Sorry for the oversight.
Do you remember that time, during the Bush presidency, when the pastor prayed in front of his congregation that the President would die violently? Or, how about that time that the Congressman called the President ”an enemy of humanity”? And then, of course, there was the Facebook poll on whether or not he should be killed, and all the wishful thinking about military coups.
It’s hateful, no doubt, but I guess it’s kind of understandable, given the fact that our country was attacked on his watch, and that he lied our nation into a bloody and unnecessary war. Oh, and then there’s all the stuff about cutting taxes on the super-wealthy, as the disparity between rich and poor grew exponentially. And I guess he did kind of allow FEMA, under the direction of a political appointee with no relevant experience, to wither to the point where American lives were put at risk. Oh, and I almost forgot the torture. And the failure to address global warming. And the gutting of the EPA… But does that excuse the bloodlust?
But, of course, that’s not what happened. No one seriously advocated for the death of George Bush, or fantasized about a military coup. People protested. And they asked for Congressional committees to launch investigations. And they donated to MoveOn and the ACLU. No, all the macabre bullshit wouldn’t start until Barack Obama, our nation’s first black President, came into office and had the audacity to try to secure healthcare for the American people.
You people fucking amaze me.
In case you missed the segment on 60 Minutes a few days ago, I wanted to pass along this interview with the men overseeing the investigation into where Bernie Madoff hid his money, and who else might have known what he was up to.
WARNING: Watching this will make you want to punch Madoff’s douche bag sons in the face.
As you all know, the Senate Finance Committee voted twice yesterday not to endorse a government-run healthcare option, or “public option.” What you might not know, however, is that, during the same meeting, this group chose to re-fund abstinence-only sex education programs. The following clip comes from Salon:
We’ve all heard about the major disappointment of yesterday’s Senate Finance Committee meeting. But the defeat of the public option wasn’t the senators’ only poor decision of the day. As the Associated Press reports, the committee spent the evening approving a measure to restore $50 million of federal funding to abstinence-only sex education. That’s right, folks: These 23 senators think it’s more important to devote several million dollars to teaching your children lies than to provide a realistic public alternative to a healthcare hell created by private insurance companies. Are you pissed off yet?
The committee voted 12-11 to support the measure by (who else?) Sen. Orrin Hatch. And guess what? As with the public option, it was Democratic disunity that pushed Hatch’s plan through. Two Democrats, Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, voted with all 10 Republicans in favor of the measure. (At least Baucus was on the right side of this one. According to the AP, “Hatch said abstinence education had been shown to work, though Baucus disagreed.” Of course, unless by “work” Hatch means “increase the teen birth rate,” we know who’s got the facts on his side.)…
Hopefully that will be some comfort to the 44,000 Americans who die each year because they don’t have health insurance. At least they’ll know that the kids the leave behind won’t be told where babies really come from.
And I don’t have a lot of money to spare at the moment, but if someone could point me toward a candidate with a realistic shot of beating Kent Conrad in North Dakota, I’d appreciate it. The same goes for Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas. I’ll gladly forego my weekly trip to the Indian buffet and direct that money toward their Democratic challengers.
The Senate Finance Committee voted twice this afternoon against the creation of a government-run health insurance plan, or “public option.” Members of the panel first voted 15 to 8 against Senator John D. Rockefeller’s proposal, and then followed up by voting 13 to 10 against the proposal put forward by Senator Charles Schumer.
Among those voting against the first proposal were five Democrats: Committee Chairman Max Baucus (Montanna), Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas), Kent Conrad (North Dakota), Bill Nelson (Florida) and Tom Carper (Delaware). Here’s hoping they all find themselves without insurance after being resoundingly voted out of office.
Baucus, of course, says it’s not his fault that he voted no. According to him, he only did so because he knew that they wouldn’t be able to get the 60 votes they needed in the Senate to overcome a Republican filibuster.
And where in the hell is the Democratic leadership on this? Why, when public polling consistently shows that 75% or more of Americans favor a public option, can’t they get it done? It’s got to be corruption, right? It’s got to be the money pouring in from the health insurance lobby. There’s no other explanation for it.
If you like signing petitions, MoveOn just launched one. You can find it here. Or, better yet, invest a little time in finding individuals to run against these so-called Democrats come election time.
update: At least one person is encouraged by the outcome of today’s votes. The following clip comes from Robert Creamer:
In a surprising vote Tuesday, ten Democrats voted to add a public option to the most conservative of the five health insurance reform bills working their way through Congress. That’s just two votes short of passage.
This robust support for the public option — in what most observers consider the most conservative committee in the Senate — signals a sea change in Congressional opinion toward the public option. The odds are now very high that some form of public health insurance option will be included on the final bill when it emerges from a House-Senate Conference Committee later this fall and is ultimately passed by Congress…
update: Huffington Post Editor Roy Sekoff on MSNBC’s “Ed Show”:
…Americans support the notion of a government administered health insurance plan by a margin of 65% to 26%. According to the same poll, people who identify themselves as Democrats favor the public option by a margin of 81% to 12%. That’s nearly 7 to 1 in favor of, yet the representatives of the Democrat party in the Senate Finance Committee only voted for the public option at a ratio of 8 to 5. Perhaps the most interesting number revealed by this poll is that Republican voters favor the public option 47% to 42%.
So why can’t the people’s representatives in Washington get behind the public option? Specifically, why can’t these five Democrats get behind it when 81% of people in their party want the option. The answer I’d like to hear is that less than 50% of the voters they represent back home oppose the public option so they’re voting on behalf of their constituents, however, the numbers we see in the NYT/CBS poll make that extremely unlikely. So if that’s not the reason, what is? One likely answer is money. Look at the amount of money the health industry has pumped into these five Democrat’s coffers:
Max Baucus got $7,734,102, Blanche Lincoln received $4,190,592, Ken Conrad took in $3,287,891, Bill Nelson was given $2,414,895 and Tom Carper accepted $1,592,380 from health industry interests.
Can someone please remind me why this isn’t illegal? It’s that we determined that cash is free speech, right?