It's a done deal

Barack Obama scored a big victory, both in terms of policy and politics. Wanting to get some Republicans on board, Democrats spent the last year crafting a bill that Republicans – or at least large numbers of them – should love. It is built on a series of principles that Republicans espoused for years. Republicans have said that they do not want to destroy the private insurance market. The new healthcare reform law not only preserves that market but strengthens it by bringing in millions of new customers.

Regardless of what they say on the talk shows, Republicans know that the plan does not call for a government "takeover" of health care. It provides subsidies so more people can buy private insurance. Republicans always say they are against "socialized medicine". Well, this bill is far from socialized medicine. It is nothing like a "single-payer" health system along Canadian or British lines. It does not even include the "public option" that would have allowed people voluntarily to buy their insurance from the government which, in turn, would have given insurance companies competition and force them to keep their costs down. (I predict that Congress will have to revisit the issue relatively soon to address the rising increase of health insurance premiums.)

Republican leaders, who have only thought of getting back power ever since the Democrats won their majority, think that they have just been handed a heavy political poll-studded cudgel with which to hammer Democrats in the fall, but they better think again. Moderate Republican David Frum's “GOP Waterloo” theory is getting a lot of buzz. He says that the healthcare bill is Republicans’ and conservative Democrats’ most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s – not only for reasons of politics, but because healthcare reform will be an enduring policy. The bill will not get repealed, but when Republicans take power again, they will likely tweak it – tinker around the corners of it. Maybe they will add tort reform, or purchasing across state lines, or change how it's funded. But now that healthcare reform has been signed, the future holds healthcare reform, not repeal.

Frum wrote:

“At the beginning of this process we [Republicans] made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. [Republicans believed] this would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s Waterloo in 1994. Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure. This time, when we [Republicans] went for all the marbles, we ended with none.”

There is little question that the new Affordable Care Act, the lawsuits against it (both credible and talking points-based), and the Republican "repeal" movement will keep the Tea Party activists energized and engaged. Off-year elections are about mobilizing the party base. Independents remain the key voting group in politics.

Frum also wrote:

“When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to Limbaugh’s show much less – then he gets less money.

“So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them ‘It’s mission accomplished’. For the cause they purport to represent: ‘It’s Waterloo all right: ours [meaning Republicans].’ ”

It didn't take long – and the GOP knew it, which is why they fought so hard against HCR passing – new poll numbers show a positive shift in opinions toward the Democrats. These numbers suggest that running on a promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act or shift healthcare policy to the right is not much of a winning strategy. Americans by 9 percentage points have a favorable view of the health care overhaul that President Obama signed into law Tuesday. A poll by USA Today/Gallup finds a notable turnaround from surveys before the vote that showed a plurality against it. By 49%-40% those surveyed say it was "a good thing" rather than a bad one that Congress passed the bill. Half describe their reaction in positive terms, as "enthusiastic" or "pleased," while about four in 10 describe it in negative ways, as "disappointed" or "angry." The largest single group, 48%, calls the bill "a good first step" that should be followed by more action on health care. An additional 4% also have a favorable view, saying the bill makes the most important changes needed in the nation's health care system. Bonus stat: President's approval rating on health care 46%; GOP approval rating on health care 26%.

In a CNN poll, a question shows that 51 percent of the public trust Obama versus 39 percent who trust Congressional Republicans. Similarly, another question shows that 45 percent trust the Democrats versus only 39 percent who trust the Republicans.

All these numbers suggests that running on a promise to repeal the Healthcare Act will not work in favor of the Republicans. (I hope they do not realize this until it is too late.) The Party of No is losing. As it is, however, the lock-step march of the Republicans in radical resistance to even the most modest proposals to heal a deeply ailing nation leaves the Democrats as the only party that matters. The Republicans are a party of incoherent rage, and while they might temporarily succeed as demagogues, they are now acknowledged strangers to fact and logic – not to mention compassion.

Now that the bill has actually passed, independents will begin to forget the ugly process and start focusing more on the substance – the goodies they get from the bill. Talk of death panels, deem and pass, and reconciliation will fade away. Every news outlet in the country already has stories and charts showing people what they get under the new law. Once the public realizes the goodies they get, Republican candidates – and conservative Democrats – will not want to insist on repealing the bill – which would be the same thing as insisting that children be kept off of health insurance once again because they have a pre-existing condition, or that a sick person can be kicked out of their insurance plan, or that small businesses should not get the 35% tax credits to help pay for their employees' health insurance. Even if Republicans scored a 1994-style landslide in November, how many votes could they muster to re-open the 'doughnut hole' and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes would it take to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes could they get to banish 25-year-olds from their parents' insurance coverage? Who really wants to repeal the ban on annual and lifetime insurance payment limits?

The seniors will be really happy that the donut hole for their drug coverage is closing, although they do lose the overpriced upper-end Advantage C Medicare plans for which Medicare, through taxpayers, pay private insurance companies more than if the seniors stayed with regular Medicare. This will extend Medicare's solvency for 10 more years beyond the previously predicted date.

By November, David Frum argues, "the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs" – and they are going to love what they have. Even if the Affordable Care Act moves from unpopular to merely neutral, Tea Party-driven mania for repeal will be out of sync with the majority of the public, especially if Democrats are focusing their public conversation on jobs.

Word is already getting out about how the deficit will be REDUCED by 1.3 trillion dollars during the first 20 years the reform plan is in effect. Can you guess what happens to the GOP when the public begins to understand and enjoy the goodies in the bill? Soon the public will be shouting: “Keep your hands off my Obamacare!” This could actually turn into a Republican Waterloo, especially if the economy begins to turn around for Main Street.

Healthcare reform is a done deal.

Is Congress Sick?

Is Congress Sick?
Needed: A Transfusion of Democracy

The institution of Congress must undergo changes if it is to resume its role of leadership envisioned by the founding fathers.

Let's take a look at the machinery of Congress and see why it is faltering.
Ideally, Congress should meet, organize promptly, debate all major matters fairly and efficiently and adjourn in June or July. Why doesn't this happen? There is no easy diagnosis and there are no easy answers because the machinery of Congress is extremely complicated. Congressional junkets and outrageous personal conduct deserve and get publicity and should be condemned. But these are relatively rare. They occur in industry and in state and local governments too. As wrong and outrageous as these actions are the fact is that these things have little to do with the failure of Congress as an institution. The trouble is the machinery which gives every advantage to those who say "no" over those who say "yes"; to those who want deadlock over those who want issues resolved; to those who want delay over those who want action now. Here are a few of the more paralyzing factors

SENORITY SYSTEM
Every aspect of Congress's work is affected by a rigid, unbending, all-pervasive seniority system which (a) gives a few men great national power with no national responsibility, and (b) selects key congressional leaders on a basis which excludes any consideration of ability. The committee member who (regardless of ability) has served 20 years is not just 5 per cent more powerful than the member who has served 19 years. If the former is chairman of a committee he is 1000 per cent more powerful. New members are told that there is no alternative to this practice, that a change would cause chaos, that "to get along, you must go along." Yet there is no other democratic body in the free world (and I include 50 state legislatures) which operate thusly.

The seniority system was not devised in Independence Hall for it was unheard of until about 50 years ago. Henry Clay, for example, was elected Speaker and Committee Chairman the day he took his oath as a member. While the founding fathers intended government power to be dispersed and divided, I think they would be shocked at the way Congress has re-fragmented that block of power it was intended to have. The Speaker of the House, with heavy responsibility, has relatively little power. The major committee chairmen between them have much more--and the power they exercise affects the entire country--not just their small congressional districts. Yet, so long as 400,000 people in a particular congressional district re-elect a chairman to Congress, he holds his position of national power. The people of Southern Arizona who can speak in the House only through me have no say in who shall exercise this power. To get the 20 years of seniority it takes to become a major chairman, a congressman--whether a Democrat or Republican--must represent a "safe" one-party district. Many, but far from all, of the present chairmen are of exceptional ability and would be leaders under any system. But, able or not, each one exercises immense power on crucial national matters without any direct or indirect responsibility to a national constituency.

No city council, no school board, no great corporation, no bank would canvass its personnel roster for the very oldest man in point of service and arbitrarily without exception make him city manager, school superintendent or company president. In the worlds of local government, education, industry and finance we seek out and promote the brilliant leaders, either young or old. In Congress we discourage able younger men and create a system in which consecutive years of tenure are everything and ability, diligence, leadership potential, responsibility count for nothing.

Let us pose an example which will make clear the ignominy of the present system: If ex-President Eisenhower were to seek election to the House (as did ex-President John Quincy Adams), and if he were assigned to the Armed Services Committee--this great general would irrevocably go to the bottom of the list. He would ask his question of witnesses, give his advice, or serve as chairman, only after every present member was through.

REPETITIOUS COMMITTEE HEARINGS
Congressional committees in their own field of jurisdiction are almost all-powerful separate legislatures. They are jealous of their prerogatives and share power reluctantly. Thus we often have four or more separate and complete hearings on the same piece of legislation, instead of one combined, complete investigation. Thus a bill to build a dam must go its long and tortuous course through House Public Works Committee, Senate Public Works, and then through Senate and House Appropriations Committees with the same witnesses giving the same testimony each of the four times. Many key administrators and cabinet members spend the majority of their time answering questions they have already been asked by three other committees of the Congress.

THE HOUSE RULES COMMITTEE AND THE SENATE'S UNLIMITED DEBATE
The House and Senate are separate bodies with separate traditions and rules of procedure. The main paralysis in the House is the House Rules Committee; the Senate's special cross is unlimited debate.

House members are unable to vote on any major bill until and unless eight senior Members of this group, in their unrestricted wisdom, see fit to grant us this right. We are told that chaos would result if the Speaker could simply call up important bills for debate. Yet the Senate Rules Committee has no such power. What the House Rules Committee does to stagnate the operations of the House is done for the Senate by the filibuster. Restless junior senators are told that the Republic would fall if any time limit were fixed for debate. Yet the House debated the tax cut bill last September for just eight hours and all was said that needed saying.

Thus what is assertedly vital to the Republic in the Senate (unlimited debate) is unimportant to the House; what supposedly saves the country in the House (Rules Committee control) is unheard of in the Senate.

MUCH TIME IS WASTED
The House rarely legislates on Monday or Friday because of the tradition of the "Tuesday to Thursday Club." This phrase describes the practice of some Eastern and Southern congressmen, many of whom retain active law practices and business interests at home. Many of them arrive for the week's business on the early plane Tuesday. By Thursday night they are ready to depart. Important votes can be scheduled only for the three middle days of the week. This not only drags the sessions into late fall, but throws an unduly heavy load of committee work on western, midwestern and more distant southern members who cannot afford to commute.

THE BURDEN OF NON-LEGISLATIVE DUTIES
A congressman's primary job is to legislate. Yet our society and government are so complex that we spend less than a third of our time on legislative matters. A congressman is not only a legislator: he is an employment agent, passport finder, constituent greeter, tourist agent, getter-out-of-the-armed-services, veterans affairs adjuster, public buildings dedicator, industrial development specialist, postmaster appointer, party leader, bill finder, newsletter writer, etc. etc. etc. His typical day will be far more concerned with these problems than with national defense, foreign aid or appropriations for public works.
Given the nature of our political and governmental system, and the sincere and genuine problems which constituents have with a big and sprawling government, much of this is inevitable. An adequate congressional staff, and proper organization of his office, will enable the conscientious member to give enough time to legislation, but controversies over who is to be postmaster at Apache Junction and increasing demands for other non-legislative work are a big part of our problem.

A DETERMINED PUBLIC CAN BRING REFORM
Perhaps all of this may only reflect the frustrations of a junior Member of Congress for, in spite of Congress the Republic seems to prosper and continue. Old timers always comfort us with the crack that, "The seniority system is bad, but the longer you're here the better you'll like it!" But I am not convinced. I strongly feel that the Congress is in trouble. It worships old procedures and uses worn out machinery in an unsuccessful attempt to attend the business of a huge, jet-age nation.

The hard fact is that the engine is badly worn out and must be overhauled into something suitable to our complicated and fast-moving civilization.
Even those congressmen who agree that Congress needs improvement throw up their hands in doubt that significant changes can really be brought about. I don't agree. Arizona judges and lawyers undertook a largely successful effort to modernize the judicial procedures which had clogged the machinery of our courts. I played a part in that movement and know how difficult such efforts are. But something similar is needed in Congress.

Congress will never reform itself through internal pressures alone. Such a movement must come from and be supported by influential citizen groups and ordinary citizens. All Americans who believe in a healthy, functioning democracy should get interested in and aroused by the vital issue of congressional reform.

A noted Republican, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, writing in 1889, made a comment which is still appropriate today:

"The people of this country are, as it seems to me, thoroughly tired of the stagnation of business and the general inaction of Congress. They are disgusted to see year after year go by and great measures affecting the business and political interests of the country accumulate at the doors of Congress and never reach the stage of action.

"They have also waked up to the fact that this impotence and stagnation are due to the preposterous fabric known as the rules of the House, and they are prepared to support heartily that party and those leaders who will break down these rules and allow the current of legislation to flow in its natural channel and at its proper rate."

The parliament of the world's greatest democracy is not a democratic institution.

Written by Morris K. Udall
1964

Mo Udall served as a U.S. Representative from Arizona from May 2, 1961 to May 4, 1991.

Taken from: http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/udall/congrept/88th/640221.html

Bunning’s blockade

On Tuesday night, senators finally approved a bill extending unemployment benefits, highway funding, and other federal programs after Senator Jim Bunning dropped his days-long “hold” on the bill. The Senate approved the measure 78 to 19 (that means it was bipartisan).

During the Bunning “hold” on a bill that would have provided a short-term extension for federal funding programs that expired March 1, the federal government was forced to furlough workers (without pay), while hundreds of thousands of jobless Americans braced for an end to their unemployment checks and health insurance benefits, and doctors saw fees for treating Medicare patients decline by 21%.

Senator Jim Bunning's "unilateral decision to block an extension of federally funded unemployment benefits and other popular provisions…united Democrats and sent Republicans hiding from the political backlash," Politico reports. "Making matters worse for the GOP: Bunning is opposing the $10 billion aid package on the grounds that it isn't paid for – effectively forcing his Republican colleagues to join him or risk undercutting their own efforts to make Democrats' deficit spending a centerpiece of their 2010 campaign."

Bunning did not have much support, even in his own party. Most of the Republicans ran for the hills. Republican Senator Susan Collins asked Bunning to stop what he was doing. One Republican, Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the Republican whip, showed support for Bunning by arguing that unemployment benefits dissuade people from job hunting "because people are being paid even though they're not working." (Yeah, we know that you people who have lost your jobs are just taking a vacation on the government dole. Get off your fat, lazy b*tts and find a job!) Kyl makes this statement while the nation faces chronic unemployment levels unlike anything we have seen since The Great Depression.

This issue could not show the contrast between Democrats and Republicans any clearer. Democrats are working to put money in the pocket of the unemployed to help them feed their families while they are looking for jobs, while Republicans are trying to block that money and calling those who are relying on benefits lazy. The idea that those who have lost their jobs in this Wall Street/mortgage-scam recession are simply deadbeats, choosing to stay on unemployment rather than look for work, seems more appropriate to Scrooge's attitude.

The results of Kentucky Republican Senator Bunning’s action spread far beyond unemployment benefits.Kentucky could have been deeply affected by Congress' failure to extend the current transportation bill, which will halt nearly $1 billion in federal reimbursements to states each week, according to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. To be considered at a March 26 bid letting, five construction projects in Henry, Fleming and Lincoln counties must be advertised on the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet's Web site by Friday, said Chuck Wolfe, a cabinet spokesman. The projects include two bridge replacements. Without federal authorization by the end of the week, “they would have to be withdrawn from the March letting,” Wolfe said.

How many other states would have had the exact same problem due to Bunning’s blockade?

There’s more:

Bunning's objection also resulted in the expiration Sunday of a provision that would have stopped a 21 percent cut in Medicare reimbursements to doctors. That drew fire from American Medical Association J. James Rohack, who said seniors are “collateral damage” to Bunning’s procedural games in the Senate. Physicians are outraged because the cut, combined with the continued instability in the system, will force them to make difficult practice changes including limiting the number of Medicare patients they can treat. AMA suggested that doctors sit on their bills for a couple of weeks until the issue is cleared up.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood: “In addition to the dismay of these American workers, we must add the disruption of key safety programs. Programs like “Drunk Driving: over the limit, under arrest” campaign, our current work against distracted driving, and our work promoting child passenger safety and motorcycle safety. These are programs that work to change driving practices that kill 37,000 Americans every year.”

Yet another provision that expired Sunday because Congress did not act in a timely manner allowed satellite television transmissions to certain rural areas.

Also the loan program for small businesses (small businesses are vital to the U.S. economy – employing half of all American workers) were put on hold, an extension to the COBRA health insurance subsidy for people who have lost their jobs expired, and an extension to the National Flood Insurance Program authorization expired.

If Congress had not acted, the U.S. Department of Labor estimates that 4,300 Kentuckians and 8,000 New Yorkers would lose unemployment benefits in the coming days. By June, about 60,000 Kentuckians would lose on benefits prematurely, according to an analysis by the National Employment Law Project, which advocates a broad extension of benefits. Multiply that by 50 states. According to research from the National Employment Law Project, nearly 1.2 million unemployed workers were poised to lose jobless benefits, and with highway projects stopped, as many as 90,000 jobs could have been lost.

Sen. Bunning claims held up this emergency legislation because of the bill’s cost and the fact that it is not being paid for up front (an estimated $10 billion over the next 10 years), yet he voted YES on:

· the 2001 Bush Tax Cuts – Increases Deficit by $1.35 Trillion over 10 years
· the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts – Increases Deficit by $349.7 Billion over 10 years
· the GOP’s 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug Bill – Increases Deficit by $395 Billion over 10 years

These three Republican bills alone added nearly $2 trillion to the deficit!

In this particular case, I have a tendency to agree with Cheney when he said, “Deficits don’t matter.” Actually, deficits do matter very much, but in a time of deep recession with very high unemployment, the government has to spend to keep the economy from going straight down the tubes. When the economy, including unemployment, improves, then you begin to bring down the deficit.

Why is all this so important since Bunning finally relented and the problem was solved?

Bunning is the perfect example on problems with Senate procedures, specifically overuse of the "hold" and the filibuster. With Bunning as their poster child, is this the moment when Senate Democrats finally start to move forward on reforming Senate procedures and perhaps start moving Congress forward again?

An enormous gift has been handed to Democrats on a silver platter. This one is so easy to paint as Democrats being on the side of the angels, fighting off Republican demons. The talking points just write themselves. Democrats should compare Bunning to the Clinton/Gingrich showdown every chance they get. They could say how indignant they were over the plight of the unemployed whose checks could have permanently stop because one Republican senator did not get his way. They should publicly ask Republicans if this is what they mean by "deficit reduction" and "fiscal responsibility" – holding over a million families' immediate financial future hostage in a senatorial snit. Democrats should decry "parliamentary tricks" that let one single senator anonymously hold up any legislation they feel like.

There is a very basic lesson here, one that Democrats just never seem to learn. The lesson is: Republicans have no shame about pushing Congressional rules to the limit and beyond. They also have no fear of any political consequences whatsoever, because Democrats never call them on it in any meaningful way. Republicans do not even think twice about doing this stuff, because Democrats seem fundamentally incapable of playing hardball – even when Republicans taunt Democrats and dare them to do so.

If handled correctly, this could be a watershed moment for Democrats – a way to show who really cares about the American public and who does not. Remember, Newt Gingrich went so far as to shut the entire federal government down, because he thought he would emerge from the fray with a political victory. He did not, and Clinton did. But the only reason that happened is because of public opinion. And public opinion is a pump that needs priming. The next few days will show whether Democrats are even capable of doing so, because the Republicans have just served up a golden opportunity on a silver platter. Opportunity is not just knocking; it has in fact broken down the Democrats' front door with a sledgehammer, and is now bashing them about the ears in a whirling frenzy of opportunity.

Here's the "kicker" which should prove irresistible: while speaking on the floor of the Senate, Bunning's response to Democrats upset with his actions was, "Tough sh*t!" If the Dems cannot make political hay out of that one, they simply should not be in the field of politics in the first place. "Bunning says tough 'sh*t' to the unemployed!" How hard is that? Get out there in front of the cameras and say so!

Okay, Dems, repeat after me: Republican obstructionism; Party of No.

Here are your talking points: Republicans do not care about you. Republicans do not care about the unemployed. Republicans do not care about families going bankrupt due to losing jobs or due to illness. Republicans are more interested in playing politics than doing what is right for this country. People's lives are at stake, but Republicans do not care.

Every chance they get over the next few days Democrats should be loudly denouncing Bunning's move. Bring it up no matter what the subject – you can always tie it into "Congressional gridlock" or "Republican obstructionism" or "this is why nothing gets done in Washington."

To put it an even more colorful way, the Republicans are collectively bent over in front of the Democrats with a giant "KICK ME!" sign painted on the metaphorical GOP backside, all the while screaming: "I dare you to do it!" at the tops of their lungs. All that is required is for Democrats to summon the energy to lift their collective foot a few feet off the floor and do so. Come on Dems, if you blow this one, you deserve to lose Congress next fall! Show some spunk!

On, no, please, don’t blow it…

SIGH…


See McClatchy news article, “Who really gets hurt when GOP's Bunning blocks this bill?” http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/01/89610/gops-bunning-told-off-senators.html

Our dysfunctional government

President Obama should not have had to hold a healthcare “summit”. If the Senate were working properly, healthcare reform would have been passed long before the 2009 August recess – so would have the Climate Bill, and Cap-and-Trade. But Republican-lite Democrats Baucus, Nelson, Lieberman, et al, held up the works. Everyone knew there would be no actual work done during the summit. Everyone knew the Republicans would be spouting party talking points and refuse to negotiate. The point of the summit was to highlight the obstructionism of the Republicans, and at the same time, for President Obama to hold the hands of the Congressional Democrats, make arguments for them, and give them some courage, because they do not have the gumption to get out there and fight for what’s right.

Actually, I blame the entire Senate – both the obstructive, obstinate Republicans (who are doing only what may be politically expedient in the short term which is not good for the country in the long term) and the lily-livered, weak-spined Democrats, especially Reid, for bringing our government to the point where it is not working for anyone. The Republicans work toward their goals in a malicious manner – slashing and burning – but the Democrats are too nice, continuing to extend their collective hand for bipartisanship even though it gets bit off every time.

With Scott Brown’s arrival as the Republican Party’s 41st senator ending the Democrats’ so-called “filibuster-proof majority” in the US Senate, governing the US just got harder. There they go again: the Party of No and Obstruction is feeling emboldened. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) has prepared a series of gun rights amendments that he intends to add to must-pass spending bills in the Senate this year, hoping to force Democrats to take tough votes and draw clear distinctions between the two parties [about guns] heading into the midterms. Coburn "believes it's important to stay on the offense," a veteran Senate GOP consultant said in the wake of Senator-elect Scott Brown's (R-MA) win.

Maybe Scott Brown really means it when he says he is a “Scott Brown Republican”. After all, he did vote against his party and for the jobs bill, along with the two senators from Maine. Maybe he will surprise everyone by being truly moderate, helping to vote down some of these ridiculously bad gun amendments. But I doubt it – the Senate will be more broken than ever, with a minority party completely obstructing the rule of the majority.

This is why people speak of the 41-59 Republican "majority".

Republicans believe it is critical that they try to make Democrats appear out of step with the average American. They believe amendments on guns and spending in particular will help GOP Senators achieve that goal. So, for example, the Education bill has a Coburn amendment allowing veterans deemed "mentally defective" to carry firearms. Senator Coburn wants to force Democrats into a situation whereby if they want to approve broad education funding, they also have to approve expanding gun rights to those who have been deemed “dangerous” at the same time.

Amendments having nothing to do with the subject of the bill are not rare, but Democrats do not do this nearly as much because there are no issues that Republicans fear as much as Red-state Democrats fear the gun issue.

As an example of Republican obstruction: After nine months, the Senate finally approved Martha Johnson to head the General Services Administration, which runs government buildings and purchases supplies. It is a nonpolitical position and nobody questioned Ms. Johnson’s qualifications: she was approved by a vote of 94 to 2. Senator Christopher Bond, Republican of Missouri, had put a “hold” on her appointment, not because he found her to be an offensive appointee, but to pressure the government to approve some pork for his state – a building project in Kansas City.

This dubious achievement may have inspired Senator Richard Shelby, Republican of Alabama. Senator Shelby placed a hold on all Obama administration nominations that remained – about 70 high-level government positions. He wanted to hold the nominations hostage until his state gets a tanker contract for the city of Mobile and a counterterrorism center placed in Huntsville. Finally, this was reported all over the media, so, eventually, with egg on his face, he withdrew his hold on all nominations but three.

What gives individual senators this kind of power? Much of the Senate’s business relies on unanimous consent making it difficult to get anything done unless everyone agrees on procedure. And a tradition has grown that allows a Senator, in return for not gumming up everything, to block a nominee they don’t like. With the national GOP having abdicated any responsibility for helping government work, it is only natural that individual senators such as Senator Shelby should feel free to take the nation hostage until they get their pet projects funded.

Until Senator Shelby pulled his stunt, no Senator, in the history of this nation, had ever blocked all nominations. Holds were always used sparingly. That’s because the Senate used to be ruled by traditions of courtesy, reciprocity, and accommodation. Rules that used to be workable in a civil society have become crippling now that the Republicans have descended into obstructionism, seeing political dividends in making the nation ungovernable.

Things are so bad that even bills the Republicans have sponsored are voted against by every Republican if President Obama comes out for it. Last month Republican senators voted in lockstep against any increase in the federal debt limit, a move that would have precipitated another government shutdown if Democrats hadn’t had 60 votes. They rail against the deficit, but they also denounce anything that might actually reduce the deficit, including, ironically, any effort to spend Medicare funds more wisely such as allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices. They promoted a bill that set up a deficit panel, until President Obama said that it was a good idea, and then they were against it.

Yet, Democrats, being verbally-challenged, do not seem to be able to score political points by highlighting their opponents’ obstructionism. It should have been an easy message in the Massachusetts senate race: a vote for a Republican, no matter what you think of him as a person, is a vote for paralysis. But, then again, the so-called moderate Democrats have been holding up healthcare reform and other initiatives, despite the party’s control of the White House and both chambers of the legislature. The progressive Democrats want an all or none approach in that they will not vote for healthcare reform if it does not have the public option. This effectively does what the Republicans want – to kill health reform altogether.

The worst problem of all is how the Obama administration only mildly deals with those who would destroy or betray it. Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, accused Mr. Shelby of “silliness” when Shelby blocked all nominations until the Senate gives Alabama millions of dollars in pork. Does the Obama administration really think that using the word “silliness” to define Republican obstructionism will really rile up voters against the obstructionists?

And do not forget the Republican-lite Democrats that come from Red States – they are also obstructionists. The nation would have been much better off had they been actual Republicans. Then maybe Harry Reid would have grown a backbone and pushed things through instead bending over backward to the point that he could kiss his own **** during negotiations with these DINOS.

“The truth is that given the state of American politics, the way the Senate works is no longer consistent with a functioning government. Senators themselves should recognize this fact and push through changes in those rules, including eliminating or at least limiting the filibuster. This is something they could and should do, by majority vote, on the first day of the next Senate session.” ~Paul Krugman

According to Paul Krugman, in the 17th and 18th centuries, the Polish legislature, called the Sejm, operated on the unanimity principle: any one member could nullify legislation by shouting “I do not allow!” This made the nation largely ungovernable, and neighboring regimes began hacking off pieces of its territory. By 1795 Poland had disappeared, not to re-emerge for more than a century. After the dissolution of Poland, a Polish officer serving under Napoleon penned a song that eventually – after the country’s post-World War I resurrection – became the country’s national anthem. It begins, “Poland is not yet lost.”

America may not be lost yet, but the broken Senate is certainly working on it.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/opinion/08krugman.html

Without bees we cannot survive

Global warming is a serious problem – so is pollution – but there is another more pressing situation going on. Over the past three years, more than 50 billion honeybees have died. Scientists know why, and now need everyone to lend a helping hand.

To understand the importance of honeybees to our planet, consider that every third bite on your plate is a result of their primary role on the planet as pollinators — the most important group on Earth. Honeybees contribute at least $44 billion a year to the U.S. economy. They pollinate food crops, alfalfa and clover for beef and dairy industries, cotton for our clothes, and produce honey, wax for candles, and ingredients for medicines.

In 2006, the honeybee genome was decoded, and the genetics revealed only half as many genes for detoxification and immunity compared to other known insects. Scientists found specific "good" bacteria inside their stomachs and intestines crucial for fighting pathogens and digesting the silica casing around each pollen grain, providing access to its protein.

A combination of factors has collided to create the perfect storm responsible for memory loss, appetite loss, and autoimmune system collapse that has resulted in the rapid decline in honeybee populations worldwide. The abnormally high temperatures of 2006 were likely the tipping point for bees in North America. The searing springtime temperatures during the onset of flowering are believed to have caused sterile pollen in many plants. Sterile pollen produces little, if any, protein.

Then in 2007, almond, plum, kiwi and cherry pollens that were tested exhibited little, if any, protein content. Infertile soils lacking essential nutrients, bacteria, fungi, protozoa along with climate change were implicated. A variety of pollens provide the bees’ only source of protein. Protein is important for growing the eggs, larvae, brains, and autoimmune systems of the bees. Bees evolved to feed on a wide assortment of pollens, but today many farmers use the bees in monoculture fields. This is not good for the bees. Beekeepers around the globe are now feeding their hives a form of a protein shake with eggs, brewers yeast, pollen, and honey and other special ingredients.

In 2008, researchers from Penn State found 43 pesticides in a Pennsylvania apple orchard. Many farmers combine or stack their chemicals to reduce applications costs. Stacking chemicals is known to increase toxicity levels in some cases by 1,000 fold. Each year 5 billion pounds of pesticides are applied globally. Some of those pesticides are poisonous, mimicking symptoms similar to those of humans afflicted with Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. Clearly agriculture must reduce the levels of toxicity from pesticides, herbicide and miticides globally. Do not use herbicides, pesticides, or miticides in your yard.

Research from Europe showed that bees exposed to electromagnetic radiation from cellular towers made 21 percent less honeycomb and that 36 percent, taken a half-mile from the hive, were unable to navigate their way back home.

There is hope on the horizon; organics is the fastest growing sector in the U.S. at $24 billion a year. First lady Michele Obama has an organic garden on the White House lawn with two honeybee hives close by. You can help by purchasing organic foods and cottons. Support local beekeepers by buying local honey. Plant a wide variety of native yellow and blue flowers in your yard, add a clover patch to the lawn, and participate by helping scientists in the U.S. National Phenology Network (http://www.usanpn.org/).

Without the bees, we cannot survive.

Republicans, the Tea Party, and 2010

While Republicans will likely make inroads on the House Democrat's 79-seat majority in 2010, there is plenty of data that suggests it will be mitigated and fall short of the revolution that some radio and television personalities believe is just around the corner. A Smart Politics analysis of U.S. House election returns finds that while the GOP is historically likely to pick up seats in the 2010 midterms, next November's election might look a lot closer to (though falling short of) the 2002 midterms or the 2004 general elections (in which the party in power, the GOP, held and even gained a few seats) rather than the 1994 or 2006 midterms (in which the party in power lost substantially – 54 seats for the Democrats and 31 seats for the Republicans respectively).

During the past few months, several political pundits and Washington, D.C. insiders are already projecting significant Republican gains in 2010.In late August, Fox News contributor Dick Morris gleefully predicted Democrats could lose 100 seats: "It's a disaster for the Democrats. You could literally, at this point, see 100 seats changing in the House."

The Tea Party developed last year in protest to what its supporters say was overspending in Washington – by both Republicans and Democrats – following the stimulus bill, the bank bailouts and President Obama's budget. As it expanded, the protests became more partisan in nature, and the Tea Party established itself as an uprising to the far right of the Republican Party. Over the year, the Tea Party grew into a loose link of groups around the country, protesting the bank bailout, taxes in general, socialism (regardless of their own Social Security and Medicare services), and having a black president.

"The anger over alleged fiscal irresponsibility in Washington is shared by a wider spectrum of voters, including independents," said John Avlon, author of Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America. Republicans are trying to co-opt the Tea Party. Democrats are trying to marginalize it. And people with personal aspirations – whether financial or political – are trying to take advantage of it. For example, the Tea Party Express, a conservative bus tour that crisscrossed the country last year, was run from inside a Republican political consulting firm owned by Dick Armey who recruited older, angry libertarian-types and bused them to various town hall meetings to act as an “angry constituency”.

But the same independent voters who are reacting against fiscal “irresponsibility” are also reacting against the polarization of the two major parties. In contrast, the Tea Partiers wanted Republicans and Democrats to become more polarized, Avlon said. The Tea Party groups are trying to flex their muscle and move the Republican Party further to the right. While the more radical activists made headlines, the voices of frustrated independent voters were being heard across the country. The White House said Republican Scott Brown's win in last month's Massachusetts Senate election was "a wake-up call." While Brown captured the support of the Tea Party, he also won over the state's independent voters. And he has made it clear that he is ‘his own Republican’ – as in no party owns him. (We’ll see if he can hold to that once he is in Washington for several months.)

"If the 'Birthers' [those who say Obama wasn't born in the U.S.] and the Tea Party people win most of the primaries in the Republican Party, it may not yield much of a Republican victory in the general election," said Curtis Gans, director of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate at American University. He pointed to New York's election last November as an example of how the Tea Party's support for more conservative candidates could hurt Republicans in the upcoming elections. Last November, Tea Party groups received credit for affecting the outcome of a special election for New York's 23rd Congressional District. Local Republican leaders backed state Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava because they thought she would appeal to centrists and independents. But more conservative party members revolted and instead backed Doug Hoffman, who ran on the Conservative Party ticket. Scozzafava dropped out days before the race and endorsed Bill Owens, the Democratic candidate. The split among Republicans contributed to Owens' win.

How will the Tea Party affect the GOP in the long term?

"What happened over the course of the summer as the town hall meetings got hijacked, you started to see a new kind of activist taking over the Tea Party movement," Avlon said. "As the wingnut fringe blurred with the base, you've seen more unhinged [crazy] attacks proliferate, and there still hasn't been a transition to a positive agenda." Many Tea Party members began directing their anger at Obama, calling him socialist and carrying posters with his face altered to resemble Hitler or The Joker or alluding to Obama being a monkey.

A funny thing about the Tea Party convention: not very many young people showed up. As the Tea Party's first national convention got under way, an overwhelming majority of white, middle-aged (and older) army of angry conservatives/libertarians, furious with government spending and influence, ready to do whatever they can to stop it, united in their anger but divided over the future of the movement. The convention was marketed as an opportunity to bring Tea Party leaders from across the country together to network and support the movement. But the high-priced-ticket convention, organized by a for-profit organization, is contradictory to the group's bottom-up, grass-roots beginnings. The convention has been dogged by infighting, with some protesting its $549 entrance fee and its hierarchical organization.

The organizers say it is all about cultivating the political anger that's out there and generating it to power political change. They do not like Obama Democrats, and some do not like Republicans. But when talk turns to the possibility of a third party, a Tea Party, that is when people in the movement seem to get queasy. Tea Partiers almost unanimously say it's not their goal. Something that is organized and national seems the very antithesis of what they're about -- being grass roots, staying local, more states rights, and less federal government. Mark Meckler and Jenny Beth Martin, founders of the Tea Party Patriots, say they are frustrated that other Tea Party groups are being run by Republican political consultants. Meckler and Martin refused to attend the convention.

"It wasn't the kind of grass-roots organization that we are, so we declined to participate," Meckler said.

Rival Tea Party factions are battling over who will carry the Tea Party banner. Some members worry powerful Astroturf groups are profiteering from the Tea Party. In fact, Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann were supposed to speak at the convention, but both dropped out, citing problems with the for-profit status of the Tea Party Nation, the group behind the event.

For the Tea Party to be a constructive movement, it will need to repudiate the unhinged Obama-haters and then focus its anger at fiscal irresponsibility into policy proposals instead of bumper-sticker platitudes. But the likelihood of that happening is nil. Author Eric Hoffer warned in his book, The True Believer: "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket."

Avlon said the concerns over the proceeds have undercut the event's attempt to be a rallying point. "They like to compare themselves to the founding fathers. Well, imagine if John Hancock had been trying to make a buck off the constitutional convention….If it [the Tea Party] just empowers the extremes in the party, then when extremes control parties – when wingnuts hijack a political party – ultimately, they take it off a cliff."

I surely hope so. Then the Republican Party can start over and once again welcome moderates.

All you need to know about the Tea Party

As Tea Party activists attend this weekend's convention in Nashville, it is safe to say that shrinking the federal government will be the principle they put forward. After all, to the extent that the group has an organizing principle, it is that Washington spends too much.

And yet, apart from the surging bills that Washington absorbs for health care, the surprising reality is that Big Government is not all that big by historical standards. Even with an economic stimulus, a bank bailout and two wars, non-medical spending by the federal government is a smaller percentage of the economy than it was during most of Ronald Reagan's administration.

Even though Reagan began paring back government, non-medical spending hovered around 20% of the economy during his administration. The reason for this is no mystery, even if it is not part of the daily political narrative. As the government's medical tab surged from $72 billion in 1980 to an estimated $912 billion in 2010, traditional government functions — things like roads, criminal justice and education — had to be more tightly controlled simply to avoid the kind of outlandish deficits we've seen in recent years. In other words, taking care of Grandma is expensive.

In just a few years, as the stimulus shrinks and the economy expands, government spending outside of health care will drop to about 16% of the economy, roughly where it has been since the mid-1990s.

Where government spending is concerned, the Tea Partiers are barking up the wrong trees. If their goal is to control spending, they should be demanding curbs in Medicare and answering President Obama's call for health care reform with counterproposals heavier on cost control. But, in my opinion, controlling government spending is not the main reason for the Tea Party.

Tea Partiers also say taxes are too high, but here, too, perception differs from reality, at least by history's measure. Because of the recession and the Obama tax cuts this past year, tax collections are at their lowest since 1950. In 2009 and 2010, tax receipts collected by Washington will total just 14.8% of the economy.

Tea Partiers seem to be promoting more partisanship, not less, by rejecting candidates deemed too likely to cross over and negotiate with Democrats. That is a recipe for more debt. If the Tea Partiers truly want to reduce the deficit, they would be demanding that the two parties work together. With the minority party always poised to attack when the majority sticks its neck out, nothing gets done. But reducing the deficit is not the real reason for the Tea Party. If it were, the Tea Partiers would have been out en masse during the Bush years when they racked up a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit.

This is not to say an uprising against Washington is not merited. Lawmakers of both parties are simply ignoring the nation's drift toward fiscal suicide. Nor is it the case that populist movements cannot serve constructive purposes. The last one – Ross Perot's presidential bid in 1992 – forced both parties to focus attention on the deficits, which then turned into surpluses under a Democratic President.

Until the Tea Partiers can channel their anger toward more productive solutions, the Washington spending machine will continue.

But it won’t happen, because…

Real Reason for the Tea Party

It is being said that "Old racists don’t fade away they just join the Tea Party movement."

Being white no longer guarantees you a pass to the front of the line. That is what is summoning up the hate and fear fueling the Tea Party movement. The shouts of “We want our country back” and “Our way of life is being attacked” say everything about this movement. Individuals who fought against the civil rights movement also make up the core of the Tea Party movement. They now see the Tea Party as a way to once again fight against what they see as the evils of letting everyone into this country.

“People who could not spell the word ‘vote’ or say it in English put a Barrack Hussein Obama in the White House,” said former Colorado Republican Rep. Tom Tanceredo, as the opening speaker at the Tea Party convention. (Emphasis on the name “Hussein” is his.)

Tanceredo’s statement tells you what the Tea Party is really against. To me, they sound more like the movement that put Hitler in power. Well maybe that is a little over top, but I think that describes the Tea Partiers more than as a group of “Real Americans” because they only consider far-right-leaning, white, rural and small-town Americans as “real”.

Why do I think this? Because as I study this so-called “Real American” movement, I have noticed that many of those who were against the Civil Rights movement now have found a new voice. I recently read an article by the associated press in which the reporter interviewed a 61-year-old woman who repeated the Tea Party line “Our way of life is under attack” and was all too proud about helping ban books from the library in her West Virginia town. Yet, when asked, she didn’t really know who “they” were – other than the fact that she hated Obama. Another woman said, “We want our country back!” Translate that into “our white-ruled, white-dominated country.”

These statements alone tell everything you need to know about the Tea Party. Add to that the horrible, hateful signs that they carry in their demonstrations.

I am not saying all Tea Partiers are racist. Some just plain cannot stand it that the Democrats are in charge. But enough of them (probably a majority) are racist to make that the main reason behind the Tea Party.

Not holding my breath

People of Massachusetts have spoken for the rest of the country – just like the people of New York 23 spoke for the rest of America when they put a Democrat in that House seat for the first time since the civil war. Remember how that was for all of America – back in November? Not. (Rachel Maddow)

In order to get maximum political spin out of this special election, Republicans have been describing it as a revolution, the ‘Scott’ heard around the world. Of course they want to say this is more than a defeat of candidate Martha Coakley – that this was a defeat of all Democrats! And, sadly, many Democrats seem to think of it that way too. “Oh, woe are we!” they cried in near unison when the Massachusetts results came in.

Here is what went wrong: In April, after Arlen Specter switched parties, the Democrats had 59 seats in the Senate. Then, after Al Franken was finally certified as winning in Minnesota, Democrats had a filibuster-proof, 60-seat majority – or so they thought. It made them think they could get those magical votes for every bill if they just compromised enough. On paper, that‘s what they had; but in reality, those 60 votes included so-called Democrats who really had no interest in voting with the rest of the Democrats on much of anything. They were DINOS (Democrat in name only) who found it in their political interest to say “no” to everything – just like the Republicans.

Attaining the filibuster-proof, 60-vote threshold made Democrats worse at creating policy. Instead of working on the most effective possible policies that could still get a majority vote, Senate Democrats have been trying to find the perfect, most conservative but yet, still Democratic, solutions to every problem, in order to earn the 60 magical Democrat party votes. To get to a winning 60 votes, they negotiated with too many their own members, weakening every piece of legislation that came up. In trying to accommodate Republican-lites like Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and Evan Bayh, they ended up with watered-down, Republican-like policies that were basically ineffective. On the other hand, Republicans have been able to drop the hammer to keep their folks in line, eventually even controlling Olivia Snowe of Maine.

After factoring in Scott Brown, Democrats now have 59 seats in the Senate. What they do not seem to understand is that even without 60 votes, they still have giant majorities in both the House and the Senate. All they seem to be able to see is that they do not have their magical, mythical 60 “filibuster-proof” seats anymore.

What the Dems should understand is that they can pass everything through reconciliation, where they only need 51 votes, not 60. Sure, there are limitations to reconciliation, but it‘s not like big policies have never been passed this way. That is what President Bush did with his tax cuts in 2001, passed through reconciliation with 58 votes. Bush‘s tax cuts in 2003, passed through reconciliation with 51 votes. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which reduced spending on Medicaid, passed through reconciliation with 51 votes.

“So let the impact of Massachusetts sink in, then expose the nihilism of the opposition, take the black eye as a necessary evil in such a turbulent time ... and fight on,” wrote Andrew Sullivan of The Daily Dish.

In essence, the Democratic Party is too democratic. They are too worried about everyone liking them. They do not know how to rule with an iron fist like the Republicans did during the Bush administration. Republicans hit the beach, burned the boats, and drove their agenda through without apologies.

The low-information, fickle electorate has no perseverance. They must be led. If the Dems lose their majority next November, the President will be forced to move center-right and never be able to follow through with the promises he made. And, of course, the politically illiterate electorate will not understand why he could not keep his promises.

The Democratic Party is in need of a political spine. The constant negotiating does not instill a sense of confidence in their base. I am beginning to doubt that the Senate Democrats have any fight in them. I am afraid that they will run for the hills and stick their heads in the sand refusing to do anything vaguely controversial, allowing the 41-vote Republican minority to control the agenda. This will cause disenfranchised, disillusioned Democrats and left-leaning Independents to stay home next November.

Democrats need to understand that they do not have to get 60 votes every time. Since the mythical 60-seat majority isn‘t even theoretically possible, with Republicans pledging to vote “no” on everything, maybe Democrats can get off their keisters, stop compromising away all the good stuff, and fight. Then they will give people a reason to vote for them again.

But I am not going to hold my breath.

A simpler life

I have been simplifying my life, trying to reshape myself into something more elemental. I am reinterpreting myself in the face of my chronic health problems. This will take time and quiet. I can’t do it successfully if I’m caught up in our culture’s unrelenting noise and incivility. I have no desire to be among tens of thousands of people shrieking at a football game or a concert or shopping at the mall. These days, I cannot stand to be in crowds. And I do not want to entertain “company”.

More than ever, I want to shrink my world down to the size of my home – where I’m most comfortable. For quite awhile, I’ve been declining requests for my time because the social whirl is less compelling than it ever was. It never was very compelling in the first place. To me, a perfect evening often means stretching out on the sofa and vanishing into a good novel or very old movie. I want to be at home. I prefer to be at home.

I know there is a thin line between the womb of healing and cutting yourself off from the world, but I really don’t care. Regardless of that possibility, I want to nest. My spirit needs convalescing as I struggle with my asthma, fibromyalgia, and depression.

Enjoying days at home built around writing, reading, and time spent with my husband, I am taking immense pleasure in the gentlest rhythms of daily life. I am feeding my inner hermit who would like nothing better than to live in a cottage a couple of miles down an unpopulated country road – a place where you can hear the birds and insects and actually see all the stars at night.

Loneliness is not the same as solitude. Solitude is an agreeable pal. I like the silence and creativity that comes with being alone. I am not lonely.

Lately I’ve been gorging on spy novels by Daniel Silva and the latest book, loaded with mystery, by Dan Brown. As I soak up The Lost Symbol, ignoring the insistent ring of the telephone with great relish, I feel as if I am regaining a part of my lost childhood, conjuring up the child who spent many dreamy hours at my grandparent’s house, reading good books and writing in my journal.

Why are my good memories tied to my grandparents? My grandparent’s country cottage was full of love – you could feel it, smell it, taste it. My grandmother, grandfather, and I spent long hours talking about life. They were full of wonderful stories. They both gave big, loving bear hugs – which were returned in kind. Sadly, they lived so far away that I could only spend a week with them during the summer.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, my parent’s house was always full of strife, discord, and meanness that wounded my psyche. There were no hugs in that house – at least not for me. They believed in breaking children’s spirits – especially mine. My father still often will say so. I didn’t know back then that one day the constant strife would cause me to traverse the shadowy land of depression.

As I try to recreate those long ago happy hours spent at my grandparent’s house, I am refusing to follow the common advice of taking an anti-depressant medication and forcing myself to socialize. Instead, I am trying to make my world manageable enough to wrap it about myself like a comfortable quilt made by my grandmother’s hands.

In just a few months, my husband will retire and join me. We will make new memories as we take long, slow trips across the country and stop to smell every flower, greet every sunset, and say prayers of thanksgiving along the way. Then maybe my spirit will finally shed the bad memories, the depression, and heal.

Maybe my body will heal, too.

Thinking about Love at Christmastime

The commandment about loving God and loving our neighbor is first and foremost. Jesus said that "all the Law and the Prophets hang upon these two commandments." (Matt 22:40) This theme is carried throughout the Bible. In 1 Peter 4:8 it is written that "above all things have fervent love for one another." Paul also said that we should put love above all else (Colossians 3:14), and that we should "owe no one anything except to love one another." (Romans 13:8)

Again and again in the Bible we repeatedly find that love is placed above all else. Love is called "more excellent than any other gift or ability. (1 Cor 12:31) "Now abide faith, hope and love, these three; but the greatest of these is love." (1 Cor 13:13) The law of love is called the "royal law" (James 2:8), which we are "taught by God." (1 Thessalonians. 4:9) We are asked to "make love our greatest aim," (1 Cor 14:1) to "be rooted and grounded in love." (Ephesians. 3:17)

These laws about love are so important that Jesus said they should be a part of the hearts of all Christians. “You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up.” (Deuteronomy 6:6,7)

"Let all that you do be done with love." (1 Cor 16:14)

This means that you should give to others, your love and your help, all year round – not just at Christmastime. In celebrating Jesus' birth, remember that Jesus was all about Love and inclusiveness.

This goes beyond spin – it’s lying

Senate Republicans Filibuster Defense Spending Bill — Then Deny They Did It

The Republicans have shown that they will stoop to shameful and despicable tactics to stop the passage of health care reform. The Grand Obstructionist Party (the Party of No) is now a party of clowns who have forgone the work of legislating to stage circus stunts and then refuse to admit they are doing so. Late last night, while our troops were in harm’s way on two battlefields, the Republicans decided to deprive our soldiers of needed funding, by attempting to block passage of the military spending bill using a filibuster. Fortunately, all 60 Democratic votes were available to overcome the parliamentary assault on our troops by Republicans.

Why did the Republicans jeopardize vital funding for our troops in a time of war? It was a calculated stunt to delay the debate on health care reform – and nothing else matters to the obstructionist Republicans, not even the safety of our troops. If Democrats had pulled such a stunt during a time of war, they would have been attacked as treasonous.

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) wasn’t even ashamed enough to lie about Republican reasons to block war funding. “I don’t want health care,” he said. Other GOP lawmakers pointed to the earmarks in the defense funding bill, but the results were the same. Every Republican Senator voted against the defense funding bill in a 63 to 33 vote, except for the two Senators from Maine, Snowe and Collins, and Sen. Hutchison from Texas. And even those three Republican lawmakers didn’t record their votes until all 60 members of the Democratic caucus had voted.

At this point in the health care reform debate, most people are well aware that the Republican strategy is to delay the vote as long as possible, even if it means dragging out debate on unrelated bills that GOP leaders support. That tactic was on display in October, when it took nearly a month to push through an extension of unemployment benefits that ultimately passed 98 to 0.

With their hypocrisy on full display, Republicans filibustered the $636.3 billion 2010 defense spending bill that every member of the party will eventually vote for. They did this as a way of delaying a return to the health care debate, which Democrats are trying to finish by Christmas. But on a 63-33 vote that at 1 a.m., the Senate finally mustered more than the 60 votes needed to end the filibuster and move to a final vote on the defense bill, scheduled for Saturday morning. Three Republicans joined with Democrats in voting to end the filibuster. Forcing that cloture vote is what is necessary to end a filibuster.

From Roll Call:
Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) accused Republicans of attempting to filibuster the Defense bill, which includes funding for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, in an effort to block work on the health care bill. Then, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (AZ) and other Republicans, however, sought to place the blame for the funding delay on the Democrats, accusing them of dragging their feet in bringing the bill to the floor and arguing that they [Republicans] are prepared to pass the bill.

“I find it rather curious that our colleague … is accusing Republicans of filibustering this Defense appropriations bill. Republicans don’t control the Senate or the House. The House just passed this bill Wednesday. Now, it could have been passed in October or September,” Kyl lied, adding that, “We always vote for the Defense appropriations bill.”

Moments later, Kyl refused an attempt to pass the defense bill immediately by unanimous consent. Then, a few hours later, he voted against bringing the defense bill to a final vote. These are the actions of a dishonest politician.

It is essential to pass the funding bill this week, because a Pentagon stopgap funding measure is due to expire at midnight Friday. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates was furious at the Republican tactics. He sent an angry letter to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) blasting the Republican stunt that would cause a “serious disruption” in the military’s ability to pay its troops during Christmas. “It is inconceivable to me that such a situation would be permitted to occur with U.S. forces actively deployed in combat,” Gates wrote.

The Republicans voting with Kyl should be forced to explain why they sought to kill a bill that provides troop funding in the middle of two wars. “They are prepared to jeopardize funding for troops at war,” said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.). “If Democrats did that, there would be cries of treason.” And yet GOP leaders have the audacity to argue that (1) they didn’t really filibuster the defense bill and (2) the Democrats are behind all the delays.

This isn’t spin – it’s lying. These Republicans are pulling dirty tricks (as usual) and then lying as they point their fingers at the Democrats and saying “they did it.”

Time to kill the bill

The Health Care Reform Bill at it now stands in the Senate is essentially a bill written by lobbyists for insurance companies, drug companies, and for-profit medical providers. With the exception of a few good provisions (increases in Medicaid eligibility, elimination of pre-existing conditions) most of what's left of health care "reform" not only isn't perfect, it is not even good. It has become a BAD BILL. The only argument left for supporting this bill is that Democrats needs to pass something, anything, called "health care reform" to prove they can accomplish something and not be punished by voters.

The best solution now is to let it go down in the Senate and then blame the Party of No and the Party of Joe. Kill the bill and then salvage its useful components through reconciliation (discussed at the end of this article).

Since Democrats campaigned on universal healthcare, voters may well be less likely to vote for them if they don't deliver. Unfortunately, this is a dilemma of Obama's and Congressional Democrat's own making. If Democrats pass a bad bill which forces people to buy unaffordable minimum insurance and then turns around and taxes employees with good insurance, voters will be even more likely to punish them.

The current Senate bill supposedly provides health care to the uninsured, but it is done by a mandate forcing them to buy unaffordable policies from for-profit private companies. If they do not buy the insurance, they will be fined by the IRS. This bill puts no limits on premiums, allows drug companies to charge whatever they want, and taxes the insurance policies of union workers and older Americans whose premiums are higher. This health care reform bill has become a massive taxpayer-financed subsidy to private insurance and drug companies.

Currently, health insurance policies for individuals average over $6,000 per year and policies for families average over $14,000 per year and are increasing about 10% annually. Anyone who wants to buy the same health benefits as members of Congress, or to buy coverage through Medicare, should be prepared to fork over a large chunk of cash. According to the Congressional Budget Office, a family of four earning $54,000 in 2016, when the health legislation is fully in effect, would be eligible for a subsidy of $10,100 to help defray the cost of insurance under the health legislation being debated by the Senate.

By 2016, one of the most popular plans, a Blue Cross and Blue Shield policy, is projected to cost a family more than $20,000 per year!

When the American people realize how much they will have to pay and how little they will get in return, they will blame the Democrats, with lots of encouragement from Republicans who will still claim this government subsidy to private businesses is "socialism". Rather than this being an incremental step, as liberals hope, it's more likely to prove to them that the government is forcing them to buy a defective product which they can't afford. Nobody is "getting covered" here. People are already "free" to buy private insurance and one must assume they have reasons for not doing it already. Whether those reasons are good or bad won't make a difference when they are suddenly forced to write big checks to Aetna or Blue Cross that they previously had decided they couldn't or didn't want to write.

Senate leaders are all over Washington claiming they finally have a healthcare reform bill they can pass, as long as they remove the public option. After all, they say that even without a public option, the bill still "covers" 30 million more Americans. What they are actually talking about is something called the "individual mandate." That's a section of the law that requires every single American buy health insurance or break the law and face penalties and fines. So, the bill doesn't actually "cover" 30 million more Americans -- instead it makes them criminals if they don't buy insurance from the same companies that got us into this mess. ~Jim Dean, Democracy for America

There are more bad provisions in the bill:

• Nothing in the bill limits how much insurance companies can charge for premiums. While the bill prevents insurance companies from rejecting people for pre-existing conditions, they will almost surely use the excuse that they are taking on additional risk and raise premiums. In addition, they will probably use the 4 years between the time the legislation passes and the time the mandates, subsidies, and insurance exchanges take effect in 2014 to raise premiums at an even faster rate, just as banks jacked up credit card rates between the time Congress passed credit card reform and the time it takes effect. This will blow the budgets of the American people and the Federal government.

There are two ways to control premiums, none of which are in the bill. The first might have been a robust public option tied to Medicare rates. This would have given people an alternative to private insurance if the private insurers raised their rates too much. But first the Blue Dogs in the House killed the Medicare rate tie-in and then the Senate caved into Joe Lieberman and killed the public option entirely. The other way to control premiums would be through government price regulation. Most states, which require that car-owners carry liability insurance in exchange for the privilege of driving, have insurance rate regulation. No one has proposed that federal health insurance mandates include rate regulation. With no robust public option, no rate regulation, and over 30 million mandated new customers, insurance companies can charge whatever they want.

• The bill does not allow Medicare to use its purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices or allow people to buy cheaper drugs from Canada. This would have saved tens of billions of dollars a year, which could have been used to make health care more affordable. The House bill still contains the Medicare drug negotiating provision, but it's been stripped from the Senate bill.

• The subsidies are paid for by charging a 40% excise tax on employer-paid health insurance policies costing more than $8500 for individuals or $23,000 for families. This is called a "Cadillac tax" but it's really a "Chevy tax". It would fall on approximately 19% of policies in its first year. Many union-negotiated policies cost more than this, especially for workers in high risk jobs. In addition many older people pay more than this in premiums. In order to avoid the tax, businesses will provide only basic policies which have higher deductibles and higher co-pays for the employees.

• The Senate has stripped out the language that would end the anti-trust exemption for the insurance companies. They are the only business – other than professional baseball – which is not subject to anti-trust laws. This means the Federal government can't do anything to prevent insurance companies from engaging in price fixing and dividing up markets.

• The Senate has stripped out provisions that prevent insurance companies from placing caps on the amount of benefits they pay out to individuals or families. This means that after paying premiums and co-pays, someone who gets really sick and needs expensive treatment like chemotherapy or organ transplants could end up exceeding the cap and having to pay the rest of their healthcare costs themselves, likely bankrupting them if they do not just walk away from getting the care they need (and then dying).

Democrats should introduce a series of individual bills and use reconciliation where possible. When reconciliation is not possible, then force Republicans and corporate Democrats to filibuster against individual popular provisions such as:

• Providing cost-savings reforms to Medicare. In particular, abolish the Medicare Advantage program which subsidizes private insurance companies to provide Medicare drug benefits at a 17% higher cost than the original government-run Medicare plan.

• Increasing Medicaid eligibility to 150% of the Federal Poverty Level, and subsidize the states for the extra cost.

• Letting Medicare use its negotiating power to lower drug costs and allow people to buy cheaper drugs in Canada.

• Revoking the insurance company's anti-trust exemption.

• No longer allowing insurance companies to deny pre-existing conditions, refuse to pay claims, put caps on total insurance amounts paid over a lifetime, or drop people who get sick.

• Letting uninsured individuals buy into the Federal Employee Health Plan available to government workers.

It would have been better if the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats had stood up to the insurance and drug companies, the Republicans, Ben Nelson, and Joe Lieberman in the first place. They should have fought hard for a good bill. Under the circumstances, it is better to kill this bill.

Lieberman’s possible secret deal

In politics, the name of the game is ‘you scratch my back and I will scratch yours.’ Most members of Congress, except for the very rich or very safe, are for sale. So what does Joe Lieberman expect to receive in exchange for betraying the party who foolishly handed him their vice presidential nomination in 2000 and gave him the chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee? That question has been on the minds of just about every person in America who cares about passing healthcare reform. Everyone knows that if President Obama signs a bill requiring all Americans to purchase the expensive products from a handful of private insurance giants, it will indeed be his Waterloo.

There are a lot of theories out there as to why Lieberman is doing this: He is doing it for the attention, or to boost his own influence in shaping the final bill, or he is still mad at Democrats for defeating him in the primaries in 2006, or maybe he is just an egotistical jerk. (I’ll go with all of the above.) Newsweek says that Lieberman is just demonstrating how a person behaves when there has been no price to pay for disloyalty – and I agree. But if he cares little about what the citizens of Connecticut want or the people of America want, then that just leaves the insurance companies.

Richardson of the LA Times speculates: “Lieberman, who isn’t seeking office again, doesn’t care if most people in Connecticut want a public option. Nor does he care if most people in America want it. He doesn’t care if he shoots down healthcare reform entirely and destroys the best hope for reform in decades.”

Lieberman’s narcissism and vindictiveness toward the Democrats suggests that he is not running for re-election in 2012. What he is doing right now is called “securing his golden parachute.” If he rigs the game so that all Americans have to purchase insurance but insurance companies do not have any competition, he will have surpassed the industry’s wildest expectations. I am betting that he finds a cushy job with a Connecticut insurance giant when he is out of office.

Ron Williams, the CEO of Aetna, one of the many insurance companies headquartered in Lieberman’s home state, earned $24,300,112 in total compensation last year. Lieberman’s net worth, which is somewhere just under $2.5 million, makes him the 54th richest Senator out of 100. And since his last book deal was back in 2001, there is currently nothing that will give Lieberman a boost into a wealthy retirement.

When members of Congress leave office for good, those who aren’t Kennedys or Pelosis or Rockefellars do it hoping to finally make some real money. Why should Lieberman be any different? In supporting John McCain, Lieberman was probably hoping to become a high ranking cabinet member, giving him more access and potentially unlimited future income opportunities. Since that failed, Lieberman is likely hanging his hopes on the big insurance companies to give him a golden parachute.

So…now, we wait. If Lieberman has an insurance industry lobbying job offer on the table, he won’t be able to keep it secret forever. If this turns out to be true, then somehow he needs to pay a big personal price for trading the best interests of Americans for a cushy job with an insurance company.

Speaking of American exceptionalism…

In reconciling getting a Nobel Peace Prize just after calling for a military escalation in Afghanistan, President Obama boldly made the case for ‘just wars’ such as the one in Afghanistan. At the same time, he spoke of America’s exceptionalism by lauding the contributions the United States has made in promoting peace when we fought World War II, produced the Marshall Plan, helped with the creation of the U.N., and participate in nuclear disarmament.

Yet the gist of his acceptance speech was reconciling how war is sometimes necessary while at the same time mankind must strive for a better world:

“We do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected,” he said at the end of the speech. “We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place… So let us reach for the world that ought to be -- that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls.”

Obama addressed two criticisms from those who did not want him to receive the award:

1. He does not deserve the award:

“Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize -- Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela -- my accomplishments are slight,” he said. “I cannot argue with those who find these men and women -- some known, some obscure to all but those they help -- to be far more deserving of this honor than I.”

2. He is receiving a peace prize as his country fights two wars:

“I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms.”

Just as in his Berlin speech during the presidential campaign, Obama also argued how the United States has helped forge world peace:

“Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans.”

Yet he also said -- in a swipe at Cheney and Bush -- that the U.S. must adhere to the standards that govern wars:

“America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America’s commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor those ideals by upholding them not just when it is easy, but when it is hard.”

Obama then discussed three ways the world can build lasting peace:

1. Enact and enforce tough sanctions and penalties on countries Korea that violate rules and laws:

“But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system…. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia.”

2. Protect the inherent rights and dignity of all peoples:

“I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear.”

3. Promote economic security and opportunity:

“It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine they need to survive.”

You would think that even the most ardent critic of the president's foreign policy would have a hard time picking apart President Obama’s Oslo speech. In fact, Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, and Sarah Palin all lauded the speech because Obama went before the Nobel Committee of Peace to reconcile how war is sometimes necessary while, at the same time, mankind must strive for a peaceful world.

But if all that we notice in President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize Lecture is a justification of war, we will miss the crux of his thinking – that he called forth the hope of peace. President Obama spoke of a 21st century ‘just peace’, the middle ground between thinking of a ‘just war’ and pacifism – defining what a 'just peace' is and articulating how to go about providing such a peace.

President Obama absolutely believes in American Exceptionalism. It’s just not the perverted neo-con version that Dick Cheney extols.

You are a mean one, Mr. Grinch

Every now and then there comes along a person that 99.9 percent of the people wish would just go away. Dick Cheney is one of those people. Cheney has stepped up his attack on President Obama, telling news pundits that Obama's security strategy endangers American lives. The man is acting like he is possessed by the devil; but even the devil would be wary of cohabiting with the likes of what Cheney has become.

Just which Obama policies does he think are making us less safe? Escalating the war in Afghanistan that Cheney and Bush dithered around on for eight years? Or finishing the job in Iraq that he and Bush spent billions of dollars on and made a mess of? Do Cheney and his neo-con followers really think that Obama’s bowing to the Japanese king makes the United States less safe? That is pure poppycock. Although I believe the deep bow was an error – a slight ‘business bow’ or nod of the head would have been polite enough – it certainly did no great harm to our country. And, remember, Bush bowed to the Saudi king – held hands with him, too. Cheney did not throw a tantrum over that bow.

So who is this person who claims to know better than the rest of us?

It was Dick Cheney, former VP of the United States, and Bush who ignored intelligence briefings on Al Qaeda for months. Thousands of Americans were killed on their watch in an attack that could have been prevented and thousands more in a war in Iraq. After the nation was attacked, Cheney spent the remainder of his time as VP fearfully hiding in a bunker for weeks at a time, filled with paranoia from seeing enemies lurk in every corner. I can still see him in my mind’s eye shaking in his boots. Why? Cheney received five draft deferments during the Vietnam War. One time, when questioned about the deferments, he said that he had “other priorities” in the sixties rather than military service.

Although Cheney was not willing to put his own life on the line for his country, he was more than willing to send thousands of young Americans into war. Nearly 3,000 died at the World Trade Center due to Cheney’s and Bush’s eyes being off the ball. More than 4,000 American soldiers were killed, thousands of American soldiers were permanently maimed, and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis died because of the Bush administration's incompetence and hawkish policies.

Cheney was more than willing to torture other human beings although regular FBI interrogation methods work well. The torture they advocated and pushed onto the CIA produced false information that was used to mislead America into an unwise, unjust, and unwarranted war. With such dirty hands, it seems to me that Cheney would be ashamed about of accusing anyone of endangering America or of defending the use of torture. The public records of Congressional testimony of military, CIA, and FBI personnel have given us evidence that torture actually endangered American security rather than protect. It did so by breeding more terrorists and producing false intelligence – which Mr. Cheney, along with President Bush, used to mislead America into invading Iraq.

Dick Cheney went on FOX’s Sean Hannity show this week to discuss his favorite topic, the "weakness" of President Barack Obama. Cheney said the decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed and the other alleged 9/11 conspirators in civilian court would give aid and comfort to the enemy: “I think it will make Khalid Sheikh Mohammed something of a hero in certain circles, especially in the radical regions of Islam around the world. It will put him on the map. He'll be as important or more important than Osama Bin Laden, and we will have made it possible.” Cheney is saying that the act of giving KSM a civilian trial will make him more of a hero than Osama bin Laden is – all the while ignoring that the killing of thousands of Americans during Cheney’s watch made KSM a hero to extremists. This is cherry picking and complete nonsense.

What did do great harm to our country was Cheney and Bush allowing private contractors like Halliburton rake in billions in profits (from taxpayers’ money) doing what our armed services should be doing. And need I mention what that administration did to our economy by giving full reign to the financial sector? What about the billions of dollars that went into the pockets of the wealthy from tax cuts while running up the deficit at the same time with two wars? Stupid – very stupid. These policies bankrupted America.

Dick Cheney has warned that there is a “high probability” that terrorists will attempt a catastrophic nuclear or biological attack in coming years, and said he fears the Obama administration’s policies will make it more likely the attempt will succeed. Of course there is a high probability that the United States will be attacked again – duh – and it won’t matter who is president. Remember, the U.S. was attacked on Clinton’s watch and on Bush’s watch. In fact, we lost more lives in the World Trade Center attack than we did in the attack on Pearl Harbor. Facts have shown us that Cheney and Bush had the information about an imminent attack but chose to ignore it.

I guess Cheney thinks the failure to get Bin Laden in Tora Bora does not count as an act that made this country less safe. Gen. Stanley McChrystal testified to Congress this week that Al Qaeda would not be defeated until bin Laden is dead. Yet somehow, according to Cheney, putting KSM on trial will make him more important than the founder and continuing leader of Al Qaeda, whose death is essential to Al Qaeda's ultimate defeat according to the American military commander in Afghanistan?

Mr. Cheney is not a credible spokesman on issues of national security. He went over to the dark side years ago, turning into a Darth Vader – an unyielding presence who shoots first, asks questions later, and answers to no one, not even the president he supposedly served. Col. Lawrence B. Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, describes Dick Cheney as “amoral; he’s Machiavelli’s prince writ large.”

John Perry Barlow, the Wyoming native and Internet-privacy advocate who worked on Cheney’s first congressional campaign, is blunt in his description of him. According to Barlow, Cheney’s “dark intellect has become one of the most dangerous forces in the world… a global sociopath, a creature of enormous power and intellect combined with all the empathy of a HAL 9000 [the murderous computer in Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey].”

The truth is that it was Mr. Cheney’s policies that did not keep us safe. Dick Cheney’s definition of American exceptionalism led to the arrogance and recklessness that turned attention from Afghanistan (where Al Qaeda was) and put emphasis on Iraq (where Al Qaeda did not exist at the time) – so if Obama doesn’t share his version of American exceptionalism, good.

The 2006 and 2008 elections were reactions against the neo-con version of American exceptionalism, with President Obama's election being the major plot point at which voters rejected it. Opposing the Iraq war and seeking to regain America's global standing were focal points in his campaign, and the American public agreed, despite the heavy fire Obama took from “conservatives” for, for instance, going to Germany to deliver a speech. In January 2009, just before Obama was inaugurated, 74 percent of U.S. adults (including 47 percent of Republicans) thought the Bush administration had damaged America's global standing, and 83 percent said it was important for Obama to work to improve it

Actually, I do not think that Cheney really believes President Obama is really making this country less safe. I think he is just trying to recast his legacy of hate and wrongheadedness. He knows the history books will show him as having a dark and nasty character. He knows that if the Obama administration is successful, history will view his own administration as unsuccessful and harmful. “Cheney’s manner and authority of voice far outstrip his true abilities,” said Chas Freeman, who served under Bush’s father as ambassador to Saudi Arabia. “It was clear from the start that Bush required adult supervision – but it turns out Cheney has even worse instincts. He does not understand that when you act recklessly, your mistakes will come back and bite you on the ***.”

Cheney is a national embarrassment and permanent stain in our nation’s history. With each passing day, Cheney’s actions confirm that he is by far the worst and most damaging person to have held the second highest office in our country. I blame Cheney for what has happened to the United States. President Bush, who is not very bright, was just an ignorant puppet for Cheney, the puppet master. In fact if there is another attack, the blame could now be laid at Cheney’s feet for his unpatriotic, treacherous hate speech. His verbal attacks on President Obama go beyond expressing an opposing viewpoint. His words alone could invite another attack.

You are a mean one, Mr. Grinch. Go crawl back in your bunker and shut up.