The charming Mrs. Weigant is Irish.

OK, ya got me on that one.. That is one of my favorite sayings (obviously) but I never bothered to check who actually said it.. :D

Consider me properly chastised. :D

Michale.....

And a slaughter of our Constitution it is, no 2 ways about it.

Postulate a scenario where the GOP under President Bush, proposed legislation that made it perfectly legal to torture terrorists. The GOP leadership, knowing that they couldn't pass the legislation with a REAL vote, simply "deem" the legislation to have passed and then send it on to President Bush to be signed into law.

Can you imagine the complete and utter hysterical outcry from ya'all specifically and the Left in general!?? Ya'all would simply go ballistic if the GOP tried such blatant trickery.

And yet, it is eerily silent around here with regards to Democrats total stomping on the US Constitution.

Michale.....

I'm disappointed in you. Usually you're so good about showing attribution. That comment needs to have a credit line at the end which reads:

"-- W.C. Fields"

As the Irish say: "May the road rise to meet you, may the wind be always at your back."

:-)

-CW

Everyone needs to believe in something.

I believe I'll have another beer.. :D

Michale.....

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iVn9wrhB-3SF-Svo9kZyXd4bHRLAD9EG84VO0

Insurance premiums will actually go UP, not down as the Obama Administration claims.

Michale.....

May ya'all find yerselves in heaven
a half hour before the devil knows yer dead.

:D

Michale.....

...Stan

It just shows to go ya that history should never be written by idealouges...

Otherwise, we would have things like, "We are at war with Eurasia.. We have ALWAYS been at war with Eurasia"..

Michale....

Also, I just had to tell you.. I was perusing your MY LINKS section.

Left ‘Toon Lane

THAT is damn funny!! :D

Michale

Usually it takes months or years for the hypocrisy of politicians to become evident and obvious.

Last week, Democrats were all about "an up or down vote" when it came to reconciliation.

This week, with the Slaughter Option, Democrats don't even want to THINK about "an up or down vote".

Dems better be careful.

Such blatant 180 degree turnarounds can't be good for the spine...

Michale....

Got comment numbers working, and permalinks. I'm going to keep the alternating colors and general layout.

I've tested these somewhat, but am going to hold everything back and roll all the changes out together, so for now nothing has changed in the way you see things. More updates will appear in this comment thread, for those interested....

-CW

The only question remaining is how desperate will Democrats become to prop up the illusion that the Democrats want the American public to believe..

Considering the desperation we are seeing right now (reconciliation, the Slaughter option, etc etc) the answer to that seems to be...

"Pretty desperate.."

Michale.....

Trust me... I have worked with Israelis..

They are the ones that are in the best position to know what will and will not allow them to survive..

The US doesn't have clue #1 as to what it takes for Israel to survive..

The BEST thing the US could do is say, "Bibi, whatever you need to do, you have our complete and unequivocal support.."

THAT is what the US needs to say to Israel...

Michale.....

That's simple - because that kind of dictation will save your closest ally in the Middle East and Joe Biden is the perfect person to take charge of that.

I think you're missing the point of my comment - I want Israel to survive as a Jewish and democratic state and, up to now, they have been doing a great job to make sure that doesn't happen.

Chris,

Adding an easily accessible page for comment tips is a great idea!

Why is it that there are those here in the US who howl and scream when the US wants to dictate to scumbag tinpot dictators ( {{cough}} Hugo "terrorist" Chavez... {{cough}} Achmedjihadist {{cough}} ), but then advocates even worse "dictation" to our closest ally??

Michale....

If Joe Biden means what he says then Obama/Biden should be force-feeding Israel the two-state solution, if that's what it takes to save Israel from itself.

Unfortunately, I just don't see that as being in the cards. I hope I'm wrong.

Joe Biden also said something about the need for bold leadership that will take risks for peace on both sides. He forgot to include the US and Arab states.

Joe Biden finally said something that I can completely and unequivocally agree with and get behind...

"The cornerstone of the relationship is our absolute, total, unvarnished commitment to Israel's security. Bibi, you heard me say before, progress occurs in the Middle East when everyone knows there is simply no space between the United States and Israel. There is no space between the United States and Israel when it comes to Israel's security."
-Joe Biden

Who knew?? :D

Michale.....

I am not against PR moves, if they have REAL meaning and REAL value..

But this "Gitmo" PR move is worthless. Here is what the world will be saying when (if) Gitmo closes.

"The US closed Gitmo in Cuba and re-opened it in Illinois. Big Fraking Deal!!"

You see?? It's not even symbolic. It's moronic..

It's what happens when our leaders place the value of world opinion over the value of American safety.

It's why the White House is having to reverse their decision on having civilian trials for terrorist scumbags..

but dissing the vital role of peter graves in airplane!, possibly the funniest spoof movie of all time??? now you've gone too far! ;)

Touche'.. :D

I actually loved AIRPLANE. I just felt that it demeaned Peter Graves to be in it. Call me a purist, but it's the same attitude I have towards Star Trek 90210...

It's like Sean Connery hawking George Foremen grills on an info-mmercial. Or seeing President Obama on G4 hawking the latest DEF JAM RAP video game..

One can't help but think, "oh how the mighty have fallen."

Michale.....

i can stand for your dismissal of the vital importance of good PR to the accomplishment of foreign policy goals (public relations are not about political correctness; they do EVERYTHING to enhance the safety of US citizens both at home and abroad), but dissing the vital role of peter graves in airplane!, possibly the funniest spoof movie of all time??? now you've gone too far! ;)

joey, do you like movies about gladiators?
-RIP

For those that grew up with MISSION IMPOSSIBLE on TV, Peter Graves was quintessential Team Leader. Smart, tough and dedicated.

Despite notable forgettables such as his stint as Clarence Oveur on AIRPLANE and the horrid way that Jim Phelps was treated in the Tom Cruise {sic and sick} Mission Impossible movie, Graves will be fondly remembered by this poster.

Good Evening, Mr Phelps. Mission's a success. Well Done. You will never be dis-avowed.
Rest in Peace.

Michale.....

First, haven't even read the political comments yet, I'll get to them. The comments code change will not happen until next weekend, at the earliest, so we've got some time to talk about it. I was busy weedwacking today (lost the cat earlier in the week in the weeds when she was supposed to come in... long story... cat's OK, weeds needed to be whacked...), so I didn't get to programming. Anyway, a few points.

Full editorial control of comments is likely not going to happen, sorry. I would likely have to change permissions for you folks to do so, and I'm in a security-tightening phase right now due to some nefarious attacks which weren't apparent to the general public (thankfully, sqaushed them quickly enough). So that's a no-go.

But there are probably plugins to do "preview" rather than full "edit" -- where you get to view your comment before you approve it. I'll look into this, as it seems to be a favorite feature people would like to see.

I'm still leaning against full threaded comments, where each reply is (usually) indented, because (1) it would require a lot of layout work, and (2) because they do become very tiny, and my middle "column text" column is kind of small to begin with.

I like the alternating colors myself and am going to try to keep them. I think this'll be do-able, programmatically, and pretty easy (the whole section of code needs complete rewriting due to new WordPress software, but I think I can bring this feature forward without too much work).

I agree with Liz on the "letter" format, but that's probably because that's how I've always answered comments myself. Maybe I should add a page somewhere of comment tips so people see how easy it is to make italics or bold or underline or all the rest of the allowable styles. This helps when quoting previous comments.

I will look into whether there's either a plugin or an easy way to make it user-selectable to see comments LIFO of FIFO ("last in, first out" or "first in, first out") if you want to select to see more recent comments on top, or on the bottom. Choosing one or the other programmatically is easy, but allowing users to choose may be harder, I'll have to investigate it further to see how hard.

I think I'm going to forget avatars for now, doesn't sound like there's a huge need for them.

Numbering comments may be a good thing, because (1) it'll be fairly easy, and (2) it'll allow for people to reference earlier comments without having to quote text.

Sorry, Liz, I'm against smiley faces for philosophical reasons. I am a purist, and believe that ASCII is enough to make all sorts of fun emoticons without the laziness of smilies turning them into cutesy little icons. Just a personal bugaboo, sorry.

:-)

or how about

;-)

Heh.

Permalinks may be very easy, as nypoet22 points out, and actually you might find them helpful if you want to refer to a comment you made here elsewhere. The permalinks actually already exist (and always have) but you've got to know they're there and how to use them. A link at the bottom of each comment to the permalink for that comment would make it SO much easier, and it'd be easy to do, so that's one I'm going to definitely include.

Paginating ("read more" links) individual comments would (1) be tough programmatically, although maybe not all that tough, and (2) would likely be annoying. But I also know that it is annoying to scroll through a huge comment that you're not interested in reading. So I'll take a look at it.

Nobody likes paged comments, though? Ten comment per page? Anyone? If not, I won't try to add this.

Moderate, in-line replies without indenting tends to make everything very confusing, because you don't know where to look for new comments. So I'm going to have to say no to that. Indention is kind of cool, I have to admit, but after two or three replies gets very hard to read, so I'm also leaning against it.

And, just out of curiousity, have you set your text editor and spell checker to British English or US English? Heh.

Anyway, that's it for now. Thanks for all the very good feedback, as it'll help me to provide a better site for us all.

Word limits? Hah, didn't even consider that one. Text is tiny, database-wise. As long as everyone's not posting photos and animations and videos, use as many pixels as you feel like, that's my motto.

-CW

You obviously haven't seen some of my friendly arguments ad Bidenitum. You probably just haven't been here long enough! :)

So, what do you think about addressing a specific poster when replying to something they have said ... as I have done, above. That would make it much easier for someone to notice that you have replied to them without having Chris resort to a threaded reply format that, frankly, I don't think would work here.

Chris,

I would just reiterate that the edit function would be great. I used to frequent a blog that gave you 30 minutes or so to edit your post beyond which time, no more editing was possible. I don't know how difficult this would be to add, but it sure would be appreciated ... you know, for those of us who like to think we are crazy perfectionists, or something. :)

Wouldn't it absolutely suck for Democrats if, after all these hoops you lot have had to jump through to get HCR passed (assuming, of course, that it does pass) the Republicans undo it all? Having said that you'll all feel much better when the Republicans pass a proper healthcare reform bill that does what it's supposed to ;-)

But Obey did not immediately raise the stakes in such a fashion, after the all-too-predictable Republican response.

And that's why I think he might now struggle to pull off the trick you call for. Had he derided the Republican one year pledge immediately, it would have looked like the Democrats always wanted the ban to last longer than a year (as we discussed earlier, the language was ambiguous). I suspect too much time has passed for that.

Now it would look too much like he's had time to figure out how to score points against the Republicans. Of course the key to scoring points in politics is to look like you're not out to score points ;-).

forcing Republicans to vote on the side of Wall Street banks, and against changing the rules that almost destroyed our economy

Of course. But just like healthcare reform, the question isn't whether changes are needed but what form these changes make. The key is to ensure you don't actually increase the risk of the same thing happening, or only decrease the risk by driving the best US banks overseas. If you do that, you undercut TP 1; it'll create job loss.

"let's stop sending all of America's money to countries that don't like us, and kick the foreign oil habit!"

Agreed. But rather than spending it all on a bunch of technologies that have been proven to be far less effective (apart from hydrogen and nuclear, both of which are unpopular with the left), the real way to stop dependency on foreign oil is to drill for more oil domestically. But the left constantly deride attempts to drill for more oil.

The prison at "Gitmo" is seen around the world as a Bush-era legacy which harms America's image.

Not in the eyes of this Brit. Of course I'm in the minority but then I've always said this country's going to hell in a handbasket. It's full of the offspring of people too stupid to use a condom at 14. Do their opinions count for anything? :-P

So the law Bush signed will "raise taxes."

That's untrue. You yourself talk of keeping the middle-class tax cuts (which I'm in favour of), so it's not the law Bush signed that's going to raise taxes, but Democratic inaction on the issue which would allow those to expire.

RE: Proposed changes to comments

Avatars: No animated gifs please. Static avatars are OK, with file size limits.

Paged comments: Again, not really a fan. The only way that saves any "load" time is if you never bother loading the later pages, but if you do, the time is equivalent, and in my experience can actually take longer.

Reverse the order: I find that much harder to read, because you have to scroll to the bottom to get any sort of "thread" to the discussion.

Reply and threaded: My mammoth "essay" posts (like this one) are often responses to multiple comments as well as the article itself, so "reply to" is something I'd support. I don't like the idea of "indenting", though (for the reasons the others have given, things becoming too small etc).

I'd love "in-line" replying (your comment appears below the comment you reply to rather than at the bottom of all the comments) if that's at all possible.

Numbered comments and comment permalinks both get my vote.

Bottom line ... as long as you don’t institute a word limit, I’ll be happy!

Are you sure? Have you seen some of my comments? :-P

Of course, an edit function would be nice, too. :(

Yes, yes, a million times yes. I've posted a reply to the wrong post (thanks to tabs in my browser), I've double-posted (thanks to technical glitches) and I'm a repeat offender when it comes to typos. I've taken to using a text editor to proof read my comments before I post them, so I'd love an "edit" option.

I have yet to see ANY evidence that shows or even indicates that Gitmo has produced ONE single terrorist that would not have become a terrorist otherwise.

And, regardless of all THAT, is the "world" going to be any better disposed towards "Gitmo West" in Illinois???

Of course not...

It all comes down to a useless exercise of political masturbation. Sure, it's fun for a while, but it accomplishes absolutely nothing but making a mess...

Michale....

like it or not, one of the things we need in order to accomplish foreign policy objectives is good international public relations. regardless of whether or not it seems logical, closing the prison facility at guantanamo is a potential source of positive PR, which may be needed to gain all sorts of cooperation from various countries.

Can I ask a question??

I know, I know.. I just did.. :D

But seriously...

Why close Gitmo just to create ANOTHER Gitmo stateside??

If yer gonna have a prison to house terrorists, some of which will likely never be tried and never be released, where is the logic in bringing them to the US where they will do the most harm??

In other words, the ONLY logical course of action, if we're going to have a Gitmo, is to have it AT GITMO...

Michale.....

Edit and/or Preview functions would be nicer..

Not a real fan of threaded comments..

Michale.....

below are my responses to specifics:

avatars i wouldn't mind, as long as there's a strict limit on memory usage and file type, to avoid page load issues.

numbers and permalinks actually would be nice. both can be done very simply.

forward or backward order doesn't really matter, though sites are cool where you can choose to view in either direction.

threaded comments can get annoyingly tiny after a few replies, while paged comments make it annoying to refer to posts that are off the "page." so those both get a negative from me. a "reply" feature can be good when it quotes the original without creating a thread.

one thing i like that wasn't mentioned is a "cut" script for long posts, so you can click between the full post and the first five to ten lines, without having to re-load the whole page.

jmho,
~joshua

I like the simplicity of the way you have things set up now. I like the alternating colours, too. It’s easy to carry on a conversation without any distractions ... like avatars or numbers beside the comments. But, I do like that the comments are in chronological order - easy to follow the conversation ... and it makes it easy to continue and follow the conversation if we all address our comments - kind of like a letter format. Most of us do that now and I think it works great.

Reply mode might be nice but then we’ll probably often get beyond a few replies and that can run out of space very fast and then we just have to start again with a ‘new’ comment to continue the friendly argument at Bidenitum, so to speak. :)

I wouldn’t mind if you added a real smiley face, or two ... as long as we use them sparingly. :D

Bottom line ... as long as you don’t institute a word limit, I’ll be happy!

Oh, I just thought of something else ... it might be nice to preview a comment before you submit it ... nice, but not essential.

I'll do my best. I may run into layout problems if I try to indent them (to show "children" comments and "parent" comments more clearly). But I'll at least give it a shot.

Anyone else?

-CW

That would be great if you can manage it.

Hi. This has nothing to do with the article, just FYI.

I am looking into improving the comment code sometime soon. Mostly, to get rid of the trackbacks and pingbacks (weird comments you may have seen with links to other places displaying the articles).

But, I discovered that WordPress has updated the functionality. So I thought I'd run a few things by you folks (especially the ones who comment on lots of different blogs, and know what they like and don't like).

Currently, the comments here are displayed pretty simply. They alternate colors, but that's about it. So, here are some added features I'm considering (some of these may prove to be too much work, programmatically, I warn you in advance). So, what would you like to see here in the future?

Possibilities:

Avatars (those mini pictures some blogs use) to identify yourselves with. I'm leaning against these, because it can take awhile to load all the pictures if the comments grow long.

Paged comments (set number of comments per page, so you don't have to load a giant list).

Reverse the order -- newer comments appear at the top, instead of the bottom.

Reply and threaded comments -- this way, if you reply to a comment, it appears below that comment instead of somewhere way down the list. This one, I warn, may be too hard to tackle right now, although I know it is nice to have. I'll take a look at it, but that's all I can promise.

Numbered comments (does it do this already? I forget, probably not). Just a number on each comment, for easy reference.

Comment permalinks. This way you can link to an individual comment, if discussing it elsewhere. You get a link to the comment itself, instead of just the article's link. This one may also be a hassle, not sure.

Anyway, that's about it for now. Oh, I could get rid of the alternating colors, too, I guess, since it looks like I'm going to have to rewrite the entire chunk of comment code. I kind of like the colors, as it separates the comments, but I could get rid of it pretty easily.

Let me know your thoughts. Or any other comment ideas, suggestions, or bugaboos you may have to offer.

Thanks.

-CW

--- WE NOW RETURN YOU TO YOUR REGULAR COMMENTS ---

It's actually perfectly in keeping with the Democrats' approach on this so far.

From day one they have refused to "stand by" their legislation, first trying to claim the bill is "bipartisan" because it has Republican ideas (watered down beyond recognition, of course), then claiming that even using reconciliation to pass it wouldn't stop the bill being "bipartisan", and now they want to be able to claim they voted for a "rule" not a "bill". Plausible deniability.

To me it seems like they want to have their cake and eat it too. If HCR passes and is a success, it'll be lauded as a great Democratic achievement, but were it to fail (as I suspect it will) they want to blame the Republicans for passing a bad bill. They want to have it both ways, proving they're too weak to lead.

Isn't anyone seeing red (no pun intended) over the fact that the House Democrat leadership will try and "deem" the Senate CrapCare as passed, because they don't have the votes to actually PASS it for real??

Imagine the outcry from the Left if Republicans had the majority and they "deem" that Patriot Act Severe will pass, even though there isn't any votes to pass it..

Hell, why not do away with voting all together?? Since the majority party can "deem" any legislation they want as passed, it makes no sense to even HAVE a vote, right??

What is it about Democrats?? Is CrapCare SOOO important that they are willing to destroy the democratic process to get a law that 4 out of 5 Americans do NOT want??

And, imagine the precedence that Dems will be setting.. When the GOP returns to Majority status, what's to stop THEM from "deeming" legislation as passed??

Michale.....

Wouldn't be the first time ;-)

But reconciliation bills don't have to "change" another already-passed bill (although that is the case for HCR currently), they just have to deal directly with the budget.

Oh, I know. What I meant was that aspects of the American Clean Energy And Security Act wouldn't fall under the remit of reconciliation. Such as:

1) Requiring electric utilities to meet 20% of their demand through renewable energy sources.
2) Protections against energy price increases.
3) Targets for reductions in emissions.

None of those impact federal spending or debt, so they wouldn't be suitable for reconciliation. My understanding is that comprehensive reform falls foul of the Byrd Rule. Those provisions would have be enacted the usual way. So whilst Boxer could get the subsidy portions of the act through reconciliation, the substantive aspects would have to be passed by a recalcitrant Senate.

(Actually, Kent Conrad, Senate Budget Chairman, agrees with me, and said that if Cap and Trade were passed through reconciliation you'd have a bill that looked like "Swiss cheese".)

When Dems passed their 2009 outline bill, they included a few things for possible reconciliation -- HCR was one, and (from what you say) cap and trade might have been another.

WaPo confirms that the budget outline that passed didn't authorise the use of reconciliation for cap and trade:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/29/AR2009042901033.html

we follow the much more sedate Robert's Rules Of Order in our legislative branch rather than let everyone scream at each other like kindergarten children... heh... couldn't resist that one...

Fair enough. They do act like kindergarten children. Personally I find it adds to the enjoyment of the occasion, and it's precisely why I'd venture that our PM Question Time gets more viewership compared to anything on C-span at the same sort of time (12 noon). Many visitors love watching PMQs.

(Our normal debates actually tend to be much more sedate than PMQs).

I saw some footage from the Senate the other day and it was like watching paint dry. Call me old fashioned but I like my politicians to be passionate.

Michale: Like you I think the Democrats are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they don't pass healthcare reform the same old "the Democrats can't govern effectively" arguments come home to roost.

If they do, it could be a disaster of epic proportions. The CBO projects that the spending under the Senate bill will only outstrip the cuts elsewhere by the year 2016. In other words, pay now, "benefit" later. People will see the cuts before they see any increase in spending. That'll hurt in November.

Heh. I've noticed that trend a lot more amongst Democrats than Republicans. Many Republicans across the spectrum consider themselves Republicans first, and their individual "leanings" come second. I would say I consider myself the same way.

I respected McCain up until his 2008 campaign.

The problem with campaigns is that sometimes the errors come from those who run the campaign rather than the politicians. For example, John McCain wanted Lieberman as his running mate, but his campaign knew they'd have a fight on their hands if they went down that road and eventually backed down. Is that McCain's fault or Schmidt's?

Then there's a lot of stuff said about the "hate" in the campaign. Which is at odds with some of McCain's public appearances, where he was quick to point out that Obama is not a terrorist, or an evil man, but a man who wanted to do what was right for America.

McCain was quick to point out that whilst he himself disagreed with Obama's vision, the man was not out to destroy the country. He said that his intentions were good.

There's a big difference between saying someone is dangerous because you believe their policies are dangerous for the country and saying someone actually wants to destroy the country. I never felt McCain's campaign crossed that line.

Of course you may have a different view, and that's fine; the line is a blurry one.

To say nothing of the primary battle he's waging right now, where he's really really trying to prove he's a right-winger in a desperate bid to keep his seat.

Which is really no different to any other politician. Obama himself was guilty of switching positions several times during his Presidential campaign.

If you believe that what you will do in office will benefit the country, sometimes you have to realise that the electorate may not know what's in its best interests. Sounds dangerous, until you ask how many people would choose to pay taxes if it were left up to them. Yet we all know that some level of taxation is necessary, and is actually in the best interests of the taxpayers themselves.

Electioneering is a necessary evil. It ensures that the electorate chooses people who are willing to make the tough decision and do what may prove unpopular.

Can't speak for everyone else but I don't see any need for you to apologise for putting your life ahead of a blog. It would be wrong to expect anything else.

Perhaps disingenuous of me, but not exactly irrelevant, since at least the GOP was willing to commit to a time period (any time period), whereas Dems were being coy.

Well now that you've cleared that up a bit for me, I can see your point, and it definitely is relevant. It hadn't occurred to me that specifying a time period would have the effect of "goading" for a permanent move; excellent point.

you're relatively new here so you may not believe me up top there, but "reality-based" is what I promise, and what I try to deliver.

Oh, I believe you. Like I've said before, this is the first blog that's ever made me question if I'm right of centre or left of centre (since I'm economically on the right, but socially on the left). I was just joshing with you ;-)

He defines the two as "bias means if I can find a legal reason to rule for you, I will," as compared to "prejudice means I will rule for you no matter what." Call me biased if you will, but I tend not to prejudge things in politics, rather calling them as I see them.

Interesting distinction. Like you, I'd consider myself biased but not really prejudiced, and when the Democrats are right, I've been honest enough to say so.

McCain's anti-earmark thing was a gimmick in the election. But I do have to agree with him that the practice is odious. I can believe both things simultaneously, and don't see an inherent contradiction -- perhaps showing my bias.

I can definitely recognise that. I've said the same about many Democrat policies that I think were designed to win votes. McCain was clearly using the anti-earmark thing to attempt to undercut Obama's "change" stance.

McCain is in an ugly situation right now, as he is facing the first serious primary challenger in a long time, who is challenging him from the right. Because of this, he has tacked severely right over the last six months or so.

Can you blame him? Obama shifted several times during the Presidential campaign. In fact, I even had an Obama campaigner convince me that his "leftist" stance was just to get elected and he'd move to the centre once he was President. I bought it too! Obviously that was a load of hooey, but it worked; Obama got elected. McCain's just doing the same.

it is beyond my ken what Republicans will change their minds on in this political season.

They're doing what any minority party does; positioning themselves for the election in November. They have to win back some seats to be an effective opposition. Anti-earmarks is a great election platform for the GOP. After all, it worked for them in 1994 ;-)

Interesting how Republicans want to extend the ban to non-profits in the midst of a recession.

Surely for-profits do more good in a recession than non-profits? I've never been a fan of the "give a man a fish" approach; the "teach him how to fish" approach is much better.

a lot of important community development projects in there.

I've yet to see "community development" that helps communities more than it hurts them. Tends to be middle-class guilt syndrome in full effect.

Because, ultimately, it's the American people who are the winners.

If they follow through, yes. Otherwise, it's all been for show.

Because, ultimately, it's the American people who are the winners.

Michale.....

Touche' :D Fair enough..

But I am the original Alfred E Neumann in this case.. :D

Because, as I have pointed out ad nasuem, either way CrapCare turns out, it will mean hell for Democrats in the mid-terms..

I used to think that it would be a lot worse for Dems if CrapCare failed and Dems didn't get anything done. But I am actually coming around to the perspective that it will be much worse for Dems if CrapCare passes the House. Because then it will force Dems to either put up or shut up when it comes to reconciliation.

By passing CrapCare that the vast majority of Americans do NOT want, Democrats will prove that they are out of touch with Joe Q Public and this will all but assure GOP majorities in the mid-terms.

two points: (1) only the Senate is bound to follow the Senate Parliamentarian's rulings, meaning the House (who has their own Parliamentarian) is free to do whatever they feel like, and

True..

However, what the House does in this case affects the Senate procedures. The Senate Parliamentarian has stated that the Senate can't create the side car legislation unless the original legislation is signed into law.

Therefore, it doesn't matter if the House "deems" the original legislation passed. The Senate still won't be able to create the side car legislation unless Obama signs the original bill into law. And, if Obama signs the original bill into law, the House loses it's leverage for forcing the Senate to act. It will also negate the "cover" that the House leadership wanted to give struggling Democrats by using this trick.

(2) the President of the Senate, VP Biden, is free to make his own rulings on points of order and rules, and is totally free to ignore the parliamentarian whenever he feels like it.

True, but that would ALSO be a political win for the GOP as it would provide more proof of how Democrats are willing to bend and break the rules to force passing of legislation that the American people are against, 4 to 1.

But I am curious as to what ya'all feel about this?

And yes, I'll take your bet -- 1,000 quatloos on the Senate bill passing the House. And another 1,000 that says the reconciliation sidecar bill (no matter what it eventually contains) will go through both houses.

Woot!!! I might actually win some quatloos this year!! :D

Now that the Dem leadership in the House as told anti-abortion Democrats to go frak themselves, I think I just might have an extra 2K quatloos within the next week or so.. :D

Michale.....

And thank you for your service, by the way.

-CW

While I have to admire your diligence in digging out the "endgame" quotes, I have to admit I've lost count of the times you've pronounced HCR deader than a doornail. Methinks I smell a tinge of worry wafting from your direction... heh.

Moderate -

I think you're misunderstanding reconciliation. Granted, it's easy to do, because where else in the Universe than Washington is a word whose normal definition is "a coming together" used as a blunt partisan weapon to drive parties apart? But reconciliation bills don't have to "change" another already-passed bill (although that is the case for HCR currently), they just have to deal directly with the budget. And the "budget" is actually a process. This process starts with a "budget outline" bill at the beginning of the legislative year, and then is followed by around a dozen "appropriations" bills. The "reconciliation" is with the original budget outline, which sets dollar-amount targets, but does not give details, which are done in the appropriations bills. When Dems passed their 2009 outline bill, they included a few things for possible reconciliation -- HCR was one, and (from what you say) cap and trade might have been another. So Boxer could be right -- I'd check your facts. Search around late spring last year for the budget outline that passed, and the word "reconciliation." It did make the news, although briefly.

Michale -

As for what the Senate Parliamentarian rules (interestingly, for Moderate, we don't have a "parliament" but we do have a "parliamentarian" even though we follow the much more sedate Robert's Rules Of Order in our legislative branch rather than let everyone scream at each other like kindergarten children... heh... couldn't resist that one...), two points: (1) only the Senate is bound to follow the Senate Parliamentarian's rulings, meaning the House (who has their own Parliamentarian) is free to do whatever they feel like, and (2) the President of the Senate, VP Biden, is free to make his own rulings on points of order and rules, and is totally free to ignore the parliamentarian whenever he feels like it. None of it rises to "Constitutional" in any way shape or form, as the Constitution itself is silent on Senate procedure, other than to say that the Senate can decide for itself what procedures to use.

And yes, I'll take your bet -- 1,000 quatloos on the Senate bill passing the House. And another 1,000 that says the reconciliation sidecar bill (no matter what it eventually contains) will go through both houses. But I'm not stupid enough (after the past year) to bet on WHEN either of these takes place! Could be the next week or so... could be longer than that... heh. The deadline is next January, when a new Congress is sworn in, as bills have to be reintroduced at that point, and start all over.

-CW

While this does violate de mortuis nil nisi bonum, Jack Murtha was indeed a champion earmarker. So I'll let it pass this time...

Moderate -

I'd self-confess to being a lefty (I'm not, exactly, but it's close enough for government work, as they say) before I'd self-confess to being a Democrat. Heh.

I respected McCain up until his 2008 campaign. To say nothing of the primary battle he's waging right now, where he's really really trying to prove he's a right-winger in a desperate bid to keep his seat. But I do have to give him credit where he deserves it, just out of intellectual honesty.

Everyone else -

Sorry about the weird "pingback" notices being posted as comments, it's a bug I've got to fix....

-CW

OK, everyone, I've been busy with other things in my life for about the past week, so I apologize for being absent here in the comments for a while. And since tomorrow's Friday (always busy around here), it may be the weekend before I catch up on things. Sorry about that.

As for your point, M, it's not entirely clear exactly how long the Dems are extending their "ban" so I had to be a bit cagey about it. It started out as one year, but then kind-of sort-of moved to open-ended, but was never sold as "permanent" so I was a bit confused myself. The bit about the Republicans was to specify that they were actually being specific -- one year only -- in a weak attempt at goading both sides into raising the ante to "permanent" instead. Perhaps disingenuous of me, but not exactly irrelevant, since at least the GOP was willing to commit to a time period (any time period), whereas Dems were being coy.

As for McCain, and Republicans in general, you're relatively new here so you may not believe me up top there, but "reality-based" is what I promise, and what I try to deliver. I praise good ideas no matter where they originate, and condemn stupidity, irrespective of party. Or at least I attempt to.

There's a passage in a Frank Herbert book (not the Dune series, the Jorj X. McKie "sabateur" series) where he explains Gowachin law, where "bias" is allowable but "prejudice" is not. He defines the two as "bias means if I can find a legal reason to rule for you, I will," as compared to "prejudice means I will rule for you no matter what." Call me biased if you will, but I tend not to prejudge things in politics, rather calling them as I see them.

McCain's anti-earmark thing was a gimmick in the election. But I do have to agree with him that the practice is odious. I can believe both things simultaneously, and don't see an inherent contradiction -- perhaps showing my bias.

McCain is in an ugly situation right now, as he is facing the first serious primary challenger in a long time, who is challenging him from the right. Because of this, he has tacked severely right over the last six months or so. This is not to his credit, because almost everyone can see it's just another gimmick. But I have to give him credit on the earmark thing, as he came out in support of the Dems' action before the GOP made their move. Meaning his heart is actually in the right place, and he's not just scoring political points. So I give credit where credit is due.

As for the GOP's move being inevitable, you might think so, but at this point it is beyond my ken what Republicans will change their minds on in this political season. Which is why I felt it needed another look in today's column.

In the Senate, it's not so much getting votes as it is getting people to start making public pledges on the issue. We'll see....

-CW

All jokes aside, since 2008, Democrats, especially those who supported Obama, have generally considered McCain to be persona non grata.

Chris, your article yesterday was actually unclear on whether the Democrat ban was for a year or longer. First you wrote:

announced that for the upcoming budget, no earmarks will be allowed which are directed to a specific for-profit company. (emphasis added)

That seemed to suggest it was a one-year only ban. But then you wrote:

And it started out as only a one-year (coincidentally, also an "election-year") ban, so you'll have to forgive me if I take a wait-and-see approach to what actually happens in the future. (emphasis added)

Which seemed to suggest that it was initially a one year ban and the future was unclear, but certainly didn't suggest a Democrat commitment beyond this year. Unless I'm mistaken, then, the fact that the Republican proposal is "only specifically for "this year"" seems a little irrelevant when comparing the two.

The unwritten rule of decorum was "everybody does it,"

Sounds a lot like our MP's expenses scandal over here in the UK.

Back to the topic at hand, this announcement by the Republicans was about as surprising as the sun coming up this morning. It was the inevitable next step.

Like you, I'm not sure how much of this, from either party, will amount to much in the way of real reform. I'm still not sure I see there being a real desire to change much in the Senate; not as many of them are up for reelection as in the House.

McCain'll probably want reform, and Feingold too (they tend to have similar views on "cleaning up Washington" type reform), but are there 60 votes? I suspect not.

The Senate Parliamentarian has ruled that President Barack Obama must sign Congress’ original health care reform bill before the Senate can act on a companion reconciliation package
http://cdn.rollcall.com/media/44110-1.html?CMP=OTC-RSS

In other words...

Sorry Dems... You can't throw in unconstitutional procedures on a whim, simply because you can't keep your house in order...

I have to wonder what part of NO CRAPCARE does the Democratic Party not understand???

Michale.....

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/House-Democrats-looking-at-Slaughter-Solution-to-pass-Obamacare-without-a-vote-on-Senate-bill-87267402.html

As if the Democrats have convoluted and warped the "rules" of Congress, we now have a plan where the House has "deemed" it that the Senate Plan has passed, even without a vote!!

Get that?? House Democrats will "deem" that the Senate version of CrapCare has passed, but without an actual vote..

Can anyone say, "DESPERATION"???

Michale.....

Anyone wanna lay down some quatloos as to whether or not the House will pass the Senate's version of CrapCare As-Is?? :D

Pelosi doesn't have the votes and is unlikely to get them.

I lay down 1000 quatloos that CrapCare will not pass the House As-Is..

Michale.....

It's not evidence-based decision making.

It's decision-based evidence making.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/06/16/junk-science-week-terence-corcoran-decision-based-evidence-making.aspx

Michale.....

Yep, it was. The holding was that the first amendment didn't allow for damages to be awarded to public figures for hurt feelings. Such people must be:

intimately involved in the resolution of important public questions or, by reason of their fame, shape events in areas of concern to society at large

Don't see the families of fallen soldiers as qualifying under that.

If this case were only about Phelps' right to say dumbass things in public, then I suppose the appeals court made the right decision. But when I look at how the Phelps family tried to turn the Snyder family's funeral into a dog-and-pony show which really had nothing to do with that fallen soldier's life or death, I hope the fool gets pounded flat.

I wonder if Phelps is planning to argue that the suit Jerry Falwell lost against Larry Flynt will apply. When Flynt's magazine published an obnoxious cartoon about him, Falwell took him all the way to the Supreme Court, which threw his case out saying that his hurt feelings didn't trump the First Amendment. But I think this was contingent on the fact that Falwell was a public figure and should expect to be the target of satire--even stupid, adolescent satire. The Snyders were a totally innocent target, and should not be expected to put up with this.

Oh, yeah, one more thing. Just because Fred Phelps has a right to scratch his itches in public the media are under no obligation to enable him to display it.

As for Cap and Trade, I've been a Global Warming sceptic for a long time, if for no other reason than the insistence that "the debate was over". Thankfully Prof. Jones recently admitted (having been forced to) that this simply isn't true.

Science requires healthy scepticism. AGW cannot be considered legitimate until healthy scepticism is not only allowed, but encouraged. Until then, it's bunkum.
At best the science is ambiguous and unclear, at worst it's a policy-driven con.

And that, in a nutshell, is why I love this blog. That may be the first time I have read a self-confessed lefty Democrat come out and give McCain credit. Which is made all the more surprising when one considers that McCain is considered by many right-wing Republicans to be a RINO.

Personally I've always admired McCain's general political position as he seems a man who's always voted on what he believes in rather than the party line. I may not always agree with him, but that doesn't stop me respecting the man.

Apologies if that sounds disrespectful of the dead, but I call 'em as I see 'em..

Michale.....

The science behind it is, at best, a joke and, at worst a con/fraud..

But you are dead on ballz accurate.. The US Senate can't pass any "side car" legislation without the main legislation being signed into law first.

Hence, the reason why CrapCare will die.

House Democrats do not trust Senate Democrats. And Senate Democrats will have no reason to pass any sidecar legislation, once the House approves CrapCare..

God, I love politics!! :D

Michale.....

With healthcare the Senate bill deals with the substantive aspects of healthcare reform, and if the House passes it and it's signed by Obama, it's validly passed law. Reconciliation can then be used to pass a sidecar bill that relates solely to aspects that impact on the federal budget; no policy amendments are allowed.

'END' OF THE 'END GAME' OR 'THE END'?

November 23: The Health Care Endgame (NPR)

How many "end games" must Dems have before they realize that CrapCare is simply NOT a good idea??

Michale.....

Simply because the House has to pass the Senate Bill AS IS before the Senate can even take up the reconciliation "trick"...

Pelosi doesn't have the votes, nor is she likely to get them by the White House imposed deadline.

If the House misses the Easter deadline, that will be all she wrote.

The fat lady will have sung.

Elvis will have left the building.

Michale.....

In general, the best way to expose bigots like that is to let them talk. It's better to let these idiots say what they say, because they actually show just how screwed up, batshit insane and utterly stupid they are.

It reminds of a similar issue over the BNP leader appearing on the BBC's Question Time show. Griffin actually gained support as a result, because the show was clearly stacked against him. He looked like a martyr, which gave a racist party more credibility.

a small caged-in public area to protest to his heart's content

Does America have places like Speaker's Corner? (It's not caged...but still...)

It was a bad decision

It was arguably one of the worst decisions in SCOTUS history. If those pamphlets weren't covered by the First Amendment then nothing is. The founders intended that the people have a right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances". Schenck was petitioning the people rather than the Government, but to quote Lincoln, Government is meant to be "government of the people, by the people". It was a massive injustice.

Back to Phelps, I wholeheartedly respect soldiers. Whenever I'm aware that someone has served, or has had a close family member serve, I make it a point to thank them for the sacrifices they've made for me and my family. American troops too (while I'm on the subject, thanks Scott. I really do appreciate you guys doing things I admit I'm nowhere near brave enough to do myself. You do your country, and her allies, proud).

Yet if people want to say hateful things about them, they have the right to do so, and it's those very rights that those brave men and women fight to uphold. If I understand Scott's point (I apologise if I misunderstood) that's it; they fight for freedom, including free speech.

Having said all that, however, I still believe that limits can be set on Phelps' conduct, without undermining the constitution. All rights under the constitution are given equal importance; where two or more conflicting rights are involved, the courts weigh them up.

If the right to privacy exists (I've contended it doesn't, but the SCOTUS has long said it does, so that's the law) and covers things like the right to contraception or an abortion, it sure as hell has to cover the right for a peaceful funeral. That's how bans on protests near funeral sites, such as the RFAFH Act, I think, are constitutional.

Germany's laws on Nazi symbols, for instance).

German laws on Nazi symbols are in large part due to wanting to atone for a dark period in their history, and one I think some Germans still feel guilt over. I once had an Austrian lecturer at University whose office overlooked a Jewish cemetery, and we noticed, my Jewish friend and I, that she was overwhelmingly lenient to him in class!

Yes, I know Austria isn't Germany, but the same logic applies (Hitler was Austrian after all).

Abortion clinics have such protections against protest. Even voting sites have a buffer zone around them, inside which no political speech is allowed.

I think both of those back up my earlier point that when you're balancing two rights you can restrict free speech. In the first it's the right to abortion (covered by the same right to privacy I'd argue extends to funerals), in the second I'd say it's probably to do with the implicit (but not explicit) right to fair elections.

But having said all of that, the case before the Supreme Court isn't really about Phelps' right to his speech. It's about whether someone can sue him for damages.

I believe they can, and there's long established law saying that just because you have the right to say something, doesn't mean you're free from all responsibility for your words. As with all rights, with rights come responsibilities, and one of those is to pay for damage you cause through exercise of your legal rights.

Michale: Well said, and that precisely is why I'm an agnostic. I've got no problem with people who are religious, but I think organised religion has a history of breeding hate of one's fellow man. It's not just Islam; the Crusades, pogroms, the many Inquisitions...

Doing that, however, compromises both national security, contract law, individual privacy and justice to name just a few of the unintended consequences.

So courts are forced to carve out "exceptions" which undermine the rule of law.

I think there's a way to rationalise those exceptions that I don't think means that the rule of law has been undermined. Not only is every single right subject to limitations (the right to bear arms doesn't allow one to shoot people without just cause, for example), but every right must be balanced against other rights.

National security is designed to protect the right to life. Freedom of contract is covered by Lochner v New York, privacy by several cases, most notably Griswold v Connecticut, and I'd say that "due process" covers exceptions in the interests of justice.

That though we'd prefer written laws that are the same for everyone and everyone understands it simply is not possible to write laws that cover every situation and are fair and just.

You're spot on. Even though I do think that this is where we rely on courts, on judges providing a "human judgement" to ensure the law is fair and just (by interpreting it, taking into account all circumstances), I also agree with you that blindly trusting the courts is a bad idea.

The second amendment is intended to provide for a means for "the people" to fight against unjust laws and tyranny, even by (especially by?) the courts.

But "the law" while informing our decisions is not and never has been unconditionally binding.

The founders themselves were revolutionaries who fought the law because they believed the law to be unjust. Why would they give birth to a country which didn't allow its citizens the same right? The short answer is, they didn't.

Our inability to write perfect omniscient laws is not a reason to abandon law but a reason to employ judges—and to make judgments not blindly follow the law (which we never do but refuse to admit.

Despite possible appearances to the contrary, I'm not a "follow the law blindly" kind of guy. I have always believed in questioning authority, political, legal or otherwise.

persecute others, and disrupt their religious practices.

I hadn't thought of the funeral as a religious practice, but you're right. That only serves to weaken Phelps' case further; the same first amendment he seeks to rely on protects the free exercise of religion too. The right to free exercise was clearly of equal importance to the founders as the right to free speech.

The ability of people to "interpret" "white" to mean "black" is why we have both laws and judges, and can fully rely on neither.

The problem with law is that words are always open to interpretation. George Bernard Shaw once famously said:

England and America are two countries separated by a common language.

You say "fanny" referring to your backside and to me it means a lady's genitals. I say the word "bum" to mean my derriere, but to you that's "homeless guy". If I said "I'm going outside to smoke a fag", you might think I'm going to go electrocute a gay guy ;-) .

The intent was to protect political speech vital to a functioning democracy but since political speech can encompass nearly any topic the only way to protect it is to protect all speech. Doing that, however, compromises both national security, contract law, individual privacy and justice to name just a few of the unintended consequences.

So courts are forced to carve out "exceptions" which undermine the rule of law. Since the whole point of having the constitution is to limit the scope and power of the federal government its useless if the federal government can simply ignore it whenever it gets in the way of governmental objectives—but that's precisely what we've always done because the actual literal law is absurd.

State secrets must be kept, confidentiality agreements enforced, threats of violence and treason must be prosecuted, those disrupting the speech of others must be restrained... And yet by the letter of the law under the first amendment these very necessary and vital functions are illegal.

I've said before that I'm not a strict textualist and the first amendment is one reason. I support it. I believe in it. There's no better way to word it and it absolutely needs to be the law. But, if the objective of free speech is to be achieved then speech must be regulated, abuses curtailed and, if necessary, punished. All of which are in violation of the first amendment. I simply believe we have judges in recognition of the fact that on occasion human judgments are required.

That though we'd prefer written laws that are the same for everyone and everyone understands it simply is not possible to write laws that cover every situation and are fair and just. That even though we recognize that power corrupts and government cannot be trusted we still prefer to pretend the law protects us, it doesn't. The only way to safeguard democracy and freedom is through vigilance and, when necessary, action. there is no easier way.

The founders established the beginnings of a justice system which we've allowed to deteriorate into a quasi-legal system. Our judges, our legislators all hide behind "the law." But "the law" while informing our decisions is not and never has been unconditionally binding. The constitution is not a suicide pact. Our inability to write perfect omniscient laws is not a reason to abandon law but a reason to employ judges—and to make judgments not blindly follow the law (which we never do but refuse to admit.)

Phelps abuses free speech to assault others, slander others, persecute others, and disrupt their religious practices. To protect Phelps on first amendment grounds doesn't strengthen the bill of rights it weakens it. It doesn't prevent government regulation and suppression of speech it imposes it.

The appeals court sees nothing wrong with judges summarily convicting and incarcerating belligerents for "contempt of court" when they disrupt court proceedings but its unconstitutional to prevent disruption of a funeral? So the first amendment doesn't prevent the government from regulating speech which offends the government, it protects abusive persecutors from their victims seeking justice as it was clearly intended?!

The ability of people to "interpret" "white" to mean "black" is why we have both laws and judges, and can fully rely on neither.

"I can't trust a man who uses the word 'evil'
eighteen times in 10 minutes. If you're half evil, nothing soothes you more than to think the person opposed to you is totally evil."
(Norman Mailer)

"Every man thinks God is on his side. The rich and powerful know he is." (Jean Anouilh)

Your remark reminded me, most, however, of:

"Good People do not need laws to tell them how to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the law."
(Plato)
thanks, Michale

You can find justification for any deed, no matter how heinous or despicable in the texts and tenets of all organized religions...

Seems to me that, if there is a god and if he/she/it is how people make he/she/it out to be, he/she/it wouldn't "hate" anyone.

Michale....

Fantastic article. As an active duty service member, I am sickened when I see Phelps and his group thrill in the death of service member and his grieving family. But any disdain I feel for what they do or say is tempered by the importance of their protection under the first ammendment. When Phelps is gone from this earth, and his "church" has long since disbanded, the constitution will remain. That's what we really need to protect. Thanks again.

Respectfully,

IT1(SW) Scott W. Knapper

He was in the same league as Thomas Paine who knew that "Common Sense" meant the "sense of the Commmons" where ALL ideas could be freely thrown at the Prime Minister in raucous debate . . out of which the wisest decisions would be those made by governing bodies that had had to consider all options, not just those of one . . .or two. . . parties in power ... (and unlike our governing Houses where virtually no one has to worry about being re-elected).

Just as the opposite of capitalism is not so much socialistic dictatorship as oligopolies where power and wealth (profits) are concentrated in an elite few, so the danger to free speech is not so much a noisy, malicious (even evil) Fred Phelps, but well-intentioned tinkering and elaborating our rules so that no one can speak freely, without having to [double]think whether some rule or other is being violated and there's a risk to be weighed every day in every thing everyone says.

Orwell understood that the way to kill free speech was to drape it in burdensome regulations smother it in bureaucratic legal enforcement and permeating every town, every funeral, every meeting
with people looking over their shoulders to see if "someone" was watching them.

Having said which, I have to admit I admire the candor & subtlety of Chris' last paragraph. The distinction there does have a pragmatic appeal.

-- Hawkowl

Democrats are frantic to try and find something as earth-shattering and meaningful as a Republican winning in the bluest of blue states...

Sadly, Grayson winning a Republican district in Florida isn't even on the same planet. :D

Michale.....

Looks like there is more to this story than another Dem critter in a scandal..

Eric Massa: Democrats ousted me over health care

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34051.html

Heh, sorry, got a little carried away there.

Not at all..

With apologies to David (re: what he said in a previous commentary) this (and politics in genera;) *IS* a Right vs Left issue..

It would be nice if it wasn't but it is.

Somewhere out there, there is a Right-Wing version of CW, posting the same kinds of (mostly) logical and rational political commentaries.

Each faction has their good points and bad points..

That is why being an independent is so much fun. I can point to the good points and ridicule the bad points.. :D

Michale.....

Michale.....

Such a poll is utterly pointless but Democrats are desperate for good news.

Secondly, there were 13 Republicans to one Democrat. The hardline GOP vote was split. According to my maths 14.5% stated a preference for a specific GOP candidate. On top of this, the undecided vote (57.7%) is likely to be undecided amongst Republican candidates.

Thirdly, in the current climate voters are voting for candidates rather than parties, adopting a "wait and see" approach. This only increases the importance of name recognition. It's precisely for that reason that I won't say that all of the undecided voters would vote Republican, though I think the assumption that most would remains valid.

The new candidate in the race is a lot more acceptable to Progressives, and seems to have a decent chance in the primary, from all accounts.

He has a fractionally better chance to win the general election than Lincoln (unless Hendren is the GOP candidate. Halter polls worse against Hendren than Lincoln). It's still about 70% likely that Arkansas is changing hands, though.

Reid may be the MIDOTW in your eyes, but I'd say that many people blame Reid for the delay more than Bunning. On both sides of the aisle people are claiming that Reid was playing politics too. Daily Kos, for example, blamed Reid for not pulling an all-nighter. They hammered Bunning too, but you'd expect nothing less from a hardline left-wing blog.

Then there are those who criticise him for not discussing the issue sooner. Everyone knew full well when the benefits were going to run out, why leave it so late? One can only conclude that Reid wanted to stifle debate by forcing the issue through so close that any Senator who objected could be vilified, as Bunning was. It was Reid who scrapped the bipartisan jobs bill which included an extension of benefits, and then proceeded to create another bill without them.

So Reid tried to appear fiscally responsible to Nevada voters whilst berating Bunning for actually being fiscally responsible. After his jobs bill, Reid moved onto a tourism bill. This bill's main beneficiary was Nevada.

Meanwhile others have blamed Reid for not even considering using unspent Stimulus money to fund it. Bunning asked to use Stimulus money, Reid said no, Bunning asked for debate. This shows the Democrats up as the real "Party of No", insisting on their way or the high way. Just as they have done on healthcare reform.

It was Reid who blocked unemployment benefits, not Bunning, and it was Bunning who climbed down from his ideological high horse to help the unemployed. Reid could have forced cloture, so that the benefits were extended by Wednesday, but didn't. He could have kept the Senate in session over the weekend, so they could have been extended by Monday. He didn't. Where exactly is Reid's "win" here?

Bunning was insisting that Democrats honour the PayGo commitments that they made, that Obama signed into law. The unspent stimulus money has already been approved. Far from Bunning providing a good case study for Republican obstructionism, I'd argue Republicans should use this as an example of Democrats failing to keep their promises. Here's a quote from the man himself to make the point:

“If we can’t find $10 billion dollars to pay for something that all 100 senators support, we will never pay for anything.” (emphasis added)

Besides, whilst it would be a politically unpopular argument to make, extending benefits keeps people unemployed longer. Before the stimulus the median duration of unemployment was around 10 weeks. Half of those who were part of the jobless figures one month were employed again within three months.

Since the stimulus extended unemployment benefits, the median duration of unemployment reached 18.7 weeks, nearly double. Worse yet, since it now takes closer to five months to find work, people take jobs for which they're overqualified and underemployment goes up.

The very fact that we're even pointing this out is a mess for the Democrats, because it feeds into the "we can't govern" image of Democrats that Republicans are sharpening up for the fall campaign.

I always said this was going to be where the real battle would be fought.

Stupak's award will be known as the "Joe Lieberman Of The House" award for his actions on the health reform bill.

I'd actually like to give birth to a "Most Impressive Republican Of The Week" award and give it to Stupak. ;-)

raising his middle finger to an ABC news team

And that, in a nutshell, is why Bunning screwed up framing the issue. His attitude and demeanour did no favours to what I still believe to be a damn strong case.

finally strong-armed Bunning into capitulation. The whole thing, politically, was a win for Democrats (and Harry Reid) and a loss for Republicans (and Bunning).

I'm not sure it was a win for the Democrats. Reid looked weak, he could have forced it through, but instead it took Republicans to be strong to get things done. It was a clear win for the Republicans, who once again showed that the Democrats can't govern, and that only Republicans have the backbone to run the country.

Democrats need to use Bunning as the poster child for Republican obstructionism, pretty much every chance they can get.

Except a) he backed down (thanks to the Republicans, not Democrats) and b) he offered constructive criticism and an alternative solution. He did nothing more than hold Democrats to their own promises. That's not obstructionism, it's opposition, and that's precisely what the loyal opposition are supposed to do.

"Jim Bunning proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Republicans truly are the 'Party of No' when he singlehandedly held up a bill that provided much-needed relief for thousands of unemployed Americans merely to score a political point.

Except many people recognise it was Reid who stopped the bill (by not using all the tools at his disposal) to try and score a political point with this "Party of No" rubbish.

Republicans consistently put politics above actual governing, and this is just the most recent example. Voters in November will be faced with the 'Party of No' versus the 'Party of Let's Get Something Done For America.'

Reid was the one putting politics above governing. The Democrats are the "Party of Let's Try And Get Something Done But Not Even Be Able To Get Our Own Party To Vote For Our Bills" when it comes to healthcare. ;-)

Judging from what they put in the actual document, the Founders would be appalled at the idea that every major bill should need the votes of three-fifths of the Senate to pass.

I'd say the same would apply to judicial appointments, yet Democrats had no problem requiring every single judicial nominee to receive the votes of three-fifth of the Senate. As we said last week, plenty of hypocrisy to go around here.

The underlying "principle" here seems to be that it's fine to pass tax cuts for the wealthy on narrow votes but an outrage to use reconciliation to help middle-income and poor people get health insurance.

That, I have to concede, is a damn fine point. There's little difference substantively in what the Democrats are ostensibly using reconciliation for (to lower the costs of the Senate bill) and the Bush's tax cuts (intended to stimulate further growth in the economy).

So the Republicans can either vote with us to remove these deals, or they can vote for the Cornhusker Kickback to stay in the bill. They can't have it both ways.

That'd be true if the sidecar only takes out the special interest deals, but should it include other things, like a public option, then that framing won't work. The Republicans will simply say that the Democrats are trying to push through their original agenda by masking it under the guise of getting rid of special interests.

Of course if a public option is passed and happens to be cheaper (because it has no need to turn a profit), estimates suggest that 70% of employer-based plans are likely to switch to the public option. Meaning employees happy with their old plan couldn't keep it, as a result (albeit indirect) of the healthcare reforms as proposed.

I understand that there isn't a public option in the current senate bill, but it is clearly one of the issues Democrats want to use reconciliation for, so it's worth asking if the President is publicly declaring his opposition to the public option. I somehow doubt that, which renders his statement at best misleading, and at worst an outright lie.

Ironically enough, it's an example of the same sort of demagoguery and political gamesmanship that he himself criticises later in his speech. Once a hypocrite...

(Remember what he said about majority rule in 2005?)

Secondly, the idea that exchanges are necessary to provide the same choice over healthcare insurance as members of Congress get is bogus. Open up the interstate trade of insurance and you end up with precisely the same thing; larger risk pools. That's why exchanges work at all. More customers = a larger risk pool. So basically Democrats have chosen a complex and expensive route rather than a cheaper and much simpler one to achieve the same goal. That's government waste.

Thirdly, the fee on insurance companies, due to the increased profits they'll get under the mandates, means it's a stealth tax. You pay your mandatory insurance premium, they then pay the government a higher level of tax. That's stealth tax.

Essentially you're paying higher taxes under the guise of paying your premiums.

As for whether the proposal is paid for, that all depends on how much of the House bills end up making it through reconciliation. The Senate bill will reduce the deficit, but the two House bills combined will actually increase it. That's from the CBO's figures, and Obama himself positions them as the independent fact-checkers.

Obama's right that taxpayers currently end up subsidising the uninsured. However the mandate, especially with the tax credits, achieves the same result by different means. The mandate would force the uninsured to buy insurance, but if they couldn't afford it, they'll get tax credits funded by...other taxpayers.

As for requiring everyone to have coverage to make the system work, that's patently untrue. I've proposed, ad nauseum, a sensible scheme where a mandate would not be required. The only people benefiting out of a mandate are the government (due to their new stealth tax) and the insurance companies (due to whatever increased profit is left after the new tax, assuming the fee is less than 100%), not patients.

He's also right that another year of negotiations wouldn't help. What was refreshing about his speech was that there wasn't a single mention of the word "bipartisan". Hallelujah! That might be the first example of that in a year, and about time too.

It always has been. One party claims to look after the working class, the other the middle class, but both actually cater to the upper class, because they're the people who bankroll their election campaigns. They talk a good game to win votes, but that's all.

This is also why I enjoy discussing this so much with you, Moderate, Chris, and others on this blog.

The reason I enjoy it is because everyone seems to understand the reality of politics. We know how "the game" is played and are able to separate discussion of the issues from the politics. We then engage in honest, mutually respectful, discussion, with an eye on both the issues and the "game" of politics surrounding them.

Moderate argues quite often from the standpoint of the middle class with an eye towards we can't neglect the lower class.

Well I'm middle class, but my parents started off as working class. My father left school at 14 and my mother at 16. They started with nothing and worked hard to climb the social ladder. So I feel I'm a good example of what upward mobility is all about.

What gets me isn't the existence of the class system, but the way that the classes have become immutable. It's becoming a closed shop; the people who've climbed the ladder are stopping others from doing the same. Society functions best when it's meritocratic.

This class issue is also oddly enough at the core of both the union and the Tea Party argument.

Well the unions represent the working class, the Tea Party is a middle class group, and both are saying they're fed up of the upper class running things to suit themselves.

But the very wealthy are going to fight tooth and nail to hold onto their piece of the pie and even to expand it.

I do sense a small amount of change here, thankfully, with the likes of Buffet and Gates talking a lot about the wealthy paying their fair share. Talk is cheap, though, and it'll be interesting to see what action actually takes place when their money is on the line.

The trouble is that the way wealth is currently divided is not characteristic of a healthy economy. There is too much at the top. We had a healthier economy when there was more in the middle and even at the bottom.

Wealth is always better when it "trickles" up. The working class need enough money to employ the middle class professionals (accountants, doctors, lawyers etc), who in turn need to be sufficiently comfortable to buy the luxury goods that those below them just can't afford. Meanwhile the working class makes the goods, and at the end of it all, the upper class should skim off their profits. That's how a functional economy should work.

Those at the top are not paying their fair share into the system.

Precisely. The supremely wealthy need to be taxed effectively. What I would propose is rather than increase the rate of tax (because the people who we would want to pay the top rate are clever enough to divert their funds so as to avoid paying the highest rate of tax), levy a surtax on top of the wealthy that has no exceptions or loopholes to it.

Michale......

A Republican... :D

And what do you call a Republican with a heart???

don't know, never saw one... ;p

p.s. This is also why I enjoy discussing this so much with you, Moderate, Chris, and others on this blog. Well ... that and the humor, that is.

Because I often hear this message at the core. Moderate argues quite often from the standpoint of the middle class with an eye towards we can't neglect the lower class. And though I haven't heard you directly say this, Michale, I think you're in favor of a growing middle class as well. It's a key cornerstone of a healthy economy. This class issue is also oddly enough at the core of both the union and the Tea Party argument.

But the very wealthy are going to fight tooth and nail to hold onto their piece of the pie and even to expand it. And they often win because they have a lot of resources at their disposal.

The trouble is that the way wealth is currently divided is not characteristic of a healthy economy. There is too much at the top. We had a healthier economy when there was more in the middle and even at the bottom.

Those at the top are not paying their fair share into the system. They're able to use their resources to avoid responsibility and pay less percentage wise than the rest of us. It's why folks like Warren Buffett are saying that it's crazy that he pays less, percentage wise, than his secretary.

I'm sorry you feel that everything is "right" vs. "left," Michale. I've always argued that this is a false dichotomy that perpetuates the status quo.

The real story here is one of class - upper, middle, and lower class. The upper has never owned more, the lower less, and the middle is disappearing.

So I'm in favor of anyone who understands this issue, is willing to talk about it, and wants to fight to help reverse the trend - whether they be Democrat or Republican.

The trouble is that both sides talk about this, in different ways mind, when they are up for re-election. Then, when they get into office, it seems to go by the wayside. A bit of a broad generalization here, but this, I think, puts the finger on why the public is in general so frustrated w/ Washington.

Cheers, Michale, and hope happy hour is sometime soon for you!
-David

You mean like those that support CrapCare?? :D

No matter what example ya come up with, David... I can always point to the Left just as easy as you can point to the right??

You were dead on ballz accurate before when you said that, to really get things done in a fair and honest way, we need common people like us setting things up. :D

Michale.....

It is interesting how the right is taking the tactics of 60s radicals, radicals that they supposedly despise, and using them to support their corporate agenda.

I think this is a good thing for progressives since the right did such a good job de-legitimizing these tactics that they now appear to be the fringe.

-David

They both know all the right things to say and, to be perfectly fair, they likely have the best of intentions going in.

But when it comes to actually putting those words into action, they fall flat.

My oldest has seemed to come around, though. He works on a fishing boat in Alaska and seems to have found his niche in life. :D

But President Obama is still being plagued by grand ideas and supreme eloquence coupled with the complete innate and inane ability to actually get things done.

It's now being reported that the Obama administration is going to reverse itself (AGAIN) and try 9/11 suspects in military tribunals. While it's the right things to do, it should have been done right at the outset...

What do you call a Democrat with a backbone??

A Republican... :D

Michale....

You mean like Joe Wilson?? :D

Michale.....