Jon Stewart on New York, Charles Rangel and well.... pee.

HuffPost

After running down a list of recent embarrassments to the state of New York, Jon Stewart turned his attention to Charles Rangel, ripping on the Congressman and having some fun in the process. Stewart took Rangel to task, mocking him for the repeated indiscretions and the irony of his position on Ways and Means Committee.

But the kicker came when Stewart flashed a picture of Rangel passed out on a pool-side chair that "encapsulated the cluelessness of that ethical misjudgment, the arrogance bred by 40 years of Congress, but also added a comic twist." And how could this picture get even more ridiculous? Enter a warm bowl of water and a need for a new pair of shorts.

Reconciliation schmeckinciliation

MSNBC

Republicans argue that reconciliation is a partisan tactic that would limit their ability to offer amendments and limit debate to 20 hours in what's considered "the world's most deliberative body." They also say it's inappropriate to use a fast-track budget process to craft health care policy.

But Democrats are quick to point out that the process has been used by both parties — more than 20 times since 1980 — on things like tax cuts, student loan programs, children's health insurance, and welfare reform.

"They should stop crying about reconciliation as if it's never been done before," Reid said last week. "It's done almost every Congress, and they're the ones that used it more than anyone else."

This is why Democrats suck: they don't frame issues well.

They're letting the GOP frame this issue as "Democrats going to extraordinary lengths to ram health care through". And the Democratic response is "well, you did it too".

While that is true, that's not the issue. The issue is that the GOP has turned the Senate from a body that operates on majority rule to a body that needs a supermajority of 60 votes to get anything done. That was NOT the intent of the Framers. The intention was that 1 vote more than half would pass legislation.

The filibuster is being used as a parliamentary tactic (superbly, I might add) to stop passage of anything that might reflect positively on this president. They're paralyzing the nation to score political hits.

Why the Democrats have not noted this - the fact that the Republicans are trying to change the rules of the Senate to require 60 votes for almost anything - is beyond me.

It used to be that to filibuster, one has to have continuous floor speeches until and unless cloture is invoked. Now, it's not necessary - which is ridiculous. If you're going to stop the business of the country, you should at least have to hold your pee for it. Here's the big unless...the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses. That's always an option.

On the subject of reconciliation (and liars), Paul Krugman contributes this:

So, on the This Week panel today I didn’t get a chance to weigh in on the biggest whopper from Sen. Lamar Alexander, who told Elizabeth Vargas that reconciliation — I don’t have the exact transcript — had in the past been used for small things and “to reduce the deficit”.

In fact, reconciliation was used to pass the two major Bush tax cuts, which increased the deficit — by $1.8 trillion.

And there’s no penalty for this kind of deception.

Update: Brad DeLong has the transcript, including my final lament.

Here's Rachel Maddow taking on the latest lie regarding reconciliation. How do we allow these Republicans to lie and contradict their own statements and votes.



Then there's Jim Bunning, the retiring senator from Kentucky who used to pitch for the Phillies and is likely suffering from some form of dementia (I'm not joking). He decided to throw a hissy-fit and... let's let Jon explain. My only reaction is: if a Democrat did this, the outrage would be legendary. THIS is why Democrats suck. Bunning got a way with this and the very serious media was never forced to deal with it.

The Politics of Fear confirmed

Politico

The Republican National Committee plans to raise money this election cycle through an aggressive campaign capitalizing on “fear” of President Barack Obama and a promise to "save the country from trending toward socialism."

The strategy was detailed in a confidential party fundraising presentation, obtained by POLITICO, which also outlines how “ego-driven” wealthy donors can be tapped with offers of access and “tchochkes.”

The presentation was delivered by RNC Finance Director Rob Bickhart to top donors and fundraisers at a party retreat in Boca Grande, Florida on February 18, a source at the gathering said.

In neat PowerPoint pages, it lifts the curtain on the often-cynical terms of political marketing, displaying an air of disdain for the party’s donors that is usually confined to the barroom conversations of political operatives.

The presentation explains the Republican fundraising in simple terms.

"What can you sell when you do not have the White House, the House, or the Senate...?" it asks.

The answer: "Save the country from trending toward Socialism!”

...
The small donors who are the targets of direct marketing are described under the heading “Visceral Giving.” Their motivations are listed as “fear;” “Extreme negative feelings toward existing Administration;” and “Reactionary.”

Major donors, by contrast, are treated in a column headed “Calculated Giving.”

Their motivations include: “Peer to Peer Pressure”; “access”; and “Ego-Driven.”

Playing footsie with treason

Mother Jones

When people in positions of great power play footsie with those who advocate treason—or claim that the elected commander in chief is a bastard foreigner with no claim to the office—they are not just engaging in a lively debate. They are actively negating a fundamental principle of American politics: that the government, no matter how much you might disagree with its representatives, is of, by, and for the people.

Indeed, to a growing number of celebrity conservatives, this administration is no longer simply an adversary with whom you cross swords—it is an enemy you must destroy. In a paranoid culture, as Hofstadter recognized, the enemy is "thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable [and] must be totally eliminated." A government as villainous as the one portrayed on sites like WND (WorldNetDaily) cannot be debated or negotiated with, or even accorded the most basic respect. It must be vanquished.

Money we'll never get back, and the rush to return to "normalcy"

Paul Krugman



It’s crucial to realize that the trillion dollars’ worth of goods and services we could have produced this year, but won’t, is a loss we’ll never make up. And that doesn’t count the suffering and damage to our future inflicted by the non-monetary costs of mass long-term unemployment.

And yet, the prevailing sentiment in Washington and other centers of power is that we’ve done enough, and that it’s time to start pulling back — to normalize monetary policy, tighten our fiscal belts. Policymakers are congratulating themselves for avoiding total collapse, when they should be berating themselves for failing to engineer recovery.

It’s tragic.

Did it HAVE to be Crosby? Really? Ugh

via Wampeters, Foma and Pat Falloon

YEAH JUST QUIETLY STAND IN LINE LIKE YOUR TEAMMATES WHO DID THE ACTUAL FORECHECKING TO GET THE PUCK LOOSE - THE PUCK YOU HAPPENED UPON BECAUSE YOU WEREN’T IN THE CORNER GETTING DIRTY YOU EPIC LITTLE TURD. YOU’VE BEEN ON WORLD-CLASS TEAMS FOR YOUR ENTIRE CAREER AND YOU’VE PROFITED OFF THE HARD WORK OF THOSE AROUND YOU. YOU MIGHT WANT TO THANK THEM ALL SOMETIME.

Krugman calls "bullshit"

Krugman

So, on the This Week panel today I didn’t get a chance to weigh in on the biggest whopper from Sen. Lamar Alexander, who told Elizabeth Vargas that reconciliation — I don’t have the exact transcript — had in the past been used for small things and "to reduce the deficit".
In fact, reconciliation was used to pass the two major Bush tax cuts, which increased the deficit — by $1.8 trillion.

And there’s no penalty for this kind of deception.

Why does the Very Serious Media continue to treat both sides as if they both have valid points? One side is obviously lying, Fox News is the mouthpiece for the right and no one will say a thing about it.

How could it *possibly* be about race. Noooo......

via Cesca

What's wrong with this description of a teabagger from Idaho?

SANDPOINT, Idaho — Pam Stout has not always lived in fear of her government. She remembers her years working in federal housing programs, watching government lift struggling families with job training and education. She beams at the memory of helping a Vietnamese woman get into junior college.
But all that was before the Great Recession and the bank bailouts, before Barack Obama took the White House by promising sweeping change on multiple fronts, before her son lost his job and his house. Mrs. Stout said she awoke to see Washington as a threat, a place where crisis is manipulated — even manufactured — by both parties to grab power.

Here's how it's all -- or mostly -- about race. The far-right is against punishing the banks, so it can't be the bank bailouts. The far-right also supported a massive increase in the size of government, unitary executive power grabs and unconstitutional measures fueled by fear-mongering over the very remote threat of terrorism. And Mrs. Stout is suddenly worried now? I smell bullshit.

Adding... The healthcare crisis isn't manufactured. People are going broke and dying. The horror stories are readily available online. Just Google "health insurance horror story" and see how "manufactured" the crisis is. Furthermore, look at any bar graph of the economy as of one year ago or any basic jobs number and tell me if the crisis is manufactured. Hell, this woman's son lost his house! How can she possibly suggest the economic crisis was manufactured? Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.

Then, on the other hand, look at numerous studies about the instances of terrorism and the odds of an American dying in a domestic terrorist attack. And then tell me which crisis is manufactured or exaggerated.

These people are pissed because there isn't a doddering old white guy in the White House -- like they're used to. That's what this is all about.

*sigh*... AND they have universal health care

...at least Wayne Gretzky is excited

Differences, part 1

via Wampeters, Foma and Pat Falloon




To whit:

The cost of doing nothing

via Cesca

This piece at the New York Times by Reed Abelson is a must-read. The reality of not passing the bill:

There will be a cost in lives, too. Mr. Pollack’s organization estimates that as many as 275,000 people will die prematurely over the next 10 years because they do not have insurance.

That's 2,291 people per month. More than 9/11 every month. And these numbers are conservative compared with the Harvard numbers.

The typical price of family coverage now runs about $13,000 a year, but premiums are expected to nearly double, to $24,000, by 2020, according to the Commonwealth Fund.

The insurance you have now... sucks. And it will only get more expensive.

The higher premiums will also persuade more businesses, especially smaller ones, to decide not to offer insurance.

So you'll be forced to buy insurance on your own instead of sharing the burden with your employer. Consequently, you'll be forced to economize and go with a plan with a high deductible. Which case, along with low annual and lifetime limits, you can still go bankrupt. You know how I know this? This is exactly what's happening now to real people every damn day. And Abelson's piece lays out how it's only going to get worse.

There's no exaggeration here. There's no "fear-mongering" here (in that fear-mongering is all about exaggerating irrational threats for political gain). Some things in this world should be feared. And the status quo is worthy of our fear.

It can't be reiterated enough: The Republicans want the status quo to continue. Once again, they're on the wrong side of history. Once again, as with Iraq, the economy, corporate regulation, and climate, the Republicans are wrong, wrong, wrong.

Why do we allow all this handwringing and fear=mongering about what might go wrong if we pass the bill when we know damn well the cataclysm that will erupt if we don't pass it?

How Paul Krugman woke up to politics

(via Cesca) If you're a Krugman follower, this New Yorker piece is a must-read.

Why do I like Paul Krugman? Because he calls "bullshit" to bullshit. Here he is cutting off Sam Donaldson's holding forth about Desiree Rogers.

DONALDSON: People who work for the president understand or should understand their place, which is to be spear-carriers. There are two stars in anyone’s White House, the president and the president’s spouse. After that, this passion for anonymity that once was a hallmark of people who worked for a president, has been lost. She wanted to be a star herself…

[....]

KRUGMAN: Can I say that 20 million Americans unemployed, the fact that we’re worrying about the status of the White House social secretary…

VARGAS: It’s our light way to end, Paul.

DONALDSON: Paul, welcome to Washington.