Home of the Brave, My Ass

ter⋅ror⋅ism  [ter-uh-riz-uhm] – noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

The reluctance and pitiful backtracking of political figures opposed to having the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York is proof that the terrorists have already won. Cowards like NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who beat his chest not two months ago in favor of having the trials in Manhattan, Senator Chuck Schumer, and countless others citing the cost and inconvenience as a factor is an ass covering tactic.

And those worried about the financial cost of the trial to New York City should petition that part of the tab be picked up by the federal government.  Besides the fact that in my opinion, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly's expensive plan including rooftop snipers, random vehicle checkpoints and a virtual shutdown of lower Manhattan is over the top and only breeds fear in those who were running scared to begin with.

The story of how prominent New York officials seemed to have so quickly moved from a kind of “bring it on” bravado to an “anywhere but here” involves many factors, including a new anxiety about terrorism after the attempted airliner bombing on Christmas Day.

...“This will be one more stroke for Al Qaeda’s propaganda,” said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University.

No one whined about the cost of the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui. No one complanied about the inconvenience in the Richard Reid case. But now the KSM fiasco, which began with simpering masses of flesh not wanting Guantanamo detainees "setting foot on US soil", as if they had some kind of magical powers to break out of supermax prisons, has escalated to ridiculously epic proportions and ultimately, money did the talking.

...New York real estate executives were raising concerns with the Obama administration, according to Mr. Spinola, president of the Real Estate Board of New York.

Mr. Spinola said he had received calls and e-mail messages from the board’s members. Residential real estate brokers were “going berserk,” as he put it, worried that they would no longer be able to sell apartments downtown.

Commercial brokers feared they would not be able to lease office space.

Screw justice if it's going to affect the bottom line, right? Patriots indeed.

What The Fuck, Rahm?!

WSJ: It is more important that health-care legislation inject stiff competition among insurance plans than it is for Congress to create a pure government-run option, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said Monday.

"The goal is to have a means and a mechanism to keep the private insurers honest," he said in an interview. "The goal is non-negotiable; the path is" negotiable.

...Mr. Emanuel said one of several ways to meet President Barack Obama's goals is a mechanism under which a public plan is introduced only if the marketplace fails to provide sufficient competition on its own. He noted that congressional Republicans crafted a similar trigger mechanism when they created a prescription-drug benefit for Medicare in 2003. In that case, private competition has been judged sufficient and the public option has never gone into effect.

...On Monday, Mr. Emanuel said the trigger mechanism would also accomplish the White House's goals. Under this scenario, a public plan would kick in under certain circumstances when competition was judged to be lacking. Exactly what circumstances would trigger the option would have to be worked out.

It's time for Chuck Schumer to step it up and for Senate Democrats to refuse to pass legislation without a public option.

...Some Democrats pushing for a vigorous public plan say the trigger idea isn't good enough. Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) said in an interview, "If it's not there on day one, those of us who support a public option have a real problem with it."

(H/T Bob Cesca)

UPDATE (10:20am): David Shuster on Twitter:

What The Fuck, Chuck?!

...Scorched by Republican opposition to the idea of a new public program like Medicare, Senate Democrats are looking for a middle ground that would address the concerns of political moderates. One way they propose to do that is by requiring the public plan to resemble private insurance as much as possible.

“The public plan,” Mr. Schumer said Monday, “must be subject to the same regulations and requirements as all other plans” in the insurance market.

...Mr. Schumer said his goal was “a level playing field for competition” between public and private insurers. But Ms. Ignagni said, “It’s almost impossible to accomplish that objective.”

The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, asked Mr. Schumer to seek a solution. In his response, Mr. Schumer set forth these principles:

- The public plan must be self-sustaining. It should pay claims with money raised from premiums and co-payments. It should not receive tax revenue or appropriations from the government.

- The public plan should pay doctors and hospitals more than what Medicare pays. Medicare rates, set by law and regulation, are often lower than what private insurers pay.

- The government should not compel doctors and hospitals to participate in a public plan just because they participate in Medicare.

- To prevent the government from serving as both “player and umpire,” the officials who manage a public plan should be different from those who regulate the insurance market.

In addition, Mr. Schumer said, the public plan should be required to establish a reserve fund, just as private insurers must maintain reserves for the payment of anticipated claims. And he said the public plan should be required to provide the same minimum benefits as private insurers.

I'm really, really tired of my senior Senator from New York. It's bad enough he served Michael Mukasey to the Bush administration on a silver platter, now he wants to make the public plan for health insurance as bad as the current private insurers in the guise of free market competition?

Shorter Schumer: The only way we'll put forth a public health insurance plan is if we make it crappy enough that no one will want it.

Today's Morning Joke™ Dumbass Quote

Joe Scarborough on the Bernard Madoff Ponzi scheme (paraphrasing): "I'm not saying that there isn't blame to go around on all sides, but the Democrats and Barney Frank had no oversight. And Chuck Schumer is basically running Wall Street from Washington, DC."

As if this scheme to bilk $50 BILLION from unsuspecting investors only took place in the last two years of a Congressional Democratic majority. And of course, Schumer should have seen this immediately after the $700 billion financial bailout.

By the way, I only heard this while flipping on Morning Joke™ for about 30 seconds. I have a bet with myself that they're going to say something ridiculous on this sorry excuse for a show within the first minute of my TV going on, and I haven't been disappointed yet.

Joe Scarborough: Douchebag of the Day.

Is Lieberman In Or Out?

Today is the day that the Senate votes by secret ballot to determine the fate of Holy Joe Lieberman and his Democratic Committtee Chairmanships.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): "Every senator will have to vote the way he or she believes they should. I am one who does not feel that somebody should be rewarded with a major chairmanship after doing what he did. I never ask people, well you must vote for this person or that person. Everybody has to make up their mind. But I felt that some of his attacks that he was involved in against Senator Obama -- whom I did support... I was one of the very first in the Congress to support him -- I thought they went way beyond the pale. I thought they were not fair, I thought that they were not legitimate. I thought that they perpetuated some of these horrible myths that were being run about Senator Obama. I would feel that had I done something similar that I would not be chairman of Senate Judiciary Committee in the next Congress."

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND): "As a chairman of one of our significant committees in the Senate, not just going off and supporting a presidential candidate of the other side but also criticizing the candidate on our side, and also involving himself in a couple of senate races on the other side. The question is, is that acceptable? The answer is no."

Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ): "He was on the wrong side of the rope line. It is a decision that is hard to comprehend."

Howard Fineman: "Interestingly, people like Dick Durbin who is the first Democrat in the Senate -- the first Senator, and from Illinois, to support Barack Obama -- is really loaded for bear about Lieberman, he wants to kick Lieberman off that Chairmanship. Chuck Schumer, the head of the Campaign Committee likewise."

It's time to put up or shut up. I've been disappointed so often by the Democratic Party's bluster but lack of action that I'm really not expecting anything different this time. The 60 vote filibuster proof majority is a red herring - Lieberman has shown his colors and I tend to believe that he will lean toward the right side of the issues, and by "right" I don't mean "correct." He'll keep his chairmanships and continue to piss off the Democrats in the Senate and everyone else that wanted him gone.

But I do hope Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) is right: "...if he does retain his chairmanship, we still exert oversight over him and control over him. He doesn't have the ability to just do whatever he wants. The caucus still has the right to remove him from that position at any time if he starts going off on some kind of tangent.
So I simply think it maximizes the chances of getting progressive policies a better outcome if we have a Joe Lieberman, who is a little reticent, who apologizes for the things that he said that were way over the line, and instead is trying to do the right thing, instead of an embittered Joe Lieberman or a Republican replacement who will not be with us any of the time.
...You've got to remember, we have the right to change chairmen at any time during the session, and you know, we would expect him to conduct himself in that capacity, as someone who was supportive of the administration..."

Perhaps for fear of actually losing his position in the caucus, Lieberman will play nice, in which case keeping him on with the threat of throwing him to the curb if he gets out of line may work in the Democrats' favor. What's that saying? Keep your friends close and your meshugenahs closer.