Incumbent Kansas senator claims U.S. is heading towards "National Socialism"

I found this Talking Points Memo story through Kevin Drum, and even I can't believe it.  From Talking Points Memo:

Incumbent Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), who is facing an unexpectedly fierce challenge for re-election, warned Monday at a campaign stop that the United States is heading for "national socialism."

It's not clear whether Roberts intended to make a reference to Nazism or simply meant to invoke the run of the mill looming specter of socialism.

American Bridge, the liberal opposition research group that tracks Republican candidates, posted the video of Roberts's remarks at a Dodge City event.

"There's a palpable fear among Kansans all across this state that the America that we love and cherish and honor will not be the same America for our kids and grandkids," Roberts said, "and that's wrong. That's very wrong."

He lamented that people are "losing faith in their government" and that the government "is losing faith in our people. That is a bad situation to be in." He said he was running to change that dynamic.

"We have to change course because our country is heading for national socialism," Roberts said. "That's not right. It's changing our culture. It's changing what we're all about."

According to TPM's PollTracker average, Roberts trails independent candidate Greg Orman by 1 point, 39 percent to 38 percent.

You can watch the YouTube video here:



An incumbent U.S. senator is now saying that the United States is heading for "national socialism!"  Excuse me Senator Pat Roberts, but do you know what "national socialism" really is?  From Wikipedia:

Nazism, Naziism,^[1] or National Socialism in full (German: Nationalsozialismus), is the ideology and practice associated with the 20th-century German Nazi Party and state as well as other related far-right groups. It was also promoted in other European countries with large ethnic German communities, such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and Yugoslavia.^[2] Usually characterised as a form of fascism that incorporates scientific racism and antisemitism, Nazism originally developed from the influences of pan-Germanism, the Völkisch German nationalist movement and the anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture in post-First World War Germany, which many Germans felt had been left humiliated by the Treaty of Versailles.

German Nazism subscribed to theories of racial hierarchy and social Darwinism, asserted the superiority of an Aryan master race, and criticised both capitalism and communism for being associated with Jewish materialism. It aimed to overcome social divisions, with all parts of a racially homogenous society cooperating for national unity and regeneration and to secure territorial enlargement at the expense of supposedly inferior neighbouring nations. The use of the name "National Socialism" arose out of earlier attempts by German right-wing figures to create a nationalist redefinition of "socialism", as a reactionary alternative to both internationalist Marxist socialism and free market capitalism.

 Or I could put it in more simple terms by saying that "national socialism" was controlled and refined by this guy:

Now Kevin Drum speculates that Senator Roberts is too dumb to realize that "national socialism" really equates to Nazism--even Talking Points Memo questions Senator Roberts' reference.  According to this Washington Post story by Phil Rucker, Senator Roberts did not mean that the United States was heading towards Nazism, but "more like a European socialistic state..."  Okay, so Senator Roberts is too dumb to realize that "national socialism" really means Nazism. 

But is there a deeper story here? Senator Roberts claims that Kansas citizens are "losing faith in their government," while the government "is losing faith in our people."  Senator Roberts is now running to change that situation. 

And yet, what did Senator Pat Roberts do before this loss of faith between the Kansas citizens and government became apparent to him?  According to Wikipedia, Pat Roberts was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1980, serving for eight congressional terms.  Roberts was then elected to the U.S. Senate in 1996, and is currently serving his third term.  In other words, Pat Roberts has been serving in both the House and Senate for a combined 34 years!  And only now Roberts is running to restore the faith between Kansas citizens and the government?  What was he doing for the past 34 years--18 years in the Senate and 16 years in the House?  According to the Washington Post:

Shirley Deege is a proud Republican. For as long as she can remember, the nurse has been voting for Pat Roberts — in the 1980s, when he represented a vast patchwork of dusty plains hamlets in the House; in 1996, when he first ran for the Senate; and every six years after that.

“Looking back over my life, I’m wondering, ‘What major things has he done for Kansas?’ I’m coming up empty,” said Deege, 53, as she sipped coffee while waiting for Roberts to arrive at the county fairgrounds in Kinsley this week.

“He’s spent so much time in Washington,” she added. “I know he has a house in Virginia. Dodge City is supposed to be his home, just up the highway, but I don’t hear of him coming back too much.”

  [....]

Many Kansans feel the same about Roberts after his 33 years in elected office. Many more want him gone, even if it means replacing him with a political enigma named Greg Orman — a wealthy investor running as an independent who has declined to say whether he would caucus with Republicans or Democrats. 

The backlash against Roberts stems not from any single issue — ideologically, he has followed his party’s shift to the right — but from a widespread feeling that he has grown too insular in Washington and fallen out of touch.

“I’m 78 years old, and I’ve been voting for [Roberts] since the beginning,” Darrel Miller, a retired wheat farmer, said after seeing Roberts in Kinsley. “I don’t wish him any ill will. I just think we need a change.”

 What is especially ironic is that Roberts is running in a close Senate race with an unknown independent, in a heavily Republican state.  What is more, Roberts was seen with former Senate Republican leader Bob Dole in Kinsley, Kansas, where the ailing Dole is in the midst of his own farewell tour throughout his native state.  Bob Dole was a powerhouse U.S. Senator, Senate Majority and Minority Leader, and a former Republican presidential candidate in the 1996 election.  What did Senator Pat Roberts do in his career?  National GOP strategist and former Senator John McCain adviser John Weaver said, "He’s basically furniture in the Senate, and the people in Kansas know that....You could give the average Kansan 24 hours to come up with something Pat Roberts has done in the Senate, and after 24 hours, even the crickets would be standing there befuddled." 

The deeper story here is that Senator Pat Roberts is completely out-of-touch with ordinary Kansas citizens.  Pat Roberts was voted in during the same year Ronald Reagan took control of the Oval Office in 1980.   He has been in Washington for almost 34 years, probably voting a staunchly conservative, pro-business legislation and policies throughout his political career.  I'm also guessing Senator Roberts also supported Reagan's supply-sided economic theories and probably did not try to stop the 30-plus years of growing inequality between the extreme one percent rich and everyone else.   Pat Roberts' career was hobnobbing with the powerful political, business, and ubber-rich elites in Washington D.C. to the point of becoming an elitist himself.  He  ignored what's the matter with Kansas for years--decades even, as he played the elitist lifestyle..  Now that Kansas voters are waking up to this piece of furniture in the Senate, Senator Roberts is fighting for his political life in the tired, hard-right conservative meme of fear-mongering among the Tea Party activists in Kansas.  According to the WaPost article, Roberts has brought in former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, Senator Rand Paul (KY), Senator John McCain (AZ), and former Florida governor Jeb Bush to campaign for him.  In addition, the national Republican Party has forced Roberts to replace his campaign staff with out-of-state political operatives, who are now attacking independent Greg Orman, and attempting to "stir suspicions" among Kansas voters that the potential Republican Senate majority hinges on Roberts' re-election.  It is a classic, GOP fear-mongering technique to keep the voter base in check. 

The question to ask now is will the Kansas voters be swayed by the stale, fear-mongering from Senator Roberts and the GOP, or will they decide to go for an unknown change? 

Senate candidate Hoekstra wants to create a National Birther Office

I'm trying to wrap my head around Former Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) crazy idea of creating a "national birther office." From Talking Points Memo:

Former Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), who is running for Senate to take on Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow, told a tea party town hall last month that the federal government should establish an official committee to review presidential candidates’ birth certificates.

The full-length video of the Q&A was posted online four weeks ago by the Lapeer County Tea Party Patriots. An excerpt, in which Hoekstra is asked about Obama’s birth certificate, has been posted online by the Michigan Democrats, injecting Hoekstra into a recent resurgence in birther theories espoused by Donald Trump, Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett and Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO). A man in the audience complained to Hoekstra about President Obama’s birth certificate, “It’s on the computer, it’s everywhere, you hear people talking about it,” but nobody is doing anything about it, and he wanted Hoekstra’s thoughts on the matter.

“Sure. I mean, I think — you know, I think, throw something at me if you want, I think with this president, the book is closed, all right?” Hoekstra tells the man. “It’s kind of like, I hate to say it, but I think the debate’s over — we lost that debate, and we lost that debate in 2008, when our presidential nominee said, ‘I ain’t talking about it.’ OK, I’m sorry.

“But I do now believe that I’d like to establish a three-person office in Washington, D.C., OK — knowing it, we’ll go to five (audience laughs). But there’s no reason why we should have this kind of question, you know, for the president of the United States. So that at any future election, all right, that someone would have to walk into that office, and prove that they meet the minimum qualifications to be president of the United States.”

Hoekstra then defended his national birther office position on CNN, saying:

“Well, what happened is you’re still having this ongoing debate with some people moving this forward,” he said. “I’m not participating in that debate, I think this issue has been settled and, you know, I just want to make sure in future elections — and this is not a top priority for me, OK? This is kind of like, you know, this can take care of itself.”

As far as I can recall, we've never had the issue of a presidential candidate's citizenship, or birth record come up in a presidential campaign--at least not until an African American became a serious contender for the White House. Even after President Barack Obama's birth certificate was released, the right-wing crazies are still questioning President Obama's citizenship. And now we've got a crazy GOP senate candidate claiming it is now time to create a federal office to determine future candidates' citizenship? It is like the Tea Party crazies can not accept that a minority individual, or in their view a black, Kenyan, Muslim, can be elected into the Oval Office. They hate the fact that Obama is president, and must keep their hatred fresh with this rotten garbage. Hoekstra keeps this garbage alive to stay on the crazies' good side, and garner their votes. Donald Trump jumped on the birther bandwagon because...does Donald Trump need a reason to get more press attention to his egotistical, arrogant self? Then there is Mitt Romney. On Tuesday, the Trump hosted a fundraiser for the Republican presidential candidate in Las Vegas. Trump told CNN that "A lot of people do not think it was an authentic certificate," just hours before the fundraiser began. Trump's remarks place the Romney campaign squarely into this birther morass, which should have became a non-issue in the 2008 presidential campaign, but is still being kept alive by the Tea Party crazies. What was Mitt Romney's response to Trump's remarks? According to CBS News:

Romney did not address the issue directly at separate events in Colorado and Nevada, but on Monday night he told reporters aboard his campaign plane that Trump is entitled to his opinion.

[....]

"I don't agree with all the people who support me. And my guess is they don't all agree with everything I believe in," Romney said. "But I need to get 50.1 percent or more. And I'm appreciative to have the help of a lot of good people."

The birth question wasn't brought up at the Las Vegas fundraiser, and Romney spoke highly of Trump's efforts on his behalf.

"Mr. Trump, thank you for letting us come to this beautiful hotel and being with so many friends," Romney said. "Thank you for twisting the arms that it takes to bring a fundraiser together. I appreciate your help."

So Mitt Romney does not agree with Trump and the Tea Party crazies, but he's apparently happy for them to spout their crazy ideas regarding President Obama's citizenship status. Bravo Mittens! Again you show the country just how much of an empty suit you are, with no morals or convictions--other than what will propel you into the Oval Office, and help the 1 percenters, like Donald Trump, twist your arm after you get there.

Cantor spokesman defends bullet claim as legit threat at press conference

The Cantor shooting scandal just keeps getting better. This is from Greg Sargent's blog:

A spokesperson for Eric Cantor is pushing back on criticism that he shouldn’t have referenced the bullet shot through a campaign office window at a presser yesterday about threats on his life, offering a detailed chronology of what happened.

[....]

Cantor spokesperson Brad Dayspring, in an interview with me this afternoon, offered a chronology of events. Short version: When Cantor gave his statement, all he knew was that a bullet had been fired into his window, there was an ongoing investigation into the incident, and that he had received other threats on his life.

If this was the correct version of events, then Representative Eric Cantor should have said that a bullet was fired into a window of a building where Cantor has a campaign office. The police are investigating, and more information will come out as a result of the investigation. Leave it at that. Of course, the media would speculate whether a gunman was trying to kill Cantor, but the key here for Cantor was to not jump the gun on outrageous claims, or trying to politicize this event. Unfortunately, Cantor jumped the gun. At the press conference, Cantor claimed, “Just recently, I have been directly threatened. A bullet was shot through the window of my campaign office in Richmond this week and I’ve received threatening emails.”

This was a complete lie, as Richmond Police now state that the bullet was randomly fired into the air. There was no threat against Cantor.

Enter the PR-spin:

But Dayspring says Cantor didn’t know at the time of the presser what the police subsequently revealed. He says that before the presser, Cantor aides called the police to learn what was known.

“We didn’t want to catch them by surprise, we wanted an update on the investigation, and we wanted to be 100 percent accurate,” Dayspring says, adding that the trajectory of the bullet was not discussed: “What was known at the time was that a bullet had been fired through the window and that the investigation was ongoing.”

Again, the problem here is that Cantor attempted to politicize the event. When Cantor started blaming the Democrats on "fanning the flames" of violence and death threats, he really lost any sense of credibility here. There were plenty of legitimate reports of Democratic lawmakers being threatened by right-wing extremists, possibly influenced by right-wing hate and fear-mongering. I guess Eric Cantor had to come out screaming, "Look at me--I'm being terrorized by liberal extremists influenced by left-wing hate and fear-mongering!"

What is especially ironic is that this story is certainly sensational. Someone took a shot at a building where the House Minority Whip has an office. Police are going to take that as a serious threat, running a vigorous investigation to determine if this was a targeted threat against Cantor, or a random act of violence. All Eric Cantor had to say at the press conference was "Here is what we know so far," and leave it. The media was going to sensationalize the story anyway, with Cantor receiving big press coverage. But when Cantor decided to politicize the event, before knowing all the events of this shooting. And now this random act of violence is showing Eric Cantor to be a complete fool, interested in hyping events for his own political gain.

GOP Rep. Eric Cantor says shots fired in his campaign office

This is from the Richmond Times-Dispatch:

3:40 p.m. The Richmond Police Department is investigating an act of vandalism agsinst the Reagan Building, 25 E. Main St., where Rep. Eric I. Cantor, R-7th, has a campagn office.

Police said a first floor window was struck by a bullet at around 1 a.m. on Tuesday. The building was not occupied, police said.

There are no suspects, Gene Lepley, a spokesman for the department, said.

Rep. Eric Cantor says this afternoon that a gunshot was fired through a window of his downtown Richmond campaign office building either last night or two nights ago.

There were no injuries or other details immediately reported. Cantor, in an interview with the Richmond Times-Dispatch, said he doesn’t know whether the shot was random or aimed at the building.

He said he doesn’t know if anyone was in the building when the shot was fired. Richmond police are investigating, he said.

In Washington, Cantor said at a news conference that he has also received threatening e-mail, The Associated Press reported.

Cantor, in Washington, attributed the actions to his being in the House GOP leadership and being Jewish.

The office of Republican Jean Schmidt of Ohio also released a profanity-laced phone message in which the caller accused the GOP of being racist and, referring to an accident two years ago when Schmidt was hit by a car while jogging, said “you should have broke your back, b… .“

First, I'll admit that I don't like the idea of congressmen, or women, being threatened or attacked by anybody. Second, I'm not sure if this story is true or not. I don't know if some crazed liberal activist took potshots at Cantor's office, for Cantor being Jewish? Democratic anti-Sematism? That doesn't seem to make sense. Or is Cantor making this entire story up? I don't know, and I would be interested in hearing more from the Richmond PD. As for Republican representative Jean Schmidt's phone message threat, I could possibly find that more credible if the threat was directed at Schmidt's campaign office, which would have her office phone number open to the public. But I can find very little information on the threat.

Which brings me to the weird Eric Cantor press conference:

WASHINGTON -- And now, Thursday's lesson in how to give very strange press conferences, courtesy of Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., the number two House Republican leader.

First, condemn violence against members of Congress. Next, announce that you've been threatened frequently yourself -- including having a bullet shot through your campaign office this week -- because you're Jewish. Third, blame Democrats for the whole mess, saying their decision to talk about threats would lead to more violence. After speaking for no more than four minutes, wrap up and leave the podium, taking no questions and marching silently through the Capitol halls as a mob of reporters chases after you trying to follow up.

[....]

So Cantor's statement Thursday was apparently aimed at cooling the rhetoric down -- mostly by Democrats, in case voters start to think the GOP bears some responsibility for the threats. And then, secondarily, by the people making the threats.

"Let me be clear: I do not condone violence," Cantor said Thursday. "There are no leaders in this building, no rank-and-file members in this building, that condone violence, period. I've received threats since I assumed elected office -- not only because of my position, but also because I'm Jewish. I've never blamed anyone in this body for that."

One such incident, Cantor said, came just this week. "Just recently I have been directly threatened: A bullet was shot through the window of my campaign office in Richmond this week, and I've received threatening emails," he said. "But I will not release them, because I believe such actions will only encourage more to be sent." An aide says authorities are investigating the shooting incident. Richmond police didn't immediately return a call for comment. (Update: Cantor told the Richmond Times-Dispatch no one was injured in the incident, and it's not clear whether the bullet was aimed at the campaign office or just fired randomly.)

But disclosing it let Cantor segue smoothly into putting the blame for the violence where it belonged: on Democrats, who insist on talking about the threats they're receiving. "Legitimate threats should be treated as security issues, and they should be dealt with by the appropriate law enforcement officials," Cantor said. "It is reckless to use these incidents as media vehicles for political gain. That is why I have deep concerns that -- some [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee] chairman Chris Van Hollen and [Democratic National Committee] chairman Tim Kaine, in particular -- are dangerously fanning the flames, by suggesting that these incidents be used as a political weapon."

So if I'm reading this correctly, Cantor is claiming that he has received threats and violence, and is blaming the Democrats for fanning the flames of violence. Democrats are fanning the flames of violence? On their own members? Consider the following:

After the Vote, Threats to Some Democrats

Bricks Shatter Windows At Rep. Louise Slaughter's Office, Democratic Party Offices

"Snipers" Threat Left On Rep. Louise Slaughter's Voicemail In Wake Of Health Care Vote

Smash Sensation: Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords Isn't The Only One With Broken Windows

Tea Party members post Perriello’s brother’s address

FBI investigates Virginia incident

Vandalism reported by Democrats who voted for health bill

Vandals hit at least five Dem offices nationwide, threaten to ‘assassinate’ children of pro-reform lawmakers.

The backlash: Reform turns personal

Stupak receives death threats after voting for health reform.

Health Care Debate Has Protesters Seeing Red, Racism Rears Its Ugly Head

Health Care Reform Leads to Threats

Markey, other health care reform backers report threats, vandalism

Weiner targeted for health care advocacy

Tea Party Protests: 'Ni**er,' 'Fa**ot' Shouted At Members Of Congress

And then there are these two interesting stories, where GOP leaders tread the line in making threats to Democrats:

Neugebauer, 'Baby Killer' Yeller, Apologizes For Appearing To Yell At Stupak (VIDEO)

Sarah Palin's PAC Puts Gun Sights On Democrats She's Targeting In 2010

I could probably list even more hate-mongering from the conservative media, but hopefully you're getting the picture here. It appears to me that much of this hate is coming from the right, with top GOP leaders remained silent on such threats, or the Republicans will parse it as Republican chairman Michael Steele told Fox News, "so let's start getting (House Speaker) Nancy (Pelosi) ready for the firing line this November!" And these threats and violence are being directed against Democratic lawmakers. With the ratcheting up of the health care protests, suddenly these threats and violence against the Democrats are gaining attention in the news media, with the source of the threats going back to possibly right-wing extremists, or possibly Tea Party activists--extremists that the Republican Party has been courting for years. This makes me seriously question Cantor's claim that Democrats are blamed for the violence taking place. Why would Democrats target their own party representatives in voting for health care reform? Or are the Democratic leaders making all these threats of violence up? Or is Eric Cantor talking some crazy stupid here?

It doesn't make sense.

GOP Senator Lindsey Graham refuses to work with Democrats, saying "well has been poisoned."

I found this story through the Washington Monthly. Seems like South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has been drinking Senator John McCain's Metamucil. From the Wall Street Journal:

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, one of the Democrats' most likely potential allies on a range of legislation, said in an interview he would no longer work with the majority party on an immigration overhaul. He said because of the Democrats' tactics in passing the package, the "well has been poisoned."

Mr. Graham also has been working with Democrats on climate change, and that cooperation, too, appears in doubt. "Climate and energy are another heavy lift. We'll see," Mr. Graham said. "The consequences of health care being done this way are enormous to the body." Mr. Graham's initiatives would probably not have received significant Congressional attention this year in any case, but his posture signals one potential route for the party.

So, the Democratic majority attempted to reach out to the Republican minority on health care reform, and the Republicans snubbed them. The Democrats offered concessions and compromises on the bill, but the Republicans refused, spreading their own negative attacks, hatred, death panels, and fear-mongering in an attempt to kill the health care reform bill. The Democrats ignore the Republicans and pass the health care reform bill, to which the Republicans are now complaining that the Democrats have "poisoned the well," and will refuse to work on any legislation? Seems to me that the Republicans have refused to work on any legislation with the Democrats, bringing this country down to the gutter in hopes that President Obama will fail, and the GOP can regain control over Congress, possibly the White House. If anything, the Republicans are being poisoned by drinking their own Metamucil.

Biden drops the F-bomb during health care bill signing

Oh my. It appears that Vice President Joe Biden just dropped a dirty F-bomb right after introducing President Barack Obama during the health care reform signing ceremony. From YouTube:



Then again, it was a big frickin' deal. So Joe was right.

Think Progress is reporting that Fox News pundits heads are exploding over Joe Biden's f-bomb gaffe. Guess Fox News doesn't have anything to say about the signing of this legislation.

Obama signs health care bill into law

President Obama signed major health care legislation into law on Tuesday. Doug Mills/The New York Times

Well, it is now official. President Obama has signed the health care legislation into law today. From The New York Times:

WASHINGTON —With the strokes of 20 pens, President Obama signed his health care overhaul — the most sweeping social legislation enacted in decades — into law on Tuesday during a festive, at times raucous, White House ceremony.

“We have just now enshrined, as soon as I sign this bill, the core principle that everybody should have some basic security when it comes to their health care,” Mr. Obama declared in the East Room, before an audience of more than 200 Democratic lawmakers, White House aides and others who rode a yearlong legislative roller-coaster ride that ended with Sunday night’s House passage of the bill. They interrupted him repeatedly with shouts and standing ovations.

Moments later, the president sat down at a table, and affixed his left-handed, curlicue signature, almost letter by letter, to the measure, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, using 20 pens that he intended to pass out to key lawmakers and others as mementoes.

He was surrounded by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and other top Democratic leaders, as well as some special guests: 11-year-old Marcelas Owens of Seattle, who became an advocate for health care reform after his mother died without health insurance, and Connie Anderson, the sister of Natoma Canfield, the Ohio cancer survivor whose struggle to pay skyrocketing premiums became a touchstone of Mr. Obama’s campaign to overhaul the system.

Vicki Kennedy, the widow of the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, who had been a driving force for health care legislation before his death last year, was also by Mr. Obama’s side. Mrs. Kennnedy wore a blue plastic bracelet around her wrist that said “TedStrong,” and appeared emotional after the ceremony.

“I know how happy he would be,” she said of her husband, adding, “It was so meaningful for him, in a very personal way.”

And in the audience sat Mr. Kennedy’s son, Representative Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island. He was also there, carrying a gift for the president: a copy of a bill his father introduced in 1970 to provide national health insurance. On it, the younger Mr. Kennedy had written a personal message to Mr. Obama.

For Mr. Obama, the bill signing marks a high point of his presidency. For the many House members in the audience, it marks the end of a trying, chapter, and they let the president know it as he remarked that many had “taken their lumps during this difficult debate.”

While President Obama and the Democrats are celebrating this day, Republican attorney generals in 11 states will be filing lawsuits to stop the health care legislation on grounds that it is unconstitutional. From Reuters:

(Reuters) - Less than 24 hours after the House of Representatives gave final approval to a sweeping overhaul of healthcare, attorneys general from several states on Monday said they will sue to block the plan on constitutional grounds.

Republican attorneys general in 11 states warned that lawsuits will be filed to stop the federal government overstepping its constitutional powers and usurping states' sovereignty.

States are concerned the burden of providing healthcare will fall on them without enough federal support.

Ten of the attorneys general plan to band together in a collective lawsuit on behalf of Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.

"To protect all Texans' constitutional rights, preserve the constitutional framework intended by our nation's founders, and defend our state from further infringement by the federal government, the State of Texas and other states will legally challenge the federal health care legislation," said Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, in a statement.

The Republican attorney generals say the reforms infringe on state powers under the Constitution's Bill of Rights.

Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, who plans to file a lawsuit in federal court in Richmond, Virginia, said Congress lacks authority under its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce to force people to buy insurance. The bill also conflicts with a state law that says Virginians cannot be required to buy insurance, he added.

[....]

In addition to the pending lawsuits, bills and resolutions have been introduced in at least 36 state legislatures seeking to limit or oppose various aspects of the reform plan through laws or state constitutional amendments, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

So far, only two states, Idaho and Virginia, have enacted laws, while an Arizona constitutional amendment is seeking voter approval on the November ballot. But the actual enactment of the bill by President Barack Obama could spur more movement on the measures by state lawmakers.

The debate on health care has entered a new phase, where the Republicans will do anything they can to repeal this bill. Already, the lawsuits are being drawn up to be filed in court. It will probably take a couple of years for this health care bill to end up on the U.S. Supreme Court, but it will get there. Right now, there are four conservative justices on the Supreme Court--Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito. There are four liberal justices on the Supreme Court--Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. The conservative justices will probably vote against this health care reform, and the liberal justices will vote for health care reform. The swing vote here will be Justice Anthony Kennedy. The health care overhaul will take time to kick in, around four years. If the court remains at four conservative justices and four liberal justices, then Justice Kennedy will be in a very powerful position to determine the fate of health care reform in this country. I have no idea how Justice Kennedy will rule on health care reform.

Then again, the Supreme Court may change its ideological make-up over the next four years. But for that to happen, either Justice Kennedy, one of the conservative justices, will have to retire from office. This will allow President Obama to nominate a liberal justice, shifting the Court towards a liberal stance. I don't see that happening yet. There is also the possibility that President Obama may be voted out of office in 2012, with an unnamed Republican president coming in. Any Republican president will probably gut the health care reform bill, turning it into a useless program that he/she could then claim the program needs to be eliminated as an example of government waste. But that is way down the political road here.

For now, the debate is on the policy of the health care reform plan. Republicans will be filing lawsuits, calling the bill unconstitutional. President Obama is going into campaign mode, selling the health care reform bill to Americans in Iowa on Thursday. Both Democrats and Republicans will be gearing up for a massive political fight in November, with both claiming that the health care reform bill will allow them to defeat the opposing party. So far, it is too close to call, as Americans will have to digest the specifics of this bill. Then they will decide at the ballot box on whether they approve this health care reform bill, or not.

House passes health care reform, Obama to sign.

I've been busy with a number of things, but I've been watching the events taking place on the health care debate. After the Senate passed the health care reform bill in December, the bill went into a torturous reconciliation process, where a number of House Democrats did not like the Senate version of the bill. There was a lot of back-and-forth going on between the two chambers, topped with Republican congress-critters tossing threats and temper tantrums at the Democrats for trying to reconcile the two bills. Even President Barack Obama canceled his East Asian trip to perform some last-minute arm twisting on House Democrats to vote for the health reform package.

So today was the big day for the House to debate and approve the Senate version of the health care reform bill.

The House approved the Senate's health care reform bill 219-212. From ABC News:

The House of Representatives passed the sweeping health care bill with a narrow margin, securing a significant victory for President Obama, who lobbied hard this week for the controversial legislation.

The vote was certain after the House Democratic leadership finalized a deal this afternoon with anti-abortion Democrats to vote for the health care bill in exchange for an executive order from Obama affirming no federal funding for abortion.

The House today voted on two separate pieces of legislation. One, the Senate health care bill and second, the amendments to that bill made by House members and Obama.

The bill now goes to the president's desk to sign, after which it will become law. The White House has not yet decided where or when Obama will sign the Senate health care bill, which he needs to do before the "fixes" to that bill begin to be debated in the Senate, though White House officials say it will not be this evening.

As the last speaker before the vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said that by passing the bill, Congress would be taking a historic step.

"We will be joining those who established Social Security, Medicare and now, tonight, health care for all Americans," Pelosi said.

The bill still has to go back to the Senate for approval of reconciliation "fixes" that House Democrats have proposed. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid assured the House, Saturday, that he has the 51 majority vote needed to pass the fixes, with the Senate expected to pick up the bill on Tuesday. Health care reform will be law.

Watching this debate unfold, what really interested me here is a couple of factors. The big factor has been the Republican response to the entire health care debate. The GOP never wanted any such health care reform passed--be it a Democratic health care reform or a Republican health care reform. In fact, I don't think the Republicans had a health care reform package they could sell to the American public. They never bothered taking up the mantle of health care reform, at least since President Richard Nixon looked at reforming a national health insurance plan for Americans. The GOP and the health insurance industry completely shot down President Bill Clinton's health care plan in 1994. Even when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress under George W. Bush, they never bothered looking at health care, with the exception of passing the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act in 2003. But the prescription drug act is not passing a comprehensive health care bill for all Americans, but rather overhauling Medicare to provide prescription drugs to its recipients. But when you get Blue Cross raising health insurance premiums to its customers by 39 percent this month, and around 45 million Americans are uninsured, the Republicans have turned a blind eye to this growing problem. For the past two years, the GOP refused to join the Democrats in a bipartisan attempt to reform health care, using obstructionism, threats, lies, and deceit as a means to kill health care reform--Death panels anyone? The Republicans thought that by playing the obstructionist game, then Americans would suffer so much under a crushing health care system, job losses, a recessionary economy, and all sorts of other problems, that they would vote the Democrats out of Congress, and bring the Republicans back into the majority. Then the Republicans could play even more obstructionism against President Obama until 2012, when Sarah Palin will be elected into the Oval Office? So the Republicans were united in opposing health care reform. The vote even shows such opposition, since not one Republican House member voted for the health reform bill tonight.

That has all changed. Republican obstructionism failed. It brings me to a second factor in that the passage of this health care bill was a victory that President Obama really needed to re-energize his presidential agenda. Health care reform was a major Obama campaign promise during the 2008 presidential election. When President Obama stepped into the Oval Office, he tried to fulfill his promise of health care reform, but made some serious mistakes. The first mistake Obama made was that he never took the bully pulpit and tell Congress, "This is what I want from health care reform. Here are my proposals, now let us work together in creating real reform." I got the impression that Obama administration took a hands off approach to health care reform, instead saying, "Okay Congress, pass some health care legislation so I can sign it." Talk about a near recipe for disaster. Both congressional houses passed their own versions of health care reform bill which neither house liked the other chamber's bill. I am actually amazed at how close the bill passed tonight. The second mistake the Obama administration made in health care was really allowing the Republicans to control the message on health care for the past couple of years. Think about it--what do you remember of the message on health care reform? I remember death panels, Obamacare killing grandma, Obamacare reducing your Medicare benefits, Obamacare raising taxes, and Obamacare. I remember Tea Party protests, town hall disruptions organized by conservative groups, and even health insurance industry urging their employees to attend protest groups against health care reform. Looking back at the debate in 2009, it seemed like the message pounded into the American public was that health care reform was a terrible bill--look at all these Americans who are afraid of the evils of health care reform. Health care reform should be stopped. That was the message, brought to you by the Republican Party. I never heard much from the Obama administration to counter the Republican spin on health care. And yet, I look at the polls on the health care debate, Americans are split on whether they approve or disapprove of health care reform--it actually depends on how the question is phrased to shift Americans' opinions for either approval or disapproval on the issue. So President Obama lost the message on health care reform to the Republicans. That should have been enough to kill the issue, but it didn't.

Health care reform passed. I think in the last three months, President Obama and the Democrats woke up to the possibility that this reform bill will not pass. The turning point may have been when Massachusetts Republican state senator Scott Brown won a huge victory over Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley for the late Ted Kennedy's vacant Senate seat in late January. Republicans thought that this was the American voters' repudiation of President Obama, and the congressional Democrats, agenda. I think it is a voter's anger over incumbents--both Democrat and Republican. Either way, this was a wake-up call for both President Obama and the Democrats. They needed to pass health care soon, and show a major legislative achievement for the Democrats, and a political victory for President Obama. President Obama needed to show the American people that he could deliver a campaign promise--especially during a troubled economic time, where Americans are worried about their jobs, their financial situation, the housing crisis, and the health care crisis.

Not only that, but 2010 is a midterm election year, where the president's party usually loses seats. If the health care reform debate was dragged out into the late summer/early fall, the Republicans would use health care in attack ads against Democrats in conservative-leaning states and districts. Those Democratic lawmakers would be more worried about their jobs, rather than about passing legislation. Health care would never have passed. And if the Republicans did take control of at least one house, we'll say the Senate, then the GOP majority leadership would simply throw the health care reform bill in the trash. Of course, the Republicans will obviously use this passage of health care reform in attack ads against the Democrats, but President Obama can also tell American voters that he fulfilled his campaign promise to deliver health care reform. This is huge. If President Obama failed at passing health care reform, I think it would have emboldened the Republicans, and conservative constituents, into greater attacks against the Democrats, and the president, for control of Congress. Such emboldened conservative constituents may have gone out of their way to vote Republican candidates in. The Democrats failure at passing health care reform would have also angered their liberal constituents. Would liberal Democrats have gone out of their way to vote for Democratic candidates that failed to deliver on health care reform? I'm sure there are plenty of liberal activists that are speculating on whether to replace those Democratic House members that have voted against the health care reform bill.

Finally, there is President Obama. This could have been a huge failure for the President, who was elected into office on a campaign promise of hope and change. Americans wanted change. If President Obama failed to pressure the Democrats into passing health care reform, he would have been seen by Americans as a president who could not deliver on his campaign promise of hope and change. President Obama would certainly have been a lame duck in the final two years of his first term in office--especially if an emboldened GOP gained control of the Senate. But now, the midterm elections have been changed. President Obama can sell his health care campaign promise to the American voters. The Democrats can attack the Republicans as being against providing affordable health care to Americans. The Republicans can still still play obstructionism and use fear attacks against the president and the Democrats on health care, however, I think the fear factor will be greatly diminished against the moderates and independents (the hard-lined conservatives will still believe in Obamacare's death panels).

This midterm election will still be about the issue of health care. But now the focus will shift to what will this new health care law do for the American voter? Instead of fear-mongering, the issue will be on legal specifics of this law. I think that will be more difficult for Republicans to raise with their fear-mongering, which they will still engage in. Finally, this huge hurdle is over for the Democrats and President Obama--they can now concentrate on other issues, such as financial reform, or jobs. President Obama and the congressional Democrats can work on passing more legislation, against Republican obstructionism, that they can also sell to the American voters. With the health care reform bill passed, American voters can now decide if this is the direction that they want to see their country heading towards, and vote accordingly. This is a whole new midterm election.

Bunning blinks, drops filibuster on unemployment benefits bill

It has been a busy week, however, I did notice that our favorite, demented, Senator Jim Bunning has backed down from his one-man filibuster against approving unemployment benefits in the Senate. The Senate then immediately approved the unemployment extension bill 78 to 19. What I found especially interesting about this political temper tantrum was the Republican support for Bunning. From the Democrats.Senat.gov website:

SOME REPUBLICANS DEFEND BUNNING…

Corker Defended Bunning, Said Senate Was “Stooping To A Low Level.” On the Senate floor, Senator Corker defended Senator Bunning and said, “I believe we are stooping to a low level. The Senator from Kentucky and I agree on a lot and we disagree on a lot, and I am not here at this moment to debate the merits of either side. What I am saying is this is not the way the Senate functions. Everybody in the country now knows that the Senator from Kentucky has a hold on this bill. That is something that is honored. Not a hold on the bill, but he is objecting to unanimous consent, and that is something that we honor in this body.” [Congressional Record, 2/25/10]

Sessions Defended Bunning, Said He’s Blocking Unemployment Benefits “As A Matter Of Principle.” On the Senate floor, Senator Sessions defending Senator Bunning and said, “I think the Senator from Kentucky is speaking on behalf of the conscience of a lot of Americans, a majority of Americans, if they heard this debate. He is doing it as a matter of principle. I know he has no desire to see people not receive unemployment compensation. He is willing to support that. He simply is saying that enough is enough.” [Congressional Record, 2/25/10]

Sessions Again Defended Bunning, Said He Respects Bunning’s “Courage.” Just yesterday, Senator Sessions again defended Senator Bunning. Sessions spoke about Bunning’s actions on the Senate floor and said, “I respect him for the courage he showed. [Congressional Record, 3/1/10]

Cornyn Admires Bunning’s “Courage.” Senator Cornyn took to the Senate floor, suggested that Senators Bunning and Corker were not afforded the procedural opportunity to explain the GOP filibuster of unemployment benefits and said, “I understand that Senator Durbin retained the floor for the most part and yielded for questions, but basically the procedure denied Senator Bunning and Senator Corker, who I know also weighed in, an opportunity to explain precisely what was going on…. I want to say I admire the courage of the junior Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Bunning.” [Congressional Record, 2/26/10]

Kyl Defended Bunning, Said He “Made A Good Point.” “Bunning got support from Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl, who defended his colleagues insistence of paying for the legislation with unused stimulus funds. ‘You can't say that everything we do around here needs to be offset,’ said Kyl, ‘and then waive the pay go legislation every time you want to do it.’ ‘My colleague from Kentucky made a good point.’” [Politico, 3/1/10]

…WHILE OTHERS REMAIN SILENT

McConnell Took To The Floor, Didn’t Say A Word About Bunning. This morning, Republican Leader Mitch McConnell took to the Senate floor and didn’t mention Senator Bunning’s actions, or the 1.2 million Americans who are affected by the filibuster on unemployment or the 3,181 Kentuckians who will exhaust their benefits this week ALONE. [Senate floor, 3/2/10, NELP.org, 3/2/10]

When Asked About Bunning’s Actions, McConnell Dodged. At the Republican stakeout today, McConnell was repeatedly asked about his fellow senator from Kentucky actions. McConnell refused to directly answer the question and said, “We're in the process of working this out, and hopefully it will be resolved in the near future.” [CQ transcript, Republican stakeout, 3/2/10]

GOP Not “Available For Comment” On Bunning’s Actions. “Representatives of senators in states that have seen furloughs, including Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Bob Bennett (R-Utah), did not respond to inquiries seeking comment about Bunning’s push. Aides to two Republicans running for the Senate — former Rep. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.) — also did not respond to inquiries seeking comment, and a spokeswoman for Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), a Senate candidate in Illinois, said the congressman wasn’t available for comment.” [Politico, 3/2/10]

I decided to take a look at who voted against the unemployment extension, Corker, Sessions and Cornyn all voted against the bill. Senator Jon Kyl voted for the unemployment bill. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, who remained silent on Bunning's temper tantrum, voted against the bill.

So what does this mean? For the GOP, it is all about playing political attacks and obstructionism against the Democrats, and not providing any sort of bipartisan governing for the country. A crackpot senator decided to gum up an unemployment extension bill with a filibuster, and the Republicans decided to use this crackpot senator to play political partisanship against the Democrats. Of course when Bunning blinks, and the unemployment benefits bill does come for a floor vote, a majority of the Republicans will then perform a CYA to vote for the unemployment extension--the last thing the GOP would want is the Democrats attacking them for not providing benefits to unemployed Americans during a midterm election year. Looking at those Republicans who did vote against the measure, they were all located in strong, red states.

But this entire Bunning temper tantrum really shows another side to the Republican Party. Not only is the GOP a Party of No, and obstructionism, but it is also a party that seems to be consumed by extremists and crackpots. I've been watching how the GOP has been reaching out to the Tea Party activists, where even Sarah Palin gave a keynote address to the Tea Party Convention. Look at how the GOP is trying to muzzle their own lunatic fringe, while many of the top Republican leaders are also lunatics--and I'm not talking about the Republican political leaders here. The Democrats need to highlight, and pound this message that the Republican Party is no longer a party of conservatives, but rather a party of lunatics, extremists, and crackpots. And for the past week, Senator Jim Bunning was the lunatic poster child for the Republican Party, with his insane filibuster on the unemployment benefits extension. While Bunning was having his temper tantrum, the rest of the GOP leadership kept quiet, deferring their political souls to the lunatic fringe.

Welcome to the new Republican Party.

Bunning's filibuster cuts pay to doctors

The Bunning filibuster fiasco continues to drive itself into the Crazies Zone. Now apparently, Bunning's filibuster is causing a pay cut for doctors. From Talking Points Memo:

Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) is already infamous for blocking a temporary extension of unemployment and COBRA benefits for out of work Americans. But included in that package is legislation to prevent a mandatory pay cut for doctors--and by standing in its way, he's triggered a 21 percent fee reduction to doctors seeing Medicare patients starting today.

Republicans say they support a temporary measure to avoid the cuts, but they have been unable to rein in Bunning, and, as such, the Senate has failed to act on a House bill that staves them off.

The American Medical Association warned of this last week: "A Medicare meltdown now seems certain, as the U.S. Senate has left early for the weekend, abandoning seniors, military families and baby boomers," reads an AMA statement from Friday. "The Senate failed to repeal the Medicare physician payment formula that will cause a drastic 21 percent payment cut to physicians who care for Medicare and TRICARE patients. On Monday, the 21 percent cut goes into effect, forcing many physicians to limit the number of Medicare and TRICARE patients they see in order to keep their practice doors open."

On a conference call with reporters this afternoon Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) put it this way: "By his actions, Bunning has prevented people from receiving Unemployment, health care access, transportation projects from going forward, and Doctors who provide Medicare services from getting paid."

Today, for the seventh time, Bunning objected to a request for unanimous consent to temporarily extend benefits. In addition to cutting doctor's fees, his exploitation of the Senate's filibuster rules has cost thousands of out-of-work Americans their benefits and has even put thousands of federal employees out of work.

So if I'm reading this correctly, doctors who treat Medicare and Tricare patients, will see their payments cut due to Bunning's filibustering of temporary unemployment and COBRA benefits. So if the doctors are seeing their paychecks getting cut, does that mean those same doctors will also be thrown out of work and not see a temporary extension of their unemployment benefits?

And does it end at doctors? What about psychiatrists? Will psychiatrists see their paychecks expand due to the increased number of Republican crazies inhabiting Congress?

Olbermann has the latest on the insanity of Jim Bunning:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

GOP Senator Jon Kyl claims unemployment benefits make people not want to work

Is it me, or has the Republican Party followed Jim Bunning over a cliff? From The Huffington Post:

A debate on the Senate floor Monday over unemployment compensation crystallized, at least for a moment, the divide between the two parties in Washington.

Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the Republican whip, argued that unemployment benefits dissuade people from job-hunting "because people are being paid even though they're not working."

Unemployment insurance "doesn't create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work," Kyl said during debate over whether unemployment insurance and other benefits that expired amid GOP objections Sunday should be extended.

"I'm sure most of them would like work and probably have tried to seek it, but you can't argue that it's a job enhancer. If anything, as I said, it's a disincentive. And the same thing with the COBRA extension and the other extensions here," said Kyl.

Unemployment benefits are generally so small that much of it is often used to pay for COBRA health insurance, even when subsidized. The size of the benefits does not generally cover the cost of living and it would be hard to find a single person who would prefer unemployment to having a job so that they could get subsidized COBRA.

I think that Jim Bunning has just opened a huge can of night-crawlers here. Had Bunning kept quiet, and allowed Congress to pass the unemployment extension with overwhelming support from both political parties, this debate would have never come to the forefront. However, Bunning decided to engage in his one-man filibuster. Now we have another Republican Senator, Jon Kyl of Arizona, who is calling unemployment benefits as dissuading people from looking for jobs. Now the debate has crystallized to where the Republicans want to end unemployment compensation for jobless Americans at a time of high unemployment. The Democrats want to extend unemployment. I should also say that the current unemployment rate in the U.S. is at around 9.7 percent.

What are these guys drinking?

There is a new horror movie coming out called The Crazies. I'm actually starting to think that we have our own version of The Crazies in Washington DC, also known as the GOP.

Here's the preview for the horror movie The Crazies. What do you think?

GOP Senator Jim Bunning filibusters Senate vote to extend unemployment benefits

I've been watching this story over the weekend, and I'm just fascinated at this latest Senate "train wreak" that has been caused by a lone, Republican senator. From MSNBC News:

WASHINGTON - Two thousand federal transportation workers were furloughed without pay on Monday, and the Obama administration said they have a Kentucky senator to blame for it.

Federal reimbursements to states for highway programs will also be halted, the Transportation Department said in a statement late Sunday. The reimbursements amount to about $190 million a day, according to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

The furloughs and freeze on payments were the result of a decision last week by Republican Sen. Jim Bunning to block passage of legislation that would have extended federal highway and transit programs, the department said. Those programs expired at midnight Sunday.

The extension of transportation programs was part of a larger package of government programs that also expired Sunday, including unemployment benefits for about 400,000 Americans.

Bunning objected to the $10 billion measure, saying it would add to the budget deficit. He didn't respond to a request Monday for comment.

Countdown with Keith Olbermann has a decent back story on Bunning's 'bizarro' behavior:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Should I really feel sorry that Bunning has missed his college basketball game so that he could deny unemployment benefits to Americans who have lost their jobs?

Of course, when Democratic senators pleaded with Bunning to drop his filibuster, Bunning replied "Tough shit!" From the Politico.com:

Senate Democrats spent Thursday night hammering away at Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) for single-handedly holding up action in the upper chamber – but he blurted out a message to one of them on the Senate floor: “Tough s—t.”

In an unusual display in the normally sleepy chamber, Bunning – without the support of GOP leadership – has blocked efforts to quickly approve a series of extensions to measures that would otherwise expire Sunday, including unemployment insurance and the Cobra program that allows people who lose their health benefits to continue getting coverage.

And that has led to a furious exchange on the floor, with Democrats attacking the senator, who has refused to relent on his objection, in unusually harsh terms.

In a colloquy with Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Jeff Merkley, a freshman Democrat from Oregon, was pleading for Bunning to drop his objection, when the Kentucky Republican got fed up.

“Tough s—t,” Bunning said as he was seated in the back row, overheard by the floor staff and others in attendance.

A spokesman for Bunning did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Finally, an angry Bunning flipped the bird at reporters, questioning Bunning on his one-man filibuster. From ABC News:

Sen. Jim Bunning has left dozens of infrastructure projects on hold and put thousands of federal transportation workers temporarily out of work, but he is sticking to his guns, despite withering criticism from the White House and his Democratic opponents.

Bunning, the Kentucky Republican, decided last week to block a bill that would extend government funding of highway and transit programs and unemployment benefits for 400,000 Americans, among other programs. He has been critical of the bill's $10 billion price tag and its potential to add to the national debt.

Earlier today, Bunning refused to answer questions from ABC News, even flipping his middle finger at a producer trying to catch up with him from behind.

"Excuse me! This is a Senators-only elevator!" Bunning thundered as he boarded an elevator in the Hart Senate Office Building. "I'm not talking to anybody," he said.

I don't really know what else to say about this story, except that Republican Senator Jim Bunning decided to play the major asshole in this latest political drama. Of course, Bunning is in a perfect position to play this curmudgeon game, since he has decided to retire at the end of this year, and will not be facing re-election. But on another note, I can't help but wonder how embarrassing Bunning is to the Republican Party--Bunning is playing the same obstructionist game that the GOP has been playing with the Democrats, and the Obama administration, on every piece of legislative agenda for the past year. Could the difference here between GOP obstructionism against everything, and Bunning's obstructionism against the unemployment benefits simply be that Bunning is a stark, raving lunatic?

GOP leaders tell House Republicans to behave

This is just very interesting. From Who Runs Gov, via Americablog:

House GOP leaders are urging fellow Republicans to control their tempers and avoid any repeat performances of Joe Wilson’s “you lie” outburst at tonight’s State of the Union speech.

House Republican leaders warned rank and file Republican members in a private meeting this morning to show the President “respect” during tonight’s speech, two sources familiar with the meeting tell me.

House GOP leader John Boehner, minority whip Eric Cantor, and leading House conservative Mike Pence all stood up and delivered that message to the closed-door House GOP caucus meeting today.

“All of them talked about how the President is a guest,” one senior House GOP aide who was there tells me.

Separately, Cantor did a round of local radio interviews in his home state of Virginia vowing that attendees would treat the President “respectfully.”

For his part, Wilson is promising to behave: “I am a gentleman.”

I wonder how many of these House Republicans will behave during President Obama's SOTU address tonight? Or will the Senate Republicans degenerate into bratty children tonight?

Update: Perhaps the Congressional Republicans will take a page out of this brilliantly funny SNL strip:

Senate Finance Committee approves health care bill with one Republican vote

This is from The New York Times:

WASHINGTON — The Senate Finance Committee voted on Tuesday to approve legislation that would reshape the American health care system and provide subsidies to help millions of people buy insurance, as Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine, joined all 13 Democrats on the panel in support of the landmark bill.

The vote was 14 to 9, with all of the other Republicans opposed.

Democrats, including President Obama, had courted Ms. Snowe’s vote, hoping that she would break with the Republican Party leadership and provide at least a veneer of bipartisanship to the bill, which Mr. Obama has declared his top domestic priority. Ms. Snowe was a main author of the bill but she had never committed to voting for it.

But shortly after 1 p.m., she announced that she was on board, in a speech that silenced the packed committee room and riveted colleagues on both sides of the dais.

“Is this bill all that I would want?” Ms. Snowe asked. “Far from it. Is it all that it can be? No. But when history calls, history calls. And I happen to think that the consequences of inaction dictate the urgency of Congress to take every opportunity to demonstrate its capacity to solve the monumental issues of our time.”

In her speech, she said she still shared many of her Republican colleagues’ reservations about the legislation, and she pointedly warned Democrats that they could easily lose her support at any of the many legislative steps that still lie ahead.

“My vote today is my vote today,” she said. “It doesn’t forecast what my vote will be tomorrow.”

While I may not have been commenting on the health care debate over this past year, I have been watching the debate take shape. This is a huge, monster crisis with major stakes for everybody. Progressives want to model a new, public-provided health care system, possibly modeled after the British or Canadian public health care system. Big Insurance and Health Care Providers want to maintain the status quo on the current system. And as the recession sheds even more U.S. jobs, more Americans are finding their health care coverage either curtailed, or losing it altogether. We've seen congressional town hall meetings become disruptive by angry conservatives, who were bussed in by grass roots organizations funded by big corporations. Then there were the death panels, where Republicans accused President Barack Obama and the Democrats of rationing health care as a means of killing senior citizens. Then again, the Republicans have been opposed of everything that President Obama or the Democrats have introduced as legislation in Congress. The Republicans have shown themselves over this past year to be a Party of No.

But that has now slightly changed. We have one of the last few, remaining, Republican moderates to have actually voted in favor of this health care reform. Senator Olympia J. Snowe broke with the Party of No to approve the health care legislation in the Senate Finance Committee vote. If the bill comes before the entire Senate, Snowe may end up voting against it--especially if the House version of the health care bill provides some form of a public option, resulting in an angry compromise between the House and Senate versions. Either way, we have a bipartisanship bill of one Republican vote. That is going to be the best that the president, or the Democrats will ever get on this health care vote.

We'll see what happens next.

Burris will not run for Senate in 2010

I guess Roland Burris finally realized just how Blago-radioactive he was for the Democrats in the Senate. From USA Today:

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Democratic official says Roland Burris will not run for a full Senate term in 2010.

The source says Burris has begun informing Democratic officials about his decision. The official spoke on condition because Burris had yet to announce his decision.

Burris was appointed by disgraced Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich to fill the Senate seat vacated by President Obama. His appointment was criticized from the moment it was announced and prompted calls for Burris to resign.

In the Senate, Burris has been treated as something of a pariah because of his ties to Blagojevich, who was arrested in part on allegations he tried to sell the Senate seat.

By not seeking a full term, Burris increases Democrats chances of holding on to the Senate seat in 2010. Republicans had viewed Burris as a potentially easy target if he were to run for a full-term in the Senate.

Burris was treated as something of a pariah. It is not surprising, since the Senate Democrats never liked Burris because of Burris' ethics taint--not only was Burris selected by former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who was indicted for trying to sell Barack Obama's former Senate seat, but Burris may have perjured himself on allegations that Burris "talked to some people" about raising money for Blagojevich. Burris has presented multiple stories about his contacts with Blagojevich, all contradictory. So the Senate Democrats wanted nothing to do with Burris. The Senate Republicans, however, loved Burris. The Republicans would love to see Burris run for re-election, after which the GOP could then drag the entire Blago scandal out during the 2010 election, and smear the Democrats with it. Of course, the Republicans wouldn't give Burris the time of day either. So Burris is sitting in Senate purgatory--damned by both political parties. It is ironic that Burris may have thought that Blago's selecting him to Obama's former Senate seat would have furthered Burris' political ambitions. Instead, I seriously wonder if Burris' political career is now over.

Michael Jackson's death reverberates through the halls of Congress

I honestly don't know what to say about this, except that I wonder if our congressmen have any frickin' brains in their thick skulls. I guess not. From Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON — Amid the great debates of the day over health care, global warming and economic recovery, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that there will be no pause in the action to honor Michael Jackson .

For the record, the San Francisco Democrat said that Jackson was "a great, great performer" and that his death has brought "lots of sadness . . . for many reasons."

However, she also made clear that she won't allow the House to debate a resolution honoring the fallen pop star from California .

"A resolution, I think, would open up to contrary views to — that are not necessary at this time to be expressed in association with a resolution whose purpose is quite different," Pelosi said.

Huh?

A little background is in order.

Shortly after Jackson's death last month, Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas introduced a resolution saluting the singer's life and work. She held a framed copy of it on the stage at Jackson's memorial service Tuesday at the Staples Center in Los Angeles .

However, Republican Rep. Peter King of New York , who called Jackson a "pervert" and a "pedophile," had vowed to block the resolution.

Apparently not wanting anything to do with the fight, Pelosi addressed the issue at her weekly press conference, beginning with this: "We're into the popular culture now."

Not wanting to entirely quash the discussion, however, Pelosi said members could give short speeches honoring Jackson but that no roll call vote would be allowed.

"What I have said to my colleagues over the years, and certainly as leader and as speaker, is that there's an opportunity on the floor of the House to express their sympathy or their praise any time that they wish," Pelosi said. "I don't think it's necessary for us to have a resolution."

Okay, so we have this Texas Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee introducing a resolution in the House, honoring Michael Jackson life and work, just after the singer died. However, New York Republican Rep. Peter King wants to block this resolution because he has called Jackson a "pervert" and a "pedophile." Of course, King ignores the fact that Jackson was never convicted of child molestation--King just assumes Jackson is guilty. Is it no wonder that our congressmen are idiots at times, arguing over Michael Jackson's dead body? Never mind the fact that the U.S. economy is still in the dumps, or that the CIA has admitted to lying to Congress. The big political controversy today is Michael Jackson!

At least Pelosi was smart enough to quash this idiotic resolution. Jackson has been honored enough over the past three weeks. Let him rest in peace.

Update: OMG! This is getting rich! Apparently King posted a YouTube video in which he called Jackson a "pervert," "child molestor," and a "pedophile. The video is not on King's YouTube website, but can be found here on Conservative New Media YouTube site:



Again, Jackson was tried on child molestation charges back in 2005, but was acquitted, and Jackson was cleared of all child molestation charges. And yet, here is this idiot King blathering on in saying Jackson is still saying that Jackson is still guilty. King continues to defend his comments, now claiming that he was criticizing the media for their excessive coverage of Jackson, and yet he still continues to call Jackson a child molester. I would guess that King is enjoying the negative coverage he is getting from his malicious comments on Jackson, using that negative coverage to stir up the hard-lined conservative base that may agree with King's comments. King may be stirring up his hard-lined conservative base, but at the cost of alienating an even larger group of voters that would at least respect Jackson's musical talent, and realize that these negative comments should have no place in the aftermath of the singer's death.

CIA lied to Congress

In some ways, this really isn't surprising. From the New York Times:

WASHINGTON — The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon E. Panetta, has told the House Intelligence Committee in closed-door testimony that the C.I.A. concealed “significant actions” from Congress from 2001 until late last month, seven Democratic committee members said.

In a June 26 letter to Mr. Panetta discussing his testimony, Democrats said that the agency had “misled members” of Congress for eight years about the classified matters, which the letter did not disclose. “This is similar to other deceptions of which we are aware from other recent periods,” said the letter, made public late Wednesday by Representative Rush D. Holt, Democrat of New Jersey, one of the signers.

In an interview, Mr. Holt declined to reveal the nature of the C.I.A.’s alleged deceptions,. But he said, “We wouldn’t be doing this over a trivial matter.”

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Silvestre Reyes, Democrat of Texas, referred to Mr. Panetta’s disclosure in a letter to the committee’s ranking Republican, Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, Congressional Quarterly reported on Wednesday. Mr. Reyes wrote that the committee “has been misled, has not been provided full and complete notifications, and (in at least one occasion) was affirmatively lied to.”

As I've said, I'm not surprised that the CIA lied to Congress from 2001 onwards. You have to go back to the individual sitting in the White House in 2001 that initiated this cult of lying--we're talking former President George W. Bush here. The Bush administration lied to Congress and the American people on just about everything--the WMDs in Iraq, intelligence failures and the reasons sending the U.S. into war in Iraq, the secret prisons, Abu Ghraib, waterboarding and torture, the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame, the U.S. attorney firings--the list just goes on. When President Barack Obama came into the White House of this year, I'd say that the CIA continued to lie to Congress because the Obama administration wanted to sweep the Bush administration's transgressions under a rug. I would say that President Obama doesn't want congressional investigations into the Bush administration for fears that a future Republican president may demand investigations into the Obama administration. In other words, it is politics as usual, and forget whether serious laws were broken by former leaders and public officials.

And we're seeing politics as usual continuing on in the NY Times story:

In a related development, President Obama threatened to veto the pending Intelligence Authorization Bill if it included a provision that would allow information about covert actions to be given to the entire House and Senate Intelligence Committees, rather than the so-called Gang of Eight — the Democratic and Republican leaders of both houses of Congress and the two Intelligence Committees.

A White House statement released on Wednesday said the proposed expansion of briefings would undermine “a long tradition spanning decades of comity between the branches regarding intelligence matters.” Democrats have complained that under President George W. Bush, entire programs were hidden from most committee members for years.

This is frickin' bullcrap on President Obama's part. The Obama administration doesn't want the CIA to disclose their activities, and their lying, to the entire congressional intelligence committees. So they make up this dog and pony show of saying that the CIA provided "a long tradition spanning decades of comity" to the congressional intelligence panels. That may have been true in the previous decades, but I can't recall a time when the CIA, and a previous presidential administration, engaged in such egregious lying to Congress--the Nixon administration's lying seems like child's play compared to what the Bush administration did. In this case, President Obama does not want to provide a fuller disclosure of intelligence matters to Congress, but would rather keep the status quoe of informing the congressional leaders, rather than the full committees.

Of course, this brings up another problem. Who is to say that a future presidential administration will probably order the CIA to continue lying to Congress--whether it is the congressional leaders, or the full intelligence committee members? If a future president, or an executive department, is going to lie to Congress about anything, then Congress is pretty much screwed here. There is no recourse that Congress has to punish such liars in the executive branch, with the exception of cutting off money funding such executive departments. Cutting off CIA funding may be a powerful punishment for the CIA's lying to Congress, but in today's polarizing political climate, that is not going to happen.

Which brings us to the polarizing political climate of today. Continuing with the NY Times story:

The question of the C.I.A.’s candor with the Congressional oversight committees has been hotly disputed since Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused the agency of failing to disclose in a 2002 briefing that it had used waterboarding against a terrorism suspect. Ms. Pelosi said the agency routinely misled Congress, though she later said she intended to fault the Bush administration rather than career intelligence officials.

Since then, Republicans have called Ms. Pelosi’s complaint an unwarranted attack on the integrity of counterterrorism officers and have demanded an investigation. Democrats have rebuffed the demand.

In a statement Wednesday night, a C.I.A. spokesman, George Little, noted that the agency “took the initiative to notify the oversight committees” about the past failures. He said the agency and Mr. Panetta “believe it is vital to keep the Congress fully and currently informed.”

A couple of points here. First, the CIA is continuing to lie to Congress about previously lying to Congress. You just have to love the statement about the CIA taking the initiative to "notify the oversight committees" about the department's previous lies to Congress, but then implicitly rejecting the congressional Democrats demands for CIA director Leon Panetta to explain his lying to Congress for the past nine years, saying that Panetta believes it vital "to keep Congress fully and currently informed." Talk about doublespeak here. Panetta is not going to give squat to Congress.

But the more interesting point was the GOP attacks against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, when Pelosi complained about the CIA lying to her back in May, 2009. Republican leaders were demanding that Pelosi retract her accusations that the CIA lied to her. Former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich called for Pelosi's resignation. House Minority Leader John Boehner demanded that Pelosi should apologize for her accusations. Even CIA Director Leon Panetta jumped into the fray, saying in a May 15, 2009 message to agency employees, which was released to the public, "Let me be clear. It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress...That is against our laws and our values." Now it turns out that Pelosi was right about the CIA lying to her, the GOP was wrong in demanding Pelosi to retract her statements, apologize, or resign, and Panetta continued his lying, which furthered the GOP attacks against Pelosi. This was partisan politics, where the Republicans found an opportunity to smear Pelosi on this CIA lying--regardless of the facts. Now that it turns out that Pelosi was right on the CIA lying to her, the GOP has suddenly turned quiet, fearing that any criticism would now undermine their smear campaign against Pelosi. And you can bet that every GOP politician will never apologize to Pelosi for their own smears against her.