Idiotological Slaves

Ideology is a fine thing as long as it doesn't get confused about its place in regards to reality, when it does it becomes idiotology. The US Senate had a bill before it - several times - to, among other things, extend unemployment benefits that are expiring. It seems that there is a little matter of the Federal deficit and the bit about encouraging lay-abouts to go get a job rather than subsidizing their ... laziness.

The rather nasty contrast between wealthy Senators (you know of a blue collar income one?) and the recipients of unemployment checks might clue you into my general regard for these cretins (sure, who are the cretins he speaks of?). I suppose there'd be some kind of justification for the "market approach" if there were jobs out there. Employers are not going begging for employees who are laying around licking their nuts on the taxpayer dime.

The Federal deficit is a result of spending out pacing tax and fee income - it isn't rocket science. It costs money to extend unemployment benefits - the taxes paid for unemployment insurance aren't sufficient to deal with this kind of extended unemployment. There is a little matter that the Confederate Party of Republicanism and Plutocracy won't deal with and that is what happens to those benefits after they're issued. Unemployment checks don't offer a life of luxury and savings, they get spent on directly sustaining products and rents or mortgages. Somebody makes and distributes those products or depends on payments of obligations and those are taxable - they are government income and they are jobs which is something different than unemployment to come without those consumers spending. Adding to the roles of the unemployed and foreclosed properties is not a recipe for recovery.

This is a case of the interests of business and of workers coinciding and the GOP standing pretty much alone as assholes. There is even talk of the GOP gaining seats in November. I just can't talk myself into the proposition that America deserves even more of their asshattery and needs some real suffering as a lesson. I don't care whether it is left or right, idiotology isn't the way to go.

Ending Secret Holds?

Freshman Senator Claire McCaskill (MS-D) has made a bid to end secret holds in the US Senate. This practice allows any single Senator to secretly stop business from happening, just one whether in minority or majority. There is something a tad odd:

The thing about the practice, though, is that you won't find it written down anywhere.

"I don't think the word even appears," said Senate Historian Donald Ritchie. "It's obviously a very powerful instrument used by every senator. It gives them a lot of influence over the administration and gives them individual clout."

Since I'm no Parliamentarian I can't make too much of this but that it is abused in secret isn't a real secret. I suppose one question for Senators is whether the body is of any real use to American politics or simply an impediment?

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.

Something To Say About Joe Lieberman

Joe is ... well darn, I ran right out of polite adjectives and adverbs. How do you like that?

Knock yourselves out, something I won't have to censor.

Lieberman Still Crapping In The Democratic Bed

I understand that most levers the Senate Democratic Caucus has to use on other "Democrats" lose effect if they are public. That would mean that there is a lot I don't know. I sure do know a couple things.

The Senate health care reform bill proposals have consistently neutered the neutered House version. This process is still ongoing. This process is ongoing because some so-called Democrats are threatening to block cloture if the bill is at all meaningful. If the Caucus was taking itself in hand this would not be the case. There are more than enough votes to pass real reform once cloture happens. Democrats don't need to play GOP purity games on the vote, but cloture is another issue all together.

I'm beginning to lose all respect for this body and considering their 6 year terms that loss of respect can easily mean I'll just quit playing. Democrats have asked a lot over the years and now they've finally been delivered a theoretical filibuster proof majority and the Presidency and are demonstrating an entire inability to get cloture on signature legislation. You folks want my support for what? Are you going to ask me to help get an 80 seat majority? I know you're asking for help to maintain seats, as things stand - I think not.

Somebody will probably accuse me of playing purity games. Nah. I'm well left of any candidate that has run for national or state office in my memory and I've been useful anyhow. I'm not expecting the kind of health care reform I'd really like without an entire melt-down of the system. I'm a realist, but now I'm offended. I'd like to point out to Democratic elected officials that I'm a lot more patient and pragmatic than a hell of a lot of people you count on. I know you do realistically discount our vote numbers, but our numbers do include a lot of money and ground troop effort you count on.

Sitting on your hands and blaming Lieberman, or Nelson, or etc is entire horseshit. You have the numbers to cripple any of these Senators for the rest of their terms and effectively shut down their re-election. If you cannot get your own damn Caucus past cloture because you are unwilling to do so I am to understand that you are better alternative to the GOP exactly why? This effectively means that electing you guys does not mean any progress but rather being frozen in the morass of BushCo. That being the case I'd rather let real Republicans trash the place sufficiently to get the idea across. Yes, opposed to watching your pointless flailing I'd back the Confederate Party of Republicanism so we can have some real failure since BushCo wasn't obvious enough.

Do you think I wouldn't send them money and shoot you in the foot every time you offer one up in search of that end? Yes, I'd back the Confederate Party of Republicanism in their plutocratic racist theocracy ends and all their warmongering just so Americans can see what they actually are. I'd say we've now been allowed to see what you guys are and that is an exercise in paralysis.

*** Updare ***
Profile has been modified because I am no longer comfortable with speaking from any place reflecting a political Party's official views. For the time being I'm done.

Lieberman Is A Democratic Chair?

Here's a question for the Democratic Senate Caucus, exactly what is it you're keeping Ole Joe Ho around for? What Democratic bill is it you think he's going to vote for if is isn't warfare or Corporate Welfare? Or is that stuff on your agenda?

I'm real curious as to the agenda that keeps a plutocratic warmongering Republican wannabe as a member of the Caucus. If you want to convince Democrats that you're not idiots, how about an explanation? Hell, do it on TV but do it...

Health Care (ahem) Reform

It begins to look as though the Senate version of health care reform will be composed of letting some older Americans "buy" into some sort of "Medicare" and piling some more customers into the HealthInc rapists' paths (on the public dime). There are some pretty good guys in the Senate Democratic Caucus, the operative word being some. Maybe it isn't fair to call the US Senate a wholly owned subsidiary of the Corporate World and HealthInc, but it is sufficiently so to make the lack of that absolute immaterial.

I'll wait awhile to absolutely lose my mind. While it is true that the longer legislation spends in Congress the generally less representative of the public good it is, it is also true that it generally changes. It might actually make some difference to Senatorial Hacks that nearly 60% of the voters want HealthInc to be forced to compete with an entity that actually holds the public's welfare in some esteem. It might not.

Er, probably not...

Go Ahead And Think On This

While you're considering the shitheels in the US Senate, some of the Democratic label and an entire Republican Caucus there is sometimes something like this. Ah well.

Senatorial Sticks

I've spent a lot of years watching Democrats get rolled on anything remotely resembling the public good and I expect to see quite a few more years of the same thing. That is because I see the public good from somewhere well left of the center. I understand that.

Looking at the health care reform actions in the House and the Senate I'm not surprised how things are working out. What I am incensed about is the Caucus' inability to show the recalcitrant members the sticks that are in their hands. Chairmanships and Seats on Committees are a start. There is a hell of a lot more.

Elected officials at the federal level need badly to show the folks at home that they bring benefits along with their office holding. Any bill you can think of contains stuff that is narrowly focused to that end. There is absolutely no reason whatever that the stuff has to stay in a bill other than collegiality. Senator Lieberman, would you like to write some of that stuff into a bill? Well, here's a real good question for you, how did you vote on a filibuster? Do you, Sen Lieberman, think your Chairmanship is important? Why should anyone think your vote for the Caucus will be forthcoming in the future if you're not whacked? Somebody might be able to remember the 2008 election at this point in time.

I've reached the point of no return with this. I understand that the junk measure in front of the Senate at this time is the best you could get in front of the Senate. That doesn't mean it isn't junk compared to the need, it just means that is what could get done at this point. Alright, if you can't get this piece of offal into a vote because your own Caucus won't do it, then why is it I should put anymore effort into you if they get to do that for free?

I'm not being a purist, I just want a vote on something that remotely resembles health care reform. If you let this handful of Senators blow this up without clear consequences, then I'm done with you. Clear done. You may be the good guys and that's really nice, but in the world where I live there are consequences to actions. Being an activist isn't so much fun that I can't see my way to walk away from everyone of you all the way down to town officials. It isn't much of a threat taken by itself, but if someone as stubborn and ornery as I am is on the edge, it might be something to think about.

Nobody has to vote against their conscience to allow a vote to happen. They can certainly vote against passage and should be able to do so without Caucus revenge, but to stop a Democratic initiative from coming to a vote isn't acceptable. If about 56 Democratic Senators can't lean on the remainder of the Caucus, then what good are you? Why should I care if Republicans get another opportunity to run the place into the ditch if the only difference is the initial after a title as far as results are concerned? Is there some reason to believe that unless it involves a Corporate/Banking/HealthInc giveaway this same bunch won't just filibuster again?

Your call on how you handle your Caucus, my call on how I waste my time.

There Are Not 41 Republicans In The Senate

But then, you knew that didn't you?

So what's up with HealthInc and Investment Banks and all that?

Ahahahahahahaha - sucker

Olympia Who ?

One one fortieth of the GOP Senatorial caucus voted to move the Baucus abortion out of Committee and that one one fortieth is real important? That was 10% of the GOP representation on the long stalled Finance Committee that voted to move on and now it is called bi-partisan support. I don't propose to set a floor for the definition of bi-partisan but the term seems to indicate cooperation rather than single defection from a Berlin Wall position.

It takes 60 votes to bring a bill to the floor for vote at which time it takes 51 to pass it (assuming a full Chamber). HealthInc lap-dog Democrats like Baucus can go home and tell their lunatic fringe they voted against it once it reached the floor and still have something useful pass. Olympia Snow doesn't matter one iota unless you you somehow count that one one fortieth as being bi-partisan and I don't know who the hell you sell that to. If you could get, say one quarter, of the Confederate Party of Republicanism to go along the Public might start thinking,"Hey, they can work together for our good." If you got one tenth of the GOP you might be able to sell it to the weaker of mind and more Pollyannaish. One GOP Senator is damn laughable.

I'd like to see responsible government in which the two Parties worked for the general good of the public. That would mean that some significant portion of each Party voted together disregarding the partisan advantage of defeating the other Party's measure for no other reason than to defeat it. That would require something that is not in evidence today in the GOP. One Party rule is bad for the US, in this environment it also seems to be the alternative to sitting on hands. Given that the alternatives are doing something or doing nothing; the GOP and Olympia are meaningless and subject only to mockery.

Instead, Olympia Who becomes the most important vote in the goddam Senate. WTF?

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.

To Be Fair To Senate Democrats See Merkley and Brown

In a recent post I cast doubt on the future of health care reform of meaningful proportions. Saying anything good about the GOP and Health Care is simply beyond me and anyone that is actually willing to look at the entire mess without junk prejudices. A bunch of Democrats are laboring mightily to bring something like reform into being without being high profile names like Sen Ted Kennedy.

I'd like to suggest you take a real look at two, Sen Jeff Merkley (OR-D) and Sherrod Brown (OH-D). They aren't alone, but rank as a couple of my favorites. I tried pretty hard to help Jeff get elected and I've watched Brown with great interest since I was mostly raised in Ohio and had reason to be pleased with that - at one time.

I'm leaving out people with real claims to attention for the simple reason that 535 is just too many people to comb through (sure, discount any (R) but that's still a lot) and also manage to bore you. Sen Merkley will probably see this, but it wouldn't hurt for readers to send kudos to these guys and others you may know of independently. Thanks Senators and all the rest of you in the trenches.

Pat Buchannon, Icon Of The CPoR

Too bad the initials of the Confederate Party of Republicanism don't spell something rude. There have been times I've admired Pat's political insights without agreeing with his politics ... or racism. What he is up to now isn't politics beyond winding up the racists. Sotomayor followed established precedent and the law in the Ricci (firefighters case). She did not in any sense go out on a limb to advance minorities at the expense of anyone (whites).

Pat made no case about Clarence Thomas being an affirmative action kid, but Sotomayor is defined by that appellation - it is her entire metre. He is furious. The Second District Ricci decision is some form of aborted justice and it is her doing. Never mind that the City itself pulled back from the test and had it checked by experts or that the Supreme Court in reversing set a new standard rather than following established law. Sotomayor is a militant for following the law rather than creating a new standard - she's an activist ... somehow.

The descent of the Republican Party into the CPoR should be distressing to its members, but their behavior doesn't indicate that. Republicans have a favorability rating for Palin at 73%, no kidding. It seems the longer Obama is in office the farther off the rails they run. As you watch the Senate confirmation hearings on Sotomayor you see actual elected Senators careening into the racist ditch along with the unelected Pat - and you can only shake your head.

Why Pat is given air time for this particular crap is a mystery to me.

Sen Jeff Session (R-AL) Confederate Party of Republicanism

It is a real shame to hold up an accent as emblematic of something particularly noxious, Jeff Sessions' Alabama accent put up all the almost dog whistles of racism while "questioning" Sonja Stotomayor. One could look at this statement as projection if it weren't for Sessions own failed hearings for a federal bench. This would be the fellow who joked that the KKK wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for their use of pot and that the NAACP and ACLU are communist inspired and try to force civil rights down people's throats. That might have been enough, but attacking a man as a disgrace to his race for defending black people was kind of icing on the cake.

Sessions repeatedly brought up country of origin or race and gender in attacking Sotomayor. He repeatedly used out of context quotes to make the same point Sotomayor had made and went as far as trying to use a female judge's opinions on judging against her - a judge sitting behind Sotomayor in support of her. The pathetic last remnants of the Confederate Army are wearing Rs in the Senate this week and being as bad at politics as Lee was at Gettysburg. One could only hope that the end results would be the same.

Arlen?

Rep Sestak is challenging (D?) Specter. I've spent some time trying to figure out how much of a loss to the Democratic Party Arlen going away would be. The GOP has a loon to run against one of the (D)s and I can't see Arlen having the incumbent edge in such a Primary. I'm trying to figure out what value he's been to the Democrats, anyhow.

I suppose this is PA's business but I'd encourage them to give Sestak a close look.

Dawn Johnson Hung Out To Dry? Our Senate? Whose?

Barack Obama's choice to head the DOJ's OLC, Dawn Johnson, is hung up in the Senate for a lack of 60 votes to move the nomination to the floor. This hang up is supposedly because she did legal work for a pro-choice organization years ago - that might have something to do with anything if the OLC had anything to do with abortion. It doesn't, but what Dawn Johbson's real sin is was her endorsement of the rule of law. You know law, that thing the DOJ is supposed to enforce? Well, there are limits, like whether or not you were a part of the Bush Administration. In case you were, then you are obviously not to be a part of the enforcement function of the DOJ - you are special, you are elite, you are exempt because...because...well it would be really inconvenient if the powerful had to follow rules, those are for the little people, the proles.

If you want to know how you're represented in the Senate take a look at this issue. Who the fuck do you think you are to assert that any law you are subject to applies to the powerful? You do realize that a whole 33 Senators voted to cap credit card interest at 15% while those companies are charging up to 41% on money the Fed is handing out essentially for free. Try going into that business and charging that rate and you'll be jailed for loan sharking. You know there is a little matter of TARP funds for most of those issuers and Fed bailout funds of untold TRILLIONS. But a 15% cap is so damn unreasonable that only 33 bleeding heart socialistic communist running dog Senators could be rounded up to vote Yea.

Since you aren't a bank or a torturer of helpless humans you DO NOT COUNT. I'll just bet when you voted for one of these pricks you thought you were voting to be represented, didn't you... Too bad for you.

Any Teabaggers listening? Not a chance.

The Ghost Of Republicans Past - Specter

A poor pun, but in my own defense I'm a bit flabbergasted, to have to write Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA). I did know that the Toomey challenge to Spector from the right would be a problem in the 2010 Republican Primary, since his victory over him last time was narrow. The swing right by Republicans nationally and particularly in PA in the face of increasing Democratic margins in registration and popularity meant that a Club for Growth winger like Toomey would be a real force to reckon with - in the Primary.

Off year, non-Presidential election, Primaries traditionally have low turn outs and the base becomes more powerful than otherwise. The problem with this is that it moves the candidates from either Party farther away from the ordinary middle, a Toomey could take out an pretty popular incumbent politician. If today's political climate holds in 2010 it is very doubtful a Toomey can win the General putting PA in Democratic hands anyhow.

Specter's Republican politics have become increasingly an uncomfortable fit, the criticism from the right pushed him right in defense of his seat. Pressure from REpublican leadership and legislators now becomes meaningless to him - he's a traitor. The Democrats have now gained a lever over Spector, he will have to stand in a Democratic Primary and without the support of the Party his previous history is not appealing to the Democratic base - in this election base counts heavily for either Party. Today Specter may present himself as opposing "Card Check" but I'm quite sure it will be pointed out to him that his base as a Democrat won't be pleased with that and that if he's not supportive of basic Democratic issues there's little reason for the Party to dissuade Primary challengers. The Democratic base of today is still left of Spector and the general electorate is somewhat left of his current record, that could be problematic for him if he does not show a reflection of that. His statement today on not voting for cloture on "Card Check" can pose real problems with Democrats in PA and in the Senate.

I don't care for Arlen Specter much, but I'm a left Democrat from Oregon and my opinion doesn't translate into a vote. I'm not an automatic supporter because he's now got a (D) after his name, I can easily find a lot of reasons to kick the snot out of him. There is a difference between keeping quiet about a candidate and actively supporting or opposing one, especially nationally. I am a delegate to DPO and Baker County Democratic Chair so within Oregon I have to be careful of not crossing the non-interference rule in OR Democratic Primaries in those capacities. This site is a private affair and you won't get a Party line unless I happen to be happy with it.

I can understand Specter's calculations to make this switch, I'm not sure it will work out for him. I don't think he has a lot of confidence it will work out, either.

Everyday Low Prices - Sen Blanche Lincoln

So who is Blanche Lincoln? Well she is a Senator from Arkansas and she has a (D) after her name so she makes some claim to being a Democrat. Arkansas is home to somebody else, a true friend to working Americans, Walmart - as long as you aren't one working for them.

Walmart is one of those places that is so friendly to unions that Think Progress has taken notice.

Today, the Wall Street Journal reported that Wal-Mart has been warning its managers that a Democratic victory in the fall would lead to unionization at Wal-Mart stores. “In recent weeks, thousands of Wal-Mart store managers and department heads have been summoned to mandatory meetings” discussing the downsides of unionization and not-so-subtly telling employees not to vote for a Democrat.

Center for Media and Democracy takes note of Walmart's love for unions.

"Back when I was in a union, I was just a number," laughs a man in a Wal-Mart Stores training video. "If a union got in here," he adds, "every benefit we got could go on the negotiating table. ... And with all our benefits, we'd risk losing a lot."

There certainly is no reason to think unions have problems with employers.

From 2000 to 2005, the National Labor Relations Board found Wal-Mart guilty of 15 cases of illegal conduct; seven of the giant retailer's competitors collectively had four rulings against them over the same period. Yet, HRW warns, "penalties under US labor law are so minimal that they have little deterrent effect."

Google displays 3,120,000 results for Walmart unions 2008, now granted some of these have nothing whatever to do with union busting, but there sure are a lot.

Funny things happen if you peruse places like Open Secrets where they will give you things like the top 5 contributors for Lincoln.

Stephens Group $34,200
DaVita Inc $32,000
Wal-Mart Stores $25,800
Tyson Foods $24,750
Goldman Sachs $24,000

Now I can't think of a reason why a Democratic US Senator from the state with the 47th lowest median income in the nation would oppose the Employee Free Choice Act. $37,500 is what they've got versus the national average of $50,000 something. You could buy a couple six packs with $13,000 a year doncha think? A visit to her website will leave you dry if you try to find a mention of unions. I'm kind of curious if there's much of anything there that makes her a real appealing version of a Democrat. That really gives pause.

Sen Webb And Criminal Justice

Sen Jim Webb (VA-D) is pretty sure we need to do something about our system of criminal justice and he lays out some reasons why he's right.

With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses 25% of the world's reported prisoners.

Incarcerated drug offenders have soared 1200% since 1980.

Four times as many mentally ill people are in prisons than in mental health hospitals.

Approximately 1 million gang members reside in the U.S., many of them foreign-based; and Mexican cartels operate in 230+ communities across the country.

Post-incarceration re-entry programs are haphazard and often nonexistent, undermining public safety and making it extremely difficult for ex-offenders to become full, contributing members of society.

It has been fashionable for Republicans to claim Democrats and other liberal types are soft on crime but these kinds of numbers and facts seem to make a case that the hardliners may have made some mistakes. While crime rate drops matched the aging of the population they didn't seem to have squat to do with draconian punishments. We are closing on a situation of putting nearly an entire generation of black males in prison. If you consider our 25% of the world's prison population with 5% of the population you would have to decide that either we have most of the world's bad people or we are doing something radically wrong - I'm not exactly sold on the bad people proposition.

S714 would establish the National Criminal Justice Commission to look at what the failures are in law and sentencing and to look to other systems for solutions. The numbers are astonishingly bad and point to failure of monumental proportions. 2.38M people are in prison, 32% of black males will be imprisoned in their lifetime, one in 31 people are either in prison, on parole or probation a 290% increase since 1980. Having 3/4 million people returning to their communities from prison annually can only mean trouble and on average 2 of 3 will be rearrested and half will return to prison within 3 years. The War on Drugs is not only grammatically stupid, it is also an abysmal failure, the percentage of high school students reporting a drug is "very easy" or "fairly easy" to obtain marijuana ranked 86%, cocaine 47%, crack 39%, and heroin 27% in the face of a 1200% increase in prison population since 1980 of drug offenders.

We are bankrupting the government with prison costs and evidently failing across the board with the system. Granted that while commissions are a good way to bury problems they can also be formative of solutions when there is little political benefit to using one as a burial ground. Maybe some pressure to not only establish this committee but also do something with it wouldn't be misplaced. Along with Webb are Specter, Reid, Leahy, Durbin, Graham, Schumer, Murray, Wyden, Kennedy, Brown, Warner, Gillibrand, McCaskill, Cardin, and Burris; if your Senator is missing a note of suggestion might be in order.