Taking The Country Back

Take the country back from whom? Take the country back to where? Seems as though the Republican Party was all set to declare yesterday's primary and special elections as a referendum to "take the country back" from whoever they think took it, nevermind the fact that those who presumably absconded with "their" country actually won elections. But it looks as though special elections are only critical if Republicans actually win them.

If this is the face of those that would take the country back, then bring it on. Let's look at some of yesterday's election results, shall we?

In the only Democratic vs. Republican race, the special general election to fill the seat of the late Jack Murtha in Pennsylvania's 12th district, former Democratic Murtha aide Mark Critz beat the GOP backed Tim Burns.

The more progressive Congressman Joe Sestak beat out 29 year Republican and one year Democrat Arlen Specter for the Democratic nomination despite the White House backing the party switching Specter (presumably because of some back room deal). Smells like Rahm Emanuel's been all over that.

Senate Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln couldn't score enough of an edge over her liberal challenger, Lt. Gov. Bill Halter and the two will have a runoff election on June 8th.  The White House also backed Lincoln, but truth be told, either candidate may have a rough go if it in November, so maybe they were thinking better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

And then there's Tea Party candidate Rand Paul who crushed Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's pick, Trey Grayson for the Kentucky GOP Senate Primary. This despite Paul's stance on certain issues. Do they agree with Paul's stance on the unconstitutionality of the Patriot Act? How many Tea Party followers over 65 would support his abolishing Social Security? Or Medicare? How many of those in wheelchairs would agree with him doing away with the Americans With Disabilities Act? If they blindly pull the lever for anyone calling themselves a Tea Party "patriot" without knowing how the issues may affect them, they're going to have a few surprises in store.

In any case, it seems that yes, incumbents seem to be in trouble, but let's not forget that there are plenty of Republican incumbents as well, and they're probably in more danger from Tea Party challengers than are Democrats. I don't believe many discouraged Democratic voters are planning on voting for GOP or Tea Party candidates any time soon just for spite. That would be pretty stupid.  But then again, I've been surprised before.

ADDING... Some would argue that last night's results shows that the progressive cause is alive and well, despite the media focus on all things Teabagger. And I would have to agree.

My Thoughts On Health Care Reform

Since the evening of "Et tu, Lieberman?" I've been grappling with my thoughts and feelings on the current Senate debacle that is the health care bill debate. Because the two have to be dealt with separately.

Emotionally, I want Holy Joe's head on a plate. I want President Obama to shout from the rooftops that Traitor Joe will not live to see another day as chairman of any Democratic party committee. I want Harry Reid to tell Lieberman that he can forget about seeing any legislation with his name on it come to the floor of the Senate. I want every Democratic Senator to call Lieberman out on the Senate floor and expose his hypocrisy so it can live in perpetuity in the Congressional record.

Emotionally, I'm upset at the party caving to satisfy a handful of Senators with their own agenda. Courting Republicans like Snowe was a ridiculous idea from the start. If it were a matter of one vote, I could understand it to a point. But if it was to feign bipartisanship, it was a useless task. All that should have been thrown out the window when they realized they also had to content with Mary Landrieu(LA), Blanche Lincoln(AK) and Ben Nelson(NE) besides The Lieberdouche. If they couldn't get their own party's ducks in a row, what was the point of Snowe in the first place?

Emotionally, I'm truly disappointed at the lack of arm twisting by the President. I know that's not his style and I'm trying to deal with that considering my constant bitching about another certain leader of the free world in the not too far distant past and his bullying ways when he was using his powers for evil instead of good.

But emotion and ideology are intertwined and ideology is not the friend of politics or pragmatism. This is where we need to take a hard look at the bill that we do have instead of the one we wish we had. The bill that ends the insurance conglomorate's practice of rescission. The bill that doesn't allow exclusion due to a pre-existing condtion. The bill that extends coverage and includes subsidies to those that can't afford health care. The bill that makes the insurance companies spend 90% of premiums accrued on health care, not advertising. The bill that would make possible millions who currently don't have insurance and therefore not got to the doctor a chance at preventative care before it's too late.

That's a lot to simply dismiss as "not good enough." There are progressives who have voiced their harsh opposition for legitimate reasons. And that's their job. None of them however, are elected officials. FDL's Jane Hamsher opposes the bill and agrees with Howard Dean who called it "essentially the collapse of health care reform in the United States Senate." But it's easy for progressives to stick to their guns, to throw their principles in your face when there's no downside to their stance. It's easy for Howard Dean's idealogy to dictate what he says when he's not in public office. I wonder what his reaction would be if he were still head of the DNC?  Dean can say what he wants now when there is no accountability, even when his record shows otherwise. The Senate bill is similar to Dean's plan when he ran for President in 2004, which didn't have a public option or a Medicare buy-in either.

What do you say to people who currently can't get health insurance because of restrictions that this bill would now make illegal? "Sorry, wait til next time?" Because if history is any indicator, the next time will be somewhere in 2025 if this bill were killed. There is no do over. Not when the process has come this far, farther than at any other time the government has broached the subject of health care reform.

What do you say to the nearly 45,000 people that die every year because they don't have coverage and therefore put off the expensive proposition of a checkup? "Wait it out, maybe this isn't your year"?

I can't do that. It probably would be easy for me to say that, considering I have good health care coverage through my employer, but if the shoe were on the other foot, I don't think I'd like it so much if someone with health insurance was denying my chance at coverage because of their principles.

We need to take a step back, take a breath and look at what this bill provides instead of what it doesn't, and then ask ourselves if it really is "worse than nothing" knowing that nothing is the status quo. Knowing that nothing is unsustainable, and asking ourselves if "worse then nothing" is just hyperbole.

Although I'm incredibly disappointed, at this point I have to let the process play itself out. Yes, they could have done better initially, but this is by no means over as elected progressives are pushing back and once the Senate bill is done with it still has to be merged with the House bill in conference.

Perhaps a public option can be approached through an amendment in a future spending bill. Perhaps over time, Congress can improve loopholes and make health care stronger, just like Medicare was improved and Social Security was improved over time. But I don't know how I could sleep at night advocating the bill be scrapped when it doesn't affect me as severely as those who aren't covered.

Joe Lieberman is a Fucking Scumbag

I'm in the middle of a post about the opt out option for health care reform, but I had to put it aside to mention this:

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said Tuesday that he’d back a GOP filibuster of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s health care reform bill. 

Lieberman, who caucuses with Democrats and is positioning himself as a fiscal hawk on the issue, said he opposes any health care bill that includes a government-run insurance program — even if it includes a provision allowing states to opt out of the program, as Reid has said the Senate bill will.

"We're trying to do too much at once," Lieberman said. “To put this government-created insurance company on top of everything else is just asking for trouble for the taxpayers, for the premium payers and for the national debt. I don’t think we need it now."

Lieberman added that he’d vote against a public option plan “even with an opt-out because it still creates a whole new government entitlement program for which taxpayers will be on the line."

Another fucking douche who doesn't understand the difference between health care reform that we have to pay for and a "government entitlement program." We don't need it right now? What do you mean "we," white man? Fine, we'll start by dropping your governement-run health coverage. And now Lieberman is trying to position himself as a fiscal hawk after we've spent trillions of dollars on wars that he supported in Iraq and Afghanistan? Fuck you, Joe. Harry Reid has sent two versions of the bill to the Congressional Budget Office for scoring and Holy Joe already thinks he knows better. At least the other fence sitters are taking a "wait and see" attitude... you know, the responsible thing to do.

The reason this pisses me off to no end is because all I've been hearing is how President Obama is stabbing us in the back for Olympia Snowe's vote just to say reform was a bipartisan effort, when the fact is the 60 vote threshold we all boast about is nothing of the sort. We never had sixty. We have 58 plus two Independents, one of whom I trust. We lost Lieberman when he lost to Ned Lamont in his primary and decided his political life was more important than his political party.

Ben "Helmet Head" Nelson, "Bayou Mary" Landrieu and Blanche "Hatchet Face" Lincoln are all straddling the fence on health care reform as if it were topped with gyrating dildos, not to mention Kent "The Ferret" Conrad and Max "The Insurance Man" Baucus. And now the one dickhead who I was worrying about the whole time but no one mentioned is wielding the knife into the back of the Democratic Party yet again. If we were worried about Ted Kennedy dying before this legislation came to the floor and Robert "Methuselah" Byrd who breaks hip when he blinks too hard to give us our sixty votes, then we were never actually there to begin with. We were never close to sixty. Can we now please stop blaming the White House for trying to coddle Snowe? There's a reason for it, and now we're seeing why. It's time to strip Lieberman of any seniority he has left. They should have done it two years ago.

Great job on Lieberman in 2006, Connecticut!