You guys were so enamored of every defilement of the Constitution that was done by the Bush Administration. Every expansion of presidential power met with your approval. You had no problem when Bush expanded Medicare in a massive unfunded mandate. It didn't bother you a bit when Bush took a budgetary surplus and converted it into a whopping deficit by handing out massive tax breaks and then putting the spending for two wars 100% on the national credit card.
In fact, those of us who questioned the usurpation of the rule of law by the Bush Administration were called "unpatriotic" and worse. By you guys.
So I asked in 2007 if you conservatives would stay consistent to what you had been yelling since 2001 or, when a Democrat sat in the Oval Office, whether you would find yourselves becoming all of a sudden so concerned about the deficit and the rule of law and, by doing so, revealing yourselves to be the purely partisan goons that I thought all along you to be.
We have our answer now, don't we?
Remember when that "unfunded mandates" thing so enraged conservatives? I didn't think so.
The comment I made about bartering was not, and was never intended to be, a policy proposal. It was an example of how struggling families are working to pay for medical care in any way they can during these tough times.
The truth is that Reid is so out of touch with these hardworking American families that he needs political theater to distract Nevadans from both his own unpopularity and the costs of his plan.
Because, you know, spending a year fighting for healthcare shows how Harry Reid doesn't understand healthcare. Take that, Harry Reid! Pass the extra crispy. (Politico)
Obviously, if I thought the oil-rig disaster was a calamity on Tuesday, I think it even more of one now. And if it really does take three months to stop the leak, the environmental catastrophe could be a mortal wound to offshore oil drilling, particularly the deep-water stuff. Three months of oil-covered birds leading the nightly newscasts. Three months of politicians hearing from their justifiably fearful constituents. Three months of environmentalists saying "we told you so."
If it doesn't take three months, if they get this thing fixed sooner rather than later, it'll still be awful and critics of offshore drilling will still have ample ammo. But it's worth noting that unless you're going to abandon oil altogether, the case for offshore drilling — and domestic drilling generally — still has a lot of merit, even on environmental terms. Oil tankers are still way more dangerous than oil rigs. Thousands of tankers traversing the oceans raises the risks of spills considerably more than rigs close to shore.
Still, speaking as a longtime supporter of expanding our exploitation of domestic oil, this is just awful.
It will be just like the Vietnam war being fought in our living rooms, losing the hearts and minds because of "Three months of oil-covered birds leading the nightly newscasts." You know an environmental disaster and a collapse of an ecosystem are small change compared to having cheap gas for his Escalade. (NRO)
Congressional Democrats have just introduced a new package of legislation - the DISCLOSE Act - to blunt the Supreme Court's disastrous January ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, which opened American elections at all levels to unlimited corporate spending. The 5-4 ruling gave companies like Goldman Sachs and Exxon Mobil the same right as individual Americans to spend money in elections, but unlike you or me these companies have billions in the bank and billions more at stake in Congress and state legislatures.
Now Democrats are racing to pass legislation before a wave of corporate cash sweeps through the mid-term elections. They have overwhelming public opinion on their side, but the US Chamber of Commerce and other corporate lobbyists are working hard to head them off and time is short.
The newly unveiled DISCLOSE Act is all about forcing election spending out into the open, where it belongs. Thanks to the Roberts Court, giant companies can spend unlimited amounts to support or oppose candidates - without disclosing a dime of it.
They can simply pass the money through a front group or PR agency. The legislation would close this glaring loophole, as Sen. Chuck Schumer explained on Thursday:
Our bill will follow the money. In cases where corporations try to mask their activities through shadow groups, we drill down so that ultimate funder of the expenditure is disclosed.
Corporations would be required to disclose political spending to their shareholders, and a broad array of corporations and advocacy groups would be required to disclose previously confidential details about their political spending, including funding sources. Foreign corporations, government contractors, and recipients of government bail-outs would be altogether banned from spending money in elections.
The DISCLOSE Act is a huge first step in restoring genuine democracy in the wake of the Roberts Court's irresponsible activism, but it's just a first step. Only a constitutional amendment or new ruling by a more progressive Supreme Court can truly 'fix' Citizens United.
In the meantime, maybe we should require politicians to wear the logos of their "sponsors." Hey, if it works for NASCAR, why not Congress.
Personally, I think they should have to wear their corporate sponsorships as permanent tattoos.
Down with Tyranny has a much more cynical - or more realistic, if you prefer - take on what it calls "baby steps."
And then they all clapped really, really hard and Tinkerbell didn't die! "In its 52-page exploration plan and environmental impact analysis for the well, BP suggested it was unlikely, or virtually impossible, for an accident to occur that would lead to a giant crude oil spill and serious damage to beaches, fish, mammals and fisheries. ... BP's plan filed with the federal Minerals Management Service for the Deepwater Horizon well, dated February 2009, says repeatedly that it was "unlikely that an accidental surface or subsurface oil spill would occur from the proposed activities." ... And while the company conceded that a spill would impact beaches, wildlife refuges and wilderness areas, it argued that "due to the distance to shore (48 miles) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no significant adverse impacts are expected."
We'll call it the Max Cleland in reverse
Organizing for America, or BarackObama.com, keeps sending me emails about the election. "The inside scoop on our 2010 plans!"
Really? You mean besides handing Congress back to the repugs and blaming the liberals for it?
Let's stop rushing forward into disaster for just a sec and do what this administration is so terrified of doing: examine the past and learn from it.
Remember 2002? Smirky/Darth should have lost dozens of house and senate members that year: gave a monster surplus away to rich people, permitted the biggest terrorist attack on American soil, shit on the constitution, rejected our allies ...
Smirky/Darth even had to surrender on the biggest legislation of the year: formation of the Homeland Security Department, a Democratic idea.
How could Democrats not win?
By letting repugs shamelessly lie, of course. Because Democrats objected to setting new rules that treated DHS employees like serfs with no rights, repugs accused them of aiding and abettting terrorists. That's how draft-dodging douchebag Saxby Chambliss beat incumbent Senator Max Cleland, who lost three limbs fighting in Vietnam .
Democrats tried to explain that Homeland Security, protecting Americans from terrorists was really a Democratic idea, but the repugs kept screaming "bin Laden! Terrorists! Traitors!"
Now, after a year of crying non-stop that Health Care Reform is The Greatest Catastrophe in the History of Mankind, repugs are claiming that the "good parts" of health care reform are really repug ideas.
And just like the Democrats were in 2002, the repugs are actually right. Instead of just ramming an unlubricated, barbed dildo of Single Payer up the Blue Dogs' ass, this cowardly administration settled for the individual mandate real Democrats rejected in 1994.
I can see the DNC ads already:
Well, yes, actually, health care reform incorporates quite a few market ideas that republicans originally suggested, but that was almost 20 years ago and they weren't really serious then and if they thought it was so great, why did they vote against it this time and besides ..... zzzzzzzzzzz.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The winning strategy has already been handed to you on a platter by Rep. Alan Grayson, Proud Liberal Elected By Red-State Orlando. Remember this?
"The republican health care reform is: Don't get sick. And if you do get sick, die faster."
Attack, attack, attack. Never, ever defend. Even when you're wrong - especially when you're wrong - attack harder, louder, more viciously.
"Republican Chickencare: If you can't afford to pay cash, you don't deserve health care."
"Republican Chickencare: Clucking Stupid."
At an absolute minimum, how about this:
Republicans want the Insurance Giants to cancel your policy if you get sick. Thanks to the Democratic Congress, they can't.
Republicans want the Insurance Giants to deny you coverage if you're ever been sick before in your life. Thanks to the Democratic Congress, they can't.
Republicans want the Insurance Giants to throw your young adult children off your policy to risk bankruptcy from being uninsured. Thanks to the Democratic Congress, they can't.
Republicans want the Insurance Giants to keep raising premiusm while denying services to your family. Thanks to the Democratic Congress, they can't.
Republicans care about enriching their friends in Big Insurance. They don't care about you. Democrats in Congress do.
Done right, with passion and determination and commitment, the Max Cleland Reverse will increase Democratic seats in both the House and the Senate.
El Puerco explains it all ... again
Noted climatologist and environmental expert, Rush "El Puerco" Limbaugh, is, at least obliquely (the only way he ever does anything), attempting to blame environmentalists for the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. No sh*t! He really is.
Insert Rolling Eyes smiley here.
While there's not yet any indication as to what caused the disastrous explosion that sunk a British Petroleum drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico, right-wing radio personality Rush Limbaugh has come up with a rather coy suggestion: "environmentalist wackos" did it.
Next he'll be claiming... or at least inferring... that Obama, aided by a socialist seal team, swam out and blew the rig up himself in order to advance his communofascinazi agenda. Lord, I don't EVEN want to see what Beck's going to say.
Of course the left had to get their sarcastic licks in too:
Later, on Thursday, HBO's Bill Maher Tweeted, "Every asshole who ever chanted 'Drill baby drill' should have to report to the Gulf coast today for cleanup duty."
Oh wait! You know what? Actually that's really not so sarcastic when you think about it. In fact, I find myself 100% in agreement with that sentiment... and yeah, even with the way it was expressed. Damn. Oh well, I tried.
The one that really caught my eye though was:
At bottom: Former Cheney firm Halliburton made repairs to sunken rig, is now 'assisting with the investigation'
OK, all other implications aside given the performance of Halliburton and some of it's former(?) subsidiaries in our franchised corporate wars which have now become entrenched in the country's economy as the war sector, I somehow suspect that Halliburton is going to be a lot more interested in covering it's own ass than they are anything else as they "assist" in the investigation.
|There's More... ::|