Sarah Palin says that she felt ambushed when Katie Couric asked her what newspaper she read. This coming from a woman who shoots wolves from a helicopter!
That's not a joke, it's an x-ray of the conservative soul:
Implicit double-standard view of the world? Check!
Implicit sense of entitlement? Check!
Casual violence? Check!
Casual violence towards those helpless to fight back? Check!
Bottomless sense of victimhood? Check!
Utter cluelessness? Check!
Utter cluelessness about one's utter cluelessnes? Check!
And you thought conservatives didn't have souls!
No. That's vampires. And as any fan of Buffy, The Vampire Slayer knows, vampires are capable of seeking redemption.
Remember all the above. It's the key to understanding the conservative talk show rape obsession recently documented by Media Matters:
So, what we might end up with is a Senate Democratic Caucus that holds 98% of its members but still fails to pass healthcare reform, AND a mob of angry progressives who are screaming for the heads of "the Democrats." This isn't fair, but more importantly, it's self-defeating. If progressives REALLY want to transform America, they'll make an issue of the anti-democratic rules of the Senate which make real change virtually impossible.
Someone around here had a crazy idea along those very lines...I would hope this is one Senator's vote liberals could count on should a filibuster reform measure actually ever reach a vote.
Part of the money you've given to support OpenLeft will be used to hire on a new technical consultant who will be working for all of us to make the site better.
We have a list of things we think will help improve the site in terms of design and tech, but since you're our readers and you paid for it, we want to ask you what you like, don't like, and want to see fixed, in terms of technical work.
Spacing? Ways to improve Quick Hits? Formatting in different browsers? Anything you've got, leave it in the comments.
This afternoon, I am unconceeding defeat in the 1991 Onondaga County High School chess championships.
Eighteen years ago, after "losing" the semifinals to a freshman from Manlius Pebble Hill, I was pressured into conceding by a shadowy coalition of MPH chess team members (who hosted the competition, and probably sent messages to my opponent during the match), my employer at the time, Wegman's (who wanted me to work that night), and my teammate Julian Marshall, who went on to "win" the championship. Julian was afraid I would defeat him if I advanced to the final (I mean, I like totally beat Julian about 45% of the time in high school).
Further, I am unconceding defeat in my campaign to make Bel Biv DeVoe's "Do Me" our class song in high school. There is no way that "Everything I do, I do for you" by Bryan Adams represented our class that year.
It now seems quite likely that the Senate has the 60 votes necessary to force cloture on the motion to proceed with the health care bill. The final three votes Senate majority leader Harry Reid needed were Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, and Mary Landrieu, but all three now appear to be ready to vote "aye." Here is a rundown of all three:
"This weekend, I will vote for the motion to proceed to bring that debate onto the Senate floor," Nelson says. "The Senate should start trying to fix a health care system that costs too much and delivers too little for Nebraskans."
Nelson indicates that this does not mean he is ready to support cloture to pass the bill, but he is willing to let debate go forward.
Earlier today, Senate #2 Dick Durbin stated that Blanche Lincoln has told Harry Reid she would vote yes. Durbin is now walking back that statement, but really, the gig is up for Lincoln.
Anyway, what was Lincoln going to do--oppose even letting the debate go forward and then ask Democrats to vote for her in 2010? Not bloody likely, especially with a prominent figure in Arkansas still considering a primary challenge. Lincoln is highly likely to be a yes.
Right-wingers are in an uproar over this, but really--I am shocked, shocked to find that there is gambling going on in this casino! A member of Congress holding out on a key vote in order to secure funding for her home state or district!? I bet that has never happened before. This is really breaking new ground on Capitol Hill!
Further, while they don't seem to realize it, the right-wing uproar over Landrieu's deal actually makes it virtually impossible for her to vote against cloture now. Due to right-wing publicity, now everyone knows Landrieu is bringing $100 million home by holding out. As such, what is Landrieu going to do--issue a statement that preventing a floor debate on health care is more important than $100 million for Louisiana? Only 9% of Louisianans think she should block the debate. I bet a lot more than that want the $100 million, especially now that everyone has heard about the $100 million.
So, it looks like Democrats have the 60 needed to move forward on debate. The truth is that Reid probably secured the 60 votes before filing the cloture motion. It is a rare day when the leadership doesn't know the outcome of a vote before scheduling it.
The vote will take place tomorrow night, at 8 p.m. eastern, following an all-day debate. Notably, in exchange for the all-day debate, Senator Coburn has dropped his demand that the entire bill be read out loud, which means there will be less droning on C-SPAN2 during Monday and Tuesday of next week.
This is part two of an interview with Rea Carey, the Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Part one focused on the No On 1 campaign in Maine, the push to repeal Prop 8 in 2010 in California, and the marriage equality movement in general. This part focuses on the state of LGBT rights at the federal level, the Obama administration, and Congress.
Among the highlights:
Rea refusing to accept any half-measure on the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Although criticizing the Obama administration in many respects, Rea declining to call on the Obama administration for an apology over numerous slights towards the LGBT community
Rea commenting on the AMERICABlog donor boycott
The one comment I have is that I disagree on the refusal to call on the administration for an apology over what we all agreed were horrendous mistakes, with the rationale of "I don't know that the administration sees those as mistakes" (see the transcript for more). Glenn Beck called the President a racist, and he should apologize, regardless of whether he saw it as a mistake. LGBT advocates should call for the same from the Administration if serious mistakes were made.
Overall, though, NGLTF is taking a pretty strong stance in terms of language regarding the slow pace of LGBT issues in Congress, on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and with the Democratic Party in general, which is great.
Full transcript below the fold.
Q: Turning to the Administration and Capitol Hill, recently John Aravosis and Joe Sudbay launched a donor boycott of the DNC. Is NGLTF going to endorse the boycott?
The jobs bill is going to happen. The House will likely pass a bill in December, and the Senate will match in January or February after the health care bill is done. Rather than "if" it will happen, the major questions for the jobs bill are how large it will be, what will be in the bill, and how the bill will be funded.
Relating to the latter, I recently had a chance to ask Representative Alan Grayson if there was any legal barrier to using the remaining Wall Street bailout money to fund the bill. He did not believe there was any such legal barrier, and indicated that political barriers would be more significant.
The lack of legal barriers is virtually self-evident. TARP funds have already been used for a variety of non-Wall Street related projects, including the auto bailout and assistance for struggling homeowners. Further, the Obama administration has said it is interested in using some of the funds to pay down the debt, and using others to increase lending to small businesses. Clearly, there is a lot of flexibility in how the money can be used.
Being into the whole history thing enough to have written a book on it, I tend to take a long view on the big policy battles we fight today. As I wrote the other day, no piece of legislation ever gets to perfection, and on plenty of them you can have a perfectly legitimate debate even over the most well-intentioned bill over whether it does more harm than good. In addition to the actual policy particulars, lawmakers have to weigh (if they care about political survival) a wide range of other factors, including the political implications both nationally and in their home districts, the symbolism of what they are doing, how the interest groups and donors that matter the most to them are impacted, and how the media nationally and back home are treating the issue. Trying to factor in all these things is intense, and it is understandable that politicians sometimes have trouble making up their minds.
For reasonably progressive-minded advocates and lawmakers on a huge issue like health care, after you factor in all of the above, at the end of the day you also have to ask yourself two very big questions. The first is whether the passage of this legislation sets the stage on other issues for better or worse things to come. The second is whether the legislation, even with all of its flaws and compromises, creates a platform to build on in the future.
