Daily Kos

Sunday Talk - Winner Winner Chicken Dinner!

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 06:47:48 GMT

What a week, sports fans.

Tuesday saw Republicans take back control of the ~~House~~ New Jersey and ~~Senate~~ Virginia Governorships. And although Democrats won the NY-23 special election, it was still a huge win for conservatives.

Then came Thursday. Thursday was the Super Bowl of Freedom. Somewhere between four thousand and one million teabaggers dissented on DC in a shocking victory for the 1st Amendment.

And just a few hours ago, in the Hyper Bowl, socialism prevailed.

Open Thread and Diary Rescue

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 05:46:05 GMT

The rescued diaries are:

Morgan Sandlin caught a glimpse of the diabolical mastermind behind the Great Orange Satan on TV and wants him to know that Markos..at this point in time..I love you. (Got a Grip)

pollwatcher looks at the state of the economy and suggests that President Obama act now on what is truly Needed: A Government Green Jobs Program. (sunspark says)

Want to express your reason for supporting healthcare reform? redstatebluegirl has One word: Sophie. (watercarrier4diogenes)

leftyparent reminisces about days gone by, Crosby, Stills and Nash, and Letting My Freak Flag Fly. (sunspark says)

TheUrbanRevolution calls out the troops to support OBAMA'S THIRD WAR - Reclaiming the Press. (sunspark says)

Rei examines the data and conditions on the ground to help us understand The return of pack ice (or this year's lack of it). (Got a Grip)

blueness takes a look at the political arm of the Catholic Church, jumping off from an Italian court ruling that displaying "The Crucifix Creates Discrimination". (sunspark says)

LaFeminist reports from inside CAMP: A Conservative American Motivational Project. (shayera)

RiotLibrarian went to a "Business Summit" so you wouldn't have to (although you really should) and ended up Telling Governor Sonny Perdue that small business people want a PUBLIC OPTION. (Got a Grip)

Unenergy looks at the control Rupert Murdoch has over the Australian media and ask Mr Murdoch, when did you run for election for PM/President? I think it's possible we here in America got off lightly. (shayera)

In LA Times: White House warns Democratic consultant after appearing on Fox News, nspguy relates the touching tale of one reporter's apparent audition for a job in Murdoch's pigsty. (watercarrier4diogenes)

In what has always been a land of opportunity, Jay Elias looks at the degradation of society and throws out a Quote for Discussion: We Are Blowing It. (sunspark says)

CatM finds a lesson for us all in literature and invites us to Meet the Frankensteins: Bachmann, Beck, and Limbaugh (updated w/picture). (sunspark says)

jotter has High Impact Diaries: November 6, 2009

carolita has Top Comments 11-7-09 Divine Science Edition.

Enjoy and please promote your own favorite diaries in this open thread (even if you're the author! Here's where that's actually appreciated). And, of course, since it's an open thread, PLAY NICE, OK? 8^)

64 Democrats on the Wrong Side of Stupak-Pitts

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 05:16:05 GMT

For future reference, here is the list of Democrats who voted "Aye" on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment.

AL-2 Bright, Bobby; AL- 5 Griffith, Parker; AL-7 Davis, Artur; AR-1 Berry, Robert; AR-2 Snyder, Victor; AR-4 AR-4 Ross, Mike; CA-18 Cardoza, Dennis; CA-20 Costa, Jim; CA-43 Baca, Joe; CO-3 Salazar, John.

GA-2 Bishop, Sanford; GA-8 Marshall, James; GA-12 Barrow, John; KY-6 Chandler, Ben; IL-3 Lipinski, Daniel; IL-12 Costello, Jerry; IN-2 Donnelly, Joe; IN-8 Ellsworth, Brad; IN-9 Hill, Baron; LA-3 Melancon, Charles; ME-2 Michaud, Michael.

MA-2 Neal, Richard; MA-9 Lynch, Stephen; MI-5 Kildee, Dale; MI-1 Stupak, Bart; MN-7 Peterson, Collin; MN-8 Oberstar, James; MS-1 Childers, Travis; MS-4 Taylor, Gene; MO-4 Skelton, Ike; NM-2 Teague, Harry

NC-2 Etheridge, Bob; NC-7 McIntyre, Mike; NC-11 Shuler, Heath; ND Pomeroy, Earl; OH-1 Driehaus, Steve; OH-6 Wilson, Charles; OH-9 Kaptur, Marcy; OH-16 Boccieri, John; OH-17 Ryan, Timothy; OH-18 Space, Zachary.

OK-2 Boren, Dan; PA-3 Dahlkemper, Kathleen; PA-4 Altmire, Jason; PA-10 Carney, Christopher; PA-11 Kanjorski, Paul; PA-12 Murtha, John; PA-14 Doyle, Michael; PA-17 Holden, Tim; RI-2 Langevin, James

SC-5 Spratt, John; TN-4 Davis, Lincoln; TN-5 Cooper, Jim; TN-6 Gordon, Barton; TN-8 Tanner, John; TX-16 Reyes, Silvestre; TX-23 Rodriguez, Ciro; TX-27 Ortiz, Solomon; TX-28 Cuellar, Henry.

UT-2 Matheson, Jim; VA-5 Perriello, Thomas; WV-1 Mollohan, Alan; WV-3 Rahall, Nick; WI-7 Obey, David.

Here is the list of 26 Democrats who voted "Aye" on Stupak but "Nay" on the final bill:

Altmire, Barrow, Boccieri, Boren, Bright, Chandler, Childers, Davis (AL), Davis (TN), Gordon (TN), Griffith, Holden, Marshall, Matheson, McIntyre, Melancon, Peterson, Ross, Shuler, Skelton, Tanner, Taylor, Teague (h/t to askew and Granny Doc)

President Obama's response to House bill passage

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 04:46:05 GMT

Statement of President Barack Obama on House Passage of the Affordable Health Care for America Act

Tonight, in an historic vote, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would finally make real the promise of quality, affordable health care for the American people.

The Affordable Health Care for America Act is a piece of legislation that will provide stability and security for Americans who have insurance; quality affordable options for those who don’t; and bring down the cost of health care for families, businesses, and the government while strengthening the financial health of Medicare. And it is legislation that is fully paid for and will reduce our long-term federal deficit.

Thanks to the hard work of the House, we are just two steps away from achieving health insurance reform in America. Now the United States Senate must follow suit and pass its version of the legislation. I am absolutely confident it will, and I look forward to signing comprehensive health insurance reform into law by the end of the year.

History Made, 220-215

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 04:20:37 GMT

This is the first time a chamber of Congress has passed healthcare reform since Medicare was enacted. There's a lot of work left to do on this, and a lot of ugly to be undone, but we made it this far against long odds. Now the really hard work: the Senate.

HCR House Debate: Final Passage Up Next

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 03:55:45 GMT

The final bill vote is coming up next. Watch it here.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Update: And here we go.... Unless a lot of people have been lying to the whip and to leadership, the bill will pass.

Update 2: 212 with 9:00 minutes left. Just six more votes.

Update 3: 218!!! Too bad we can't get time-stamps with the votes, find out who is waiting around to the last minute to find out if they can take a free vote.

Update 4: CSPAN says the 1 R vote is Joseph Cao (LA-02). Hey, Landrieu, if a Republican from Louisiana can vote for it, I bet you can too!

Update 5: And hey, it's bipartisan now--who needs Olympia Snowe?

HCR House Debate: Still Voting

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 03:23:38 GMT

Voting continues on the Republican "plan." Keep talking.

And good lord, how do these anti-reform people calling into C-SPAN manage to breathe and dial the phone at the same time?

Update: We're saved from the Boehner "plan," with it failing 176-258. One R voted no.

Update 2: And here's the motion to recommit. I predict plenty of obnoxious.

Update 3: They decided it made more sense to go after trial lawyers than brown people in this one. Probably a good bet.

BTW, this should be a no vote for any Dem. But given that 64 of them are willing to sell out women's health, I wouldn't hold my breath on principled stands out of them now.

Update 4: Motion to Recommit is going to fail, with move than 225 no votes.

Update 5: Hoyer goes after the Rs on their "no time to read the bill" bullshit by calling them out. Kagro on IM:

Hoyer makes the key point that Republicans who are always screaming about needing time to review legislation have once again -- as the minority always does -- come to the floor with a motion to recommit that no one has ever read or had a chance to read. And it pisses them off royally!

HCR House Debate: Let the Voting Begin

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:57:20 GMT

We're starting with the Stupak Wire Coat Hanger Amendment. That vote will go for 15 minutes.

Then we have the Republican "substitute." George Miller really said everything that needed to be said about their "plan" for reform:

Then there will be a the motion to recommit, a Republican effort to derail this one more time that will probably be focused on "illegals." Finally, the main vote. If you've hung in here this long, don't leave now.

Let's all watch the votes roll in.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Update: David W. weighs in via IM: "It'll be interesting to see the vote total for Stupak. Do they all count on conference magic and therefore take the free vote? Or do they bolster the case or removal in conference by keeping the total as low as possible?"

It's up to 34 yeas from the Ds with 4:20 left.

Update 2: It's over 45 Dems now supporting. It's a freebie vote now, as David IMs.

Update 3: Great. The Wire Coat Hanger Amendment will pass with well over 230 votes when it ends. Keep an eye here for the roll call vote. It should be posted within 20 minutes or so, and will be vote #884.

What is that orange guy talking about?

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:33:27 GMT

The unusually-tinted Minority Leader of the House, John Boehner (R-OH) has been to the floor repeatedly today to try to extract promises from the Democrats managing the health insurance reform bill that if the Stupak amendment is adopted, they'll work to ensure that the amendment's language survives as a part of the final conference report. To their credit, no one has given that pledge.

And their reasoning has been sound. The fact is that nobody can really guarantee what will come out of a conference with the Senate. And that's not to mention the futility of trying to strike deals with an opportunist like Boehner.

But does Boehner have a point in insisting that the floor managers, who are the chairs of the three committees with jurisdiction over the bill, and therefore will likely be the main conferees in the part of the House, can speak with some authority on what's likely to happen in conference, and could even commit if they wanted to to voting in support of the House's official position on the amendment? Sure.

Does that entitle him to such a commitment? Absolutely not.

What's more, Boehner's sputtering apoplepsy at their refusal to give it is either an act, or evidence of his total disconnection from the everyday realities of the legislative process. Actually, I'm betting on a little bit of both.

Boehner's complaint is similar to the one expressed in last night's Rules Committee meeting by the odious Virginia Foxx (R-NC), that Republican amendments adopted in various committee markups of H.R. 3200, the precursor to the bill on the floor today, disappeared from the bill when the three versions were merged into today's product. It's 100% true: things change as bills move from one stage of the process to the next. Happens all the time. And it's been the bane of legislators who thought they'd had a victory under their belt since, well, forever.

In fact, it's often what happens to those annoying Republican motions to recommit that sometimes pass when the Blue Dogs are freed to "vote their districts" (i.e., pretend they're kind of Republican). Rather than allow the actual Republicans to set them up for attacks by forcing difficult votes on those motions, Dems occasionally will just get out of the way, voting to agree to a particularly stupid motion to recommit, often with the knowledge that the language will ultimately be removed in conference, anyway.

So strong is the tradition of giving independence and flexibility to conferees, in fact, that even when the House goes out if its way to specially adopt motions instructing the conferees to take certain negotiating positions, those instructions are non-binding, and well known to be so. And public option activists who participated in the effort to get progressive House Members to commit to demanding the inclusion of the public option all the way through conference will doubtless recognize that they often encountered much of the same difficulty that Boehner's having, for much the same reason.

Annoying? Yes. Confusing? Sure. Frustrating? You bet. Susceptible to Rumsfeldian sets of repetitive rhetorical questions? Absolutely.

But also entirely routine, and common enough that for Boehner to express any real surprise is fairly ludicrous, not unlike his skin tone.

Just thought you might like to know.

Health care reform, lying and GOP hypocrites

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:10:33 GMT

Wow, what a frothing frenzy of flat-out fabrications and 200-proof bullshit we've had. But we're nearly there. Votes are coming in around 9:30 EST, on both Stupak and the Republican substitute--though it's not clear at the moment which is coming first.

But in the meantime, here's a little refresher from the Republicans long day of prevarication. Here's just one small example.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R, Blatant Liar-VA):

The Republican alternative makes it illegal for an insurance company to deny coverage to someone with prior coverage on the basis of a preexisting condition.

Politifact does its thing:

[Debbie] Wasserman Schultz says GOP alternative health care plan allows insurers to continue denying coverage for pre-existing conditions....

Wasserman Schultz was correct when she said the GOP plan does not prohibit health insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. We found nothing in the 219-page Republican plan that would do that.

While that obviously puts the matter to rest, it's still worth strolling down memory lane for seeing just what could get Republicans in Congress to stand on their feet for their presidential nemesis ... when cameras were rolling:

Into the mouths of babes ...

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:18:04 GMT

Another stellar Republican moment: John Shadegg (R-Upchuck, AZ) grabs a baby as a prop and inserts free-market pablum ventriloquism into the already infantile Republican health care arguments ("Maddy believes in freedom.... Maddy believes in patient choice health care.").

Maddy, as soon as she reaches the age of majority, is probably going to sue the living shit out of you, Mr. Shadegg. There's so much wrong with this videotaped moment, I think we need a poll.

Update: How fitting that this coincides with the beginning of the debate on the Republican "substitute." The one that everyone's been laughing at for the past week.

Procedural update: We'll have about an hour of debate on the R substitute, then the votes on the two amendments--Stupak and the R substitute. If you're working the phone on Stupak, keep at it.

After the amendment votes, there will be a motion to recommit, and the rumor is that the Rs are going to use that to demagogue about not letting brown people have health care.

After that, the final vote. I've seen numerous reports that leadership is confident they have the votes for final passage.

HCR House Debate: Catholics for Choice Say Stupak Amendment "Unconscionable," Stupak Smirks

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:46:04 GMT

So the US Conference of Catholic Bishops care more about preventing women from having access to abortion--which is still legal, btw--than about providing healthcare access to millions and millions of the uninsured.

Catholics for Choice don't agree:

Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice, said:

"This is unconscionable. This tiny group of individuals has decided that their personal beliefs about abortion are more important than insuring millions of Americans who do not currently have coverage.

"We urge members of the House of Representatives to vote against the antichoice amendment. It is bad for American women and wrong for Congress to be deciding which procedures are covered and which are not.

"Catholics support healthcare reform and support coverage for reproductive healthcare services in that reform. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has been on Capitol Hill claiming to speak for America’s Catholics. They do not do so with any legitimacy. Poll after poll has shown that the American public, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, does not want to see Congress play politics with women’s healthcare.

"American Catholics will not forget who held their healthcare hostage, and allowed it to be held hostage, when the elections come around in 2010."

Meanwhile, Bart Stupak crows over how he got his way with nothing more than a bluff.

He’s saying that health care reform does not have any bearing on whether the Stupak amendment passes or not. And if the 10 or 15 members he has on the amendment wouldn’t care if it passed or not, so can bet that, with enough leverage, they wouldn’t care if the amendment were held either.

Now, John Boehner’s on the floor calling the Stupak Amendment a shell game. And it is. But the shell game is that Stupak ever had 40 votes to take down the rule whatsoever. He clearly did not. He never made public the 40 names. By contrast, the Progressive Caucus had 60 names on a list claiming they would vote against any bill without a public option. But that wasn’t respected. Stupak was. Because the leadership calculated that progressives would back down, and calculated that Stupak wouldn’t. But Stupak simply didn’t have the votes. He admits that here.

...he also takes a shot at progressives:

"Now, I have not threatened that every time that we went to Rules Committee and we didn’t always get our pro-life amendments, I did not try to take down any rules. You have to pick your fights at the right time. You can’t be crying wolf all the time because you lose your wolfiness. You lose your credibility," he said. "So I’m not going to lose my credibility. So you use it at certain times when it’s appropriate."

Ironic, that being willing to completely blow up the most important domestic policy agenda of your president and your party is rewarded in our system. That's politics.

Update: The Stupak amendment is being "debated" now, if you can call the anti-choice side lying about the current bill a debate. There's still some time to make calls. Chris says target these members to vote NO on Stupak:

Baird (WA-03): (202) 225-3536
Barrow (GA-12) (202) 225-2823
Berry (AR-01) (202) 225-4076
Cardozza (CA-18): (202) 225-6131
Castle: (DE-AL): 202.225.4165
Cuellar (TX-28) (202)-225-1640
Matheson (UT-02) (202) 225-3011
Michaud (ME-02): 202-225-6306
Perriello (VA-05): (202) 225-4711
Pomeroy (ND-AL) (202) 225-2611
Snyder (AR-02) (202) 225-2506
Tanner (TN-08) (202) 225-4714
Visclosky (IN-01) (202) 225-2461
Wilson (OH-06) (202) 225-5705

And there are some Republicans who are extending their obstruction to this amendment. More power to them. I hope they recruit some more naysayers.

Late afternoon/early evening open thread

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:16:04 GMT

Coming up on Sunday Kos ....

Devilstower will look at Karen Armstrong's new book, The Case for God, and what it has to say about the place of religion in public and private life.

DarkSyde will interview a real life character -- scientist/businessman/activist -- right out of a Robert Heinlein sci-fi novel.

As he watched the passage of Question 1 in Maine, Steve Singiser remembered the final days of the campaign for Proposition 8 in his home state, where a conversation with his seven-year-old son gave him a lot of hope. On Sunday, he will recount that awkward dialogue, and think about what it means for the future of same-sex marriage.

DemFromCT will look at this week's H1N1 trends, news and politics.

After Tuesday's vote on marriage equality in Maine, some are suggesting that New Hampshire might be the next place civil rights get taken down. Laura Clawson will investigate those stories: Reality or hype?

How's the House HCR Bill Going to Affect You?

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:46:04 GMT

House Leadership has put together this handy interactive tool to help individual see how healthcare reform might help them. It doesn't drill down to specifics like levels of premiums you'll have to pay, etc., but steers you toward the information sheets (all pdfs) that provide more information.

It also provides a nice antidote to all the lies spewing forth from the minority today.

The vote on the House bill is probably happening around 9:30 EST tonight.

Rep. Steve King Is An Asshole

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:12:04 GMT

So earlier today, Republican Congressman Steve King actually said:

"All Americans have health care, every single one."

What a noble sentiment. And what a spectacularly, blatantly false one. One would have to believe King knows full well it is false, but then again he is a conservative Republican, and conservative Republicans are at this point synonymous with manufactured realities in which tax cuts cause unicorns to fart rainbows of money across the land and decent public education is the gateway to Stalinism. So it is equally possible that King is being honest, at least within the narrow confines of his own head, and he honestly believes that no Americans are out there who do not have basic health care.

But I know some of the very people who King claims do not exist, and I expect you do too. One of my own close relatives suffers from an untreated hernia -- simple enough to fix, but untreated because he is uninsured. He has an option, of course. His "option" is to wait for it to get bad enough to cause an intestinal strangulation -- a likelihood, at this point -- at which point he will be rushed to the emergency room, hopefully operated on, and then receive a bill for some outrageous figure that he will not be able to pay. But he will only receive this treatment if it reaches the point where he will die without it -- merely being incapacitated is insufficient to receive health care.

Alternatively, he will live with the hernia for several years until he turns Medicare-eligible at age 65, the age at which we have decided it is appropriate for the American government to give a flying shit about the health of its citizens, and at which age we have decided it is appropriate for the government to become involved in providing very evil, very socialist health insurance. 63 or 64? Socialism. 65? Oh, that's fine then.

I expect if you asked around, perhaps three in four Americans would know somebody who was not receiving adequate medical care or medication because they simply could not afford it. And the other one in four Americans would be narcissistic, self absorbed assholes.

So congratulations, Rep. Steve King. You make that small and highly distinguished list of public figures too stupid -- or too willfully ignorant, or too absorbed in your own ideological illusions, or too entirely bought and paid for -- to even know that there are Americans out there suffering from inadequate medical care. Which, after all, was and is the entire purpose of this legislation. On behalf of those Americans, Representative King, I can only offer a hearty Fuck You.

You want to meet me anytime, anywhere, and I'll be happy to show you Americans who don't have the health care they need. Maybe if you met them, on one of your trips to and from the Capitol, you would condescend to acknowledge their mere existence.