You Do Need To Vote, But...

Do not mistake me, there are two choices this election and they're between the Vandals and Status Quo and that vandalism could have consequences that are irreparable. The GOP stool stands on three legs: Plutocracy, Theocracy, and Bigotry. Be under no illusion that the Democratic Party does not have Plutocratic Enabling as one of its legs. The elected Democrats have a sufficient number/percentage of Plutocratic Enablers in their membership that no program concerning economics that depends on a solid Democratic vote is going anywhere without that percentage's vote and it will include for their vote the interests of the Plutocracy. It will be conveniently forgotten by that coterie that wealth doesn't need any damn help being wealthy or powerful.

The GOP depends on the Plutocrats for most of their money and those folks know perfectly good and well that their interests will be exclusively served, the rest of the economy be damned.  They will manage their political fortunes by serving up theocratic bullshit and whistling up the bigots, though that alone won't be enough.  In order to get somewhere beyond those narrow interests they will have to use a stenographic media to serve up scary lies (something well beyond exaggeration or framing) and dupe an ignorant and disinterested electorate.  The 2010 election serves as proof that given utter cowardice by quite a few Democrats and enabled lying, the GOP can win.

Here's the deal with the Democrats, they need to win in order to do anything and in order to win they have to serve an electorate that qualifies as stupid by outcome.  No, the actuality of the electorate's intellectual ability doesn't equal stupidity, it is their lack of access to good information, their disinterest in good information, and their distraction from political issues by the pressing details of living (OK, and Dancing With The Stars or whatever).  You cannot and will not get good results by putting junk information into a computer and you'll get just as bad results by putting it into the electorate - in fact worse because a computer will actually process the junk.

If you are expecting the Democratic Party to bring any kind of meaningful economic change then you need more and better Democrats.  You can, in a lot of places, manage that with a lot of work and money in Primary Elections - your problem then is the General Election and that means a hell of a lot more work and money and some losses.  When you lose, what you can hope for is that there is sufficient contrast to bring you forward next time in the face of the GOP's failures and mismanagement.  You can't get there by looking sort of like the other side.  If you want to lay a lot of blame on the President, you haven't bothered to look at Congress - at all.

If you think this election will change things for the better if Democrats are elected, you've got some real wishful thinking going on.  What you can hope for is that we won't get pushed over the cliff the other side is wistful for.  If that isn't enough, then maybe you need to take some time to find out the history of revolutions other than our original one.  It is not pretty.

R.E.S...P.E.C.T. , All I Want Is A Little...

I don't know, maybe some of us like women... or even are women. The GOPers made a real big point of telling us they "love women" and about what a tough job they have. The biggie in delivering that "love" was Anne r-Money with her slew of affordable spawn. It may have escaped the notice of the GOPers that Ann and Mittens r-Money could have afforded another 25 or 30 rug rats and if any medical issues came up it would take pocket change for them access the best care in the world. Well, the Democrats invited somebody who thinks women have brains and ethics and that liking them or loving them includes letting them exercise those assets.



What the hell could I add to this? Maybe I could suggest to my mostly male* readership that you go hug your wife, girl friend, or lady pal and tell her that you trust the female gender because you actually respect them. Is that real hard - to respect women?

*if you're not male, tell him or her - well, you can figure it out for yourself...

Oh, and by the way... DAMN, how much better a place is this world for the fact that Aretha has been in it?

What Is Too Stupid For NYT OpEd?

It seems from campaigning that maybe Mittens wishes that NYT had said his attack on the auto industry government deal wasn't good enough and wasn't out there to haunt him. Well, sure that's one thing but maybe Bill Keller's Hillary VP OpEd should have gotten the spike. You can read the thing for yourself to see what sort of silliness this thing gets up to in order to make its case, but I'd suggest saving your time and just laughing.

I'm not going to go into it, I read it to see if it was nearly as stupid as it sounded - it was (edit) worse. (h/t JG -BJ)

Some Of My Best Friends Are Democrats

Yep, really...(there's also a not so nice joke there) Despite the outcomes of Democratic votes in the Senate and the House there are actually a pretty fair number of them who are to the left of Geo HW Bush. Some more than others, but that does include some some who are pretty far left of Ole George I. They don't get much acknowledgement, thanks to the contingent of plutocratic buttkisser who wear the same (D) and their fellow travelers who are scared spitless somebody will notice that St Ronnie the Never Existed wouldn't approve.

You really should have some admiration for these folks laboring under the shadow of the cretins who'd faint if a GOPer yelled "boo," and it isn't fair in the least to blame them for the actual outcomes of Democratic votes. It isn't so easy to forgive the collegiality that keeps them quiet in the face of a ... Max Baucus or especially a LIEberman. It isn't cowardice that makes it happen, partisanship is part of getting votes and coralling support for projects. The plain fact of it is that if you want to get even some watered down POS passed you can't have Mary Landri...whats her face... going off in a huff because you called her quite accurately a corporate whore. So they're stuck with making nice with someone they'd walk across the street to avoid because homocidal maniacs are running the other side. (exaggeration you say? well, bomb bomb Eyeeeran)

These folks (I'm being nice) are going to exist as long as the NABA GOP holds true. I'm not kidding, you'd rather live next door to a shoplifter than Gengis Khan so you let the thief into your neighborhood. Well, there is that and the endless pursuit of the imaginary middle (I)s. There's a bunch for you, despite the media pretense it is only homogenous in its label. That masquerade consists of:
Democrats too left/right
GOP too left/right
I'm busy don't bother me
They're all the same
They're all crooks
They should all get along
Don't rock the boat
I don't know anything and I'm proud of it
and a few other critters with their special hobbyhorse nobody pays attention to.
who could forget the Libertarians and their special world - though they may have jumped the corral.(I amost did forget them)

Sometimes it is really difficult to make a case to them that holds water and that is especially true for Democrats. If one of the best cases you can make is we're not as bad as the loons and your outcomes range from St Ronnie to GHWB and that leaves you crying in the corner because some GOPer called you a socialist you've got a tough sale. For pete's sake, I've been a Democrat since like forever and it is hard to get me to see past voting against the horror show that is the GOP. I'm not voting my interests or the well-being of the nation, I'm voting against its destruction. That's a choice? Really, in the end run, I'm not voting against the destruction of the nation, just the pace it progresses at. It would be nice to vote for something, but that would involve the risk of running on clear principles and advocation of clear actions...

Ah well, thanks guys for existing, anyhow.

Democrats Lose By Joining Cuts Jabber

Congress and then the White House have budget difficulties to deal with along with a looming debt ceiling problem. There sure are a lot of issues at play in this mess but one thing is real clear, spending and revenue are out of joint - pretty seriously. You sure can try to address such a problem from only one edge, but that does mean that half results ensue or unacceptable consequences ensue.

The second Democrats start to talk about cuts, sensible cuts, or any kind of cuts without taxation reform they have accomplished two things that are bad for them and the nation. First they have ceded to the one side approach and the two prong approach simply disappears. Secondly by engaging in cuts dialogue they put themselves into comparison with the GOPer while admitting that cutting is the way to go.

Any approach that involves simple humanity in relation to cutting by itself will result in virtually nothing and assuage no one concerned with the budget without slamming military spending (not gonna happen). Democrats cannot with any conscience or hope of electoral success slam hell out of people who are already over the edge or going over and the GOP gives a damn. The Democrats cannot look as though they are doing anything and will at the same time make quite a few lives just enough more difficult to take a lot of heat. Some people will notice that wealth makes out and poverty increases and the only people who will care an iota aren't voting GOP.

In order to end DADT and get a START treaty the Democrats let the BushCo tax cuts get extended. In order to get a treaty nobody opposed for any principle whatever and to get a policy that affects a vanishingly small minority of the nation revenue was decreased. Any attempt to cover that lost revenue will badly harm a hell of a lot more people who cannot take it than DADT would over years of extension. If you think I in anyway ever supported DADT you're ... well, way wrong. But that is now the proposition Democrats face if they go to cuts alone. The plain politics of it is that they would lose a lot more votes than they gained. Was DADT flat wrong, yes - was the mechanism also flat wrong, yes; and that is what you get when you do deals with the Devil.

Our tax code is so completely skewed to the favor of absolute wealth that leaving it in that state is damn near criminal and will continue to crush the economy of this nation. It is simple enough to understand that wealth will always do well short of fires and murder. It is not difficult to stay wealthy in a system that operates with capitalism at its base and I don't have a real big problem with that since most of us can benefit as well. We do not benefit as well, but the operative word is can. The fault is not with a system based on capitalism, it is the matter of making sure that not even crumbs fall off that capitalistic table. This is the crux of what Democrats face - well that and the reaction of wealth.

Democrats pretty much take anyone left of Obama for granted as voters because they have nowhere else to go and the alternative is generally nasty enough to get them to vote. It may be the case that the 2010 election results showed Democrats that a campaign of "not as bad as" can have bad results. There is also the aspect that the results of 2010 scare the hell out of anybody left of Genghis Khan. I would not want to bet on how that tension plays out and I'd sure think Democrats sure shouldn't unless smashing the country to teach us a lesson is part of the thinking.

I don't think many Democrats expect much in the line of taxation reform and that they'll go along with essentially half-measures. What I don't see them going along with is absolutely nothing done other than a ball bat taken to the poor, disabled, and disadvantaged. It no longer matters how many lies the GOP tells about "job creators" in the wealth category, only a few deluded souls believe it.

I'd like to see President Obama re-elected and Congress in responsible hands other than GOPers but there really should be some reason to do it.

Hot Dog, He's Gone And We Can Stop Talking About ...

See ya, Anthony.

After today's frenzy over the resignation maybe the media and Democrats can talk about something that matters a hill of spit. The GOP sure doesn't want to talk about anything that actually matters and they might miss having a Weiner to put in their bun.

A person can have hopes and all - can't they?

A So-called Middle

Now that the GOP has pushed their clown car off a right cliff; I suppose that the middle is now the crumbling edge of that cliff and responsible people like Democrats need to get there. Just think of the possiblities - er, rather don't, that is incredibly depressing.

Any bets on this?

Me And My Democrats

Today my State Party called me to update my credit card information since I am a member of the DPO Grassroots Democrat program. I have an amount of money drawn on my card monthly for the DPO and for that I get to have some fairly meaningless bennies. The benefits only have meaning as an expression of gratitude from the Democratic Party of Oregon - which I appreciate.

I do this because the DPO is a pretty good representation of my political views, that stands in contrast to - um - the US Senate Caucus' votes. My OR Senators don't reflect what the Caucus votes for, unfortunately for those votes. In general terms I'm pretty satisfied with the Oregon Democratic Congressional delegation.

Sure, the DPO is left of conventional Democratic politics but they work like hell to elect Democrats and those Democrats suit me a lot better than a pretty much the rest of the nation's quota.

The money isn't a lot, but it beats nothing and helps keep the Party from having to be totally dependent on rich people. Your State Party probably has something similar, you could think about it.

How Much Is That Blue Doggie In The Window

McClatchy takes a look at the Democratic Blue Dog Caucus' current state of ... (?)weakness. I don't think this bunch is exactly plugged into an actual reality and offer up their own thinking to buttress my dismissal of them.

Following a day-long New York City retreat, in which they hatched strategies and were addressed by former President Bill Clinton, the House Blue Dogs vowed to focus on issues like regulatory reform and deficit control. Where possible, they said, they'll work with politically amenable House Republicans.

You might be wondering who these "politically amenable" Republicans are or what stance you'd have to take to get them to be "amenable." I live in a 'red' rural Congressional District (OR 2) and as an active Democrat I do understand the challenge of winning an election. I also understand that replacing Rep Greg Walden (R-OR2) with 'Greg Walden (D)' is a net nothing.

"We still believe moderation is important, and we have to move toward that course," Rep. Dennis Cardoza, D-Merced, said Monday. "We're looking to make sure that people know that there are moderates in Congress."

Maybe the confusion is over the word "moderates." Where does one have to go to qualify as a moderate? The best I can tell it seems to mean being St Ronnie of the GOP. Now I don't want to be a complete dick about it, but St Ronnie is scarcely a political or social model for a (D). I'm sorry, but that guy has a record that is available to anyone that cares to take a look. In the run up to the GOP Primary of the Saint's first election one of the concerns of the GOP was that he was too far right for the US. One of the complaints of the GOPers back a ways was that RR couldn't go as far as he wanted thanks to having to deal with Democrats in Congress. These guys seem to think there is some congruency between the Democrats of that era and the GOP of today. Uh, what?

The two San Joaquin Valley lawmakers have since been distancing themselves more explicitly from Pelosi's liberal Democratic leadership. Cardoza stepped down from the Pelosi-appointed House Rules Committee, and as a protest nominated Costa for House Democratic leader last month.

Costa returned the favor, nominating Cardoza. They were among the 19 House Democrats not to publicly vote for Pelosi as leader on the first day of the 112th Congress.

Given this performance you'd think there was some congruence between the leadership of Pelosi and Boehner or an utter disconnect with Pelosi being a radical and Boehner being a reasonable sort of guy. Excuse me while I roll around on the floor laughing. To believe these guys you'd have to think the "left" was in charge during the last two Congresses which is why we have a Health Care plan drawn up by the Clinton GOP and the rich are taxed less than working people and an employee choice act isn't fact. You could probably add in the fact that GWB and his cohorts aren't in jail to that list.

"We weren't nearly as effective in the majority as I think we'll be in the minority," Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., said Monday.

Sure, since the GOP is ever so much more reasonable than Democrats. OK.

Here's the consolation to these people's stupidity:

Cardoza and Costa are two of the 26 remaining members of the Blue Dog Coalition. Before November's election swept Republicans back into control of the House, the coalition claimed 53 members.

Fear not children, there is still magic in the world -

"We are the only group that tries on a regular basis ... to find bipartisan solutions," Costa said.

So they have the power (26/435) to work with whom, exactly? The GOP?

I'd like to thank the rocket scientists who thought replacing GOPers (R) with GOPers (D) made a bunch of sense.

NRO, Some Places You Don't Go

If you purport to be a Democrat there are some places you don't go to in an effort to make your case. Rush Limbaugh might be one such place, another very sure to make the list outfit is National Review. NRO isn't a kind of middle right sort of place, it is full out wingnut land full of Randian stupidities and neo-con chest beating. Maybe Bart Stupack is at home there - for some indefinable reason, since he is nominally a Democrat. Residence in The Family's "C" St home and close association with Catholic Bishops might explain such a brain fart as going to NRO, but clearly there is something amiss in Stupack land.

If Obamacare passes, Stupak says, it could signal the end of any meaningful role for pro-life Democrats within their own party. “It would be very, very hard for someone who is a right-to-life Democrat to run for office,” he says. “I won’t leave the party. I’m more comfortable here and still believe in a role within it for the right-to-life cause, but this bill will make being a pro-life Democrat much more difficult. They don’t even want to debate this issue. We’ll probably have to wait until the Republicans take back the majority to fix this.”

So this Democrat figures the Republicans are his only ally? Whoa... Maybe there's a problem with his reasoning. Since the Hyde Amendment prohibits the use of Federal monies for abortion there must be a bit more to it. Stupack's idea is that the problem is that paying for an abortion rider out of pocket doesn't avoid the Federal money that got into a subsidy. There is some logic to this, but taken to Stupack's stupidity level you have to understand that those Catholic Bishops he's taking his orders from are just pedophiles since those collection plate tithes paid for priests to abuse boys and from there paid those pedophilia Bishopric salaries. Oh, they didn't do the dirty deed of sex with boys? Same money there pal, in fact with this close association to "C" St that would mean money makes Stupack an adulterous pedophiliac Nigerian gay executioner. Some of us are fairly clear on who his allies are...

“They’re ignoring me,” he says, in a phone interview with National Review Online.

I've lived in Northern Michigan and the UP of Michigan and I have to tell you that beyond my parents, there are a lot of nice people there that aren't anything like Bart... I really wish we all could ignore Bart.

Kick The Left

Lately in some places it has been a real popular passtime to kick the left; mostly over its reaction to the Senate HCR bill. A lot of this fervor was generated by Jane Hamsher over at Fire Dog Lake (no i won't link her) for making a campaign against Rahm Emmanuel and hooking up with Grover Norquist - a swear word on the left. Now equating Jane to the Democratic Left is a lot like calling the Weather Undergound part of the Democrats. Where it gets hilarious is when the left gets blamed for disliking the Senate bill and yelling about it. Sounds a lot like GOP mindless lockstep to me.

There are two aspects that are really irritating, those folks are always 1-6 years late finding out that the left was correct (I wanted to say "right") and they figure it out when the stuff hits the fan. The other part is that the left is the reliable turnout, the door knockers, the donors, the callers and always the bride's maids. Nobody gets less, even lip service, and always folds for the "middle" no matter how far right those "responsible" people drift.

Senate Democrats would have you know that they were helpless in the face of the Mighty Joe. Those earmark things Johnny McPOW so hates; I'd bet over 50 Democratic Senators could figure out how a strike out works. In fact there seems to be an actual supply of ball bats over at the Senate with seats, chairs, earmarks, office spaces, and funding floating around in the hands of at least 51 Democrats. Since the Mighty Ho is holding hearings about the panty bomber it is pretty obvious nothing but wiffs happened in the club. I'm sure the left had something to do with that beyond hating him.



You can pull apart the entire course of the bill until now and see no damage from the left. It may have had an effect on approval, but versus the spectacle in the Senate, that would be pretty small. It has gotten to be real fun to compare the Democratic Left to the riechwing loons and particularly the Teabaggery bunch. The problem with that idea is that the so-called Democratic middle goes along with the stupidity propagated by the Republicans despite the pull back of the Left. Think I'm exaggerating? Fine, see who voted for and supported the AUMF in regard to Iraq, check out who voted for BushCo tax cuts, Patriot Act, Foreign Combatants, and on and on. You will not find the Left there. Why exactly members of the Administration are insulting the Left as though they were responsible for the failures of the Democratic Agenda is beyond me.

There are aspects of the Left that are silly to me, calling Obama Bushlite is one. The continuation of some BushCo policies in regard to terrorism is disappointing and, frankly, wrong but scarcely Bushian overall. Some of the Left shares with some of Democratic middle stupidity regarding the Second Amendment, but this is not remotely a feature of the Left versus that so-called middle. You'll find plenty of that middle tossing rocks as though owning guns is rightwing loonyism. As an example, in Communistic Oregon the Lefty organization Democratic Party of Oregon has as its second largest Caucus the Gun Owners Caucus.

There is extremism in any political stripe, stances that go beyond reasonable inspection into pure faith. Teabaggery is one example, but you would be hard pressed to find much of a percentage on the Left, despite the detractors. In point of fact, as the detractors scoffed at the Left for pushing the Congress over the "Health Care Reform" bill in the face of a lack of votes, they now are engaging in exactly the same behavior in favor of the Senate bill in the face of exactly the same problem - lack of votes. Somehow the Left is stupid and destructive for doing the same thing.

You could wonder why I find it difficult to support with work and money the Party that insults and ignores me ... you could, I suppose. But then, I never supported or applauded or voted for St Ronnie Reagan, either. If you understand or appreciate Reagan Democrats - you and I have nothing in common and you'll find this whole exercise insulting. I could care less.

Senate Democrats Held Hostage By Shelby

The US Senate has rules intended to slow legislative rushes prevent egregious nominations, all well and fine. Richard (Jefferson Davis) Shelby (R-Airbus, Toyota) has put a hold on 70 Federal nominations because French Airbus isn't guaranteed a Federal Contract and the Alabama FBI office didn't get a bomb research wing. What we're talking about here is massive Federal spending in Alabama that this Confederate Party of Republicanism Senator might not get. Do try to remember that this is the same guy from the same Party that decries taxes and federal expansion as their beloved Confederate State suck money out of the evil Blue States.

Now there ought to be something approaching a lesson in this particular temper tantrum but count on Democrats to not get it. Earmarks. Yes, Sen McPOW and Teabaggers demon the earmark is sitting right there in front of Senate Democrats screaming for attention and in the spirit of the Club will be ignored as a hammer. How hard is it to figure out that stiking every Alabama earmark in the face of this behavior can be done? Will Alabama suffer? Certainly not according to their political will as demonstrated by their idiotology and Senator. Will such a thing happen? Give me a break, in face of Democratic Senate inability to keep liars like LIEberman in order you might as well believe in the Easter Bunny.

The Coakley Massacre

One would suppose there are lessons to be learned from something as ... interesting as the MA special election results. Not having a bunch of faith, I suppose Democrats will mostly learn the wrong ones.

Here's a newsflash for you - you're supposed to run as though winning means something to you. Little things - like not taking a vacation in the middle of a six week elections cycle. Things a novice might miss like showing up at campaign events. It might even occur to you that a political campaign involves the novel idea of giving people a reason to like you and to believe that you care they exist. Those might be something to do. Even if the seat has been held by a Democratic legend for a really long time.

While the lesson might be to behave as though you're in an election, my bet is that the losing Party is going to decide that they've completely over-played to an ungrateful left and need to shift right. Nearly 40 years ago I had the State hang a (D) after my name because my alternatives were either lunatics or no party at all. Now all these years later I find my alternative to be well to the right of the lunatics of the time. I suppose I'm the ungrateful left since I can't recognize Democratic handiwork in the health care bill.

There's been a lot of wailing about the loss of the 60th Democratic seat in the Senate. I'd contest that it ever existed unless you'd like to rename the Party LIEbercrats (or hell Nelsonites). I dislike purity tests, but I'd like to see legislation that is recognizably Democratic come out of a Democratic Caucus. I know all about "it's what we could do" but then I wonder about votes for the Patriot Act and other civil liberties abortions and who made them. Once I've hit that damn iceberg I start wondering about Iraq War authorization, and then - well hell - about 30 years of political history...and the ship goes down.

You probably haven't noticed that this site is stripped of all references to my involvement in the Democratic Party and that is because as an officer it wasn't in my job description to throw rocks at Democrats; and I had boulders in hand; so I resigned. Don't start thinking that anyone in the DPO mistreated me, quite the contrary the organization is full of friends and valued colleagues.

You'd think that the Congress is composed of a handful of progressives rather than very nearly half of each house being of that description. That is one of the features of holding such large majorities, but the Senate rules mean a handful of Neanderthals can make legislation into something the majority elected don't want to do. Chances of ever getting Democrats to agree on everything are always small, but the usage of procedural rules against your own Caucus ought to be political poison - nope.

After the Democratic Caucus finds out the Snowe or Collins is more reasonable and honest than Hoe LIEberman maybe they'll shit can that asshole. Don't hold your breath.

Harold Ford Running For NY US Senate Seat?

Harold Ford has expressed interest in running against Gillibrand for the NY US Senate seat ... and has been taken seriously enough for the NYT to interview him on the subject. Some people not from NY might wonder what could possibly interest New Yorkers in a Tennessean former Congressman who lost for that Senate seat to a Republican distinguishable only by his skin color.

Maybe being a Bank of America vice-chair making about $1 Million per year while being Morning Joe Scarborough's talking point pal is it. It isn't like BoA doesn't deserve a Senator from someplace with an actual population and certainly being near wingnut Joe's yes man proves cross aisle appeal. Somehow four years out of Tennessee politics has turned him into a pro-choice, pro gay marriage type of guy despite his Tennessee policies. I hear tell NYC is a tough place.

He tells the NYT and anybody else who cares that Harry Reid and other leaders won't tell him how to vote. Boy, that's something in short supply in Democratic Senators, Joe Lieberman needs some more pals. Ford is pretty proud of being a capitalist, I'm not sure what that involves at BoA considering the amount of time spent on his TV career.

I guess if New Yorkers vote him in they deserve him, but I'm not sure the rest of the nation's Democrats deserve a Senate Caucus that much more of a mess. What BoA deserves I'll leave to those with a more impolite vocabulary.

Not As Bad

Lately I've heard the expression, "not as bad as Republicans," pretty frequently regarding the Democrats - in particular, the Senate. Considering what Democrats in the Senate have managed to do with health care, that margin is pretty narrow. Now certainly in their search for partisan blame the GOP will not vote for any Democratic health care initiative and that provokes some thinking. Now, I have no illusion that the GOP is better than or the same as the Democrats, but there is a real problem with the metric, "not as bad."

The GOP is...well hell, the Confederate Party of Republicanism, but on some issues they can make appeal across a bit wider range than that. Whatever reality is regarding Democrats in general on guns, the GOPers own it for most concerned with it. Despite overall reality the GOPers are perceived as stronger on national security. While it is entirely ludicrous, the GOP is fairer on taxes. The list is longer than Democrats would like to admit, and whether that list is full of nonsense or not does not matter. It does not matter because experts and political addicts aren't most of the voters, people with everyday concerns are and they don't dig deeply into issues. If you're not clearly superior you've got problems overcoming this list and "not as bad," has nothing to do with clearly superior.

I can't do shit to educate most people about narrow differences between Democratic outcomes and GOP outcomes, it is hard enough when it is very clear. Here's the deal, I don't care to that either. Calling what has come out of the Senate health care reform is a goddam joke, expansion might be accurate and I'd even give elimination of pre-existing conditions as some sort of reform but to label the thing as reform - nah. Now you're going to go to voters with this mess and expect them to swallow it? What kind of Republican mess will come out as financial reform with no (R) votes and a Democratic label? In the face of Republican legislation of 15 years ago with a (D) label how is one to persuade voters how far over a cliff the GOP has gone?

Evidently there are enough Senate Democrats who don't get this to put all of the Democrats under the gun. We're all Liebercrats now won't fly - well, good luck with that one.

The Latest Democratic Stupidity

This morning out of some masocistic impulse I got to watch Joe Scarborough smirk about how Joe Lieberman dragged the Democrats back from disaster and how Howard Dean was a leftist idiot deserving the White House ire while they're fine with Joe Ho. The people praising you should be some indication of where you've gotten yourself. Joe goddam Scarborough.

So now you know, Joe Ho is what a Democrat should be and Howard Dean is a rat bastard and that's where this White House is. Well, I thought I was a Democrat and I thought I was a realist and I thought I was pretty much in line with the majority of House and Senate Democrats. Turns out I was...um...wrong. The President of the United States, the head of the Party, has made it clear that I was wrong. I'll accept that measure of wrongness in definition. How about you?

The biggest corporate giveaway program by the Federal Government is supposed to be some sort of Democratic Victory. You can tell these people from the Republicans exactly how? Wasn't there a song...

Say hello to the new master
Same as the old master
lalalalalalala or something.

The Democratic Senatorial Corporate Shills

It is a whole lot of fun to bash hell out of the (L) Party member Lieberman and some of his co-conspirators like Nelson and Baucus and in some ways it is accurate enough. There is a bit more to it than that, well a lot more to it.

The Democratic Senate Caucus has enough votes to essentially end the career of any member of the Caucus. It is a real bad practice to do this to the opposition Party's membership, it encourages payback when majorities shift. It is a bad practice regarding floor votes because politicians need to be allowed their convictions and their constituency's interests. It is a whole 'nother kettle of fish where a procedural vote like cloture is involved. This is the Caucus' business and if it is important enough to the Caucus to bring the matter to the floor for a vote then they need to make sure it happens.

It is not that important to the Democratic Caucus. It is not a matter of sufficient import to that Caucus that minus any options other than the rapists of HealthInc a mandate to buy insurance remains. This is even more Halliburtonizaton of the public good. This is the Federal government adding more to the coffers of the same bunch that has driven this national fiasco, by fiat. This is BushCo's corporate welfare taken to extremes, it makes them pikers in that game.

You will buy their insurance and the taxpayers will make up the difference for some. You will get a handful of regulations that the industry will find ways to shit on. If you don't like what they do to you with your policy you will do what? Hire a lawyer? There is nobody and nothing to take your back, just you and your lawyer up against the richest corporations in the nation. There is nothing that will contain or control costs and no reason for the corporate rapists to act as though their rate payers mean spit next to their business models. They will "compete" with a couple of their fellows with exactly the same ends in mind and they aren't yours.

The Democratic Senators give exactly the damn you've seen them give, nothing. If you find a difference between what those Senators tell you and what is happening and what Joe Lieberman looks like - maybe you should listen to Lieberman. It is just this simple, Joe Lieberman is the Democratic Senate Caucus in operation. If that Senator of yours protests that this is too harsh; you're allowed to laugh in his face and ask just exactly what the results were and who allowed this. I will tell you flatly that there is not a majority in the Democratic Senate Caucus who give a damn about the difference or this would not be the result.

The Caucus knows what it can do to Lieberman and the other couple jerks, those jerks know what the Caucus could do; and they also know that they won't do it. They can act just exactly as they please on a procedural vote and there will be no repercussions. Not one damn thing.

The mandate should be a deal breaker for any Democrat as this mess stands. The rest of it is political window dressing and matters not the least other than as propaganda. If you think it means something and want to support it, then do so - minus that mandate. The mandate means that this is worse than the status quo, that BushCo still runs this country for the sole benefit of the plutocrats and your lot just got worse. Once HealthInc is sucking at the public tit in this manner they will never be removed from it and their influence in government will be multiplied by an exponential factor.

Yep, and you just got the President of the USA on your TV telling you that, "...not everybody will get what everybody wants..." and the only people who got what they wanted is Joe the Ho and his HealthInc buddies. You get talk. Yes, you good guy Senators, I am talking to YOU and about YOU. Go ahead and ask me and a bunch of people just like me for something again... Our name isn't Aetna - or Halliburton or Inc anything. I really figure the effort to fill in a space on a ballot is asking too goddam much. Show me I'm wrong - I ain't holding my breath, though.

Health Care, Or What (6/23/09 repost)

If you've followed this blog at all you know that I'm a supporter of the concept of single payer health care. I have no doubt that big health care insurance companies would take a hit but it would scarcely be fatal. Single payer would not be a 'gold plated' offering, it would no doubt have some limits on what would be covered and for how long.

This piece of limits would cause some serious hand wringing from the Right, as though no such things exist today. We have really stupid costs built into the system now, we spend incredible amounts on end of life measures, not creating comfort at that point but fighting futilely against death. A tiny minority of doctors are responsible for the vast majority of malpractice claims. The uninsured and under insured drive medical costs for everyone up drastically. Emergency rooms get used as doctor's offices and simple procedures get avoided until they are major. Insurance companies deny treatments until they fall onto the public dime.

Democrats and Republicans have completely different views of health care and who should survive - ie people or insurance companies' profits. Well, a bit more accurately most Democrats and some Democrats and Republicans have different views. You can certainly understand that campaign contributions from insurance companies (surrogates) go to those sympathetic to insurance companies and that doesn't quite reach bribery, but expecting something different is silly. The question that occurs is exactly why some Democrats are so damned sympathetic to insurance companies. It is important to realize that your premiums don't go to pay claims, they go to ... wait for it ... investment in investment banks. Remember the villains in the crash? Add them to this crapfest.

Real frankly what you'll get for your trouble in electing these folks is squat. There are some Democrats working real hard to look out for the public and they deserve kudos and support but if all Democrats were there - the deal would be done already. The Republicans have already shown where they stand - you're on your own - and considering them in the debate is simply childish approval seeking.

I don't have a lot of hope that Pres Obama would veto a junk bill since it is what he could get on his biggest issue. I wonder how I'll find myself dealing with how health care shakes out, I may lose my sense of humor. I'm closing in on the end of my leash, and my friends I break leashes.

*** Update 12/15/09 ***

So now what have you got? What you really have is a Senate who will make you buy insurance from the rapists who drove the system into this national fiasco and kind of limit, maybe, some of their really bad practices. You just had the President get on national TV and say, "...everybody won't get what everybody wants..." as though that had some kind of meaning. Single payer never made the gate so those folks got nothing, a public option wasn't good, but those folks got nothing, a Medicare buy in wasn't real good, but it's gone. Essentially the HealthInc got richer by Senate fiat as long as some toothless new regulations are kind of observed. You bet somebody got what they wanted and it sure the hell had nothing to do with any sizable percentage of the population, but the President just put up the strawman of "everybody." Joe Hoe Lieberman got what he wanted and HealthInc execs got what they wanted - the rest of you go suck eggs. No the teabaggers didn't, because some piece of crap with a (D) after it will actually pass and that's way too much for them, but essentially that exercise in stupidity gets what they wanted.

Me? I got a begging note from Organize For America. I get them from DSCC as well, and DNC and... I don't think so, I think they can stick it where the sun doesn't shine. As long as Joe Lieberman is a member of the Democratic Caucus and Max Baucus holds a Chair talking to me about helping is going to be real damn difficult. If you think either of those are going to change anytime soon, I suggest not holding your breath.

How Stupid Is Sen Ben Nelson ?

Sen Benb Nelson has introduced legislation to help fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq with War Bonds. This was in apparent reaction to the idea of some legislators to pay for the wars with a surtax. Either Nelson is as ignorant and stupid about finance as he is about health insurance or he's a political tool dedictated to nothing in the public interest. Does anybody not know that that whatever the label, bonds are debt? Calling the financing War Bonds makes it not an iota different from the Treasury Bonds China is already buying.

A tax is income, a bond is borrowing. I'm sure Sen Joe Lieberman also approves - he of the debt scare filibuster threats. These guys may have a lower opinion of the average intelligence of the American voter than I do - I wonder who is right. Yessiree, it's just fine to stack up crippling debt to kill people and break things but heaven forbid it sace people's lives.

I must be a masochist to keep giving a damn about this.

What's In A Name?

The Senate Finance Committee voted down the Rockefeller Public Option Amendment 15-8 and the Schumer Amendment on the same topic 13-10 and this brings forward the question above. The name Finance should tell you who the big players are and who owns enough Senators to blow this one away. If you really don't like what you've found out about who runs the show, then maybe you might want to think about running someone else against them in those things called Primaries.

I can't help you with that, I live in Oregon and my Senators seem to be 'the good guys' and I'll be damned if I'll move to your state - I think you've just seen why.