Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category
As if poor Haiti didn’t have enough trouble, President Obama plans to send George W Bush, the man who took the disaster of Katrina and made it into a top-notch tragedy of epic proportions just to destroy a bastion of GOP political opponents, to Haiti to help straighten things out.
President Obama is asking his two immediate predecessors – George W. Bush and Bill Clinton – to come together to lead the nation’s humanitarian and relief efforts to Haiti in the wake of the earthquake that has ravaged the Caribbean island.
The partnership is expected to be announced by the White House in the coming days, after officials have a better handle on the full scope of the devastation. Mr. Obama called Mr. Bush on Wednesday, aides to both men said, and Mr. Bush agreed to do whatever he could to help.
OK, so Clinton will be there, too. The Dynamic Duo? I don’t think so. Clinton knows govt and could help lobby for aid and clear away red tape. All Bush knos how to do in a disaster is stand in front of it and promise money he has no intention of delivering. So “whatever he can do to help” means photo-ops and empty promises?
In its first vote on health care overhaul, the Senate Thursday narrowly approved an amendment to safeguard coverage of mammograms and preventive screening tests for women under a revamped system.The 61-39 vote on an amendment by Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., and Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, would allow the Health and Human Services secretary to require insurers to cover preventive health screenings free of charge.
Under special provisions agreed to prior to the tally, 60 votes were needed to pass the amendment. The margin underscored the fragility of the coalition Democrats are counting on to move forward on President Barack Obama’s signature issue.
Why do we need 60 votes – a filibuster-proof majority – in order to approve something as non-controversial and obviously necessary as mammograms and cancer screening tests?
Why did something as obvious, necessary, and minor barely squeak through this cloth-headed Congress?
How “fragile” is the Democrat “coalition” (between Democrats and Blue Dogs, presumably) when it takes that much effort to pass an amendment this bland?
How “fragile” is our democracy when it takes that much effort to pass an amendment this bland?
Has it occurred to the Democrat majority – or to anyone else, for that matter – that it is impossible to govern a democracy when 2/3 of us have to agree on virtually every policy?
1) “I’m sorry but your husband died of cancer and that’s not on our Approved Causes List.”
“Approved Causes List? What causes of death do you approve?”
“Strangulation by an enraged artichoke.”
“Um, is that all?”
“Yes. We consider everything else to be uncovered.”
Consumer flips frantically through several hundred pages of Coverage Information. “It doesn’t say anything about artichokes in here.”
“No. You should have asked.”
“It was your responsibility. Don’t look at me. The Congress says so.”
Once upon a time there was a liberal crusader named Barney Frank. Barney was famous for his toughness, his smarts, and his canny ability to realize when he was being conned. Then the Democrat party won the Congress back and Barney found himself Chair of the House Financial Service Committee. Suddenly (*dummmm da dum-dum*) he was replaced by an evil twin who became the banksters’ best friend, shoveling them $$$ by the barrel and protecting their profits at our expense. What happened? Who pulled the switcheroo?
A somewhat whimsical post on what other lib/progs had to say about Obama’s Nobel brought a couple of responses, one from Frank F explaining the process of nomination and why it all make so much sense even though Obama hasn’t actually, you know, done anything yet.
I think Nobel was looking at the Obama Administration’s non-proliferation goals, which it seems the media is incapable of doing. The actions are both ambitious, and on their way to succeeding. The success of these policy goals will have a dramatic effect on global security. Given that Nobel emphasized his work on the nuclear front, its not hard to understand why they made the decision.
jean followed up by taking me and all other critical lefties to the proverbial woodshed.
Thanks, FrankF, the best rebuttal I have seen to the naysayers, especially the progressive/liberal whining. THAT has been disheartening. Just shows how much the left has their heads up their (you know where), and I count myself a progressive.
I don’t know. Does counting yourself count?
IAC, after giving her criticism (and FrankF’s) of my criticism (well, my agreement with the criticism of others, at any rate) a good deal of critical thought, I have reached the critical conclusion that jean is right. It’s not Obama’s fault that he hasn’t kept his promises, hasn’t done what we hoped he would do. It’s our fault.
Back in the bad old days of apartheid in South Africa, the pitch against the policy was less often racism than the scandal of a tiny minority ruling a big majority. It seemed – and was called – a travesty of democracy, the antithesis of representative government, a sort of racist tyranny/slash/oligarchy. The core of democratic governing was embodied in the concept that the majority rules. If it doesn’t, explained John Locke in Of Civil Government, you’ve got chaos.
For if the consent of the majority shall not in reason be received as the act of the whole and conclude every individual, nothing but the consent of every individual can make anything to be the act of the whole which…’tis next to impossible ever to be had.
For over 200 years the United States and every other country with a democratic constitution considered this rule unbreakable. Abraham Lincoln fought the only internal war we’ve ever had to prevent a minority of Southern slaveowners from dictating policy to the majority government at the point of a bayonet. Political parties from the Federalists to the Whigs to the Know-Nothings to today’s GOP, Democrat, and Green parties understood the rules: when a majority of the country has decided on a course, the minority has to change their minds to get its way. In a democracy, minorities may influence policy but they don’t make it.
No one, to my knowledge, ever questioned this fundamental truth. Until the Bush Cult.
Tom Tomorrow thinks that maybe it isn’t so much that there are two Obama’s as that maybe there’s more than one idea of Obama.
President Obama, speaking in Ohio, said he would “continue to reach across the aisle for oil-soaked rags.”
I don’t think Bush Fangirl and NYT stenographer Liz Bumiller ever wrote a story about how Bush’s “Civilian Goals Were Largely Unmet in Afghanistan “. Possibly because no one was aware Bush had any civilian goals in Afghanistan.
Roy Edroso on the reaction to Obama’s Nobel.
NEW VOICE UP COLUMN, in which I attend the follow-through on the story of Obama’s disastrous Nobel Prize victory. Apparently the new angle is that the Committee contrived by means of the award to get Obama to abandon Afghanistan, hand the U.S. over to global-warming internationalists, and Lord knows what else. Thus, if henceforth Obama does anything the Right doesn’t like, it will be in appeasement of our Oslo overlords. Soon the Scandinavians will replace France, Russia, etc. as right-wing hate-objects, and Jonah Goldberg will be writing about lutefisk-eating surrender nudists.
Oh yes, please.
Susie Madrak notices that the nominations closed the week after the inauguration, before Obama had had a chance to do anything about “Peace” and concludes, “I can only assume that he won for the achievement of not being George W. Bush.” Yup.
Mark responds likewise: “I think it’s safe to say the rest of the world really, really didn’t like Bush.” Nope. They sho nuff dint.
The arrogance and desperation of the conservative Democrat leadership has reached such an advanced stage that that leadership is openly disavowing its own members. Yesterday the slavish NYT ran a neat little article about how Obama’s willingness to dump the public option, thereby dumping as well the majority in his own party that want it and the large contingent of liberals and progressives who have said they won’t vote for a healthcare bill that doesn’t have it, thereby splitting the party in two, is actually called ”uniting the party”.
President Obama’s speech on health care failed to bridge the gulf with Republicans, but Democrats said on Thursday that the president had largely succeeded in unifying his own party by making a cogent, persuasive pitch to the American public and by casting his plan to overhaul the health care system as a political and moral imperative.
The day after the nationally televised address, in which Mr. Obama signaled that he could accept an alternative to a government-run insurance plan, influential Democrats who previously seemed wedded to the public insurance option hinted that they, too, might be flexible. They included the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and Representative Henry A. Waxman, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, both from California, and who both, like Mr. Obama, say they still prefer the public option, and view it as crucial to passing a bill in the House.
Pelosi has been amenable for a long time, whatever she said publicly, but Waxman’s willingness to be “flexible” is a big disappointment. It may be that he has just gotten the message Reid/Pelosi have been sending for months: “Fuck the lib/progs and fuck what the country needs & what the voters want. We’re not going to piss off our conservative corporate contributors, especially insurance companies, by passing a bill they don’t want. Period.”