Hard-liners Peddle Zombie Lies About Immigrants and Crime
Posted by Walter Ewing, Immigration Impact on November 22, 2009 at 6:26 AM.

A new report from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), Immigration and Crime: Assessing a Conflicted Issue, attempts to overturn a century’s worth of research which has demonstrated repeatedly that immigrants are less likely than the native-born to commit violent crimes or end up behind bars. The CIS report focuses much of its attention on questioning the accuracy of the 2000 Census data used in two particular studies, one from the Immigration Policy Center (IPC) and another from the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC)—both of which dispel the myth of immigrant criminality. However, CIS ignores not only the many other sources of data in these two studies, but also the myriad studies from other researchers which have reached the same conclusion.

The real agenda behind the CIS report seems to be the promotion of the 287(g) and Secure Communities programs, in which local law-enforcement agencies and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) collaborate for the ostensible purpose of identifying and capturing “criminal aliens.” However, both programs actually end up snaring many individuals who are neither criminals nor immigrants. CIS relies heavily on data generated by these programs, even though this data is of dubious quality and is not representative of the United States as a whole. For instance, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) testified in March 2009 that the 287(g) program is poorly managed and yields inconsistent data. Secure Communities is an even smaller program with a similarly questionable data and reporting system.

Putting aside the technical and highly debatable claims CIS makes about the accuracy of 2000 Census data, the fact remains that the evidence demonstrating relatively low rates of criminality and incarceration among immigrants comes from far more sources than just the decennial census. It also comes from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), the Immigration and Intergenerational Mobility in Metropolitan Los Angeles (IIMMLA) survey, the Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study (CILS), the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), and in-depth community-based studies in cities such as El Paso, Chicago, San Diego, and Miami.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Senate Votes to Move Forward on Health-Care Bill: McCain Accuses Reid of Criminal Scheme
Posted by Adele Stan, AlterNet on November 21, 2009 at 4:50 PM.

Health-care reform legislation cleared a significant hurdle in the Senate on Saturday evening, as Democrats defeated a Republican-led effort to prevent the Patient Protection and Affordability Act, unveiled this week by Majority Leader Harry Reid, from moving to the Senate floor for debate. The vote split along party lines, 60-39. (The bill will almost certainly face a similar procedural fight after debate has concluded before a final vote is taken.)

As it became apparent that Democrats would be able to move the bill forward, Republicans used the debate over the procedure as a forum for tantrums and fear-mongering over details of the bill itself.

Most hysterical was Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who referred to the bill’s accounting -- signed off on by a very conservative Congressional Budget Office -- as a criminal Ponzi scheme.

“I think Bernie Madoff went to jail for this kind of behavior,” McCain said. Was he suggesting that CBO Douglas Elmendorf should be sent to the slammer? Or Harry Reid.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who, earlier this week, promised a “holy war” over the bill, today embarked on his jihad, which sounded a lot like the talking points advanced at Tea Party rallies by the astroturfing groups FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity.

“I hope they’re not trying to take us to socialism,” Hatch said.

Debate began yesterday under a cloud of uncertainty regarding whether Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would be able to rally every single member of the Democratic caucus to yield the 60 votes needed to break a Republican filibuster. Then, mid-day today, Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, the last hold-out in the caucus, announced that she would vote to allow the bill to move forward.

Lincoln, who is up for re-election in 2010, has been targeted by progressive organizations for home-state pressure. Progressive groups, such as FDL Action, have run ads in Arkansas prodding Lincoln, a very conservative Democrat, to vote for health-care reform, and FDL Action's Jane Hamsher dangled the prospect of a primary challenge at Lincoln should she prove to be an obstacle to health-care reform.

While announcing, from the Senate floor, her willingness to vote for the procedural motion known as cloture -- the mechanism by which a filibuster is broken -- Lincoln complained of the pressure under which she finds herself. (C-SPAN has the video here.)

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

ACORN: Another Super Villain with Super Powers
Posted by Steve M., No More Mister Nice Blog on November 21, 2009 at 3:22 PM.

We all know that right-wingers think Guantanamo terrorists are terrifying supervillains who'll put every American's life in danger if they're allowed to set foot on U.S. soil, even manacled and under extraordinarily heavy security. As it turns out, they're not the only people to whom right-wing bedwetters ascribe superhuman powers:

The new national poll from Public Policy Polling (D) has an astonishing number about paranoia among the GOP base: Republicans do not think President Obama actually won the 2008 election -- instead, ACORN stole it.

... The poll asked this question: "Do you think that Barack Obama legitimately won the Presidential election last year, or do you think that ACORN stole it for him?"

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Tiny Michigan Town Tells Liz Cheney to Take her Fearmongering Elsewhere
Posted by BarbinMD, Daily Kos on November 21, 2009 at 11:10 AM.

Standish, Michigan, tells Liz Cheney to sell it up the street:

Officials in a small Michigan town featured in a new video about Guantanamo by Liz Cheney’s national security group want her to know that they’re not falling for her “fearmongering” — and tell us they want Gitmo detainees in their town.

Cheney’s group, Keep America Safe, has released a short documentary starring several residents of little Standish, Michigan, slamming the Obama administration over a proposal to transfer some Guantanamo detainees to the town’s maximum security facility, one of several facilities being discussed.  [...]

Cheney is “certainly not representing the views of our community,” the City Manager, Michael Moran, told our reporter, Amanda Erickson.

While some local residents do appear to have expressed mixed feelings or opposition to the plan, Moran says that they’re an isolated minority that Ms. Cheney’s video elevates out of proportion in a way that’s “off base.”

The teabagger way -- pretend that the voice of extremism is speaking for everyone.

What Sarah Palin's "Jewish people will be flocking to Israel" prediction really means
Posted by Bruce Wilson, AlterNet on November 21, 2009 at 7:24 AM.

There's some acceptance that statements such as Sarah Palin's prediction that Jews will soon be "flocking to Israel" may indicate Palin holds apocalyptic beliefs. What's not understood is that she's closely associated with a religious tendency whose leaders promote anti-Jewish conspiracy theories, including one most commonly used by the Third Reich, in the 1930's and 1940's, to whip up anti-Semitic hatreds: the claim that a worldwide cabal of Jewish bankers manipulates the world economy and preys on working classes.

Stumping for her new autobiography, Sarah Palin has made a round of interviews with high profile media figures such as Oprah Winfrey and Barbara Walters. In the Walters interview Palin justified her support for expansion of Jewish settler enclaves on Israel's West Bank with a strange prediction. Walters asked, "Now let's talk about some issues - the Middle East. The Obama Administration does not want Israel to build any more settlements on what they consider Palestinian territory. What is your view on this ?" Palin responded, "I disagree with the Obama Administration on that. I believe that, um, the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon because the population of Israel is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead."

Why might Palin's prediction come to pass ?

In the 1920's and 1930's, rising anti-Semitism was propelled, in part, by conspiracy theories alleging that Jewish bankers such as the Rothschild banking family controlled both the German and world economies through the manipulation of global money markets. Leaders in Sarah Palin's religious tendency have for years been promoting extremely similar conspiracy theories. Some of these allege that the Rothschild banking family heads an international conspiracy that dominates much of the world economy and controls the U.S.economy through the Federal Reserve.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Tea-Parties so Diverse, They Had to Use the Same Black Guy in 5 Different Scenes of Tea-Bagger Movie
Posted by Oliver Willis, Oliver Willis.com on November 20, 2009 at 5:26 PM.

So there’s this ludicrous trailer for a ridiculous movie about the Tea Party people that came out today, and when I watched it I noticed that it kept showing the same black guy. Now, I knew the Teabaggers weren’t the most diverse crowd, but it’s kind of hilarious that they used the same dude in five shots in their trailer.

00:42

00:59

1:03

1:09

1:14

Utah Lawmaker: I Don't Mind "the Gays," but "I Don’t Want ‘Em Stuffing it Down My Throat all the Time"
Posted by Zaid Jilani, Think Progress on November 20, 2009 at 2:32 PM.

Earlier this month, the Church of Latter Day Saints made headlines when it threw its support behind a measure in Salt Lake City that barred “landlords and employers from discriminating based on sexuality,” making it the first city in Utah to adopt the gay rights measure. Now, the Mormon Church is backing a similar statewide bill, enlisting the help of a variety of lawmakers to help get it passed. One such lawmaker is Sen. Chris Buttars (R), who, despite his adamant support for an earlier proposition that banned same-sex marriage, does believe that sexual orientation deserves protection from employer and landlord abuse. However, while explaining his opposition to allowing same-sex couples to adopt children, he told the press that while he doesn’t “mind” gays, he doesn’t want them “stuffing it down [his] throat all the time“:

BUTTARS: I meet with the gays here and there. They were in my house two weeks ago. I don’t mind gays. But I don’t want ‘em stuffing it down my throat all the time. Certainly not in my kid’s face.

Watch it:

In the past, Buttars has said that gay men and women are “the greatest threat to America going down.” “I believe they will destroy the foundation of the American society,” he said in February. “In my mind, it’s the beginning of the end. … Sodom and Gomorrah was localized. This is worldwide.” Last year, the NAACP called for his resignation because of his comments about a controversial bill: “This baby is black, I’ll tell you,” said Buttars. “This is a dark and ugly thing.”

Will the Tea-Baggers Come After McCain? Will Palin Ride to His Rescue?!?
Posted by Steve M., No More Mister Nice Blog on November 20, 2009 at 12:08 PM.

I don't put much stock in the wingnut-skewed Rasmussen polls, but there's one out now that says John McCain might be at risk of a teabag purge -- according to the poll, McCain is barely ahead of talk-radio host and ex-congressman J.D. Hayworth, 45%-43%, in a potential primary matchup. (Hayworth isn't a declared candidate.)

In response to this, Bill Kristol writes:

Still, who could help McCain beat back a populist conservative challenger? Sarah Palin. I predict that Palin will come to Arizona next summer to campaign for McCain, will make an impassioned case for him, and will help him win. She will thereby repay McCain for his confidence in picking her last year, help keep McCain as a crucial voice in the Senate for a strong foreign policy, and get credit for being a different kind of populist conservative -- a Reaganite, not a Buchananite, populist -- than the immigration-obsessed, voter-alienating (he was ousted in 2006 in a Republican district) Hayworth.

Really? And risk damaging Brand Palin, which stands for the rescue of America from both Marxist Kenyan fascism and the RINOism of which all teabaggers believe John McCain to be the living embodiment?

Nahhh -- there's no way she's going to endorse someone against a candidate who is (or might be) identified with the teabag Cause. And as we can tell from her memoir, she's certainly not going to do anything for McCain out of gratitude for his decision to make her a star. So no, Bill -- you're wrong again.

Video: Progressive Change Campaign Committee Robocalls For the Public Option
Posted by AlterNet Staff, AlterNet on November 20, 2009 at 11:00 AM.

SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO

Last month, as Majority Leader Harry Reid considered whether to include a public health-insurance plan in the bill he would put before the Senate, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee ran as him hard, pressuring the leader with television ads in his home state of Nevada, where Reid is expected to face a difficult re-election campaign for his Senate seat.

Now, having won that battle -- Reid indeed included a public option in the Senate bill -- PCCC is marshaling support for Reid as he shepherds the bill though the legislative process, making robocalls recorded by Lee Slaughter, the Nevada nurse who appeared in the ad that was used to pressure Reid. People receiving the call are given a keypad option that allows them to sign up for PCCC's public option campaign. (The online sign-up page is here.)

Below find a video that features Slaughter's robocall as its audio.

VIDEO AFTER THE JUMP

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Hmmm ... Why Do So Many Wingnuts Have Such an Obsessive Fear of Being Raped?
Posted by Staff, Media Matters for America on November 20, 2009 at 10:45 AM.

Conservative commentators such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Michael Savage frequently employ rape metaphors when discussing progressives or progressive policies. For example, Beck said that New Yorkers are "being raped by [their] government," while Limbaugh, during a discussion of health care, told his listeners: "Get ready to get gang-raped again."

Video to your right; much more after the jump ...

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

More Republicans Think Obama Stole an Election than Democrats Believe Bush Did
Posted by Chris Bowers, Open Left on November 20, 2009 at 9:53 AM.

A new survey from PPP (PDF) shows that 26% of Americans, most of whom are Republicans, think that ACORN stole the election for President Obama.

For the sake of comparison, a Gallup poll immediately following Gore's concession in the 2000 election showed that 18% of the county, a significant percentage of whom were African-American, believed that Bush stole the election.

In 2004, the numbers for Bush were even lower.  Back then, in the wake of Kerry's concession, a Gallup poll showed only 13% of the country believed that Bush stole the election.  (FWIW, I was among the 5% or so that shifted from 2000 to 2004.)

This is simultaneously a demonstration that hard-core conservatives live in an entirely different reality than the rest of the country, and that the hardcore conservative base is as much as twice as large as the hardcore progressive base. 

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

The Best Paragraph Written About Sarah Palin's "Going Rogue"
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on November 19, 2009 at 4:48 PM.

I'm giving the nod to va, at Whiskey Fire:

The most unbelievable thing about Going Rogue, by the author-function "Sarah Palin," is that it's supposed to be self-serving. The problem a self-serving narrative about Sarah Palin confronts is that it's about Sarah Palin, whose entire life, it appears, consists of worse and worse attempts to create self-serving narratives explaining away bigger and bigger fuck-ups. Going Rogue's burden is that it must claim to be the definitive, encyclopedic explanation, the final excuse, for a long history of failure begat by failure; it's an epic of failure, if you will, and if the goal here is some kind of ultimate vindication, well, it is monumentally unsuccessful. Going Rogue is, at bottom, the story of every one of Sarah Palin's projects ending in grotesque catastrophe; it is only self-serving in the sense that these catastrophes either prove benign or turn out to be some other schlub's fault. If everything I knew about Sarah Palin came from this book (and basically it does), I would say her life has been like a play in which a deus-ex-machina descends at the end of every act to bestow peace and harmony, except the deus forgot to put on pants and everyone's just standing around going "uhhhh..." and then the lights go out and the scene changes.

Paragraphs 2 through 5 offer some fine and fun writing as well, so I urge you to read the whole thing.

No Stupak Language in Senate Bill; Boxer "Couldn't Be Happier," Hatch Promises "Holy War"
Posted by Adele Stan, AlterNet on November 19, 2009 at 6:46 AM.

At Majority Leader Harry Reid's announcement yesterday about the health-care bill he seeks to introduce on the Senate floor, the elephant in the room was women's reproductive rights, which were not addressed from the podium.

But ever since the House passed its health-care bill with the egregious Stupak amendment attached -- which bars virtually all abortion coverage from being offered in the exchanges through which most individual policies will be purchased -- battles over reproductive rights have taken center stage as the Senate hammered out its version of the legislation, titled the the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 

The Washington Post reports that the bill does not go the Stupak route, and instead establishes a "firewall" between federally-funded subsidies for insurance premiums and private funds that could be used to pay for plans that contain abortion coverage. ""I couldn't be happier," Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., told the Post. "For those who want to keep abortion out of this bill, Senator Reid did it the right way." Boxer is regarded as the Senate's foremost pro-choice advocate.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

News Flash: Christians Still Not Victimized by Hate Crimes Legislation
Posted by Steven D., Booman Tribune on November 19, 2009 at 6:38 AM.

There is a group which has seen a 25% rise in hate crimes against them in Florida, 17% which involve violent physical assaults. This might surprise some of my counterparts on the Right, but the group which is incurring these vicious attacks is not the one they would suspect.

That's right, violent hate crimes against white Christians are not increasing despite the election of that Kenyan Born Muslim loving Barack Husein Obama. I know it's hard to believe considering all the angst expressed on right wing talk shows about how Christians are under attack and are being victimized and terrorized by Obama, Atheists, Secularists, Democrats and Gays, but its true, nonetheless.

Let me ask all those concerned Republicans and Conservative Christians who are so afraid/whiny/have their undies in a twist over their alleged claim that that the recent hate crimes legislation protecting gays was directed against them (despite the fact that all people of religious faith have been a protected class under hate crime legislation since the first such laws were written years ago.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Senate Leader Announces Health-Care Bill
Posted by Adele Stan on November 18, 2009 at 4:12 PM.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that his Democratic caucus was ready to begin debate on a health-care bill that will be made public later this evening.

Reid told reporters that the bill contains a public option with an opt-out provisions whereby state legislatures could deny citizens participation in the plan.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill will cost $849 billion.

Reid made his announcement this evening surrounded by a group of senators, including Chris Dodd of Connecticut, who wrote the health-care legislation that came out of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee that was chaired by the late Ted Kennedy, for whom health-care reform was a life-long goal. Other senators, all Democrats, around the podium included Sen. Patty Murray, Wash.; Al Franken, Minn.; Chuck Schumer, N.Y.; Debbie Stabenow, Mich., and Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin, Ill.

Absent from the scene were the Senate's most ardent pro-choice women senators, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein of California. Also absent was Sen. Jay Rockefeller, W.V., who opposed the Senate Finance Committee bill for its lack of a public option -- a situation Reid has attempted to remedy with this opt-out provision. Rockefeller is regarded as the Senate's health-care scholar.

Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, Mont., was notably absent, as well, though for family reasons. Dodd said that Baucus' mother was ill, and that accounted for his absence. The bill that Reid announced today melds Dodd's HELP Committee bill with the one crafted by Baucus' committee.

Reid promised that the bill would be available to the public online later this evening.

C-SPAN has the video here of Reid's press announcement.

Americans Want a Health Surtax on Wealthy
Posted by Daniela Perdomo, AlterNet on November 18, 2009 at 2:00 PM.

Although the House bill includes a surtax on the wealthy in order to help fund the proposed health care overhaul, the possibility of it being included in the final health care bill seems uncertain. As Majority Leader Reid prepares the Senate's bill, he ought pay attention to this newly released Associated Press poll which shows that 57% of Americans are in favor of a health surtax on the richest among us -- and only 37% are opposed.

The poll also found that respondents dislike other options that are publicly being discussed on the Hill, such as the so-called "Cadillac plans," that would tax insurers on high-value coverage plans. Higher taxes on insurance providers, pharmaceutical companies, and medical device manufacturers were not as popular either.

The surtax included in the House bill would levy a 5.4% income tax surcharge on individuals earning $500,000 a year and households raking in $1 million.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Inspiring, Kickass Drug Activist to Take on Chuck Schumer -- Meet Randy Credico
Posted by Jan Frel, AlterNet on November 18, 2009 at 1:18 PM.

A New York Times blog from this morning alerted me to a promising development, and gave me new respect for fellow Santa Monican Larry David:

"Randy Credico, 54, a stand-up comedian and drug law activist who was director of the fund for the past 12 years, has decided to step down from [the William Moses Kunstler Fund for Racial Justice. He plans to devote himself full-time to his United States Senate campaign, in which he intends to challenge Senator Charles E. Schumer for the Democratic nomination next September."

Mr. Credico said his campaign manager is a former comedy writer for “Saturday Night Live,” and then he began pouring forth with phone numbers of celebrities and comedians he said were endorsing him. I called only one: Larry David, at his office in Los Angeles. Mr. David would not reveal any details about the season finale of “Curb Your Enthusiasm” on HBO, but he did offer his support of Mr. Credico’s candidacy – in his own inimitable, free-associative, hilarious style – and praised his passion for fighting harsh drug laws.

“It’d be pretty interesting, Credico in the Senate — kind of like tying a bunch of cans to a dog and setting him loose in a china shop,” he said. “I don’t envy Schumer. Randy’s really going to get under his skin.”

When told that Mr. Credico plans on running the race sober, Mr. David said, “Listen, I can’t tell the difference whether Randy’s drunk or sober.”

Then Mr. David said, in an unprintable way, that Mr. Credico had a lot of guts.

“He’ll say absolutely anything that’s on his mind,” he said.

Hmm, just like Larry David, I observed.

“No, I only do it on TV,” Mr. David shot back. “I’m only Larry David on TV. Credico’s Larry David in real life.”... 

“My campaign slogan is going to be, ‘Which candidate would you rather smoke a joint with? Credico or Schumer?’” he said, while racing around the penthouse apartment of a friend and directing a small staff of young adults with laptops on how to get out word of his candidacy. He wore his usual jeans and sport jacket and smoked cigarettes and chugged Coke — the soft drink — directly from the 2-liter bottle. He had on hand two boxes of Cuban cigars that he claimed were a gift from former Manhattan District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau.

Last year, Mr. Credico was arrested after interfering with police officers making a marijuana arrest on Gay Street.

Mr. Credico makes no pretense about his longtime battle with drugs and alcohol addiction. He said he has been free of drugs and alcohol for two months now and hopes to stay sober for the entire campaign.

Though sober, Mr. Credico does hope to appeal to the partying public.

It's worth going into that line about how Credico was arrested to understand him  -- the story behind it gives good insight into his real-world approach to activism, and puts on display a very direct theory of social change: Be the change. Tony Papa of the Drug Policy Alliance gives the fuller description in a June 2008 article:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Wow, Turns Out Sarah Palin Really Is a Dumb Wingnut*
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on November 18, 2009 at 12:00 PM.

During the 2008 campaign, Sarah Palin earned some ignominy when Katie Couric asked her to name a publication she relied on for news and she couldn't name a single one.**

Apparently, she's not exactly shining on her publicity tour when "grilled" with soft-ball questions by friendly right-wing bloggers. John Cole (italics are his too):

This is great. Red State “interviews” Sarah Palin, although I’m not really sure you could call this an interview, because there are no real quotes, and it turns out she has been doing some book learning:

One of the criticisms leveled by the right when Palin was chosen as McCain’s nominee is that she had not shown she’d done the reading to lead, i.e. read the Hayek, Friedman, Goldwater, Bastiat, to form her thoughts. She admitted she is a gut level conservative, but also said that criticism comes mostly from “shallow people who have not delved into [her] record.”

I did not want to sound like Katie Couric and ask what she’s read, but I broached the subject and she went right into mentioning Thomas Sowell and Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism. She said she has read some of the foundational stuff, but she sees no need to focus on the old writings. She likes “the modern stuff too.” Her preference is policy and application, focusing on writers who are not just following up on foundational conservative ideas, but applying those ideas too.

I am a liberal moonbat, whose name nobody is kicking around for national office, and I've read Hayek, Friedman and Goldwater.

And... Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism? That a book like that informs the "intellect" of a person many think represents the future of the conservative movement -- the Great White Hope -- is enough to make you feel like beating your head against the desk.

Update: in the comments, Anna writes, "C'mon Josh! The secret's been out for a long time." Absolutely true -- I should have said it's surprising that after that string of public humiliations during the campaign she didn't either, A) bone up, maybe read a few books without pictures, or B) figure out how to dodge those questions without coming off like such a teenager.

*Obviously it's sexist to say so.

** But we have to take her very, very seriously and it would be a grave error to underestimate her abilities.

Video: Rep. Stupak: We Had an Agreement Until 'the Extremes Took Over'
Posted by Adele Stan, AlterNet on November 18, 2009 at 7:37 AM.

SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO

After threatening to scuttle the House version of health-care reform legislation last week by refusing to accept a compromise on anti-abortion language the bill, Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., is positioning himself to be the savior of health-care reform as the Senate takes up its bill -- even agreeing to support language that would require insurance companies not to drop abortion coverage from policies paid for with private dollars.

Appearing on MSNBC's Hardball last night, Stupak claimed to have had an agreement with House leaders, on the night before the Saturday vote, "to put part of my amendment" into bill. Then, he said, "the extremes took over," forcing the need for his amendment, which would make it virtually impossible for insurance companies to offer, through a federally administered insurance exchange, health insurance policies that provide abortion coverage -- even if the purchaser pays for the policy entirely out of her own pocket.

Who might these "extremes" be, Congressman Stupak? The Catholic bishops, per chance?

David Rogers of Politico reported yesterday that ahead of the vote, Speaker Nancy Pelosi received a call from Rome; on the line was Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, the retired former archbishop of Washington, D.C., whom Pelosi, a Roman Catholic herself, knows. Neither will discuss the substance of the call. But we do know that anti-choice Democrats refused to sign off on the compromise because representatives of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops would not grant their blessing on the compromise.

(Of course, without naming them, it's more likely that Stupak is speaking of pro-choice members.)

Nontheless, Stupak, in his interview last night with Hardball host Chris Matthews, seemed to be trying to recast himself as a moderate by painting other anti-choice legislators as extremists. When Matthews asked which anti-choicers on the Senate side Stupak might be working with on abortion language, he pressed Stupak for names. Maybe Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, or Ben Nelson of Nebraska?

"Well," Stupak replied, "if you're gonna get the extremes on both sides, then you can't find common ground; I agree with you. You really have to try to find people much like myself, who are the moderates, who will actually try to work with leadership."

But Stupak also struck a note of bitterness, complaining that pro-choice Democrats had kept him from offereing anti-choice amendments to legislation other than heath-care reform, and balking at his opponents' complaints about his amendment.

"You know, we had a fair-and-square vote; we won -- 55 percent of the representatives said we should not have public funds paying for abortion, so you win on the floor, now suddenly they want us to come back and compromise."

VIDEO AFTER THE JUMP

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Priceless: Gay Rights Activists Take Over Christian Right Hate-Fest in DC
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on November 17, 2009 at 12:00 PM.

I guess Dana Milbank just worships power and delights in picking on the marginalized. So while I've grown to detest him for years of snarky columns cherry-picking little vignettes to make progressives -- environmentalists, anti-war activists, human rights experts -- look like hopeless geeks who should be ignored when the GOP was in power, now that the Democrats are riding high he seems to be focusing that admittedly sharp pen on tea-baggers and the religious right -- the GOP's immoderate base.

Today he tells an interesting story that could have been titled: Reverend Smith Goes to Washington ...

Conservative Christian ministers from across the land, determined to test the bounds of a new law punishing anti-gay hate crimes, assembled outside the Justice Department on Monday to denounce the sin of homosexuality and see whether they would be charged with lawbreaking.

Needless to say, no arrests were made.

No hands were cuffed. In fact, the few cops in attendance were paying no attention to the speakers, instead talking among themselves and checking their BlackBerrys.

The evangelical activists had been hoping to provoke arrest, because, as organizer Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission put it, "we'd have standing to challenge the law." But their prayers were not answered. Nobody was arrested, which wasn't surprising: To run afoul of the new law, you need to "plan or prepare for an act of physical violence" or "incite an imminent act of physical violence."

But there was some drama ...

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Tea Party Protests Get Violent in Arizona (Video)
Posted by Dawn Teo, Huffington Post on November 17, 2009 at 11:43 AM.

Tea Partiers tussled with counter protesters during at least two of the nationwide anti-immigration Tea Party rallies on Saturday.

In Ft. Lauderdale, several Tea Partiers brawled in the street with counter protesters from the Florida Chapter of Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER).

The video, which was shot by Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC), shows two Tea Partiers with their own video cameras making their way through the area designated by police for counter protesters from ANSWER. As the Tea Partiers reach the end of the ANSWER group, one of the Tea Partiers can be seen having an argument with one of the ANSWER counter-protesters when that counter-protester pummels him with his sign.

The brawl quickly spilled into the road, with some joining in and some trying to break up the fight. By the end of the incident, both Tea Partiers were on the ground, being battered by counter-protesters. 62 year-old Dave Caulkett of Floridians for Immigration Enforcement says he was kicked in the face just before being let up from the ground.

Police did not intervene on the video, but sirens can be heard in the background. It is unclear why no police were present to keep the peace between the two opposing groups.

Video of the incident was posted by ALIPAC, an immigration control organization. It includes captions depicting the Tea Party perspective of the incident:

Friday, the day before the Tea Party rally, ANSWER sent out a provocative email, which is now being cited and criticized extensively in conservative blogs. The email included the following statement:

Racism is like anything else in this world: in order to make it fall, you must smash it! That is why we are calling on all people to come out tomorrow, to organize a militant confrontation with the so-called 'tea baggers.' Beating back these forces will require us to organize together, take the streets, fight the racists wherever they show their faces and drive them out of every community.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Video: Health-care Abortion Controversy No Joke
Posted by AlterNet Staff, AlterNet on November 17, 2009 at 8:31 AM.

The Center for Reproductive rights is raising money to run this pro-choice ad, just as the Senate prepares to unveil its health-care reform bill.

California Dems to Obama: Get Out of Afghanistan
Posted by John Nichols, TheNation.com on November 17, 2009 at 5:00 AM.

The California Democratic Party speaks with an loud voice in national politics.

It is, by any reasonable measure, the biggest party in the biggest state in the nation.

And it is a well-organized, forward-looking organization that since the 1950s has had a tradition of delivering vital messages from the base to national Democratic leaders. Indeed, in the 1960s, California Democrats were among the first and loudest critics of President Lyndon Johnson's decision to expand the war in Vietnam. They were not merely opposed to the war; they were worried, wisely, that committing resources, governing energy and political capital to an unwise and unnecessary war would undermine the ability of an otherwise popular Democratic president to deliver on his ambitious domestic agenda.

With their history and their heft in mind, it is reasonable to say that when California Democrats take a strong stand on a contentious issues, it matters -- both as a signal with regard to popular sentiment within the party and as an indicator of the issues that could cause political headaches for a Democratic president.

So what does the California Democratic Party have to say about the global conflict that many believe could be for Barack Obama's presidency what Vietnam was for Lyndon Johnson's?

"End the U.S. Occupation and Air War in Afghanistan."

That's the title of a resolution endorsed over the weekend by the 300-member executive board of the California party.

The resolution calls for establishing "a timetable for withdrawal of our military personnel" and seeks "an end to the use of mercenary contractors as well as an end to air strikes that cause heavy civilian casualties."

In place of a continuing U.S. military presence, the California Democrats are urging Obama "to oversee a redirection of our funding and resources to include an increase in humanitarian and developmental aid."

That's sound advice for a president who is wrestling with the issue of how to respond to a request from some military commanders for a surge of more troops into what looks to a many savvy observers like a quagmire.

Among those speaking for the resolution was former Marine Corporal Rick Reyes, who described how his experience in Afghanistan led him to the conclusion that the U.S. occupation was illegitimate. "There is no military solution in Afghanistan," said Reyes, a Los Angeles native. "The problems in Afghanistan are social problems that a military cannot fix."

An Afghanistan and Iraq veteran, Reyes was particularly blunt in his criticism of the corrupt regime of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Palin's Prayer Leader Hinted Terrorist Attack Could Make Her President
Posted by Bruce Wilson on November 16, 2009 at 7:28 PM.

In the final weeks of the 2008 presidential election, one of the religious leaders closest to Sarah Palin hinted that the Alaska governor might soon get an unexpected career boost... from a terrorist attack.

Independent Charismatic Christianity vexed the McCain campaign throughout the 2008 campaign, first in the debacle that followed John McCain's decision to accept a long-sought political endorsement from Texas megachurch pastor John Hagee, when an anti-Semitic 2005 sermon by Hagee surfaced, then through infighting between Sarah Palin and McCain campaign staff.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Congressional Puppetry: Biotech Lobbyists Ghost-Write Health-Care Reform Speeches for 42 House Members
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on November 16, 2009 at 12:30 PM.

Robert Pear, reporting for the New York Times, discovered that the impassioned rhetoric aired by a fairly large number of law-makers during the health-care debate was drafted by corporate lobbyists.

In the official record of the historic House debate on overhauling health care, the speeches of many lawmakers echo with similarities. Often, that was no accident.

Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten, in whole or in part, by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech, one of the world’s largest biotechnology companies.

E-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that the lobbyists drafted one statement for Democrats and another for Republicans.

The lobbyists, employed by Genentech and by two Washington law firms, were remarkably successful in getting the statements printed in the Congressional Record under the names of different members of Congress.

Genentech, a subsidiary of the Swiss drug giant Roche, estimates that 42 House members picked up some of its talking points — 22 Republicans and 20 Democrats, an unusual bipartisan coup for lobbyists.

In an interview, Representative Bill Pascrell Jr., Democrat of New Jersey, said: “I regret that the language was the same. I did not know it was.” He said he got his statement from his staff and “did not know where they got the information from.”

Members of Congress submit statements for publication in the Congressional Record all the time, often with a decorous request to “revise and extend my remarks.” It is unusual for so many revisions and extensions to match up word for word. It is even more unusual to find clear evidence that the statements originated with lobbyists.

The piece is headlined, "In House, Many Spoke With One Voice: Lobbyists’". But it might as well have read: "Sloppy Staffers Offer Peek Into Everyday, Legal and Perfectly Ordinary Washington Corruption."

Because  what makes this a featured story -- the only thing really unusual about it -- is that "so many revisions and extensions match up word for word," which left rather "clear evidence that the statements originated with lobbyists."

Otherwise, it's dog bites man. Congressional staffers constantly rely on lobbyists for information, political help and, yes, talking-points. Advocates send lawmakers draft text to be included not only in speeches delivered on the House floor, but in legislation as well -- they do it all the time. (And I should note that it's not just corporate lobbyists pushing stuff through the worst lawmakers in Congress; labor, environmental, consumer groups and other advocates do the same thing for progressive law-makers. In this case it may be a pack of lies from a biotech firm in an effort to kill health-care, but ...)

And, of course, it's unusual for this kind of endemic distortion of the legislative process to be seen as anything but routine by the political class. So it's a story that's also note-worthy simply for the fact that the New York Times decided to treat it as such.

Anyway, a little peek into the sausage-making.

Sarah Palin's Top 10 Biggest Lies
Posted by , Media Matters for America on November 16, 2009 at 6:30 AM.

In anticipation of the release of Sarah Palin's memoir, Going Rogue, Media Matters for America has compiled a list of Palin's Top 10 falsehoods from before the book was published.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

G. Gordon Liddy "Convinced" Obama is a Muslim
Posted by Matt Corley, Think Progress on November 15, 2009 at 7:51 AM.

On his radio show today, G. Gordon Liddy hosted former Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer to discuss his Human Events column on the Fort Hood massacre, in which Bauer — echoing his close personal friend Bill Kristol — declared that “[p]olitical correctness has been radical Islam’s greatest asset in its war against America. Let’s execute it.” “Accommodation of Islam pervades our schools,” added Bauer in his column.

In the beginning of their discussion, Liddy said that political correctness towards Islam “precedes the Obama administration” because President Bush proclaimed that “Islam is a religion of peace.” “You know that’s just not true,” said Liddy. Later in the conversation, after Bauer complained that Obama’s Homeland Security adviser John Brennan would lead the investigation into what the U.S. intelligence community knew about Nidal Malik Hasan before his attack, Liddy announced his belief that President Obama “is a Muslim”:

LIDDY: I’m convinced that despite his protestations to the contrary, that Barack Obama is a Muslim. I don’t believe that he’s a Christian at all. I believe he’s a Muslim.

BAUER: Well, you know the church that he famously or infamously attended was, was odd in many ways. Not only the rantings of its pastor, the clear racist rantings of its pastor, which the President chose to listen to year after year with his family and his children. You know something that still in my view has never been adequately explained. But it was also a church that had some real strange ideas about Islam and Christianity. I’ve seen a number of suggestions that there were many people in the congregation that considered themselves both Christian and Muslim. Something that I’m sure both real Christians and real Muslims would deny is possible.

Not only did Bauer not disagree with Liddy’s claim that Obama is lying about his Christianity, he went on to praise Liddy’s contribution to America’s political debate. “You do an outstanding job on your show bringing people the information they need,” said Bauer. “I commend you for the good work you do every day.” Listen to it here:

It’s not surprising that Liddy would hold such a fringe view. After all, he is a prominent birther who thinks that Obama is an “illegal alien.” Bauer, on the other hand, has previously written that he doesn’t want to “question the sincerity of Obama’s faith.” But in playing along with Liddy, that’s exactly what he has done.

But What Does That 'Get a Brain Morans' Dude Think About All This?
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on November 14, 2009 at 9:54 AM.

I've had this nagging question bouncing around the old brain-pan for the past day or two.

It's about this dude:

You know him, you love feeling superior to him, he's clearly a superstar among liberal bloggers and their readers.

Booman referenced the iconic tea-partier* the other day, and something one of his commenters wrote got me thinking:

I am almost starting to feel sorry for that guy in the picture. Poor bastard.

He's probably too stupid to have a computer, but his kids will see their dad forever.**

Of course, an enormous number of stupid people own and use computers. Yet studies suggest that in terms of the websites we browse and the news media we consume, we are a deeply polarized nation. According to a Pew study, online users tend to "find and join groups that share their ideological, cultural, and lifestyle preferences."

And that widely-cited study of the political blogosphere during the 2004 elections (PDF):

... we found that liberal and conservative blogs did indeed have different lists of favorite news sources, people, and topics to discuss.... The division between liberals and conservatives was further reflected in the linking pattern between the blogs, with a great ma jority of the links remaining internal to either liberal or conservative communities.

We're also sorting ourselves out in the real world, living in communities of increasingly like-minded people. Who travels in moran-dude's circles? Well consider this: it's not just the hilarious misspelling that makes the image so rich, but also the knowledge that none of the people around him noticed. (You just know he proudly carried that sign around all morning as he anticipated sticking it to those smug hippie liberals.) So I think it's safe to assume that he and his pro-war fellow-travelers probably aren't big readers of Daily Kos or Talkingpoints Memo.

Which raises an interesting question: could a viral internet sensation like 'get a brain morans' dude -- a sensation only on our side of the information divide -- be splashed all over hundreds of thousands of web-pages and not even know it? Is he living his life, listening to Rush's soothing stream of grievances as he drives to and from his crappy mcjob, completely oblivious to the fact that he's brought countless smiles to the lips of millions of progressives across the country?

Is it possible in this wired era of social segregation to get your 15 minutes of fame and just miss them entirely?

I mean, surely that guy's as well known as this one ...

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Tom Tancredo "Fully Intends to Run" for Governor of Colorado
Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress on November 14, 2009 at 4:27 AM.

The Denver Post reports that, “while he has yet to formally declare his candidacy or fill out paperwork with the secretary of state’s office,” Tom Tancredo told a reporter that he “fully intends to run” for governor. When asked if he is running for Governor, Tom Tancredo told another local news station, “That is exactly what I anticipate doing.” After a brief run for President in 2008, Tancredo has been polishing his credentials over the past year by doing his part to coarsen the political discourse on television:

– Said he “didn’t know” if Obama “hates white people.”

– Argued Justice Sonia Sotomayor is a member of the “Latino KKK without the hoods or the nooses” and that she “appears to be a racist.”

– Claimed Obama may “indeed” be “a racist” because he nominated “Sonia Mayer” for the Supreme Court.

After Tancredo resigned from Congress, he told the press that he regretted being known for being anti-immigrant. A few months later, the proud nativist told a young Republicans gathering that he’d be open to halting all immigration to the United States.

Goldman Sachs Report: Watered-Down Senate Health Bill a Windfall for Big Insurance
Posted by Igor Volsky, Think Progress on November 13, 2009 at 3:55 PM.

The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein reports that Goldman Sachs (in the course of performing “God’s work“) did a report analyzing the impact of health reform on Cigna, Aetna, WellPoint, UnitedHealth and Humana. While Stein concludes that insurers would profit from undermining health care reform, the report also points out that a more “centrist” version of the Senate Finance Committee (SFC) legislation would lead to the highest “aggregate revenue growth” for the insurance industry:

Should lawmakers further water-down the SFC bill, the industry will stand to profit, the report implies, suggesting that the “bull” case scenario is a reform package that brings in millions of new government-subsidized customers without requiring the industry to pay any new taxes. Industry revenue would grow 6.9% from “more moderation of provisions in the current SFC plan or as a result of changes prior to the major implementation in 2013,” the report states. The report therefore suggests that the insurance industry may actually prefer watered-down reform over nothing. The Wonk Room has more. (Chart courtesy of FDL)

Politico Trivializes Rape by Gov Contractors, Spins Franken Amendment as Partisan Attack (Obsenity-Laden Rant Alert)
Posted by Thers, Whiskey Fire on November 13, 2009 at 2:53 PM.

Here is why I dislike the American Political Insider Press, and by "dislike," I mean, "want to toss into a vat of shark-infested sulfuric acid." It is because of this class of thing from The Politico.

When Al Franken ran for the Senate last year, the former “Saturday Night Live” star had to reassure skeptics that the fierce partisan attacks he lobbed at Republicans as an author and radio host wouldn’t define his style as a legislator. 

But because of one of his first pieces of legislation, Democrats now have their most brazen attack line of the emerging 2010 campaign season: that Republicans are insensitive to rape victims. 

The charge stems from a Franken-sponsored amendment that would prohibit the Department of Defense from contracting with companies that require employees to resolve workplace complaints — including complaints of sexual assault — through private arbitration rather than the courts. 

Only in the god-blighted shitworld of the horrible fuckassed American Political Insider Press is it possible to even fucking think for a motherfucking minute that it's Playing with Partisan Dynamite to argue that the American government should not negotiate expensive contracts with companies that shield rapists. What the fuck? What the motherfucking fuck?

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Will the Senate Stand Against Anti-Choice Stupak Amendment?
Posted by Emily Douglas, The Nation on November 13, 2009 at 1:43 PM.

"That's the price of health-care reform." That's what plenty of oh-so-well-meaning pundits have told those of us making a fuss over the Stupak amendment, the late-night attachment to the House health-care reform bill that will leave virtually any woman accessing insurance through the health insurance exchange without abortion coverage. (Another argument that's cropped up is that the Stupak amendment won't actually affect abortion access for that many women, a claim that's based on faulty analysis of Guttmacher data on billing for abortion care, as Adam Sonfield explains.)

But both pro-choice and progressive health-care reform leaders and members of Congress have come out swinging against the amendment, some going as far as to make it clear they'll refuse to support reform if Congressional Democrats decide to pay for it with women's health-care. Calling the amendment a "middle-class abortion ban," Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards said Wednesday that her organization would not support health-care reform with an amendment further limiting access to abortion. Meanwhile, Senators Barbara Mikulski and Diane Feinstein have begun strategizing how to keep Stupak off the Senate bill, the New York Times reports.

"Keeping Stupak off the Senate bill is our primary goal right now," Laurie Rubiner, PPFA vice-president, said, "and chances are very good for that."

"We're definitely hearing a lot of encouraging talk [about the Senate]," Donna Crane, public policy director at NARAL Pro-Choice America, adds. "The Senate thinks the House went too far."

Sen. Ben Nelson has grabbed headlines with the announcement that he won't support the Senate healthcare reform bill unless it, too, bans coverage of abortion for any plan financed in part by affordability credits, but advocates were doubtful that he could get the 60 votes necessary to have the bill considered.

"If someone wants to offer this very radical amendment, which would really tear apart [a decades-long] compromise, then I think at that point they would need to have 60 votes to do it," Sen. Barbara Boxer told the Huffington Post. "It is a much more pro-choice Senate than it has been in a long time, and it is much more pro-choice than the House."

"Ben Nelson is looking for any excuse to vote against health-care reform," Rubiner says. "It's abortion today, it was the public plan yesterday."

NARAL, though it is running a petition asking Sen. Harry Reid to keep Stupak-like language off the Senate bill, has not yet drawn a line in the sand. "We don't have an answer to that question," Crane told me when I asked whether NARAL would support a health-care reform bill with Stupak-like language attached. But the group's rhetoric is strong: in Politico, Nancy Keenan, NARAL president, said that "we are prepared to stop at nothing."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Limbaugh Calls Palin Memoir "One of Most Substantive Policy Books I've Read"
Posted by Liliana Segura, AlterNet on November 13, 2009 at 12:25 PM.

You know a public figure has captured the cultural imagination when, despite a severely half-baked political career, her memoir becomes a bestseller before it's even released -- and then, when it is released, there are not one, but two, parody books -- with the same title -- hitting shelves at the same time.

I'm talking, of course, about Sarah Palin, that tragicomic trick candle of politics, who never ever seems to go away, no matter how much we want her to (or secretly don't). Her new book, 413 pages long and flirtily titled Going Rogue, will be officially bestowed upon the world next week and reporters everywhere are already feverishly plucking out the best parts -- Palin's innermost thoughts on Katie Couric, for example.

Meanwhile, a number of enterprising lefties are promoting books of their own. And these are actually worth buying.

Going Rouge is the title of this book, to be released next week, on the same day at Going Rogue. A sort of best-of collection of commentary inspired by the former governor of Alaska, it cuts to the chase right on the cover ("An American Nightmare" is the subtitle). And why shouldn't it? By any sane standard, the prospect of Sarah Palin holding national office was -- and remains -- a frightening thought. Now, all the reasons why are packed into one convenient book.

To be clear, this book is no spoof: "Looking back, progressives and feminists did an admirable job in picking apart the GOP's first female vice presidential nominee," write co-editors Betsy Reed and Richard Kim of The Nation Magazine in the introduction. Featuring serious (and sometimes hilarious) articles by writers including Gloria Steinem, Katha Pollitt, Matt Taibbi, and Max Blumenthal -- not to mention our own lovable AlterNet staff -- it's a progressive pre-emptive strike we can totally get behind. (Remember, this is a woman who supports shooting wolves from helicopters.)

Moving on, Going Rouge is also the title of this book, which takes a whole different approach to deconstructing Sarah Palin. "That other book just has a bunch of words," co-author Michael Stinson recently told Buzzflash. "We got pictures!"

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Video: The Victimization of Carrie Prejean? How a Sex Tape and a Softball Question From Larry King = Christian Persecution
Posted by Adele Stan, AlterNet on November 13, 2009 at 9:37 AM.

SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO

The e-mail from the right-wing magazine, Human Events, bore this subject line: Liberal attacks on beautiful female conservative

The "beautiful female conservative" is Carrie Prejean, the Miss Universe pageant contestant who became famous by dint of her answer to a question posed to her by pageant judge Perez Hilton about same-sex marriage. And the attacks are presumably the distribution of a pornographic video featuring Prejean that surfaced earlier this week.

Now Prejean is hawking her book, Still Standing, at an inconveniently-timed moment: the pornographic video of Prejean surfaced just as the book was released, reportedly during her negotiations with pageant officials for the settlement of a counter-suit she filed against them after the pageant sued her for repayment of the cost of her breast implants.

It's all very Christian.

So Human Events is offering the Prejean book to you, free of cost, if only you'll take a trial subscription -- at no risk to you! -- of their anti-sex, anti-woman magazine. It's win-win for everybody. The bestseller list is gamed through the bulk buy of Still Standing by the magazine (progressive mags do this, too); Human Events gets new subscribers, and the Prejean-as-victim narrative is advanced.

Prejean herself has been the foremost saleswoman of the story of her martyrdom, but she may not be the best pitch-person for the job. On Wednesday's edition of CNN's Larry King Live, she proved her pitch to be less than perfect, when she called his softball question about the pageant settlement "inappropriate," removed her mic, but stayed in the guest chair. (Video at the end of this post.)

Carrie Prejean was just another beauty pageant contestant until, at the Miss Universe pageant, she was asked what she thought of same-sex marriage. Instead of giving a "world peace" answer, Prejean said she thought marriage was something that shold take place only between a man and a woman.

In the days that followed, Prejean was held up to ridicule for her statement, and another right-wing martyr was born. Proponents of same-sex marriage hardly helped their cause with the ferocity of their attacks. Some went after her family; Perez Hilton, the pageant judge who asked her the same-sex marriage question, called her a "dumb bitch" on his blog.

Prejean was lionized by the religious right, appearing as a keynoter at the Family Research Council's Values Voter Summit. There she recounted the attacks she endured after her pageant answer, but said she knew she had been chosen for that purpose. "As I saw my goals and aspirations flash by me, I knew God had a plan for me… God chose me for that moment," she told the audience of evangelical Christians. "He knew I was strong enough to get through all the junk that I have been through."

Since the surfacing of Prejean's sex video, she has cancelled appearances before conservative audiences, but that hasn't stopped Human Events from advancing the story of poor Carrie's victimization. After all, they still have that pile of books to get rid of.

VIDEO AFTER THE JUMP

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

No, It's not Elitist to Think the Tea-Baggers Are Idiots
Posted by Oliver Willis, Oliver Willis.com on November 13, 2009 at 8:39 AM.

A post over at the Seminal is taking “liberal elitism” to task for not taking the Tea Party people seriously, and that that will lead to the election of Sarah Palin and other such ilk.

To quote our vice president, malarkey.

While I have long argued that there is too much elitism on the left for my tastes, there’s a wide gulf between holding your nose in the air for no good reason and dumbing yourself down in order to appeal to the lowest common idiotic denominator. Suck is the case with the Tea Party group and their leaders like Palin.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

In Obama Era, Neo-Nazis Becoming More Visible
Posted by David Neiwert, Orcinus on November 13, 2009 at 7:41 AM.

James Verini at the Daily Beast notices something we've been tracking here at Orcinus too: Neo-Nazis and far-right extremists are not only recruiting more openly, they're being much more public in their full-on expressions of racism, nativism, and xenophobia. Unlike David Duke, these characters aren't even trying to hide it:

A year after President Obama's election, hate groups are feeling bolder than they have in over a decade, and their usually insular anger is beginning to spill into the public realm. This weekend, the National Socialist Movement, a neo-Nazi organization, held rallies in Arizona and Minnesota. Those demonstrations came on the heels of similar actions in Southern California, where epithet-spewing white supremacists were forced to disband by rock-throwing counter-protesters. The upsurge in visibility is more than anecdotal—law-enforcement officials are monitoring levels of agitation among extremist groups that they say are the highest since Timothy McVeigh’s deadly attack in Oklahoma City nearly 15 years ago.

The outcries of right-wing tea-partiers, death panellers, birthers, and the like are accompanied by increased activity all along the paranoid fringe.

“It’s sort of a beehive now,” says James Cavanaugh, a special agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Cavanaugh was one of the agents at the standoff at David Koresh’s Waco, Texas, compound in 1993 (which McVeigh timed his terrorist act to commemorate, two years later, on April 19, 1995). Last October in Tennessee, Cavanaugh aided in the arrest of two white supremacists charged with plotting to assassinate Obama, and in 2007 he helped bring down members of the Alabama Free Militia, who were found with hundreds of hand- and rifle grenades and other explosives. The arrests had an unsettling familiarity. “We haven’t had that kind of activity since the 1990s,” Cavanaugh says.

“We believe there is a real resurgence,” adds Lieutenant David Hall, director of the Missouri Information Analysis Center, which tracks antigovernment extremist groups around the Midwest. “The atmosphere is ripe.”

That was obvious to anyone who was in downtown Phoenix, Arizona, this past weekend:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Hawks in Congress Willing to Shell Out Trillions for War, but Won't Help Americans Get Decent Health-Care
Posted by Zaid Jilani, Think Progress on November 13, 2009 at 3:57 AM.

In recent days, heated policy discussions in Washington have largely focused on two topics: a possible escalation of the war in Afghanistan and health care legislation. Both a troop escalation and health care legislation carry significant price tags: roughly $100 billion and $80-$100 billion a year respectively. (It should be noted that health care reform, unlike a troop surge, would cut the deficit.)

In his New York Times column today [ed: Thursday], columnist Nicholas Kristof asks why hawks claim health reform is “fiscally irresponsible” while enthusiastically supporting a troop surge in Afghanistan, given the fact that fixing our broken health care system is, unlike a troop surge, essential to the health and well-being of Americans:

The health care legislation pays for itself, according to the Congressional Budget Office, while the deployment in Afghanistan is unfinanced and will raise our budget deficits and undermine our long-term economic security.

So doesn’t it seem odd to hear hawks say that health reform is fiscally irresponsible, while in the next breath they cheer a larger deployment of troops in Afghanistan?

Meanwhile, lack of health insurance kills about 45,000 Americans a year, according to a Harvard study released in September. So which is the greater danger to our homeland security, the Taliban or our dysfunctional insurance system?

Indeed, hawkish legislators have lined up to both demand a costly surge in U.S. troops in Afghanistan while at the same time claiming that deficit-cutting health care legislation would simply be too expensive:

– Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) has called for providing the “resources [needed]” for a “significant increase in U.S. forces” while warning that he is “really worried about what [health care reform] would do to the deficit.” [9/13/09, 10/26/09]

– Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has complained that passing health care legislation would “expand government spending even more,” while also boasting of his Republican caucus’s “broad support” for any troop increase in Afghanistan. [10/21/09, 10/11/09]

– Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) wrote a letter to President Obama stating that we “urgently need more resources” in Afghanistan, “including more combat troops,” while at the same time claiming that passing health care legislation would be tantamount to “generational theft” that would run up “unconscionable and unsustainable deficits.” [11/10/09, 8/27/09]

Kristof’s question bears answering. Why is it that hawkish lawmakers are so willing to spend such enormous resources in both lives and treasure on a troop surge in Afghanistan that is increasingly opposed by Americans and Afghans, but are so quick to bark at the price tag of health care legislation that could save the lives of the 45,000 Americans who die every year because they don’t have access to health care? As Glenn Greenwald notes, “Urging that more Americans be sent into endless war paid for with endless debt, while yawning and lazily waving away with boredom the hordes outside dying for lack of health care coverage, is one of the most repugnant images one can imagine.”

Catholic Church Threatens to Stop Taking DC's Money if Officials Don't Bow to its Demands on Same-Sex Marriage
Posted by Melissa McEwan, Shakesville on November 12, 2009 at 5:44 PM.

God is love, bitchez:

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care. 

Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.

Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.

"If the city requires this, we can't do it," Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. "The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that's really a problem."

Just so we're all on the same page, the Catholic Church doesn't want to extend partner benefits to same-sex married couples, because they view homosexuality as a sin. The Catholic Church also believes that all of its employees are sinners, by virtue of its doctrine viewing all humans as sinners. But they're not arguing that they shouldn't be compelled to extend benefits to those sinners, nor would they argue that providing healthcare coverage to people whose bad health habits they regard as sinful (gluttony! sloth! lust!) is a tacit endorsement of those sins. It's a special argument reserved especially just for the very special case of gay people and their specialized sin.

Catholic Charities, the church's social services arm, is one of dozens of nonprofit organizations that partner with the District. It serves 68,000 people in the city, including the one-third of Washington's homeless people who go to city-owned shelters managed by the church. City leaders said the church is not the dominant provider of any particular social service, but the church pointed out that it supplements funding for city programs with $10 million from its own coffers.

"All of those services will be adversely impacted if the exemption language remains so narrow," Jane G. Belford, chancellor of the Washington Archdiocese, wrote to the council this week.

Ah, it reminds me of those lovely words spoken by the Savior during his Sermon on the Mount: "And lo I beseech you to fuck over the homeless if the gays get too uppity."

Councilperson David Catania, who sponsored DC's same-sex marriage bill and chairs the Health Committee, sniffed at the church's threat: "They don't represent, in my mind, an indispensable component of our social services infrastructure." Councilperson Mary Cheh was even less generous, saying the church's behavior was "somewhat childish."

News Flash: Latest Right-Wing Conspiracy Theory About Obama Just as Silly as Previous Ones
Posted by Adam Shah, Media Matters for America on November 12, 2009 at 3:57 PM.

A post by RedState.com's Erick Erickson that Rush Limbaugh is hyping falsely claims that a memorandum from the federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM) will "purge the federal government of Republican civil servants" and "forc[e]" former Bush administration political appointees who currently have positions in the federal civil service "out of their jobs."

In fact, the OPM memo does nothing of the sort. It merely beefs up current OPM rules aimed at preventing political appointees from "burrowing in" to the civil service, thereby receiving the job security benefits that civil servants -- but not political appointees -- receive. While the memo states that agencies must seek permission from OPM to hire people as civil servants if they have been political appointees "within the last five years," nothing in the memo creates authority for anyone to fire current federal employees. Therefore, the OPM memo does not "purge" anybody.

Right Swoons Over Bush's Widely Publicized "Unpublicized" Visit to Fort Hood
Posted by Steve M., No More Mister Nice Blog on November 12, 2009 at 1:04 PM.

There's some buzz in the right-wing blogosphere in response to this post on a PUMA blog (yes, PUMA blogs are still around) and this one by Jerusalem Post columnist and editor Caroline Glick, both praising George W. Bush for his "unpublicized" trip last week to see wounded Fort Hood soldiers.

An excerpt from Glick's post:

Missing George W. Bush

A couple of days ago I heard the news that George and Laura Bush paid a private visit to the wounded soldiers at Fort Hood. They specifically requested that the base commander not inform the media of their visit. They came. They comforted the wounded soldiers and the Fort Hood community for a couple of hours. And then they left. And they never had their pictures taken saluting the troops or holding their hands.

When I heard the news, I felt this pain that hasn't gone away. It's a pain that I have been feeling fairly often since last November....

When I heard the news, I was struck by the fact that I heard the news. Isn't it odd how fast word of this "private" visit got around -- on Fox News the next morning, and ultimately all over the media? Darn that base commander, or whoever it was, who informed the press of the visit even though Bush specifically requested that it not be publicized!

A cynic, of course, would say that there's an effort in Bushworld to sell him as a guy who not only visits troops but shuns any publicity for those visits -- and what do you know, there was a story publicizing Bush's aversion to publicity in the Bush-friendly Washington Times last December, just about when Bushies were devoting considerable energy to making the case in the media for his "legacy":

EXCLUSIVE: Bush, Cheney comforted troops privately

For much of the past seven years, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have waged a clandestine operation inside the White House. It has involved thousands of military personnel, private presidential letters and meetings that were kept off their public calendars or sometimes left the news media in the dark.

Their mission: to comfort the families of soldiers who died fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and to lift the spirits of those wounded in the service of their country....

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Rep. Steve King Calls Obama Administration the 'Gangster Government.'
Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress on November 12, 2009 at 12:00 PM.

Rep. Steve King (R-IA), one of the right wing’s most shameless hate-mongers, has propagated all sorts of baseless attacks on Obama. For example, he has said Obama will make America a “totalitarian dictatorship,” that Obama was raised by polygamists, and that “radical Islamists” would be “dancing in the streets” if Obama was elected. In an interview with the Washington News Observer, King offered his latest diatribe, calling Obama’s team of advisers the “gangster government”:

Valerie Jarrett is a product of Chicago politics. This is power politics through Rahm Emanuel and Barack Obama, son and daughter of Saul Alinsky, linked up with Mayor Daley, the one that actually hired Michelle Obama and put her into that link, which may have well been the link that put Barack Obama into that machine. The Chicago Machine, we know what it is. Someone called it gangster government. In Chicago, you have gangester government and Valerie Jarrett’s been in the middle of that. She’s been brokering power for a long time.

Watch it:

King’s attack on Valerie Jarrett comes on the heels of Glenn Beck’s repeated screeds against her on his show.

ACORN Suing U.S. Gov Over Defunding Law Pushed by GOP
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on November 12, 2009 at 9:51 AM.

Remember that whole 'separation of powers' dealio? Congress writes the laws, and the courts punish those who break 'em. Neat system; worked OK so far.

If Congress passes a law punishing someone for doing something it thinks wrong, it's usurping the role of the courts, and the Constitution frowns on it! Legislators aren't empowered to punish wrong-doers, both because the "Founders" appreciated the value of a good trial and because they understood that politicians are often motivated by considerations other than the rule of law (shocking, I know!).

So they prohibited the passage of "bills of attainder" -- laws singling out specific groups or individuals for retribution. Which is double-plus good today, when our Congress includes frothing-mad right-wingers shouldering massive grievances and not a few members who are dumb-as-the-proverbial-box-of-rocks.

Speaking of which, you'll recall that the GOP pushed hard back in September to pass a bill that prohibited any federal funding from going to ACORN, the right-wing bogeyman-of-the-day [correction: the bill passed in the House but is still in committee on the senate side). Perhaps sensitive to the Constitutional issue, they wrote the law so broadly that it could apply to just about any contractor, and some suggested at the time that in theory it could, if applied consistently, lead to the entire military-industrial-complex being "defunded." Proponents said it passed Constitutional muster because it applied to everyone.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Pentagon Paying Taliban Who Are Killing US Troops
Posted by Bruce Wilson, Talk To Action on November 12, 2009 at 8:44 AM.

"It is an accepted fact of the military logistics operation in Afghanistan that the US government funds the very forces American troops are fighting." - Aram Roston, The Nation

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

No Actual Poll Results in First 8 Paragraphs of AP Poll Analysis
Posted by Jed Lewison, Daily Kos on November 12, 2009 at 4:00 AM.

How Anti-Choice Dems and Mike Huckabee Could Team Up to Screw Over America's Women
Posted by Allison Kilkenny, True/Slant on November 11, 2009 at 4:45 AM.

Two things caught my eye this morning that paint a pretty bleak dystopian future.

First, Politico reports that the latest Gallup polls confirm Mike Huckabee is the front-runner for the 2012 presidential nomination. Seriously. That’s the same Mikey Huckabee, who let Wayne Dumond, a convicted rapist, go free in order to appease his right-wing pals (Dumond went on to sexually assault and kill a woman in Missouri,) advocated isolating AIDS patients from the general population, believes in teaching Creationism side-by-side with evolution, supports building a 700-mile border fence along the Mexico-US border, and who doesn’t think gays or women should be permitted to serve in the military.

That guy. President. And sure, lots can happen between now and November 2012 that will promptly knock Huckabee out of his first-place rank. He could gain all of that weight back, become a raging alcoholic, and publicly shame himself when he projectile vomits all over David Letterman during his next Late Night visit.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Fox Mogul Rupert Murdoch Echoes Glenn Beck, Calls Obama a Racist
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on November 10, 2009 at 3:10 PM.

MURDOCH FANS THE FLAMES.... It seemed, for a while, like the political world was prepared to move beyond the animosity between Fox News and the White House. Presidential aides seemed to cut back on noticing the Republican network's partisan efforts, and Fox News returned to more routine, everyday bashing of Democrats.

Indeed, just 13 days ago, we learned that White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs met personally with Fox News SVP Michael Clemente. There was talk of a "truce." It was time to move on.

Or so we thought. just four days after the reported "truce," Chris Wallace gave Rush Limbaugh a half-hour of airtime on "Fox News Sunday," which the right-wing radio host used to make one ridiculous attack against the president after another. There was no obvious reason for the interview.

And just a few days after Wallace's love-fest with Limbaugh, Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch told Sky News Australia that Glenn Beck's infamous anti-Obama tirade -- Beck called the president a "racist" with "a deep-seated hatred for white people or white culture" -- was accurate.

SKY NEWS: The Glenn Beck, who you mentioned, has called Barack Obama a racist and he helped organize a protest against him. Others on Fox have likened him to Stalin. Is that defensible?

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Call Joe Lieberman's Bluff: A Real Fort Hood Inquiry Would Likely Shut Him Up
Posted by John Nichols, TheNation.com on November 10, 2009 at 11:00 AM.

Following the horrific shootings at the Fort Hood army base in Texas, Connecticut Senator Lieberman pulled a thread from the right-wing blogosphere and called for a congressional inquiry into whether the incident was an act of "terrorism."

Not domestic terrorism, but full-blown terrorism that is comparable to what is seen in the most unstable of warzones.

"This was an attack on America troops," Lieberman chirped on Fox New Sunday. "You've got to see it as if 12 American troops were killed in Afghanistan."

But, wait, U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan are fighting a strategically-sophisticated and structurally-coordinated enemy that employs traditional military tactics and terrorist strategies such as suicide bombings in urban areas.

Is Lieberman serious about making a comparison between what happened at Fort Hood and what happens in Kabul?

Not really.

When he's pinned down, Lieberman makes the slightly more precise calim that the Army doctor who killed 13 people and wounded 29 at Fort Hood showed signs of being a "self-radicalized, homegrown terrorist."

Never mind that another way of saying "self-radicalized, homegrown terrorist" might be "completely isolated mental-health case."

Never might that, when he started running the "terrorist" line on Fox New Sunday, host Chris Wallace used a sound line of questioning to make it clear that the senator did not have "any evidence so far (from) what you and your staff have heard in briefings that.. he was exchanging communications either in this country or overseas with other Islamic radicals."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Korean Warships Exchange Fire on the SK/NK Border
Posted by Staff, AlterNet on November 10, 2009 at 8:29 AM.

From AFP:

A North Korean patrol boat was set ablaze after exchanging fire with South Korea's navy on Tuesday, Seoul officials said, as cross-border tensions rose a week before a scheduled US presidential visit.

The two sides blamed each other for the clash, the first for seven years near the disputed Yellow Sea border.

President Lee Myung-Bak called an emergency meeting of security ministers as his Prime Minister Chung Un-Chan accused the North of making a "direct attack" on a South Korean high-speed patrol craft.

"There was no damage on our side while a North Korean patrol boat engulfed in flame sailed back (across the border)," Chung told parliament.

He described the clash, which follows recent peace overtures from the North, as unplanned and urged people to stay calm.

Some analysts, however, said Pyongyang may be sending President Barack Obama a message, eight days before he arrives in South Korea as part of an Asian tour.

Defence Minister Kim Tae-Young told parliament the North's boat sailed more than 1.6 kilometres (one mile) south of the border and "I believe they clearly knew about the intrusion".

The Joint Chiefs of Staff said the South's boat sent several warning signals after the North's craft crossed the border, but the intruder held its course.

After the South fired warning shots, "the North's side opened fire, directly aiming at our ship. Then our ship responded by firing back, forcing the North Korean boat to return to the north," the statement said.

"There were no casualties on our side. We are on the lookout for any further provocations by the North," it said.

"We fired heavily on the North Korean vessel," an unidentified navy official told Yonhap news agency, adding the initial assessment was that it suffered considerable damage.

"We express our strong protest to North Korea and urge it to prevent a recurrence of such incidents," said Brigadier-General Lee Ki-Sik of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

He said the two sides exchanged fire for two minutes from a distance of about three kilometres. The North fired about 50 rounds, 15 of which hit the South Korean boat.

The border known as the Northern Limit Line (NLL) has always been a potential flashpoint and was the scene of bloody naval clashes in 1999 and 2002.

General Lee said the North breached the NLL 22 times this year. But this was the first time the South had to fire warning shots, because the patrol boat kept intruding despite five warning signals.

North Korea's military, however, told its South Korean counterpart to apologise for a "grave armed provocation" and said Seoul's ships had opened fire while its craft was north of the border.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Conservatives Register Tea Party as Official Third Party In Florida
Posted by Matt Corley, Think Progress on November 9, 2009 at 2:00 PM.

After hard-line conservatives and tea party activists forced moderate Republican Dede Scozzafava to drop out of the race in New York's 23rd congressional district, they announced that Florida Gov. Charlie Crist would likely be their next target in the GOP civil war. Politico's Ben Smith reports that some Florida Republicans recently registered an official "Tea Party" to challenge both Republicans and Democrats:

"The current system has become mired in the sludge of special interest money that seeks to control the leadership of both parties. It's time for real change," says Orlando lawyer Frederic O'Neal, the new party’s chairman, who couldn't be reached immediately by phone, in a press release.

A spokeswoman for the Florida Secretary of State, Jennifer Davis, said the party had registered in August.

O'Neal compared his party's role to that of the Conservative Party in New York's 23rd District. Florida, however, lacks the "fusion" rules that has allowed third parties in New York to amass influence by offering their ballot line to acceptable major-party candidates.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

The Lesson in the Health-Care Vote
Posted by Digby, Hullabaloo on November 9, 2009 at 9:00 AM.

I've received a couple of comments and emails wondering why I haven't weighed in on the health care vote. I did, it was just done before the vote was taken. Sadly, my predictions were correct.

One of the things that those of us who follow politics from afar tend to see that those who are involved in the minutia often understandably miss, is the over-arching themes that guide the politicians and the villagers. I don't suppose that they are necessarily aware of it, although some of the influential strategists may be, but it's there nonetheless.

I knew that after all the sturm and drang over the past few months over the public option, the number one liberal priority in the health care debate, there would be a price for its success. The ruling elite could never allow an unambiguous liberal victory. It would endanger their narrative that says fealty to business, religion, military and other authoritarian structures is democratically inspired. They have to maintain the fiction that the people prefer to be subjects. If politicians aren't convinced that there will be a price for being liberals, they might get the idea that they can actually govern liberally.

This is why changing the media narratives and forcing Democrats to use liberal rhetoric and reject right wing framing is as important to the process as anything else. By perpetuating this default, conservative ideology, even as they are excoriated for being liberals (see: Obama campaign) they permanently tilt the playing field to the right, even in a liberal era or one in which the only pragmatic answers to difficult problems are liberal.

This problem isn't just a matter of good negotiating or putting pressure on politicians. Yes, these things are important. But in my opinion, unless we begin to change how this country defines itself, and how it projects its values, liberal policies are going to be impossible to implement to the extent that's necessary. Everything in our system is designed to prevent it.

Universal health care is something any decent, wealthy society shouldn't even have to think twice about. It's a global embarrassment that the United States, the chest thumping superpower, is even having this debate at this late date. It's equally embarrassing that we have put together a Frankenstein of a system because our democratic government is in league with wealthy interests which are exploiting its people. It's hard to believe that anyone would call that system liberal, much less socialist, but as you can see every day on Fox News, it's set off a tantrum among a vocal minority that would hardly be less hysterical if aliens from a foreign planet landed in Washington. (And that hysteria is also a tool of the permanent establishment, funded by big money, and used as a way of keeping the debate focused on the right, even if it's taking on an absurdist quality.)

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Neo-Nazis Protest Immigration in Phoenix, Get Out-shouted by Reasonable People Who Came to Protest Them
Posted by Byard Duncan, AlterNet on November 9, 2009 at 8:00 AM.

Arizona neo-Nazis got quite a surprise when they showed up in Phoenix Saturday to demonstrate against illegal immigration: they were outnumbered by people who came to demonstrate against them. According to the Arizona Free Republic, a sizable (and ethnically diverse) crowd made sure the neo-Nazis knew they weren’t welcome in the capitol.

Among the counter-protesters was Andy Hernandez, who said his intention was to peacefully disrupt a totalitarian ideology.

"We represent America," he said. "We didn't shut them down, but we gave them a counter protest. We just oppose what Nazi represents."

Phoenix police kept the two groups from exchanging anything more than insults, and the neo-Nazis disbanded after about an hour.

Many had disguised their faces and carried American flags. The goal for NSM's protest, according to one of the group's leaders, was to stand "in defense of America."

Apparently, they hadn't expected America to defend itself.

Lieberman Pledges To Filibuster Healthcare Bill, Says Public Option Is "Unnecessary"
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on November 9, 2009 at 5:00 AM.

On Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) about the House's historic passage of health care legislation last night. Lieberman said that as a "matter of conscience," he will join a Republican filibuster if a public option -- which has supposedly been put forward "by people who really want the government to take over all of health insurance" -- is also included in the bill that goes before the Senate:

LIEBERMAN: A public option plan is unnecessary. It has been put forward, I'm convinced, by people who really want the government to take over all of health insurance. They’ve got a right to do that; I think that would be wrong.

But worse than that, we have a problem even greater than the health insurance problems, and that is a debt -- $12 trillion today, projected to be $21 trillion in 10 years.

WALLACE: So at this point, I take it, you’re a "no" vote in the Senate?

LIEBERMAN: If the public option plan is in there, as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote because I believe debt can break America and send us into a recession that's worse than the one we’re fighting our way out of today. I don’t want to do that to our children and grandchildren.

Watch it:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Going Extreme: Demint Says Recruiting Electable Moderates "Doesn't Make Any Sense"
Posted by Jed Lewison, Daily Kos on November 8, 2009 at 6:26 AM.

More GOP civil war:

[NRSC Chairman John] Cornyn has gambled much on finding and promoting centrists able to win Senate seats in swing states and even some Democratic redoubts. And he’s decided to do so even though those candidates in at least four states — California, Florida, Kentucky and Connecticut — must first compete in and win expensive and potentially divisive primaries, mainly against more socially and fiscally conservative candidates.

...

"He’s trying to find candidates who can win. I’m trying to find people who can help me change the Senate," said Jim DeMint of South Carolina, a leader of the conservative bloc. "To think we can grow the party by picking people who are more liberal and don’t share our core values doesn’t make any sense."

As kos said earlier this week about the urge to purge amongst teabaggers:

Maybe they've stumbled upon a brilliant "addition by subtraction" political formula that allows them to win more races by kicking everyone out of their party.  But I still like our approach better. And in the end, we have the majorities to prove it worked.

Maybe they will. But so far, the only stumbling they've done has been over the first Democratic victory in NY-23 since the Civil War.

House of Representatives Passes Health-Care Reform Bill in Historic Vote
Posted by Adele Stan, AlterNet on November 7, 2009 at 8:32 PM.

In an historic vote in the U.S. House of Representatives, a health-care reform bill containing a public health-insurance plan passed the chamber by a vote of 220-215. One Republican, Joseph Cao of Louisiana, voted with the Democrats, while 39 Democrats, including Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich, voted against H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

Both of the Democrats who won special elections last week, Bill Owens of New York's 23rd district, and John Garamendi of California's 10th voted for the bill.

As the time allotted for voting drew to a close, Democrats, shouting in unison, counted down the final seconds like it was New Year's Eve. Speaker Nancy Pelosi smiled broadly as she pounded the gavel and announced the result.

At a meeting with reporters following the bill's passage, Pelosi called up Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., son of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, the upper chamber's long-time champion of health-care reform. "My dad was a senator," Kennedy said, "but tonight his spirit was in the House."

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., also played an historically symbolic role in the vote, gaveling the start of the proceedings.  Like his father before him, who was also a congressman, Dingell has introduced a health-care reform bill every year of his 54-year career in the House, and gaveled to order the 1964 proceedings for the passage of Medicare.

The bill passed in the House includes a public health-insurance plan that is one of a number of plans -- the rest offered by private and non-profit insurers -- that consumers will be able to purchase on an insurance exchange, which has been described as a sort of shopping mall of insurance policies. Lower-income citizens will be eligible for federally-financed subsidies of premiums. All Americans will be required to carry a minimum level of health insurance or face a tax penalty. Individuals earning more than $500,000 annually, and couples who earn more than $1 million per year, will face an additional tax to help finance the health-care plan.

Included in the legislation are protections against exclusion from coverage for pre-existing conditions and a prohibition on rescissions that have seen people suddenly dropped from coverage because they failed to disclose a minor condition such as acne. Women will be protected from elimination of coverage for gender-specific conditions. Young adults will be able to remain on the parents' policies until their 27th birthdays, and several discriminatory practices against LGBT people will be prohibited.

(For more on what's in the bill and likely battles to arise in a conference committee, see 5 Key Fights We Face Against the Insurance Industry by AlterNet's Joshua Holland.)

It was a week of wrangling, arm-twisting and conservaDem-whispering for House leaders as they sought to put together the 218 votes necessary to pass the bill. Originally scheduled for Friday, the vote was put off for a day as House Whip James Clyburn and Pelosi's whip team worked members of the Democratic caucus to bring more on board. President Barack Obama consequently delayed a planned Friday visit to Capitol Hill for a meeting with Democrats about the bill, instead making the trek today in a bid to sway any stragglers.

Much of the slow-down came at the hands of Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., who insisted that the bill was not strong enough in preventing the use of federal funds for abortion procedures, since the bill would permit a woman who bought private health insurance -- with her own money -- through a federally-administered insurance exchange to purchase a policy that covered abortion. With the backing of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Stupak and Joe Pitts, R-Penn., held up the bill, looking for a deal on language that would appease the church. (Both Stupak and Pitts belong to the secretive Capitol Hill religious group known as The Family.)

As of Friday night, Pelosi thought she had worked out a language compromise with the pro- and anti-choice forces, but before daybreak, the deal had fallen apart "because they can't count," Stupak said of Pelosi's negotiators during a press conference after the House vote.

Unable to deliver the compromise she thought she had forged, Pelosi allowed Stupak to bring his concerns to the floor in the form of an amendment, which passed with the votes of 64 Democrats. (More about the amendment from AlterNet here and RH Reality Check here.)

Part of Pelosi's calculus in allowing the Stupak amendment seems to be the unlikelihood that it will survive in the conference committee that will reconcile the House bill with whatever the Senate eventually passes and calls health-care reform. Certainly House Minority Leader John Boehner seemed to think so, as he made a point, during the general debate on the larger health-care bill of asking each of the committee chairmen who together crafted the Affordable Health Care Act whether they would commit to preserving the amendment when the bill is finalized in conference committee.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Anti-Woman Amendment to Health Care Passes House
Posted by Adele Stan on November 7, 2009 at 7:47 PM.

After a spirited debate on the floor of the House of Representatives, the anti-choice amendment to the Democrats' health-care reform bill offered by Representatives Bart Stupak, D-Mich., and Joe Pitts, R-Penn., passed by a vote of 240-194, with one member, Rep. John Shaddegg, R-Ariz., voting "present." Both Stupak and Pitts are members of the secretive Capitol Hill religious group known as The Family.

The House will vote shortly on the Pelosi health-care reform bill, with the amendment attached. House leaders agreed to let Stupak offer the amendment after conservative Democrats balked at voting for a health-care bill that did not pass muster with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, despite the bill's provision barring public funds from being used to pay for abortions. In order to get to the 218 votes required to pass health-care reform, House leaders felt the need to provide cover for Democrats from conservative districts.

 MORE ABOUT THE STUPAK AMENDMENT HERE

House Takes Up-or-Down Vote on Stupak Amendment, Threatening Women's Rights
Posted by RH Reality Check, RH Reality Check on November 7, 2009 at 5:00 PM.

This post is from Jodi Jacobson's blog at RH Reality Check.

House Democratic leaders will allow an up-or-down vote on the Stupak-Pitts amendment, which seeks to block even private insurance plans from funding abortion care.

In other words, this amendment, if passed and included in a final health reform bill, would block you from getting insurance to cover legal procedures in the United States of America, with premiums paid with your personal funds. Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America, the National Women's Law Center and other groups are calling for immediate action against the amendment, and you can click here to find your representative and tell them to vote no on Stupak.

The amendment, named for Representatives Bart Stupak, D-Mich, and Joe Pitts, R-Penn.  Stupak is a so-called "Democrat for Life;" Pitts has been a dogged supporter of failed abstinence-only policies, domestically and internationally, and was among those who succeeded in adding language forbidding the provision of contraceptive supplies for HIV-positive women in US global AIDS funding.

The agreement to vote on the Stupak-Pitts amendment came after 1:00 am this morning when an effort to adopt compromise language crafted by Rep. Brad Ellsworth apparently was rejected by Stupak and his supporters.  We reported on the Ellsworth Amendment here.  Rejection of the Ellsworth Amendment makes clear the agenda of Stupak's amendment is to ban abortion care in private insurance plans, because Ellsworth provided numerous protections against the use of federal funds for abortions other than those for rape, incest, and danger to the life of the mother, for all of which the law now allows federal funding.

The Hill reports that:

Liberals on the committee threatened to vote against the final healthcare bill if it included Stupak's language, warning that it would be a return to the days of back-alley abortions.

"I forsee a return to the dark ages," Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., told The Hill. "I'm 73, I've seen these dark things, they use these coat hangers and die."

"I used to think that life was black or white, but the older I get the most gray it becomes," liberal Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., told the panelists of the House Rules committee as they debated whether to allow the amendment. "I find this amendment very, very uncomfortable."

Having successfully made birth control "too controversial for health reform," Stupak, working with other "Dems for Life," the now unabashedly ultra-right Republican party and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops threatened to block passage of the health reform bill unless he got his way on the vote. His efforts are backed up by a massive organizing effort undertaken by the Catholic Bishops to mobilize ultra-conservative Catholics throughout the country. More than 85 percent of Catholics in the United States use birth control, and Catholic women have abortions at the same rate as women in the general population.

Women's rights advocates, including the speaker of the House and a majority of the Democratic caucus, support a provision in the health-care bill that would subsidize abortions for poor women who can't afford them, in keeping with current law.

"Rep. Stupak’s proposal to codify the Hyde amendment in health-care reform would force women who want comprehensive reproductive health-care coverage to purchase a separate, single-service rider," said Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. In the statement, Richards explains:

Such an "abortion rider," whereby abortion care could only be covered by a single-service plan in the exchange, is discriminatory and illogical. Women do not plan to have unintended pregnancies or medically complicated pregnancies that require ending the pregnancy. In fact, about half of all pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended, and abortion is not something that women plan to insure against. As a result, an "abortion rider" policy is unworkable. Women would not choose to purchase it, and would subsequently be unable to obtain the care they need. Proposing a separate ‘abortion rider’ represents exactly the type of government interference in the health care marketplace that conservatives purport to vehemently oppose.

For these and other reasons, "Planned Parenthood strongly opposes the Stupak-Pitts amendment which would result in women losing health benefits they have today," said Richards in a statement released early this morning. The statement continues:

This amendment would violate the spirit of health care reform, which is meant to guarantee quality, affordable health care coverage for all, by [instead] creating a two-tiered system that would punish women, particularly those with low and modest incomes. Women won't stand for legislation that takes away their current benefits and leaves them worse off after health care reform than they are today.

While Rep. Stupak claims that his amendment simply applies the Hyde amendment to health reform, nothing could be farther from the truth

In fact, "the Stupak-Pitts amendment would result in a new restriction on women's access to abortion coverage in the private health insurance market," continued Richards, "undermining the ability of women to purchase private health plans that covers abortion, even if they pay for most of the premium with their own money."

On Friday, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said passing Stupak's legislation could jeopardize passage of the bill, because abortion-rights supporters were likely to vote against a bill that includes it.

BACKGROUND on STUPAK-PITTS AMENDMENT:

The Stupak-Pitts amendment would:

• Prohibit individuals who receive the affordability tax credits from purchasing a private insurance plan that covers abortion, despite the fact that a majority of health insurance plans currently cover abortion.
• Result in a de facto ban on private insurance companies providing abortion coverage in the health insurance exchange, since the vast majority of participants would receive affordability tax credits.
• Prohibit the public option from providing abortion care, despite the fact that it would be funded through private premium dollars.

The current compromise in the bill, the Capps Amendment, already strikes the right balance between pro-choice and anti-choice interests.

It stipulates that health plans cannot be mandated to cover abortion, but they can choose to.

• If a plan chooses to cover abortion, the compromise stipulates that no federal funds can go towards abortion, consistent with current federal policy.
• It ensures state laws regarding abortion coverage are not pre-empted, so if states want to pass further restrictions on abortion coverage, they can.  This a significant win for anti-choice organizations.
• Protects conscience rights of health care providers and facilities.

The following is a list of editorials in major newspapers that have opposed Stupak-Pitts and similar proposals:

An editorial in USA Today (11/2/09): “[The Stupak amendment] goes too far. It would mark a broad new expansion in the effort to restrict access to abortion. Nearly 90% of private health insurance policies now offer abortion coverage, and almost half of women with private insurance have it. But women covered under the new system would have to find supplemental insurance or pay out of pocket for an unanticipated procedure that can cost from hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars, depending on complexity. For anyone unable to afford it, this would amount to a de facto ban.”

An editorial in the New York Times said (10/1/09):
“Conservative critics of pending reform bills want to prohibit the use of tax subsidies to buy any health insurance policy that covers abortion. Some want to require women to buy an extra insurance “rider” if they want abortion coverage, an unworkable approach given that almost no one expects to need an abortion, few women would buy the rider and, therefore, few insurance companies would even offer it.”

An editorial in the LA Times said (11/6/09):
“The real goal of abortion opponents isn't to maintain the status quo. It's to extend federal prohibitions into private pocketbooks. By restricting coverage offered through the exchange, they hope to make abortion coverage so unattractive that insurers eventually stop offering it in the market for individual and small-group policies.”

An editorial in The St. Petersburg Times said (11/5/09):
"Contrary to the claims of Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., who has been leading the antiabortion effort, the Capps amendment would not expand federal funding for abortion. Instead it would establish some basic principles to reflect the current health insurance landscape in which nearly 90 percent of private plans offer abortion coverage."

Video: Tancredo Storms Off MSNBC Set, "Insulted" by Markos Moulitsas
Posted by Adele Stan, AlterNet on November 7, 2009 at 3:24 PM.

SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO

In a raucus Friday-night segment on MSNBC's The Ed Show, Markos Moulitsas, founder of the Daily Kos, and former Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo had at each other over Thursday's Capitol Hill rally against President Obama and the Democrats' health-care bill.

After a spirited back-and-forth over the offensive signs -- like the one snapped by Think Progress' Lee Fang that labeled as "National Socialist Heath Care" a photograph of a pile of corpses from the Dachau concentration camp, or the one captured by AlterNet that asked "KEN-YA TRUST OBAMA" -- and rhetoric from the Capitol steps, the topic came of the medical system administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs. After Tancredo characterized the Democratic health care bill as "socialism", guest host David Shuster asked, "What about the V.A.? That's single payer."

Tancredo replied that veterans complain about problems with their V.A. care all the time, and saying that they'd rather have vouchers to use to pay for private health care. Moulitsas began to laugh, and Tancredo said, "Talk to the veterans; they talked to me, and that's what they said."

"Tom, I'm a veteran," Moutitsas replied. "I did not get a deferment because I was too depressed to fight in the war I supported in Vietnam."

Tancredo was an ardent supporter of the Vietnam War, but when his student deferments ran out, he failed his physical, he said, when he told recruiters he had been treated for depression, according to the Denver Post.

"That's a cheap, rotten, stupid thing to say," Tancredo charged. With that, he demanded an apology from Moulitsas, saying he wasn't going sit there and let " you try to insult me that way." When Moultisas refused to apologize, Tancredo pulled out his earpiece and left the set. Guest host David Shuster, who opened the show with a passionate commentary about the rally and, especially, the Dachau sign, invited Tancredo to return to the show.

VIDEO AFTER THE JUMP

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

The Ugly Politics of Mass Killings
Posted by Steve M., No More Mister Nice Blog on November 7, 2009 at 2:13 PM.

FUNNY THING ABOUT RIGHT WINGERS

So far, I haven't heard anyone on the right saying that the authorities shouldn't charge Malik Nidal Hassan with a hate crime because doing so would be a totalitarian, Orwellian criminalization of a thoughtcrime. But surely they'll want to make that point firmly and decisively in the days to come ... right?

****

And I'm confused. Right-wingers (NewsBusters in particular) have told us for years that the "liberal media" doesn't like to acknowledge certain demographic information about certain suspects in horrible crimes ... but right now CNN is prominently highlighting a convenience-store surveillance video showing Hasan in a traditional Middle Eastern robe and skullcap (the story is headlined "Fort Hood Suspect Seemed 'Cool, Calm, Religious'"), while the front pages of Talking Points Memo and the Huffington Post prominently feature stories that claim Nidal shouted "Allahu akbar!" before shooting (a claim made by Fort Hood's commanding officer in an interview on the allegedly arch-liberal NBC). How can this be? Where's the liberal cover-up? And if there's no cover-up, gosh, why isn't NewsBusters heaping these news outlets with praise?

(The same right-wingers, of course, went to great pains to make the case that James von Brunn, the man charged with shooting up the Holocaust Museum, was a liberal. But our side, naturally, is the guilty side.)

Palin Getting Paranoid? Alaska Quit-Bull Bans Laptops, Cell-Phones During Speech
Posted by Staff, AlterNet on November 7, 2009 at 11:05 AM.

CNN:

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is set to deliver remarks at a Wisconsin Right to Life event Friday evening, one of the few speeches the former Republican presidential nominee will have given since she resigned the governorship last summer.

But Palin appears to be doing her best to keep a low profile on this trip: no press will be allowed into the Milwaukee auditorium where she will speak and those who have paid the $30 admittance fee are unable to carry in cell phones, cameras, laptops, or recording devices of any kind.

Wisconsin Democratic Party Chairman Mike Tate told the Wisconsin Radio Network he finds all these restrictions "bizarre."

"You know, for someone who claims to be a rogue and isn't afraid of what other people think it really is sort of hypocritical to not let the media, the press cover your event."

Pat Boone Wants to Rid the White House of "Vermin"
Posted by David Neiwert, Orcinus on November 7, 2009 at 9:32 AM.

Well, we've known for some time that Pat Boone has gone wingnutty, but his latest column for the wingnutty WorldNetDaily is one of the most vile pieces of eliminationist rhetoric to come down the pike in awhile:

In time, it seems to happen to all older houses, no matter how well tended they may be.

All manner of parasites, vermin, roaches, rats, worms and termites find their way into the building. Long before they're detected, they infiltrate the walls, the floors, the roofs – and then chew their way into the structure, the supporting beams and the very foundation of the house itself. Silently, surreptitiously, whole communities of invaders make places for themselves, hidden but thriving, totally unknown by the homeowner.

Then, in time, tell-tale signs are seen. Little droppings, discolored trails, proliferating piles of residue appear in corners, on tabletops, little hanging sacs from ceilings – alarming evidence that the grand old dwelling has been invaded. Decidedly unwelcome creatures have made this place their home, and by their very existence will eventually destroy the house and bring it to ruin.

What can be done, when you learn that your house has already been invaded?

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

If Tea-Baggers Are Such Populists, Why not Vent Fury Over Flu Shots Going to Wall Street While Kids Go Without?
Posted by Jill C., Brilliant at Breakfast on November 7, 2009 at 4:12 AM.

Instead of going to Washington and mindlessly parroting what right-wing talk show hosts tell them, much of which is flat-out wrong, perhaps the teabaggers who marched on Washington would be better served directing their outrage at this:

Today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) asked Health and Human Service (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to investigate why the Center for Disease Control (CDC) approved the distribution of the H1NI vaccine to Wall Street firms at a time when the vaccine is unavailable to most Americans.

 

Recent news reports indicate 13 companies, including Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Time Warner, have been cleared to receive the vaccine.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Climate Change: The Grown-Ups Are Back In Charge
Posted by Raquel Brown, The Media Consortium on November 6, 2009 at 5:00 PM.

Senate Democrats in the Environment and Public Works Committee finally squelched Republican boycotts and passed a version of the climate bill Wednesday morning. Last week, Republican senators refused to show up to committee hearings in an attempt to stall the bill. Brian Beutler of Talking Points Memo notes that EPW has now set “the stage for other panels to amend the legislation.”

To no one’s surprise, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., immediately complained about the legislation on Fox News. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., was the lone Democrat that did not vote, which Inhofe interpreted as a sign that the bill is “dead.”

Chairman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., was much more upbeat and argued that the Republican boycott actually marred their credibility. “The absence of the Republicans during the Environmental Protection Agency’s presentation was a clear message that their criticism of the EPA analysis was not a substantive one,” Boxer said. “We are pleased that despite the Republican boycott, we have been able to move the bill.”

Inhofe also condemned Boxer for passing the bill through the committee unconventionally. Aaron Wiener writes for The Washington Independent that “Without a quorum that included at least two Republicans, the committee was unable to open formal debate on amendments to the bill. But passage requires just a simple majority, and Chairman Boxer and the Democratic leadership chose to forgo amendments in order to move the legislation quickly, given that the end of the GOP boycott was nowhere in sight.”  Luckily, now that the bill is moving on to other committees, Inhofe and his Republican EPW colleagues will no longer have much of a say on the bill’s final outcome.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Right-Wing "News" Site Falsely Claims Fort Hood Shooter "Advised Obama Transition"
Posted by Staff, Media Matters for America on November 6, 2009 at 4:03 PM.

WorldNetDaily falsely claimed that alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan "advised Obama transition" in the headline of an article by Jerome Corsi highlighting his listing as a "participant" in a report for the Homeland Security Policy Institute (HSPI) at George Washington University's Presidential Transition Task Force. However, Corsi himself acknowledges that there is no evidence that "the group played any formal role in the official Obama transition" -- indeed, the Task Force was initiated in April 2008. Moreover, while Hasan was listed as one of approximately 300 "Task Force Event Participants" in the report's appendix, HSPI has reportedly said he was not a "member" of the Task Force, and was listed because he RSVP'd for several of the group's open events.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

At Least 5 Need Government-Run Health-Care at Bachmann's Angry Protests Against Government-Run Health-Care
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on November 6, 2009 at 1:27 PM.

I find Dana Milbank annoying. Actually, I think he's the living, breathing incarnation of everything wrong with the Beltway media.

Today's column is just as cynical, superficial and snarky as the rest. The argument he makes is typically obtuse.

BUT, it's directed at those annoying Tea-Baggers, so it amuses me!

Technically, Thursday's GOP-sponsored rally at the Capitol was a "press conference" (a Capitol Police spokeswoman explained that the lawmakers didn't have a permit for a demonstration). The speakers took no questions at this news conference, instead calling, at least a dozen times, for the Pelosi bill's death.

"Remember some of the other battles: Lexington and Concord, Hamburger Hill, Pork Chop Hill?" said Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa). "We're not going to leave this hill until we kill this bill!"

[...]

But, as with a similar rally by Democrats a week before, unpredictable things tend to happen in the wide-open spaces of the Capitol's West Front. Minutes into the rally, a breeze toppled the American flag from the stage.

More ominously, a man standing just beyond the TV cameras apparently suffered a heart attack 20 minutes after event began. Medical personnel from the Capitol physician's office -- an entity that could, quite accurately, be labeled government-run health care -- rushed over, attaching electrodes to his chest and giving him oxygen and an IV drip.

This turned into an unwanted visual for the speakers, as a D.C. ambulance and firetruck, lights flashing, pulled in just behind the lawmakers. A path was made through the media section, and the patient, attended to by about 10 government medical personnel, was being wheeled away on a stretcher just as House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) stepped to the microphone. "Join us in defeating Pelosi care!" he exhorted. A few members stole a glance at the stretcher. Boehner may have been distracted as well. He told the crowd he would read from the Constitution, then read the "we hold these truths" bit from the Declaration of Independence.

[...]

By the time it was over, medics had administered government-run health care to at least five people in the crowd who were stricken as they denounced government-run health care. But Bachmann overlooked this irony as she said farewell to her recruits.

Read the whole thing. Might amuse you too.

How Does a Religious Cult Have the Clout to Delay Health Care Vote?
Posted by Adele Stan, AlterNet on November 6, 2009 at 12:30 PM.

Just when it seemed the stars were aligning for an historic vote tomorrow on health-care reform legislation in the House of Representatives, anti-choice Democrats are balking, saying that the plan would permit the indirect flow of federal dollars to fund abortion.

Led by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., a member of the Capitol Hill religious cult known as The Family, and spurred on by the Catholic bishops, anti-abortion Dems are contesting the fact that some small number of private insurance plans offered via the bill's insurance exchange scheme may offer coverage for abortion -- even therapeutic abortion. Where the federal dollars come in is via the subsidies for which lower-income people would be eligible for buying insurance through the exchange.

Politico's Patrick O'Connor reports on the church's influence at the negotiating table:

Negotiators are working closely with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to finalize language the church can accept. Vulnerable anti-abortion Democrats don’t want to support any bill that the bishops haven’t signed off on.

Last time I looked, abortion was a legal medical procedure in the United States. The changes the church wants would virtually forbid abortion coverage, even for women carrying fetuses without a chance of surviving outside the womb. The church seeks to codify its contempt for women into U.S. law, dooming a woman already facing a tragic pregnancy to compromise her life and health -- mental and physical -- apparently for the sin of having had sex.

As the legislation stands, no federal dollars would directly cover an abortion, and the public plan will offer no abortion coverage. But that's not enough for the men of the cloth.

The question remains, of course, as to whether this is an issue truly of moral conscience, or just a trick for stalling health-care reform. At Michele Bachmann's disinform-athon yesterday on the Capitol steps, the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins alleged, untruthfully, that the bill announced last week by House Speaker Nan