move HCR forward

Continue reading »

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

DOWNLOADS: 410

PLAYS: 295

(LBJ in 1965 - Great plans, great ideas - eclipsed by Vietnam)

When Lyndon Johnson gave his first State Of The Nation address on January 4, 1965 after winning the 1964 election, it was filled with hope and optimism. Every good idea and plan for the American people was on the boards and ready to go. Many of the programs were implemented - Medicare, The Civil Rights Bill, the War on Poverty - a lot of programs still in effect today.

LBJ: “We must open opportunity to all our people. Most Americans enjoy a good life. But far too many are still trapped in poverty and idleness and fear. Let a just nation throw open to them the city of promise. To the elderly, by providing hospital care under Social Security and by raising benefit payments to those struggling to maintain the dignity of their later years.”

But there was that one element which would eventually turn the focus from all the good programs to what had become one very bad idea: Vietnam.

By the end of 1965 our involvement went from "training and advisers for the South Vietnamese Army" to increased draft calls and escalating weekly casualty figures of our own. We were in it and we were stuck in it. And by the end of 1965 there looked like no turning back.

The domestic programs were great. The Great Society was a wonderful idea. It's often been said that, had there been no Vietnam, LBJ would have gone down in history as a truly progressive President. Vietnam would become the thorn in his side and his eventual downfall.

It's one of those quirks of history - the ones that often repeat.

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

DOWNLOADS: 392

PLAYS: 192

(Oh?)

Former Nevada Governor, Senator and newly appointed General Chairman of the Republican National Committee Paul Laxalt (R-Nevada) faced a panel of interviewers on CBS News Face The Nation in January 1983. A shade less than two years into his first term as President, Reagan was already being asked if he was planning on running for a second term. Clearly the age factor was beginning to concern people. But more than that, the policies, the deficit, the taxes and the program slashings (i.e. Medicare) were starting to concern people as well and maybe more so. And who better to put a positive spin on things to the media than Reagan's old friend Paul Laxalt.

Phil Jones (CBS News): “The Democrats are going to confront you, as you know, with a choice between canceling that third phase of the Tax cut, at least for those over $40,000 a year in income, rather than cutting the Medicare payments for those who have to go into the hospital. Why would you prefer to keep the tax cut and cut Medicare?”

Paul Laxalt: “Well because, first of all this President made a commitment to the American people that would be his program. I see no compelling reason to do otherwise. To do that, really would be to affect a political compromise that I think is undesirable. We have a total package here which, if we can get some cooperation from our Democrat colleagues I think we can pass and which will serve the country well. You’re going to have negotiation, I know you are I hear it from the House side. So listen, we’ll deal with you on the social side if you’ll deal on military and if you’ll deal on the third year tax cut. That’s an academic exercise, because Ronald Reagan has indicated, in no uncertain terms, that if they fool with the third year tax cut that’s veto-grabbed. As far as the defense situation is concerned, again they’re going to stand firm on the defense. So I just think you’re dealing academic exercise if you’re talking about these kind of tradeoffs.”

Laxalt was considered a pretty likable guy who had friends on both sides of the aisle. But even this level of spin was hard to pull off.

Even in 1983 we had the eternal deficit and people screaming about taxes. It never seems to stop no matter what and no matter who. But memories are often short, especially when it's not convenient.

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

DOWNLOADS: (606)

PLAYS: (970)

Only after both chambers of Congress had already voted on the health care reform bills which will cut the deficit, AP on Saturday belatedly looked back at the deeply flawed and unfunded Medicare prescription drug program Republicans jammed through Congress in 2003. 24 hours later, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell appeared on ABC's This Week to add his to the chorus of Republican voices protesting that was then and this is now.

As Reagan Treasury official Bruce Bartlett told the AP, "As far as I am concerned, any Republican who voted for the Medicare drug benefit has no right to criticize anything the Democrats have done in terms of adding to the national debt." In response, Orrin Hatch, who promised a "holy war" to block Democratic success on health care, explained Republican behavior during the Bush years, "it was standard practice not to pay for things." And Olympia Snowe (R-ME), the GOP Senator courted in vain by President Obama, suggested the tale of the 2003 Medicare Rx benefit should be swept under the rug, "dredging up history is not the way to move forward."

But it was Mitch McConnell, who along with his lieutenants Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN) backed President Bush's Medicare giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry, who turned to misdirection to explain it all away to ABC's Jake Tapper:

TAPPER: Senator, you voted for that Medicare prescription drug benefit, which some say will cost $1 trillion over 10 years and was not offset by revenue or spending cuts.

MCCONNELL: Well, the first thing, you should notice that it came in 30 percent underbudget because of the competitive mechanisms that are involving in extending a prescription drug benefit to seniors. The Democrats criticized it at the time because it was not generous enough. And look, they have gone far beyond any deficit spending discretions -- indiscretions that Republicans might have had. In their first year alone, they ran the deficit up more than the last four years of the Bush administration combined.

As an act of political fraud, McConnell's statement was impressive, if only because of the off-the-charts ratio of deceptions delivered per word spoken. For starters, while this year's projected $1.4 trillion deficit dwarfs the figures from Bush's tenure, McConnell conveniently omitted mentioning that the budget Barack Obama inherited was already $1.2 trillion in the red when he took office in January. But more cynical still is McConnell's whitewashing of the scandal regarding the original estimate of the cost of Medicare drug plan, a forecast the Bush White House withheld from Congress in order to secure its passage.

Here's a look back at the fuzzy math and the dirty politics Mitch McConnell and friends don't want to talk about.

Continue reading »

Republicans win, even when they lose. That appears to be the conventional wisdom after the Democrats' crucial victory in the Senate health care vote this weekend. In its wake, media outlets gave credence to John McCain's assertion that thanks to President Obama, Washington is "more partisan" and "more bitterly divided than it's been." That followed the pronouncement of CNN's supposedly moderate Republican analyst David Gergen, who proclaimed the party line vote "a tragedy" since it did not garner a "super majority," a result for which "blame is pretty evenly divided."

To be sure, McCain and Gergen are right that bipartisanship is dead. But it is the Republican Party which killed it.

The numbers don't lie. For over a generation, Democrats have acquiesced in the GOP's budget-busting tax cuts for the wealthy, while Republicans instead presented a unified rejectionist front on the economic programs of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Worse still, the Republicans' record-breaking use of the filibuster since being relegated to the minority in 2006 has made the 60 vote threshold a permanent fixture of the Senate. As for Gergen's nostalgia for the political parties that passed Social Security and Medicare with bipartisan majorities, they simply don't exist anymore.

For Republicans, No Means No

The table above tells the tale. (Note that figures are not in real dollars adjusted for inflation.) While some turncoat Democrats helped Reagan and Bush sell their supply-side snake oil, Republicans were determined to torpedo new Democratic presidents:

Consider this year's stimulus bill. Obama's margins in the passage of the final $787 billion conference bill were almost unchanged from the earlier versions produced by the House and Senate. Despite Minority Whip Eric Cantor's earlier claim that Obama's bipartisan outreach was a "very efficient process," the President was shut out again by Republicans in the House. In the Senate, the stimulus actually lost ground, as Ted Kennedy's absence and the no-vote of aborted Commerce Secretary Judd Gregg made the final tally 60-38. So much for Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's January statement that the Obama stimulus proposal "could well have broad Republican appeal."

Sadly, President Obama's almost pathological obsession with bipartisan consensus only served to produce more political masochism when it came to this month's health care votes. In the House, exactly one Republican voted for a health care reform bill which passed by a 220-215 margin. Contrary to John McCain's mythology that in the Senate, there had been "no effort that I know of -- of serious across the table negotiations," Obama repeatedly reached out to GOP Senators like Olympia Snowe and left the writing of the Senate health bill to the bipartisan "Gang of Six." For that, President Obama only got what Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) called a "holy war" - and zero Republican votes.

If Barack Obama's experience with Republican obstructionism has been painful, Bill Clinton's was unprecedented. When Clinton's 1993 economic program scraped by without capturing the support of even one GOP lawmaker, the New York Times remarked:

Historians believe that no other important legislation, at least since World War II, has been enacted without at least one vote in either house from each major party.

Continue reading »

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

DOWNLOADS: (594)

PLAYS: (1334)

Fear monger much Lady McCheney? I'm not wild about this health care bill either, but this is ridiculous. Think Progress has more--Matalin slurs health reform advocates as ‘health care jihadists.’.

Matalin has employed the concept of “holy war” in her political debates before. On Meet the Press in 2006, she attacked David Gregory for going “on a jihad” in covering the Vice President’s accidental shooting of his friend Harry Whittington. Gregory responded, “That’s an unfortunate use of that word, by the way. This is not what that was.”

Transcript via CNN.

KING: Let's start, David Axelrod says we're on the one-yard line deep in the red zone. Mary Matalin, you don't like this bill, but are Democrats going to get it?

MATALIN: They are and they're going to get something more, a big loss in the midterms. We've been saying this all along. The more they get, the rougher it's going to be for them in the midterms. And they've made that political calculation that their sacrificial lambs are going to be the blue dogs and they're going to lose all those blue dogs and they may even lose their majority and so be it. They've been on this jihad for 70 years, and they're going to throw over all competitive seats to do it.

And I don't know what kind of party that is. That leaves left and the Democratic Party, the urban centers, this is tyranny of the minority. Two-thirds of the country don't want this. And one-third of these jihadists, these health care jihadists do. I guess that's how democracy in the Obama era works.

[...]

KING: Do you have any doubt Senator Nelson gets a good deal from Nebraska? Senator Landrieu got a good deal for Louisiana? You were both here a couple of weeks ago, said the Republican governor wanted that so it's not this horrible Democratic thing. Could you have any doubt that if there's six or eight or 10 of these deals, that two or three years down the road, when that money kicks in, that senators from Arizona and Illinois and Iowa and anywhere else are going to say where's mine?

MATALIN: Remember this. There are no red states. There are no blue states, there are only the United States. No, it's every state for himself. The country is more divided. It is less transparent, less accountable. Of course all these other states are going to get -- which just makes it a bigger piece of what it is which is wealth transfer. Essentially what's happening and what Senator Nelson can speak for himself when he comes out is he's never going to have a Medicaid increase. Well no other state is going to stand for that.

And this is worse, and the American people have said that this is worse than doing nothing, and the White House actuary said it will raise costs to the premium -- raise premiums, raise the debt. It will not cover everybody. It does not bend the cost curve. And furthermore this is the worst thing. They're going to strip out all the few good things that are in there and the entrenched things will stand. That's what's happened with every entitlement jihad from the '30s and the '60s and that's what happened.