will.i.am's great Boehner remix

I have so much to get to- I've, ahem, EARMARKED some blogging time this morning before getting back to condo repairs, but I had to share this first. I found this on Salon this morning, and my laughter jolted me out of my pre-caffeinated slumber. This could very well be some sort of Mastercard "Priceless" commercial, but that's about as far as I can take it.

Will.i.am is awesome; maybe he should change his name to will.i.am.a.genius or something- just a thought. I've seen him on Real Time with Bill Maher numerous times, and he's not just another annoying celeb with an opinion, he's informed about the issues, and he knows how to resonate with his message.

Anyway, there's obviously a deeper message here. When I first watched this, I laughed, but after I watched it again, it got me to thinking- I'm sick to death of the right giving me 15 reasons why I CAN'T have something, especially when in the end our enormously massive federal budget piles up to one big nothing / one big nothing at all (cue Dave Matthews Band music) if we can't provide basic health care to everyone. If you've been following the health care debate, and you even have a scintilla of an open mind, it all boils down to this - Democrats are fed up with a health care system that favors the well off and largely screws the middle and lower classes, while Republicans and conservatives (I'm lumping a few Democrats in the latter group) have whined about "cost."

Of all the reasons to oppose a much-needed health care overhaul, cost is among the stupidest. At the risk of sounding like a broken record because I keep carping about it, in our government's next fiscal year, we are spending around $708bn on our defense budget (not counting the Iraq and Afghanistan missions). Hey, if the military industrial complex, which along with the pharmaceutical companies, banks, and Wall St. pretty much own this country and our politicians, can get theirs, then there's no justifiable reason that any American citizen should be denied health care, period.

I'd like to think that's the underlying theme of will.i.am's nicely produced video.

BTW, extra kudos to will.i.am for putting this together so quickly- it's not like this happened weeks ago.

Health care reform is finally here, but there's plenty of work left to do

I'm very happy that meaningful health care reform is upon us. I'm not thrilled with everything, but I think that this is a significant step in the right direction. More on that in a minute, but first, I can't stop myself from commenting on some of yesterday's theatrics.

First, right-wing media's reactions to the bill's passing is cracking me up. One of my favorite idiotic responses is from the contemptible Matt Drudge (above). "A Day Which Will Live in Infirmary"? Really? Evidently, there are plenty of clever morons over at Drudge - I'm underwhelmed by the pithiness and wit.

Even more entertaining was House Minority Leader John Boehner's speech before the vote - in case you missed it, here it is...

Seriously? Is this guy for real? This was straight-up D-Level acting fit for a straight-to-video Steven Segal movie.

First, this guy must think that all Americans are stupid. Well, I've got news for you, Mr. Boehner, not all of us are. I not-so-fondly remember when Republicans ruled Congress during the Dubya Bush administration, and Democrats were frozen out of any substantive negotiations on the GOP agenda - quite frankly, because they didn't need their votes to get anything passed. Full disclosure - I didn't like it then and howled about it, but you know what? Elections have consequences, and that's the pendulum that is American politics. The day will certainly come when Republicans rule Congress once again, and when that happens, don't hold your breath for Democrats to be consulted if and only if the GOP can pass their agenda without Democratic votes.

Secondly, I can make two pretty educated guesses as to why Boehner's so angry: 1. This is a major legislative victory for Obama, and 2. A new tanning salon tax is part of the new health care bill. Good God, I haven't seen a fake bake this bad since, well, ever, actually.

What's more, I think Mr. Boner (I will never believe the real pronunciation of his last name is BAY-ner - what a joke) needs a cigarette to calm his nerves. A notorious, habitual smoker, he probably ought to think of cutting back, as his voice isn't exactly pleasant to listen to, especially when he starts screaming. Maybe I should give him a break - if my last name was Boehner, I'd be angry, too. Seek therapy, John.

Another lowlight of the evening last night was someone calling Rep. Bart Stupak a "baby killer" as he was getting ready to speak before the vote last night. Here's the video, courtesy of Talking Points Memo:

I'd say "unbelieveable," but nothing surprises me out of Washington anymore. Two of the most disgraceful instances of political discourtesy in recent memory have come thanks to Republicans - Rep. Joe Wilson screaming "You lie!" during Obama's speech on health care reform to a joint session of Congress last September, and yesterday an unidentified Congressman calling Bart Stupak a "baby killer" in the House chamber. (I don't think anyone thinks it came from a Democrat, but if it did, I'll post an apology, guaranteed.)

What's more, it's curious that someone would single out Stupak as a "baby killer," since he's a pro-life Democrat and his opposition to federally funded abortions nearly derailed the health care bill entirely.

Anyway, I won't pretend to be an expert on this bill, but I think it's a very good start to giving ALL Americans the health care system and coverage we deserve. I'm not happy that private insurance companies are going to be raking in billions more, but this bill did bring much needed reform. The parts that I like...

1. No more denials of people based on pre-existing conditions (this one's a BIGGIE)
2. No more lifetime "caps" on insurance company payouts
3. Policyholders can no longer have their policies canceled in the middle of a major illness
4. College graduates can stay on their parents' policies until the age of 26, ensuring that they will have coverage in college and during the start of their careers
5. Medicaid expanded to 16mn people
6. Larger employers must cover workers or pay a penalty

There are some things I dislike, too, without question:

1. No single payer system, or universal health care, or whatever you want to call it
2. For small businesses, there's something called a "health insurance exchange," and I don't exactly know what that means, but considering I'll have a small business moving forward, this is something I need to look into
3. I don't know that I like the $750 fine for not having insurance, either, but I understand why it's in the bill

Nothing's perfect, and this system will no doubt need some tweaks in the coming years, but like I said, it's a good start. (Suggested tweak #1 - a mandatory grace period for paying premiums. I guarantee that people with private plans with major illnesses will get their policies canceled at midnight the day after their premium's due if it isn't paid on time.)

Of course, the right is whining that there was no tort reform, a battle cry we've been hearing for years. I won't pretend to have all the answers, but I don't agree with what the right proposes - capping monetary awards in medical malpractice suits. Sorry, but I'm siding with the public on this one - I'm not giving up my right to sue and get damages in the event that a doctor or pharmaceutical company makes a tragic mistake. And I don't like the idea of capping punitive damages at $500,000, an idea that was bandied about during the Bush administration. Can one really put a dollar amount on a life? Sure, there are plenty of examples of ridiculous awards handed out by juries, but there are also examples of wanton malpractice by hospitals, doctors and pharmaceutical companies, and their getting away with it, too. So, I side with the plaintiffs.

I get a kick out of the right trying to make political hay out of the "trial lawyers" by reminding us every five minutes that they give so much to the Democratic Party. Hmm, and what party does the insurance industry give most of it's cash to? Let's face it, neither political party in Washington has cornered the morality market when it comes to campaign cash, which is another issue I hope Obama tackles before his presidency is over. (Although that will probably have to wait 'til his second term.)

Something else that's getting some press this morning - the student loan industry got a major overhaul as part of the health care bill. Three words - IT'S ABOUT TIME. More on that later.

It's fun watching Sean Hannity melt down

Sean Hannity is a great American success story - success because he has no college education, yet because he knew someone in the right-wing media, and because he's willing to say anything to propagate a right-wing extreme agenda, he gets paid millions. (By the way, if this sounds like envy, think again - I'd much prefer the life I have now than be a multi-million dollar liar.)

Anyway, it's going to be equal parts amusing and frightening to listen to Hannity over the next four years (and hopefully the next eight) while he no doubt does anything he can to undermine President Obama and his attempts to better America, which has suffered mightily under Hannity's object of worship, Dubya.

As C&L so wisely noted a few days ago, since Obama's inauguration, Fox has run what little dignity and air of objectivity it had through the shredder. The "network" is now a veritable 24-hour propaganda network devoted to destroying Obama and his plans for America, consequences be damned. And most of its viewers go forth and mimic the musings of Hannity and Co. as if it's political gospel. (I know a few people like this, and when they say something particularly ridiculous and I ask, "Oh, did you hear that on Hannity's show?" they play dumb and say "Hannity?!? I don't listen to Hannity!")

By the way, I love how Fox now never misses an opportunity to use the word socialist like they've being so clever. Count that as another word (right behind liberal) that progressives need to reclaim. And I LOVE the creepy music in Hannity's little montage above about the stimulus package - it really does sound like one of those old recruiting commercials for the U.S. Marines.

As I said, it's all pretty entertaining. And frightening.

h/t to C&L for the video

Birth of "Slow Bleed"

Anyone who has spent time reading or watching political developments in Washington in the last few weeks knows that it's been impossible to avoid the phrase Slow Bleed. Republicans have fallen madly in love with the phrase to describe Congressman Jack Murtha's (D-Pa.) proposal to slowly draw down U.S. troop levels in Iraq.

It has died down a bit as of late, but I heard Senator Trent Lott use it on Face the Nation last Sunday.

Where does the phrase come from? One place where it doesn't originate - any Congressional Democat, in either House of Congress.

Yet, Republicans have been quick to adopt it as their own, incessantly describing Murtha's plan as Slow Bleed whenever given the chance.

I've seen John Boehner, Trent Lott and other prominent Republicans use it on TV to the point of triteness. My favorite example was one South Carolina Republican Congressman, Johnny Iforgethisname, use Slow Bleed in a sentence, saying "quote" before and after the term, as if a Democrat had said it.

Arrrrrrnnnnnnnnt!

The Republicans got busted again, and they got busted by none other than the originator of the phrase himself.

The phrase Slow Bleed comes from a political blog that's been getting a lot of attention lately, and it isn't Count Me Blue. It's Politico. And this isn't a rumor, it's a fact. How do I know that? Because Politico's editor, John Harris, a WaPo veteran, has said as much.

A few days after high-profile, broken-record Republicans began publicly using the term, Harris ran a mea culpa of sorts on Politico's Website. It read:

That's where I come in. "Slow bleed" is my phrase. Murtha had nothing to do with it. Neither did John Bresnahan, the reporter whose name was on the Politico story in which the "slow-bleed strategy" made its debut.

You can understand my pride of authorship. Editors labor in obscurity. Our job is to keep reporters from looking bad, and to let them take the credit when they look good. Rarely is there tangible evidence that we are having any impact. But in 20-plus years in the business, I can scarcely recall an instance when words typed on my keyboard have had such a loud and immediate echo. [Emphasis mine]

Harris wrote that the phrase was nothing more than a fix for flat prose in a draft of a story about Murtha's plan:

We rushed the patient to the operating table for emergency surgery. With VandeHei hovering over my shoulder, this is what I came up with:

"Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options."

That is not exactly prize-winning prose, but it seemed a little snappier to us -- and more on point. Please note the context: What is slowly bleeding away is the administration's political support to keep fighting the war. Republicans pounced on the phrase because of the ease with which that context could be shorn away, to give the impression that what Democrats were slow-bleeding were the bodies of troops in Iraq.

That willingness to wrest words from context -- and to attribute the phrase to Democrats even though it was not theirs -- was demagogic on the part of Republican operatives. But it was never my plan to make their work so easy.

In the words of Attytood's Will Bunch, "You might think [Slow Bleed] came straight from the war room of the Republican National Committee."

It's delightful to see Congressional Republicans finally doing something in a timely manner for a change. Too bad what they're in a rush to do is using a derogatory term to conjure up unpleasant images of our troops wounded in battle while trying to tie it to Democrats. When the GOP was in power, if it would have been a little quicker to stop, or investigate or at least question President Bush, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in.

Iraq debate on Meet the Press

For the record, there are Republicans I like and admire. There really are! Arlen Specter, Chuck Hagel, Lincoln Chafee, even Lindsey Graham, but the former, short-lived Speaker of the House John Boehner (above, right) is one annoying guy.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) (above, left) got into a pretty spirited debate this morning on Meet the Press that I found simultaneously interesting and irritating.

The heart of the debate centered on Iraq, where the two leaders and their respective parties fundamentally disagree. Like that's news. (Quick aside - I'm mildly amused at the seating arrangements above - notice the Democrat is on the left and the Republican is on the right.)

Anyway, Iraq can never be brought up these days without two things being immediately stepping to the forefront - the troop escalation, and cutting off funding. Boehner and Hoyer didn't disappoint this morning. (Another quick aside - I'm sick to death of the term troop surge - it's an escalation, Republican morons!)

Quite naturally, Boehner went on the offensive, suggesting that Democrats are going to cut off funding for the troops "in the field," and Hoyer took great pains to assure viewers that Democrats would never do that. This was an exercise in Political Posturing 101.

My only question to Steny Hoyer is, "Why WOULDN'T Democrats cut off funding for the troops?" as a last resort? We've heard nothing but rosy forecasts from this administration since the war began nearly four years ago - "Another six months... another six months... another six months...etc." is all we ever hear. When does the senseless killing end? If it takes the Democrats digging in their heels and cutting off funding to do just that, then so be it.

Does anyone honestly believe that President Bush would leave the troops in the field without MREs, bullets, socks and armor? Yea, right.

What irks me most about the War in Iraq is that both parties have refused to budge, because one side won't admit defeat. I guess simply doing the right thing died a slow death in American politics a long time ago.

The bottom line is that if funding is cut off, the troops are coming home. I hope it doesn't come to that, but it may have to happen. Bush and the Republicans will do or say anything to keep the troops over there, and thereby averting defeat of their party's ideals and the fact that a Republican president started this war. So, while both parties bicker and debate, our troops are facing a hail of bullets, terrorism and civil war each and every day. Sleep well, lawmakers.

But, hot dog! Bush hasn't lost this war, yet! So, Republicans hold out hope that they can save face as a party, no matter how many lives, American or Iraqi, it takes. And that's the biggest tragedy of all.

I'm so sick and tired of politicians on television, regardless of party (but admittedly, mostly Republican), getting on TV saying that "Failure is not an option" and that "We must win this war." We are failing, and we aren't winning. But wait! I'm not Supporting the Troops if I say that, right? I'm laughing in the face of the next person who says that to me, because as I've said many times before, people who say that don't understand America, Democracy or freedom.

I have to give props to Hoyer for one thing this morning. Boehner was whining and complaining about cutting off funding for the troops, and Hoyer looked at him and said, "With all due respect, didn't you vote for a non-binding resolution that was against sending 20,000 troops to Bosnia in 1995?"

"That was before troops were in the field," said Boehner.

"Well, the 20,000 the president wants to send is the surge [troops that aren't yet there]," said Hoyer. Score one for Steny. What Hoyer is implying by that statement is that the Democrats are considering cutting off funding for the additional troops that Bush wants to send to the Middle East, not troops who are there now.

A leading proponent of this idea is Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pa.), who had been widely quoted as wanting to add several restrictions about the president's proposed troop escalation.

In this morning's Washinton Post, as discussed on MTP this morning, this was reported about Murtha:

Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), a sharp critic of the war and the chairman of the subcommittee that oversees defense funding, is separately preparing language to block money for the additional troops in Iraq unless the military meets certain readiness standards. He said he will introduce his proposal on March 15 as an attachment to Bush's request for Iraq war funding. "The hope is we will affect the surge," Murtha said.

Also, from CQ Today (on Murtha):

Murtha said he would probably [try] to block the use of funding to extend the tours of soldiers beyond one year. "We're going to stop that," [Murtha] said.

I don't see nothing wrong with either proposal by Murtha.

Hoyer went on to further explain what Murtha meant, and that's that the additional troops who are headed into the field in Iraq have the proper training and equipment, and if they don't, they aren't going. What Democrat or Republican honestly thinks that's a bad idea?

Boehner had a few more whoppers that are worth mentioning...

"I think we need to find a way to help the Iraqis build a safe-and-secure Iraq," said Boehner at one point. Hey John - the best way we can do that is to leave. I guess he hasn't been paying attention the past four years. With intelligence like this in Congress, I have to ask myself why I'm not running. Not that I'm brilliant or anything like that, but I have common sense and the decency to not put people into harm's way when it's not warranted, and to get those same people out of harm's way when a war isn't working.

Boehner wasn't done with his demagoguery yet, though.

He went on to state that he believes that if we leave Iraq, the terrorists might follow us all the way over here [to America] (and I'm paraphrasing here, but click Here to read the transcript if you don't believe me!).

Is Boehner great, or what? Someone get me the Tom Ridge scare color chart and the duct tape and plastic for the bottom of my door. The terrorists are coming! The Terrorists are coming!

Someone needs to rip that scare tactic out of Karl Rove's playbook and burn it.

And Boehner, like most Republicans, continues to rail that "Democrats don't have a plan." Hey genius, Republicans haven't had a plan for four long years. What about that?

It's time for something different.

Lastly, DemocratIC leaders have stated they want to implement many/most of the Baker-Hamilton Commission's recommendations.

Sounds like a plan to me. Perfect plan? Nope, but it's got to be better than the course we've been taking.

John Boehner spins Hastert disappearance

Okay, this will be the last one of these clips I bring you for the next little bit, but I just can't help myself - there are so many to choose from. It's very early on election morning, and I'll still be typing away for a while yet. I hope it's a big day - I've been waiting for this day since election day '04, so let's hope we get the real change a majority people both want and deserve.

House Majority Leader (for the moment) John Boehner (R-OH) appeared on Fox News Sunday a few days ago to talk about the mid-term election, and when pressed by Chris Wallace about where Dennis Hastert is, he came back with a question about Pelosi.

Hey Boehner, you'd better worry about your own political skin. Pelosi has been out campaigning hard, not shirking the media. That's what happens when you're about to rise to Speaker of the House, vis a vis covering up a scandal and realizing your days as leader are numbered - we're down to only a few hours, Dennis.

Interesting that Wallace was so hard on Boehner, considering his high-comedy, pugnacious attack on Bill Clinton during an interview earlier this fall.

I'm swallowing hard when I say this, but kudos, Chris.