Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Morning Fix: Nelson Strikes Back

Criticized by two liberal groups about his approach to President Obama's health care reform proposal, Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson is hitting back, evidence of the issue's potential political peril for the 13 Senate Democrats who represent states carried by Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) in 2008.

After Democracy for America and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee went up with ad hitting Nelson for "leading the charge to delay health reform" and accepting millions in campaign contributions from the insurance industry, Nelson launched his own commercial on Tuesday responding to the charges.

"You've probably been hearing a lot about health care reform and like too much stuff that comes out of Washington it's hard to tell what is fact and what is fiction," Nelson says in the ad, going on to outline his belief that a bill must keep spending down and aid small businesses. "You can count on me to always put Nebraska first," says Nelson at the ad's conclusion.

Paul Johnson, a longtime Democratic operative who has managed Nelson's past campaigns, insisted the DFA ads are a blessing in disguise for the Democratic incumbent.

"Imagine, a liberal group attacking Ben Nelson for taking a 'go-slow' approach to health care reform," said Johnson. "In a red-state like Nebraska it's a gift."

True enough. But, Nelson's decision to run two weeks of statewide television ads more than three years before he will again stand before voters is evidence of the seriousness with which he takes the attacks from his left flank.

It is also a testament to the bind that many moderate to conservative Democrats are almost certain to find themselves in over the next month as they seek to take the temperature of their constituents on the pending health care bill.

On the ideological left, people like Nelson face pressure to move a bill -- and a bill that contains a so-called "public option" -- through as quickly as possible. Mary Rickles, a spokeswoman for DFA, said the group will "absolutely" be running more ads against wavering Democrats. "We currently have 900 responses from DFA members who have volunteered to share their stories, so we can run ads in any state we want at any time," Rickles added.

Meanwhile, forces on the ideological right -- including some of the angry element at town halls across the country -- are pressuring these same senators to abandon the plan entirely due, in large part, to their belief that the public option would destroy private insurance altogether.

Watch to see how those 13 Democratic senators -- Max Baucus (Mont.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Robert Byrd (W.Va.), Kent Conrad (N.D.), Byron Dorgan (N.D.), Tim Johnson (S.D.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Nelson, Mark Pryor (Ark.), Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.) and Jon Tester (Mont.) -- who represent states that Obama lost in 2008 react to this health care cross-pressuring.

The White House needs Democratic unity -- or something very close to it -- to pass a health care bill in the fall. Can they get it amid the increasingly contentious ad wars in the states?

Wednesday Fix Picks:

1. Arlen Specter gets a taste of anger at a town hall in Lebanon, PA.
2. What ever happened to the National Council for a New America?
3. A must-read handicapping of the 2012 Iowa caucuses.
4. Coleman cleared!
5. Brooks & Dunn are no more.

It's Getting (Slightly) Better for Corzine: A new Quinnipiac University poll shows former U.S. attorney Chris Christie (R) leading Gov. Jon Corzine (D) by a 51 percent to 42 percent margin, a slightly smaller lead than Christie enjoyed last month. Corzine's numbers are still very weak overall, however, as just 36 percent of voters approving of the job he has done while 58 percent disapprove. Another problem for Corzine inside the numbers: half of all New Jersey voters more closely associate the Democratic party with the state's "political corruption." These numbers seem to prove that, as we have written before, the federal sting that led to the arrest of two Democratic mayors as well as several state assemblymen is almost certain to have a negative impact on Corzine this November.

Jeb is a "No" for FL-Senate: To the surprise of virtually no one, former governor Jeb Bush took himself out of the running for the appointment to the Senate seat abandoned by Sen. Mel Martinez (R). "As Governor Bush indicated earlier this year when he decided against a run for the U.S. Senate, now is not the right time for him to return to public office," spokeswoman Kristy Campbell told the St. Petersburg Times. With Bush and former Sen. Connie Mack not interested, Gov. Charlie Crist (R) is robbed of perhaps the two most popular Republicans (aside from himself) in the state. Among the names still in the mix: former secretary of state Jim Smith, former governor Bob Martinez and former representative Clay Shaw.

Kennedy Sees Popularity Increase: Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy, once one of the most divisive figures in American politics, has seen a steady increase in his favorability ratings over the past few years. In an early August survey, 51 percent of the nationwide sample felt favorably toward Kennedy while 35 percent had an unfavorable opinion of the Massachusetts senator. While those numbers are a slight drop-off from an August 2008 poll done in advance of Kennedy's speech at the Democratic National Convention , the latest numbers represent a remarkable progression for Kennedy who as recently as April 2006 had almost as many people feeling unfavorably about him (40 percent) as expressing a favorable opinion (44 percent). Kennedy's public appearances have been limited over the past year or so due as he battles brain cancer but his endorsement of President Obama during the 2008 presidential primary election almost certainly aided the rise of his favorability in recent years. For more on the life of Kennedy, make sure to check our review of the Boston Globe's terrific autobiography of the Massachusetts senator.

Schweitzer on Sotomayor: Need more evidence that Democrats believe the nomination and confirmation of Supreme Court Justice is a political winner for them? Look no further than a new e-mail solicitation from Democratic Governors Association Chairman Brian Schweitzer (Mont.) praising Sotomayor as "talented" and "qualified" while deriding Republicans for their "outright partisan obstruction." While governors -- and gubernatorial candidates -- have no role to play in Supreme Court confirmation fight, Schweitzer's e-mail is a recognition of the critical importance of the Hispanic vote in 2010. A number of the most competitive governor's races in the country -- Arizona, Colorado, California, to name a few -- have significant Hispanic populations that could be the swing vote in deciding winners and losers.

Meet Gary Herbert: Gary Herbert (R) became the 17th governor of Utah on Tuesday when Jon Huntsman Jr. (a.k.a. the most popular governor in the country) stepped down to serve as ambassador to China for the Obama Administration. Herbert was elected as the state's lieutenant governor in 2004 and re-elected to that post last year. Raised in Orem, Utah (just north of Provo), Herbert was the quarterback at the local high school. Herbert send more than a decade on the Utah County Commission prior to being elected to the state's number two post. "Gary Herbert is said to be a thoughtful, careful man who likes to listen to all sides and drill down into policy issues," wrote the Salt Lake Tribune in an editorial on the new governor. "If he keeps to that script, he can't go far wrong." (Fun facts about Herbert: His son-in-law is Ben Cahoon, a star player for the Montreal Alouettes of the Canadian Football league and his daughter-in-law, Carmen Rasmusen, made it to the finals of "American Idol" in 2003.)

Say What?: "This is a patriotic democracy. It's not a sporting event." -- Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) attempts to regain order in a rowdy town hall meeting on health care.

By Chris Cillizza  |  August 12, 2009; 5:33 AM ET
Categories:  Morning Fix  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: NV-Sen: Heller Won't Run
Next: Morning Fix: Arlen Specter and What Lebanon Meant

Comments

90% of psychotic pseudo-christians want to kill abortion doctors. Right, jaked?

Oh right: you claim to be a real Christian. Uh-huh. But do go on talking about Germans and Jews. Nice side-line.

Posted by: nodebris | August 14, 2009 1:07 AM | Report abuse

Poor guy, trolls aren't getting any traction. Better up the outrageousness, toot sweet.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 13, 2009 5:43 PM | Report abuse

No, 90% of Germans did not want the Jews exterminated, you made that up, but I never expected truth from you, much less scholarly diligence.

And anyway we were talking about aborting an irremediably defective fetus, not grown people with lives, memories, and minds. If you can't see any difference you are probably over your head intellectually here.

As for the "ignore" thing, nobody is interested in reading that childish crap, not even once, much less a dozen times per thread. I'll post to whomever I please, and if you don't like it you can go jump in a lake.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 13, 2009 4:52 PM | Report abuse

90% of Germans wanted the Jews exterminated too -- look, chrisfox8, you've had such a nice "civil" day so far -- if FairlingtonBlade is not back yet, may I suggest you have the last word and then go back to ignoring me.

Posted by: JakeD | August 13, 2009 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Palin should have done what 90% of women do upon learning they are bearing a Down syndrome baby.

That isn't eugenics.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 13, 2009 4:33 PM | Report abuse

"... it's not like last Fall (or, even yesterday, here on the Fix) you didn't see various modern "progressives" writing some truly awful things about Palin's decision not to abort Trig!"

Posted by: JakeD | August 13, 2009 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps a little understanding of the paranoia that arises from the history of eugenics in this country would be in order. (And it's not like last Fall you didn't see various modern "progressives" writing some truly awful things about Palin's decision not to abort Trig!)

==

Stop seeing monsters. There is no "eugenics movement" among "the left."

Listen carefully, hear the 'copters approaching?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 13, 2009 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Various [commenters] accuse conservatives of "paranoia" for thinking that health care "reform" will lead, for example, to Trig Palin being denied medical care. I agree that it's a bit paranoid, but not nearly as irrational as the critics suggest. Eugenics enforced by government dictate once had strong support on the Progressive left, more recently than some might imagine.

Most casual observers probably think that enthusiasm for eugenics disappeared with Naziism, but that's a mistake. Paul Blanshard, for example, a champion of Progressive/liberal Protestantism and an anti-Catholic polemicist, criticized the Catholic Church for its unyielding opposition to coercive eugenics after World War II. In his 1949 bestseller, American Freedom and Catholic Power, Blanshard favorably cited Buck v. Bell and warned of a Catholic plot to, among other things, prohibit sterilization except as "grave punishment" by government for a criminal offense. State eugenics programs continued through the 1970s, which, as in the case of Carrie Buck, did involve innocents being "victimized by elites of various kinds".

When African Americans express paranoia about the origins of the AIDS virus or the crack epidemic, sympathetic liberals explain that this paranoia is understandable given the Tuskegee experiments. Perhaps a little understanding of the paranoia that arises from the history of eugenics in this country would be in order. (And it's not like last Fall you didn't see various modern "progressives" writing some truly awful things about Palin's decision not to abort Trig!)

http://volokh.com/posts/1250122857.shtml

Posted by: JakeD | August 13, 2009 4:10 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade:

http://volokh.com/posts/1249752171.shtml

"I want to consider something that the column mentions in passing - that, according to the section's backers, it is merely "trying to facilitate choice — even if patients opt for expensive life-prolonging care." I'll try to find a moment to post on what I see as the relationship between that and the current love affair (I share the love, in part, to be sure) with behavioral economics.

In one sense, in other words, section 1233 can be understood as a Nudgy move to reset the default rules. The question then becomes, is it merely trying to set the default rules for addressing a topic that people would rather skip addressing - end of life issues, living will issues, health care directives - or is it a nudge for getting people, including ones now terminally ill, to shift their social default settings on whether or not to consume expensive resources, while putting it in the context of seemingly making your own decision about it? They are, clearly, two quite different propositions - and both of them amenable to the Nudginess setting of default rules analysis and, depending on how one sees it, either "facilitation" or "manipulation."

This question is implied by Chuck Lane's column, because he is pointing to a conflict of interest on the part of the provider of this advice, on which the distinction in part turns. But it also goes a long way further than the Post column, to a discussion of Nudge-the-book and the ways in which it can be either a means of facilitating the choices that people would rationally make but can't quite step up to the plate to make, or else a means of manipulating human psychology toward public policy ends that someone else has decided are the rational ends, whether people would agree to them or not. The principles of Nudge seem disconcertingly applicable to either agenda.

I'm a big fan of it as a facilitation process. I even buy the idea that there is a form of justified "libertarian paternalism" that is not merely an oxymoron or simple paternalism. But the one, libertarian paternalism and the facilitation of the choices that people will make for themselves and consider themselves rational for doing so, slides really, really easily into the other, paternalism, and manipulating choices. All it really takes is an apparatus of public policy and disconnected group of technocrats willing to decide the things the way that presumably All Rational People Would Decide If Only They Were [fill in the blank with your favorite technocrat - e.g., Ken Anderson]. (I'll try to get back to this, but probably not soon.)"

Posted by: JakeD | August 13, 2009 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, selecting from health care options is indistinguishable from being forced to abandon one of one's children to the Nazis.

Go back the sleep, Jake.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 13, 2009 12:59 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade:

Did you ever watch Sophie's "Choice"?

Posted by: JakeD | August 13, 2009 10:33 AM | Report abuse

The key point, Jake, is *choosing*. I figured that was a good thing.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 13, 2009 1:26 AM | Report abuse

Leave it to JakeD to sign on to the nuttiest of all the right-wing claptrap conspiracies. Birth certificates, death panels. What brainless paranoid nonsense.

Or maybe he's just lying again.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 13, 2009 12:06 AM | Report abuse

HEALTH CARE RABBLE ROUSERS: SYMPTOM OF AN AMERICAN GESTAPO

• Federal community volunteer/policing programs front for extremists?

"When you see the abuse of power, you've got to speak."

-- VP candidate Joseph Biden, Aug. 27, 2008, Democratic National Convention

Team Obama: Ban the unconstitutional, warrantless covert tracking of unjustly "targeted" U.S. citizens via GPS devices and/or cellphones...

...the electronic backbone of a federally-enabled vigilante American Gestapo that is stalking, harassing and destroying the lives and livelihoods of thousands of Americans targeted and slandered for their politics, their ideology, their ethnic background, or their whistle-blowing.

Stop a social genocide/politicide that is stealing democracy at the grassroots.

And ban the experimental testing and use of silent, injury- and illness-inducing microwave and laser "directed energy weapons" on American citizens -- weapons that YOUR administration, your Pentagon, your security and intel agencies, are promoting and proliferating.

President Obama: We who know the signs and symptoms of directed energy weapons attack are concerned about the etiology of that bald streak on the left side of your scalp behind the ear. White House staff: please read this article:

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america

OR (if link is corrupted / disabled):

http://NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "GESTAPO USA"

Posted by: scrivener50 | August 12, 2009 11:13 PM | Report abuse

Dr. Sanjay Gupta cited the AMA Journal about seniors choosing less aggressive medical care after said Death Panels.

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 10:43 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Claire McCaskill on (top of?) Anderson Cooper tonight clarifying that the African-American ladies should not have brought signs into healthcare debate and that the white gentleman did not take said sign because on a picture of Rosa Parks.

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 10:13 PM | Report abuse

@mibrooks: while I'm in agreement with you on this, I think the voters have had a few decades too many of the free market / free trade BS and they really believe it now.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 12, 2009 10:02 PM | Report abuse

Kelly14 _ you people take yourselves much too seriously. Nation wide, around 50% of voters support the current proposed healthcare reforms and about 50% oppose them. Now, you could count me as one of those opposed because I want a singe payer all public system like they have in Scandinavia. I do not like the perks given to private insurers in the proposed reforms. However, in the end, I will certainly not vote for a Republican if this this legislation passes. Polls show that around 13% of voters fall into my category, a small but not insignificant group. So, total us up with those that like the proposed health reforms and you have a pretty healthy majority of voters who aren't going to budge, politically, over this legislation. The genuine opponents of this are mostly ignorant goats being led by industry run "grassroots" campaigns. They are nothing more than a collection of screeching monkey's, loud mouthed lunatics. Most pollsters say that hardcore group form around 37% of the *voting age* citizenry. That's it. After all of the noise and shouting, this is not going to sway voters one way or another. The only issue that really resonates with voters are JOBS. If the Democrats free themselves from corporate ties and pass some sensible protectionist legislation, they will win. If they don't, they will loose. The commercial mortgage bubble is going to sink this false recovery and voters are looking for their representatives to do something to get those outsourced jobs back and stop further outsourcing. Give the voters hope. Do what they want. Pass a package of protectionist laws. Now, I fully expect the Democrats to do exactly that and they will win in a landslide if they do. It's that simple.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | August 12, 2009 9:51 PM | Report abuse

"My question for you is 'How do I get on one of those death panels?' Because I would be merciless."

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 9:45 PM | Report abuse

Did anyone else see James Carville on (top of) Stephen Colbert last night.

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 9:30 PM | Report abuse

Means I'm not bloody likely to take up idiot-boi on his suggestion

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 12, 2009 9:27 PM | Report abuse

"I'm a top, Jake.

Do you know what that means?

Posted by: chrisfox8"

That we're a little too familiar with each other?

Posted by: DDAWD | August 12, 2009 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Oh yeah, that was a lie too.

==

So is the Stanford degree, the retirement, the wife, and the age

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 12, 2009 9:25 PM | Report abuse

I'm a top, Jake.

Do you know what that means?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 12, 2009 9:23 PM | Report abuse

You can both take it up the @ss, for all I care. I have never posted a lie.

==

WHIMPER! WHIMPER! WHIMPER! MR. CILLIZZA IS THIS VULGAR? WHIMPER! WHIMPER! WHIMPER!

you've never posted anything but lies

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 12, 2009 9:20 PM | Report abuse

"You can both take it up the @ss, for all I care. I have never posted a lie.

Posted by: JakeD"

Cute.

Also, still waiting for those Skip Gates photos.

Oh yeah, that was a lie too.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 12, 2009 9:15 PM | Report abuse

Not you, Kelly14.

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 9:15 PM | Report abuse

You can both take it up the @ss, for all I care. I have never posted a lie.

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 9:05 PM | Report abuse

I think the presence of that young girl in Ben Nelson's ad says it all, as does: "I'll do what's right for the people of Nebraska." You do the math.

I also agree that the DFA ads are a gift, and the DFA should keep on giving.

From my limited perch, McCaskill can kiss her job goodbye if she doesn't support Obama in a meaningful way, which means doing more than giving lip service. Like Nelson, she'll have to do what's right for the people of Missouri and that's not always what's loudest.

Posted by: Kelly14 | August 12, 2009 9:02 PM | Report abuse

"So, now you aren't "ignoring" me either? Off-peak hours, I guess."

I'm taking this as an admission that you lied both about reading the bill and there having some provision paying doctors foor initiating end-of-life counseling.

Thanks for coming clean.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 12, 2009 8:51 PM | Report abuse

According to Media Matters, Statefarm has also dropped Beck.

==

I bet he's getting mad now.

I wonder how long till his employers tell him to tone it down, if ever?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 12, 2009 8:36 PM | Report abuse

So, now you aren't "ignoring" me either? Off-peak hours, I guess.

==

Nobody here is interested in reading this crap even once, much less a dozen times a day.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 12, 2009 8:31 PM | Report abuse

mnteng:

See you next Wednesday.

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 8:22 PM | Report abuse

So, now you aren't "ignoring" me either? Off-peak hours, I guess.

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 8:18 PM | Report abuse

"As it should be evident by the Republicans at the town halls and their proxy trolls here in this forum, whether what they say is true or not is of no concern to them. They're gonna see monsters no matter how gentle and compassionate the reform is, or no matter how many times they're shown the evidence of Obama's legitimacy. So to hell with them."

Who knows? It's over a thousand pages long. It might be in there. There was no quote in the Charles Lane column, but I see that jaked has claims to have read the whole thing, so he knows. I sure as hell didn't read it.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 12, 2009 8:14 PM | Report abuse

JakeD:

Your first post was an op-ed and, as such, I'm not going to treat it as evidence, but as just an opinion, equivalent to yours or mine.

I will look at the Medicare Part E legislation when I have time. But not before next Wednesday -- unlike you, I'm not retired with abundant time on my hands, though I hope to get there one day.

Posted by: mnteng | August 12, 2009 8:12 PM | Report abuse

"Mr. Cillizza:

Does "Mind your own f*cking business you weak-minded idiot" = vulgar name-calling? Will there be any "warnings" for that? "Yes" or "no" would be acceptable."

Also ask him about your joke about Obama getting shot at a town hall.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 12, 2009 8:11 PM | Report abuse

"The read up on Medicare Part E — Miscellaneous Provisions "DEFINITIONS OF SERVICES" and, specifically, "FINANCIAL INCENTIVES". Have fun :)"

Page number, please

Posted by: DDAWD | August 12, 2009 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Poor dumb brute

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 12, 2009 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Cillizza:

Does "Mind your own f*cking business you weak-minded idiot" = vulgar name-calling? Will there be any "warnings" for that? "Yes" or "no" would be acceptable.

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 8:00 PM | Report abuse

The read up on Medicare Part E — Miscellaneous Provisions "DEFINITIONS OF SERVICES" and, specifically, "FINANCIAL INCENTIVES". Have fun :)

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 7:58 PM | Report abuse

There is the bill. I'm sure someone has claimed to have read it. Where is the part about paying docs to bring up end of life care?

==

As it should be evident by the Republicans at the town halls and their proxy trolls here in this forum, whether what they say is true or not is of no concern to them. They're gonna see monsters no matter how gentle and compassionate the reform is, or no matter how many times they're shown the evidence of Obama's legitimacy. So to hell with them.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 12, 2009 7:57 PM | Report abuse

"You were expecting they do it "pro bono"?"

I expect that they do it as part of their profession.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 12, 2009 7:55 PM | Report abuse

According to Media Matters, Statefarm has also dropped Beck.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 12, 2009 7:50 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

I assume you are not asking me that question. Perhaps someone else can answer why doctors would expect to be paid for services authorized by the bill and, in fact, rendered. You were expecting they do it "pro bono"?

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Where in the bill does it say anything about doctors being paid for initiating conversation about end of life counseling?

And anyone who defines "voluntary" as something only the patient brings up is a liar or an idiot.

Suppose you find out you've got a tumor on your liver. Is it "involuntary" for a doctor to give you treatment options? I'm not sure what this guy's agenda is, but that one sentence kind of kills his credibility. A physician SHOULD initiate conversation on end-of-life options for the appropriate patients even if the patient himself doesn't do so.

http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

There is the bill. I'm sure someone has claimed to have read it. Where is the part about paying docs to bring up end of life care?

Posted by: DDAWD | August 12, 2009 7:43 PM | Report abuse

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/11/765236/-Glenn-Beck,-brought-to-you-by...

and here is the link again. everyone who is against the crazy fascist crap -- and it does go that far -- being espoused by Glen Beck, petition his advertisers. We don't need this far rightwing lunacy in America.

And I was pretty cheesed about that too, joe, I know the Secret Service must be crazy busy now, fending off the violent armed hordes, but they have to pay more attention.

Posted by: drindl | August 12, 2009 7:39 PM | Report abuse

You know, I've never seen my *own* long form birth certificate. My mommy tells me I was born in Annapolis, and I got a *copy* of a document from Maryland, and my passport says so too, but how do I really KNOW?

OMG--I might be an illegal alien!! I'd better go to a gun show and buy up some guns and ammo before the INS tries to get me!!!!

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 12, 2009 2:41 PM
__________
Turns out the whole thing was bogus: the State of Hawaii has stated, over and over, there is no long form certificate in Hawaii.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 12, 2009 7:35 PM | Report abuse

That's got to be creating headaches for Fox News. Sometimes a single phone call is enough to get ads pulled.

I wonder how long until Beck starts crying on the air about it? Those meanie liberals with their emails.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 12, 2009 7:25 PM | Report abuse

P.S. to drindl:

Since it seems as if "chrisfox8" doesn't know, here are Web links confirming that she's an atheist, lesbian Democrat.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/29304.html

http://www.towleroad.com/2009/06/camille-paglia-gay-activists-childish-for-demanding-rights.html

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 7:24 PM | Report abuse

I'm very happy to see this, to deal with the rising tide gun-buying and violence:

Posted by: drindl | August 12, 2009 10:42 AM
__________
I am still steamed they allowed that armed racist lunatic within 500 miles of BHO. And then they had him on TV?!? What the ______? When does it end?

BTW, the Glenn Beck boycott continues to build steam. They are saying State Farm may be about to pull out, following GEICO's recent exit. Beck Boycott contact information below:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/11/765236/-Glenn-Beck,-brought-to-you-by...

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 12, 2009 7:21 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

As you can plainly see (again), I didn't "lie" about him refusing to ignore me.

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Darn. That latest bout of "ignoring" me didn't even last two (2) hours. Oh well : )

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 7:16 PM | Report abuse

Hey Jake, let me explain it to you in little words you understand.

(1) I'm gay. I'm neither ashamed nor proud of that. If you don't like it, go jump in a lake.

(2) I'm an atheist. I don't believe in your magic celestial playmate. I'm neither ashamed nor proud of that. If you don't like it, go jump in a lake.

(3) I'm not a member of any organization based on either characteristic.

(4) I don't "identify" with either characteristic. They are morally neutral aspects of my life.

(5) Should you find either of these characteristics offensive, or find my indifference to them offensive, go jump in a lake.

Clear?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 12, 2009 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Ben Nelson is one of the biggest Dem obstacles to health care reform and other BHO initiatives and progressive ideas (see chart below).

The next time, let Bad Ben pay for an ad in the Washington Post...I'm sure the Post business department would support that. :)
________

Dem Support for BHO (1-10 (highest))

Nelson .01 (by comparison, Derek Black, Hannity, and VonBrunn also at .01)
Specter 3.0
Hillary 5.6
Pelosi 6.0
Axelrod 8.5
Rahm 8.7
Linda Douglass 9.996
Oprah 9.997
Claire McCaskill 9.98
Michelle LaVaughan Obama 10.0
Judith Warner (NYT) and her girlfriends 17.5 (for their alleged continuing offer to BHO of something BHO didn't ask for and doesn't want, IMO)


Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 12, 2009 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Cillizza:

Does "Mind your own f*cking business you weak-minded idiot" = vulgar name-calling?

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 7:09 PM | Report abuse

There's no club?

Now jakey's really lost. He's gonna have to make up some new stuff.

Posted by: jasperanselm | August 12, 2009 7:07 PM | Report abuse

mnteng:

Keep in mind that Sec. 1233 is an AMENDMENT to Medicare Part E — Miscellaneous Provisions "DEFINITIONS OF SERVICES" and, more importantly, what is authorized for the payment of FINANCIAL INCENTIVES to healthcare providers, to be included right after "Kidney Dosease Services Education".

As with most legislation, one cannot simply read the bill itself but also needs to read what portion of current law is being amended -- doctors will be PAID to push "Do Not Resuscitate" (DNR) orders in order to cut costs -- aka "advanced directives" or "orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders" in Sec. 1233. Let me know when you catch up.

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Who said anything about Fred Hiatt? As for Camille Paglia, she is a REGISTERED DEMOCRAT, atheist, and lesbian. If you don't believe me, just ask chrisfox8.

==

How the hell should I know? You think gays belong to some club?

Mind your own f*cking business you weak-minded idiot.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 12, 2009 7:00 PM | Report abuse

I don't see anything nefarious on getting people to think realistically about the end of their lives. Responsible people do so. Living wills aren't some conspiracy to cut years off people's lives.

Right-wing whackos are determined to see monsters.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 12, 2009 6:57 PM | Report abuse

Don't you have anything else in the world to do, troll? Is this your whole life?

Posted by: drindl | August 12, 2009 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Who said anything about Fred Hiatt? As for Camille Paglia, she is a REGISTERED DEMOCRAT, atheist, and lesbian. If you don't believe me, just ask chrisfox8.

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Fred Hiatt, the Post ediorialist, is a rightwing stooge.

camille Paglia is NOT a democrat, but rather a rightwng loose cannon.

Posted by: drindl | August 12, 2009 6:52 PM | Report abuse

The worst is when Drudge links to The Fi

==

Yeah you can always tell when that happens, the forum fills up with pitiably juvenile writing, almost every word misspelled.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 12, 2009 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 6:45 PM | Report abuse

mnteng:

But it is IN evidence, my dear Watson, as per "expert witness" here at WaPo, Charles Lane, admitted on Saturday: "As I read it, Section 1233 is not totally innocuous," Lane writes, adding that it "addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones."

"Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren't quite 'purely voluntary,'" as backers of the bill assert, Lane adds. "To me, 'purely voluntary' means 'not unless the patient requests one.' Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive -- money -- to do so. Indeed, that's an incentive to insist."

"Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they're in the meeting, the bill does permit 'formulation' of a plug-pulling order right then and there," Lane explains.

"What's more, Section 1233 dictates, at some length, the content of the consultation," Lane continues. He points out the legislation says the doctor "shall" discuss "advanced care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to"; "an explanation of . . . living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses" even though those are legal and not medical papers. The physician "shall" present "a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families."

"Admittedly, this script is vague and possibly unenforceable," Lane writes. "What are "key questions"? Who belongs on 'a list' of helpful 'resources?' The Roman Catholic Church? Jack Kevorkian?"

Ultimately, the Post editorial writer says "Section 1233 goes beyond facilitating doctor input to preferring it. Indeed, the measure would have an interested party -- the government -- recruit doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care and their associated providers, professions and organizations."

"You don't have to be a right-wing wacko to question that approach," he concludes.

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 6:39 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD writes:
"Very diplomatic of you to say."

Just trying to do my part to raise the level of discourse here. It has been nice sans KOZ. The worst is when Drudge links to The Fix.

Posted by: mnteng | August 12, 2009 6:29 PM | Report abuse

"To both, I would just say that the facts are not in evidence to support your contentions. "

Very diplomatic of you to say.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 12, 2009 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Interesting point about the Red state dems. At 13 plus the Republicans, that's even more than 50 - no way the Dems. could pass the current version of Obamacare.

Posted by: kenpasadena | August 12, 2009 6:14 PM | Report abuse

JakeD:

Which scenario?

I found:

1) "The House bill would require Medicare to pay for end-of-life counseling sessions, but it would not mandate that anyone use the benefit.

Of course, we all know that the INTENTION behind "end-of-life counseling sessions" is to make sure elderly patients put DNR orders in place to cut costs."

2)"Doctor (paid by the government a "bonus" for every DNR signed): "Mrs. Jones, I now it's uncomfortable to think of, but do you really want to be a burden to your children and grandchildren?""

To both, I would just say that the facts are not in evidence to support your contentions.

First, the advance counseling sessions are to lay out the information for decisions so that the Medicare recipient is well-informed. Plus, nowhere in the bill can I find an indication of the authors "intending" to get more people on DNR orders. That is just you putting your prejudices onto the legislation.

Second, the bill does not call for a "bonus" to get people signed up for DNR. Clarifying one's end-of-life wishes is not something to be feared. It would just save people the expense and heart-ache of extended legal action (I'm thinking of Terri Schiavo in particular).

I'm with mark_in_austin on this one.

Posted by: mnteng | August 12, 2009 6:08 PM | Report abuse

@mikeinmidland - What's the average claim for wrongful death for someone under 65? Absent that information, it's difficult to evaluate the meaning of your comment.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 12, 2009 5:53 PM | Report abuse

"My take:
1) Medicare would cover "advance care consultations" once every five years (with provisos). Not mandatory.
2) You can choose which practitioner you discuss these issues with as long as they have the authority to order life-sustaining treatment.
3) End-of-life treatment can include the full range of options -- you can choose to be in a persistent vegetative state for as long as your body (and money) holds out."

That's pretty much how it works. (Let's see if jaked pretends to have read the bill)

Posted by: DDAWD | August 12, 2009 5:51 PM | Report abuse

@mikbrooks - Thanks for a *very* interesting post. I worked for awhile at a private research laboratory, but it was a non-profit spin-off from a university like SRI or Lincoln Labs and so still operated more like a university or government lab. They actually had a problem one year in that they accidentally were going to make a profit and had to quickly spend the money.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 12, 2009 5:49 PM | Report abuse

""Everyone is so concerned about grandma. No one gives a crap about grampa?"

grampa goes first (so sayeth the actuaries) & is thus beyond worry."

I'm not sure about this, but I think the main difference is in pre-menopausal age. I do know in terms of heart disease, there is a huge difference between men and women in pre-menopausal age, but this vanishes when you get past menopause. I think the same is true about death overall, but I'm not sure.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 12, 2009 5:47 PM | Report abuse

mnteng:

I have read every section in the bill. Did you read my DNR scenario below?

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Bacteria are automatons. People aren't. We don't HAVE to let the guy overwhelm anything. Yeah, you've got people responding to him, but its pretty minimal. I know the trolls can be tough on boards where you have a lot of come and go of new people, but that's not really the case here. The cabal is pretty stable, so it's not like every day that we've got a bunch of new people learning about him. You were the worst one in terms of excessive responding to him, so I got after you the most. But its gotten a lot better all around.

And heck, if you have something interesting to say in a response to him, then go ahead and do it. I am just tired of pages of back and forth insults. Those seem to have dried up considerably. Ignoring him isn't a perfect solution, but we aren't going for perfection. If we just get rid of the worst of it, that's fine with me.

So it's all good!

Posted by: DDAWD | August 12, 2009 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps it would be helpful to the debate if everyone actually read Section 1233 of H.R.3200 before spouting off about "death panels".

Here's a link:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text

My take:
1) Medicare would cover "advance care consultations" once every five years (with provisos). Not mandatory.
2) You can choose which practitioner you discuss these issues with as long as they have the authority to order life-sustaining treatment.
3) End-of-life treatment can include the full range of options -- you can choose to be in a persistent vegetative state for as long as your body (and money) holds out.

Posted by: mnteng | August 12, 2009 5:37 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

I "lied" about being glad that he is finally "ignoring" me again, but knowing that all good things must come to an end? LOL!!!

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 5:21 PM | Report abuse

"Everyone is so concerned about grandma. No one gives a crap about grampa?"

grampa goes first (so sayeth the actuaries) & is thus beyond worry.

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 12, 2009 5:21 PM | Report abuse

@DDAWD: I've been through this same thing on many forums and it's always the same, ignoring the trolls is really hard, then you realize that's the whole reason they're so disruptive.

Anyone who's posted here for two days knows that JakeD is a liar and a fool, but the same was true of the Uncle_Meat character whose wife divorced him over his maniacal dedication to trying to get my goat (summary: I won that one). But he still gets responses while zouk mostly got ignored.

I think of it as analogous to bacteriophages and bacteria .. the viruses (Jake) are super primitive compared to the bacteria (other posters) but they use the bacteria's own mechanisms to overwhelm them.

Problem is that there are two who don't ignore him, and trying to coordinate an ignore program feels silly and doesn't work anyway.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 12, 2009 5:21 PM | Report abuse

"Sorry, DDAWD, you were right.

It's really hard for me to let lies go unanswered but, you know, it really doesn't do any good"

It's not like this is a cable news show. There isn't that big of a following and everyone here pretty much understands that jaked lies about everything he ever says.

It's actually gotten a LOT better recently in terms of pages of back and forth.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 12, 2009 5:12 PM | Report abuse

The dog could stare him down

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 12, 2009 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Face it Jake, the large majority of terminal patients are already enrolled in a government-sponsored insurance plan--Medicare.

Those few who are facing terminal illness during their active careers mostly have private insurance through their employer. They are the ones at risk for being dropped in the middle of their treatment, if not before.

That's why we need health insurance reform.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 12, 2009 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Jakey needs a friend.

I'd suggest a dog but that would be inhumane to the dog.

Posted by: jasperanselm | August 12, 2009 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Finally (we'll see how long it lasts this time).

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, DDAWD, you were right.

It's really hard for me to let lies go unanswered but, you know, it really doesn't do any good

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 12, 2009 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Everyone is so concerned about grandma. No one gives a crap about grampa? Sheesh.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | August 12, 2009 5:02 PM | Report abuse


Why are almost all retirees on Medicare, instead of private insurance? Because it is cheaper and better. The private companies don't want them, they want young healthy people who pay premiums and don't file claims.

The wholesale dumping of people off the rolls when they retire is the biggest example of private insurance cherrypicking its customers.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 12, 2009 5:02 PM | Report abuse

I never said that the shareholders would demand ethical treatment of expensive patients. Don't YOU ever stop lying?

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 4:57 PM | Report abuse

P.S. pointing out the FACT that "companies have to answer to shareholders" is not a "lie" under any accepted definition of that word.

==

That isn't what I said, of course. You're dodging.

The lie is that the shareholders would demand ethical treatment of expensive patients. Like hell they would.

Don't you ever stop lying?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 12, 2009 4:56 PM | Report abuse

I'm trying to figure out which retirees are NOT enrolled in Medicare.

1) Retired government employees like my 73 year old mother. She has Blue Cross/Blue Shield. She is not eligible for Medicare, nor can she get Social Security, because she has a government pension.

2) GM Retirees, who literally have Cadillac plans. But that changed when the company went belly up. Medicare enrollment will increase.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 12, 2009 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Suppose you found yourself with liver cancer, Jake, really REALLY sick and sinking fast, scant weeks to live, desperate and in real agony. Your insurance, which you have never failed to pay on time, decides you're going to cost them too much, imperiling the month's executive bonuses, and cuts you loose.

You'd be first in line demanding that some "bureaucrat" intervene on your behalf. Of course, if you tried to see the insurance company executive, he would have you arrested for tresspass, while the "bureaucrat" would be compelled to see you.

You truly and I mean truly are a rotten human being.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 12, 2009 4:47 PM | Report abuse

P.S. pointing out the FACT that "companies have to answer to shareholders" is not a "lie" under any accepted definition of that word.

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 4:43 PM | Report abuse


95% of Americans over 65 are enrolled in Medicare. Medicare is funded by the government, but administered by private health insurance companies.

To the extent that it ever will be, the gummint is already making end-of-life decisions for those 99 year olds.

Denying care to and dropping younger patients when they get sick is the sole provenance of the private insurance companies, and the main thing we need to fix.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 12, 2009 4:42 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

You mean "we" except for chrisfox8, drindl, and bsimon1, right?

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 4:40 PM | Report abuse

"And why not? You have any stronger objection than your worthless and entirely discredited druthers?"

Art. I, Sec. 8, and the 10th Amendment, to the United States Constitution.

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 4:39 PM | Report abuse

You people are talking like I (and Sarah Palin) think that private insurance companies are altruistic and don't have "death panels" themselves -- my point is that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT should not be in that same business

==

And why not? You have any stronger objection than your worthless and entirely discredited druthers? You're not exactly the sharpest knife in this debate.

Insurance companies are motivated to maximize profit, which is why they cut off people with expensive diseases and LET THEM DIE.

All you have here is some reflexive Reagan-era horsesh|t about "government" and "bureaucrats." Anyone with a brain trusts government more that Palin's "pry-vit secter."

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 12, 2009 4:36 PM | Report abuse

"Now I am catching a glimmer from some of you that you would prefer that people not make this decision for themselves, but that hospitals should strive to keep every one alive no matter the situation and that no one should be offered the option of end of life counseling - that every case should be Schiavo. Do I either misread or misconstrue your intent, JakeD?"

His intent is to lie and inflame.

Mark, this is why we generally don't talk to him.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 12, 2009 4:35 PM | Report abuse

drindl:

Camille Paglia is an atheist DEMOCRAT who voted for Obama (although she voted for Ralph Nader in 2000). Dismiss her as a "right-wing sh*tbag" -- although king_of_zouk was rightly warned for such vulgar personal insults -- she is correct about the healthcare debate.

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 4:33 PM | Report abuse

"I'm the one who still thinks that "gay " means "happy"."

Most of the gay people I know are very happy.

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 12, 2009 4:28 PM | Report abuse

LOL! You people are talking like I (and Sarah Palin) think that private insurance companies are altruistic and don't have "death panels" themselves -- my point is that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT should not be in that same business -- next canard?

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 4:28 PM | Report abuse

"On his Fox News show yesterday, Glenn Beck presented another one of his patented montages filled with Nazi imagery, this time examining “the beginnings of and the history of eugenics.”

Jesus, this guy just keeps getting more revolting...

Posted by: drindl | August 12, 2009 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Camille Paglia is one of the biggest and most overrated rightwing sh*tbags in the country

Posted by: drindl | August 12, 2009 4:25 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, and I hate answering you, you did not read my full post. Self insured companies ARE NOT breaking any laws by these actions. It is quite legal. HIPAA was carefully crafted, due to mainly hi tech lobbyists, so as to allow for this. As for "shareholders", I don't even think most know his money exists; this is basically "walking around" cash for the corporate executives, a ready made pot they can loot at the end of a year after congratulating themselves for wrecking a few lives. ANd it's all for the money! THIS is the real face of private insurance.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | August 12, 2009 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Chuck Grassley has succumbed to evil. Pity, he used to almost decent:

Yesterday, President Obama told a New Hampshire audience that Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) is “sincerely trying to figure out…a health care bill that works.”

But as The Iowa Independent reports today, during a health care meeting with constituents Grassley spouted the latest conservative conspiracy theory about health care reform — that it will put seniors to death:

Americans should be scared of provisions in a health care bill currently in the U.S. House because it will allow the government to have a say in end-of-life decisions, Republican U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley told a crowd of more than 300 Wednesday morning.

“In the House bill, there is counseling for end of life,” Grassley said. “You have every right to fear. You shouldn’t have counseling at the end of life, you should have done that 20 years before. Should not have a government run plan to decide when to pull the plug on grandma.”

You can't blame people for beleiving this utter crap when their own Senator shovels it up for them like this. What a crime that these evil politicans are allowed to get away with these shocking outright lies.

Posted by: drindl | August 12, 2009 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Those companies have to answer to shareholders

==

And what, "shareholders" are going to demand that the companies they invest in spend millions to keep a 99 year old man breathing in a hospital bed for a few more weeks?

You were asking me to point out one instance where you lied. Well, here you are.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 12, 2009 4:22 PM | Report abuse

"... who would have thought that the sober, deliberative Barack Obama would have nothing to propose but vague and slippery promises -- or that he would so easily cede the leadership clout of the executive branch to a chaotic, rapacious, solipsistic Congress? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whom I used to admire for her smooth aplomb under pressure, has clearly gone off the deep end with her bizarre rants about legitimate town-hall protests by American citizens. She is doing grievous damage to the party and should immediately step down.

There is plenty of blame to go around. Obama's aggressive endorsement of a healthcare plan that does not even exist yet, except in five competing, fluctuating drafts, makes Washington seem like Cloud Cuckoo Land. The president is promoting the most colossal, brazen bait-and-switch operation since the Bush administration snookered the country into invading Iraq with apocalyptic visions of mushroom clouds over American cities.

You can keep your doctor; you can keep your insurance, if you're happy with it, Obama keeps assuring us in soothing, lullaby tones. Oh, really? And what if my doctor is not the one appointed by the new government medical boards for ruling on my access to tests and specialists? And what if my insurance company goes belly up because of undercutting by its government-bankrolled competitor? Face it: Virtually all nationalized health systems, neither nourished nor updated by profit-driven private investment, eventually lead to rationing."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/08/12/town_halls/

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 4:19 PM | Report abuse

I would much rather have some "faceless bureaucrat" making the hard decisions than some sharp pencilled little smarty motivated by maximizing profit for an insurance company. Funny how you keep coming back to this Reagan-era nonsense about "bureaucrats" and you won't touch the immorality of private insurance, routinely cutting off customers who have the unmitigated temerity to get sick.

Trying to squeeze a few weeks of life out of someone clearly terminal is a moral issue far larger than Obama's healthcare, your attempt to shoehorn the entire issue into the debate is just as dishonest as the rest of your posts. It's common for families to be ruined by one person's last few weeks. It's a big problem, and your trying to lay it at Obama's feet is another JakeD lie.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 12, 2009 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Oh yes, because the market has such 'compassion."

Posted by: drindl | August 12, 2009 4:17 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks27:

Those companies have to answer to shareholders and, ultimately, the market (not to mention class action lawyers with their 30-40% cut and State Attorneys General out to make news). The federal government bureaucrats will have no such "check and balance".

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 4:13 PM | Report abuse

some faceless bureaucrat

==

You should have more compassion for some poor guy without a face

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 12, 2009 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Government enjoys immunities that private insurance companies and other market-oriented entities cannot use to defend their "bad faith" practices -- look up "undue influence" as well re: my DNR scenario -- bottom-line, some faceless bureaucrat subject to no repurcussion (think DMV) will be deciding who lives and who dies. Whether you people want to call that decision a government "death panel", "rationing" or simply heartless, does not matter to me.

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 4:09 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade wrote something that caught my eye about most employees not loosing their private insurance. Most of you know I do medical audit and management, risk analysis, actually. No, we used to do this for some very large companies, but stopped it. Virtually every tech company with more than 100 employees and a majority of other companies with more than 100 employees are "self insured". Not "private;y insured, "self insured". What this mean is they set aside a pot of money to cover medical claims. They add the employee charge for including dependents, etc. into that pot. Now, as the insurer, the company has full and complete access to the medical claim details. And, this is why we no longer handle them. They were, all of them still are, collecting information on medical claim totals for employees and their dependents. If those expenses went over a certain limit, the employee usually ended up terminated for one reason or another. They almost always went to the top of a layoff list. So, an employe with a sick child or spouse was the first to go. (And, BTW, this is all quite legal.)

Now, there is a reason for this. The company has to put additional money into the pot if claims exceed whatever is in that account. BUT, if the claims are less than the amount in the pot, the company executives get to keep that money, and it almost always ends up as year end bonuses. So, the incentive is to ruthlessly cut costs by running monthly reports and looking for any claims spikes. (And, since they are self insured, there is almost no limit to what they can charge a terminated employee for COBRA. They usually invent some outlandish number to make it impossible for an employe to continue coverage once terminated.)

Because of this perverse system of incentives for inhumane actions, look for those large companies to stick to their "self insured" plans no matter what. The companies that will go onto the public plan will be small businesses, the very ones that the private insurance companies prey on and charge those outlandish rates for. Beyond that, those terminated employees, refugees from the "self insured" executive bonus schemes, will be there, too.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | August 12, 2009 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Interestingly, wrongful death cases, wherein the victim is over 65 years old, have awards averaging over $1 million.

So the physician spends a million to extend life by one month, gets paid by the insurance, and avoids the lawsuit. Everyone pays higher premiums to cover the procedure.

Or, the physician lets the patient die, gets sued, and the family gets a million dollars, paid for by the malpractice insurance. Fees go up to cover increased malpractice insurance. Insurance premiums go up to cover the increased fees, and we all pay.

We gotta fix this.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 12, 2009 4:06 PM | Report abuse

, I'm the one who still thinks that "gay " means "happy".

==

If you have your undies all bunched up your wrinkled crack o ver homosexuality why don't you move to Iran? Ahmadinejad sees things your way.

Lousy bigot.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 12, 2009 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Conservatives are raging that this bill is somehow taking away their freedom -- but just the opposite is true, in so many ways.

Where is the freedom in having the courts or hospital administrators making your decisions for you, instead of making a will and doing it yourself?

Posted by: drindl | August 12, 2009 4:03 PM | Report abuse

No, I mean "we" as in ALL of us. You admitted yourself on the earlier thread that a terminally-ill patient with 1 month to live should not receive $1 million treatment. Whether you want to call that decision a "death panel", or simply heartless, does not matter to me.

==

If this extreme case is your idea of a moral argument I'd say healthcare reform is in fine shape.

And oh, you left out the part about the "terminally ill patient" being 99 years old.

Funny, you see this as "heartless" but you have no qualms about private insurance cutting off a customer battling cancer. I'll place my objections to that kind of market-oriented thinking against your contrived "heartlessness" any day.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 12, 2009 4:02 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin:

You do not misread or misconstrue my intent, since (ethically) I believe that "informed consent" and 'euthanasia' are mutually exclusive propositions. Of course, I'm the one who still thinks that "gay " means "happy".

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 4:02 PM | Report abuse

IIn some states it is a malpractice for an estate planning lawyer not to offer the state's recognized living will options to clients during counseling.

From the viewpoint of the Bar and of the AMA, it is preferable for persons when healthy to make their own choices for end-of-life treatment than it is to have those choices made by hospitals and doctors. I agree with this whoeheartedly as a matter of personal choice and personal responsibility.

It is also true that physicians and hospitals tend to prolong life using heroic measures for even brain dead folks who have no living wills. Sometimes, in some states, a hospital will go to court for guidance. Again, to me, this is an unwelcome burden on someone else to make a very personal decision.

Now I am catching a glimmer from some of you that you would prefer that people not make this decision for themselves, but that hospitals should strive to keep every one alive no matter the situation and that no one should be offered the option of end of life counseling - that every case should be Schiavo. Do I either misread or misconstrue your intent, JakeD?

I am sure that both the AMA and the hospital lobby do want everyone to sign physician directives, not only to protect them from liability for imposing any decision at all on end-of-life but in order to save the money expended on those who in my view were too uninformed to ever make a living will. I do not consider that an evil motive and I think it is consistent with good medicine just as any informed consent procedure is ethically better medicine than any uninformed one.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | August 12, 2009 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Conservatives rage on and on about leaving our grandchildren to pay the bills. That's when they're talking about the national debt and balanced budgets.

When it comes to healthcare costs, suddenly its "heartless" not to spend a million dollars to keep someone alive for a month? Somebody has to pay for it.

Regardless, there is no rationing in the health care reform bill.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 12, 2009 3:57 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1:

Here's how. Doctor (paid by the government a "bonus" for every DNR signed): "Mrs. Jones, I now it's uncomfortable to think of, but do you really want to be a burden to your children and grandchildren?" Next?

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Employer-provided health care can be eliminated at any time, by the employer, for non-union employees. I doubt my company will end coverage, but others have.

As it is, every year the costs get shifted to the employee. In the current job market, the incentive for the employer to provide good health insurance is less.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 12, 2009 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Sen Isakson says:

"death panel" = NUTS

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 12, 2009 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of Senator Isakson, check out this little blurb in which Sen Isakson (R-GA) points out that it is NUTS to think that there's a 'euthanasia' provision in any of the healthcare bills being floated in Congress. Of course, that is exactly what the often-confused former governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, said on her Facebook page recently.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/08/is_the_government_going_to_eut.html#more

"[WaPost:] How did this become a question of euthanasia?

[Sen Isakson:] I have no idea. I understand -- and you have to check this out -- I just had a phone call where someone said Sarah Palin's web site had talked about the House bill having death panels on it where people would be euthanized. How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as that is nuts. You're putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don't know how that got so mixed up."


Posted by: bsimon1 | August 12, 2009 3:46 PM | Report abuse

No, I mean "we" as in ALL of us. You admitted yourself on the earlier thread that a terminally-ill patient with 1 month to live should not receive $1 million treatment. Whether you want to call that decision a "death panel", or simply heartless, does not matter to me.

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 3:45 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:

If Obamacare is NOT passed, those 10 million workers would not lose their employer-provided benefits.

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 3:43 PM | Report abuse

"U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., today denounced comments made by President Obama and his spokesman regarding Isakson’s alleged connection to language contained in the House health care bill on “end-of-life counseling.”
Isakson vehemently opposes the House and Senate health care bills and he played no role in drafting language added to the House bill by House Democrats calling for the government to incentivize doctors by offering them money to conduct “end-of-life counseling” with Medicare patients every five years.

In for a penny, in for a pound. There is simply nothing these guys will not lie about, and they have no problem reversing course hours after publicly stating something completely different. The facts are just optional with these guys. They just don’t care if they tell the truth, they are not ashamed to lie at will, and no one in the media will hold them accountable.

Isakson is up for re-election in 2010, and he knows how wingnutty the base is. He has to play to the Palin wing or he will get primaried. That is how crazy the GOP is these days."

Posted by: drindl | August 12, 2009 3:42 PM | Report abuse

The phrase "Death Panel" is not be used in the bill, but we all know that's coming.

==

You're freakishly paranoid.

And don't use that neurolinguistic "we" crap. Speak for your addled and infantile self and your devil-woman from Alaska. The real "we" know that this is all a bunch of black helicopter right wing paranoia.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 12, 2009 3:42 PM | Report abuse

"Not necessarily. In an analysis of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee bill, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that 10 million workers could lose employer-provided benefits and would have to find other insurance."

That excerpt is from a sidebar to the USAToday article. Sadly they did not provide a link to the CBO study, or any other context. For instance, left unsaid is how this number compares to the number of people who could lose insurance coverage if the plan is not passed. Every year, as costs rise, more and more employers are reducing their contribution to employees' health insurance costs, or cutting coverage altogether. It also overlooks the program goals of making coverage more universally available & affordable to individuals, which is not currently the case.

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 12, 2009 3:42 PM | Report abuse

I don't buy the argument that employers will dump their health insurance if a public options is available or if there is an employer mandate.

(a) Right now, companies who provide health insurance are often competing against companies that are paying ZERO towards health insurance. If it's a cost competitive measure, then the new framework just narrows the difference. Their costs don't change.

(b) Companies provide such benefits to be more attractive than competitors who don't provide benefits or as attractive as competitors who do provide benefits. If UPS suddenly decides to dump coverage, expect to see a lot of employees checking out FedEx or the Post Office. The exception to this is the employer provided benefits for retirees, which are on the way out regardless of the current debate.

I do regret getting into the whole other thing. For me, it's a matter of definition. As Inigo Montoya once said, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Monogamy means one partner at a time, nothing more.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 12, 2009 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Here's what the birther in chief, whatever the crazy woman's anme is beleives:

There’s a cemetery somewhere in Arizona where they just dug 30,000 fresh graves, which wait now for the revolution.
Baxter International — a major Obama contributor — developed a vaccine for bird flu that actually kills people.

Google Congressman Alcee Hastings and House Bill 684 and you’ll see that they’re planning at least six civilian labor camps.

Google an article in the San Francisco Chronicle about train cars with shackles.

The communist dictator Hugo Chavez way back in 2004 purchased the Sequoia software that runs our voting machines and the mainstream media won’t report any of it — not even Fox because Saudi Arabia bought a percentage of Fox in 2007."

Some nuts will just swallow every shovelful.

Posted by: drindl | August 12, 2009 3:41 PM | Report abuse

"AARP would not be endorsing a bill if it was undermining Medicare".

The AARP also issued a press release to make it clear that it has not endorsed any particular health care proposal. "Indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate," AARP said.

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Not necessarily. In an analysis of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee bill, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that 10 million workers could lose employer-provided benefits and would have to find other insurance.

==

That's happening already.

The difference is that under Obama's proposal those people will have a fallback other than unreliable private insurance whose main imperative is the immoral maximization of profit.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 12, 2009 3:39 PM | Report abuse

"The rumor that's been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for 'death panels' that will basically pull the plug on Grandma. ... (T)he intention. .. was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they're ready, on their own terms. ... (O)ne of the chief sponsors of this bill originally was a Republican ... (Sen.) Johnny Isakson from Georgia."

Isakson issued a press release today saying Obama misused his name. A provision he attached to a Senate health care bill would allow seniors to obtain help in formulating a living will, something Isakson said is different from House language. The House bill would require Medicare to pay for end-of-life counseling sessions, but it would not mandate that anyone use the benefit.

Of course, we all know that the INTENTION behind "end-of-life counseling sessions" is to make sure elderly patients put DNR orders in place to cut costs. Exactly why Obama questioned hip replacements for terminally-ill patients too. The phrase "Death Panel" is not be used in the bill, but we all know that's coming.

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Follow up to this morning's Blue Dog story:

"The Athens Banner-Herald reports today that Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) told constituents yesterday that he thinks Democratic leaders are planning to declare martial law:

He also spoke of a “socialistic elite” - Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid - who might use a pandemic disease or natural disaster as an excuse to declare martial law.

“They’re trying to develop an environment where they can take over,” he said. “We’ve seen that historically.”

The Banner-Herald also notes that Broun told town hall attendees that they should tell friends and relatives in surrounding states to lobby conservative Blue Dog Democrats to fight progressive health care legislation, who are also the targets of the insurance industry’s campaign to make themselves the primary benificiaries of any health care legislation."

Uh, dude, they already did 'take over' -- they won the election.

Posted by: drindl | August 12, 2009 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Back on topic:

"Under the reform we're proposing, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."

Not necessarily. In an analysis of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee bill, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that 10 million workers could lose employer-provided benefits and would have to find other insurance.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-08-11-healthcare_N.htm

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 3:22 PM | Report abuse

@drindl: I wasn't sure he was serious which is why I left it at that.

Really though the whole reflexive birther thing coming from JakeD is getting really tiresome. pResident, LONG FORM, what a load of idiotic racist bull.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 12, 2009 3:22 PM | Report abuse

He's just mocking the trolls, chrisfox. that's what they're their for.

It does seem to me that 'Mrs. Fix" and Chawley are getting a little time, finally...

Posted by: drindl | August 12, 2009 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Obama became president without winning a single vote from his home states of Kenya and Indonesia.

==

We get enough of this crap already

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 12, 2009 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Still hoping to have a pic of Karl Rove in handcuffs to put next to the one of Ken Lay. There's space also for Wolfowitz, Perle, Brahms, Feith, Gonzales, and, please god let it happen, Cheney.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 12, 2009 3:05 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin:

That's probably a good sign -- that CC is actually serious about taking a little time off from his blog.

Posted by: mnteng | August 12, 2009 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Obama became president without winning a single vote from his home states of Kenya and Indonesia.

Posted by: Blarg | August 12, 2009 2:59 PM | Report abuse

The Fix writes
"make sure to check our review of the Boston Globe's terrific autobiography of the Massachusetts senator."

[pedantic interlude]

An autobiography is written by the subject of the book.

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 12, 2009 10:09 AM
"The Fix" remains broken. Nobody home?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | August 12, 2009 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Update on NJ battle: looks like Rove connected his pal Chris Christie to the right people:

"The campaign of Gov. Jon Corzine (D-NJ) is seizing on a newly-unsealed statement by Karl Rove, contained in the transcripts from the House Judiciary Committee, to accuse Republican nominee Chris Christie of having misused his former office as a U.S. Attorney.

"I talked to him twice in the last couple of years, perhaps one time while I was at the White House and once or twice since I left the White House," Rove said in 2007, "but -- not regarding his duties as U.S. Attorney, but regarding his interest in running for Governor, and he asked me questions about who -- who were good people that knew about running for Governor that he could talk to."

In a statement given to TPM, Corzine communications director Sean Darcy says:

It's pretty clear now that Christie was running a gubernatorial campaign out of the United States Attorney's office with the Bush White House and Bush's political brain, Karl Rove. Christie now has to answer a number of questions, including:

When did the planning start for his gubernatorial campaign?

Who was involved with the planning, including members of the United States Attorney's office?

How did all of this impact his investigations, including prosecutorial decisions?"

Posted by: drindl | August 12, 2009 2:48 PM | Report abuse

I was born at the military hospital at West Point. My provenance is not in doubt.

Elect me president and I promise you there's gonna be some *changes* around here.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 12, 2009 2:48 PM | Report abuse

You know, I've never seen my *own* long form birth certificate. My mommy tells me I was born in Annapolis, and I got a *copy* of a document from Maryland, and my passport says so too, but how do I really KNOW?

OMG--I might be an illegal alien!! I'd better go to a gun show and buy up some guns and ammo before the INS tries to get me!!!!

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 12, 2009 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Ack, 1976. I meant Ford lost in 1976.

Posted by: mnteng | August 12, 2009 2:40 PM | Report abuse

I meant "starting" with Gore Loserman.

==

His name is "Lieberman." Joseph Lieberman, Senator (I) from Connecticut. Please refrain from childish name-mangling.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 12, 2009 2:40 PM | Report abuse

mnteng writes
"I'm going with Wilson (1916, NJ) -- he was Gov. of NJ before becoming POTUS."

Woody is the answer I came up with as well.

Gore, whether you think he won or not was never sworn in & thus does not qualify. Ford also never won the presidency through election.

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 12, 2009 2:39 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

Ford won Michigan in 1980, but he lost the election (thus becoming ineligible for bsimon's criterion of a President that lost his home state).

Lots of POTUS losers have lost their home states -- Adlai Stevenson comes to mind since I'm from IL.

Posted by: mnteng | August 12, 2009 2:38 PM | Report abuse

The strength of the Republican party was always unity. They don't have it today and that is the Democrats edge, It was until they placed the ad and openly attacked their own. They have a self destructive hand guiding them and that hand is infected. Private talks and quiet chats were the proper tools during this hiatus.
Whatever they do they better do it fast.

Posted by: lengyson | August 12, 2009 2:37 PM | Report abuse

As a favorite son, Ford won Michigan in 1976, but lost the presidency, so he doesn't count. Technically, Nixon was a resident of NY, but certainly not a favorite son. Only Democratic carpetbaggers win elections in NY.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 12, 2009 2:36 PM | Report abuse

I don't know that Nixon was born in California -- I have never seen his long form birth certificate. Most Californians believe him to have been born aboard a spaceship, and consequently, he was never actually president.

Posted by: drindl | August 12, 2009 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Look, I'm not going to argue "home state" with you people. Have at it!

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 2:33 PM | Report abuse

mnteng:

Of course, Nixon was a resident of California prior to 1962 and that gubernatorial election -- I am talking about 1968, though, when he moved and was practicing law in New York -- during his first term as President, Nixon actually re-establlished his residency in California. Consequently, most reliable reference books list Nixon's "home state" as New York in the 1968 election and his home state as California in the 1972 (and 1960 FWIW) election.

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Uh, the point I was actually going to make is that there have been persistent questions whether Santorum is really a resident of PA anymore. School board stuff and a strange challenge to his absentee ballot last November.

Posted by: mnteng | August 12, 2009 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Yes, we all know that Nixon moved to New York after losing his bid for Governor in 1962. I guess New Yorkers didn't consider him a favorite son.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 12, 2009 2:30 PM | Report abuse

VP caveats aside, I believe that Ford lost Michigan.

I'm assuming Perot and Nader don't count.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 12, 2009 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Rick Santorum was born in Winchester, Virginia (yes, I will expect to see his LONG FORM birth certificate if he runs for President) but raised in West Virginia and Pennsylvania. Hopefully, he could win at least ONE of those States.

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Nixon may have resided in NY, but he was a Senator and Congressman from CA, in addition to being born in CA.

I'm going with Wilson (1916, NJ) -- he was Gov. of NJ before becoming POTUS.

Posted by: mnteng | August 12, 2009 2:26 PM | Report abuse

I meant "starting" with Gore Loserman. Nixon was born in California, but his "home state" (legal residence, where he voted on Election Day) was New York in 1968.

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 2:21 PM | Report abuse

"Al Gore, 2000."

I wonder if that counts. Gore had been living in DC for eight years.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 12, 2009 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Oh, don't start with that, Mike.

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Nixon carried his home state of California in 1968, however.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 12, 2009 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Al Gore, 2000.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 12, 2009 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Nixon lost New York in 1968.

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 2:12 PM | Report abuse

"He's already got the "don't carry Pennsylvania" requirement needed to be a Republican candidate completed."

Which makes me wonder. Who was the last person to win the Presidency while losing their home state?

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 12, 2009 2:09 PM | Report abuse

I heard a really funny joke this morning, anyone wanna hear it?

"Rick Santorum"

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 12, 2009 2:06 PM | Report abuse

The law DOES state that the mentally unstable are not permitted to have guns. In theory.

Licensed gun dealers are supposed to run background checks, and those checks are supposed to flag the mentally ill as well as felons, etc. But there are lots of ways around that law. Such as gun shows, which is where whack-jobs sell guns to each other without background checks.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 12, 2009 2:01 PM | Report abuse

"Thansk, dawd, here's a funny one for you -- wacky santorum thinks he might run for prez too. Boy is that party in baad shape."

He's already got the "don't carry Pennsylvania" requirement needed to be a Republican candidate completed.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 12, 2009 1:58 PM | Report abuse

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/not-all-socialist-countries-are-alike.html

A good and simple explanation of the difference between single payer (Canada) and true socialized medicine (England)

It involves a picture of a blowup doll.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 12, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuse

"Add former Sen. Rick Santorum to the list of potential 2012 Republican presidential candidates.

POLITICO has learned Santorum will visit first-in-the-nation Iowa this fall for a series of appearances before the sort of conservative activists who dominate the state GOP’s key presidential caucuses"

Thansk, dawd, here's a funny one for you -- wacky santorum thinks he might run for prez too. Boy is that party in baad shape.

Posted by: drindl | August 12, 2009 1:53 PM | Report abuse

What grieves me is these lunatics giving gun ownership a bad name.

==

"gonna get me a gun then don' nobody gonna f*ck with me"
-- comment from an acquaintance in Virginia

For my money the NRA gives gun ownership a bad name. The "cold dead fingers" people give gun ownership a bad name.

I wish there were more gun owners like you and fewer like them. I completely agree, the mentally unstable should be denied guns by law.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 12, 2009 1:53 PM | Report abuse

drindle - Thanks, and I appreciate the sentiment. What grieves me is these lunatics giving gun ownership a bad name. I've never been for it before, but maybe we really do need some sort of sanity check before someone can own a gun. I wouldn't even permit these paranoid and delussional inbred animals in my yard. Why should I permit them to own a gun?

Posted by: mibrooks27 | August 12, 2009 1:49 PM | Report abuse

And if you think that *anything* said in the form of a question can be constituted as libel, you need to study up.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 12, 2009 1:48 PM | Report abuse

mikeinmidland:

I will never refer to him again ; )

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Not on topic, but since Chris C is on vacation, this seems to be appropriate.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32364950/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

Blagojevich aide plans U.S. Senate run:
Cheryle Jackson will face Illinois treasurer in Democratic primary

Posted by: DDAWD | August 12, 2009 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Don't forget your part of the bargain, Jake.

==

You must be new around here

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 12, 2009 1:43 PM | Report abuse

The fact that McCain carried states nine months ago is little more than noise now. The country has continued to shift blueward as Republicans have demonstrated again and again and again that they lack maturity, lack professionalism, and have no interest in doing the country's business.

The racist attacks, the brazen obstructionism, the crazy paranoid rhetoric, and now the Armey-organized screamers repressing others' right of free speech, all these have further wounded the GOP already suffering a crisis of legitimacy from eight years of Bush and Cheney.

Democrats have gained seats in the last two elections and both houses of Congress, gained big, and gushing about "GOP resurgence" aside there is no indication that this trend is going to reverse anytime soon, nor any indication that it should.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 12, 2009 1:42 PM | Report abuse

U.S. GOVERNMENT PROGRAM TORTURES UNJUSTLY TARGETED CITIZENS WITH MICROWAVE, LASER RADIATION WEAPONRY, SAYS MAINSTREAM JOURNALIST

Silent, potentially deadly microwave/laser directed energy weapons are being used to torture and degrade the lives of thousands of U.S. citizens who have been unjustly targeted by a covert "multi-agency coordinated action program" overseen by a secretive division of the Department of Homeland Security, charges a longtime mainstream journalist who counts himself among its victims.

An extrajudicial targeting and "torture matrix" administered by this program deploys a civilian army of vigilantes recruited from the ranks of federally-funded community policing and volunteer organizations, and receives tacit support from local law enforcement.

The victims of this program, who claim they are targeted for reasons of politics, ideology and hate, are relentlessly stalked, harassed -- and, they say, tortured -- by directed energy weapons assault. The attacks are believed to be delivered by way of portable weaponry and via terrestrial and satellite telecommunications.

Victims' movements are tracked by covertly implanted GPS devices or their own cell phones. Some say they are kept virtual prisoners, tortured night and day, their property and possessions vandalized and disturbed when they leave their homes.

And, victims say, no federal or local authorities will investigate -- often insinuating that their claims are delusions and a symptom of mental illness.

The delusion, victims respond, is believing that democracy and the rule of law can survive when the federal government enables or commits war crimes against its own citizens.

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america

OR (if link is corrupted / disabled):

http://NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "GESTAPO USA"

OFFICIAL 2006 AIR FORCE VIDEO DISCUSSES 'SURGICAL PRECISION' OF MICROWAVE / LASER DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSGprwJx_zs&NR=1

Posted by: scrivener50 | August 12, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Don't forget your part of the bargain, Jake.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 12, 2009 1:39 PM | Report abuse

SarahBB:

Yes, please PLEASE target Sen. Nelson (D-NE) so that an actual REPUBLICAN can take back that seat!!!

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 1:35 PM | Report abuse

(from yesterday's "Morning Fix" at least ONE person agrees with me):

"Ali-Farooz is a terrorist.

Crowley was right to arrest Gates."

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 12, 2009 8:16 AM

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 1:33 PM | Report abuse

CODEPINK was founded as a "Women Against the Wars" movement. They chose their name at a time when Homeland Security was scaring us with Code Orange at the airport.

That's OK mibrooks, I was woefully informed about US Senators named Ben only this morning.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 12, 2009 1:31 PM | Report abuse

If meaningful health care reform stalls or dies because Nelson let the Republicans delay this so they could kill it with their manufactured hysterics, he is going to need a whole lot of air time to restore his standing as a Democrat. Democrats don't let other Democrats do the Republicans dirty work.

Posted by: SarahBB | August 12, 2009 1:30 PM | Report abuse

And "gay" used to mean "happy" once upon a time.

==

And "Republicans" used to be a legitimate political party, not a terrorist organization.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 12, 2009 1:29 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

Isn't it currently "peak" time (please reign in your attack dogs)?

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 1:28 PM | Report abuse

mikeinmidland _ Sorry, I AM misinformed. We have a local gay and lesbian group called Code Pink that works publicize the hate crimes directed at homosexuals. I was under the impression that they were national. So, we have two different groups with the same name. Interesting and confusing.

==

You're thinking of Pink Pistols.

They're a bunch of libertarian nutbars mostly, but they do encourage armed resistance to gay-bashers and that's a good thing.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 12, 2009 1:28 PM | Report abuse

At a gun show:

"On a misty morning at the beginning of April, I arrived at Knob Creek and found a horde of men in camouflage selling a dizzying variety of guns and ammo and paraphernalia in a long series of tents and sheds. I saw a T-shirt that read I'LL KEEP MY GUNS, MONEY AND FREEDOM — YOU KEEP THE CHANGE. And another: IN A TIME OF UNIVERSAL DECEIT, TELLING THE TRUTH IS A REVOLUTIONARY ACT. And a bumper sticker on a truck outside one tent: 9 OUT OF 10 TERRORISTS SUPPORT OBAMA.

In the first open tent, I heard an air-gun salesman named Sam Kravets selling toy monkeys that reminded him of the president. "They even sound like him," he said, urging his customers to give them a squeeze.

"Everyone who voted for him ought to leave the country," a customer said.

Near the cafeteria, a man named Ernie was passing out free copies of a video called The Obama Deception. Produced by a Texas radio host named Alex Jones, it argues that the Wall Street elite created the economic crisis in order to cause a panic that would grease the skids to fascism. (Jones also believes that 9/11 was an inside job.) In the first two weeks after The Obama Deception's release on YouTube in March, more than a million people watched it. Ernie drove all the way from Minnesota to get the message out. "The economy is collapsing and we're being lied to on the federal-reserve system," he said.

Near a stand of bleachers, a prominent militia leader named Mark Gregory Koernke was passing out flyers. Under the name "Mark From Michigan," he was one of the first people to raise the alarm about black helicopters back in the '90s. Briefly a suspect in the Timothy McVeigh bombing that killed 166 people in Oklahoma City, Koernke was later arrested after a car chase and spent six years in prison on charges of resisting arrest and assaulting police. He's also a former 94B20 Intel analyst — or so he told me, quite cheerfully, as his equally cheerful wife handed out flyers beside him — who helped put together the first FEMA camps in the days of the old Rex 84 Program, back before the government was destroyed from within. "If you're pro-patriot," he said, "the military doesn't want you. Same with federal agencies. They're after any American resistance to what's happening with the globalists."

Resistance?

"Where do you think all this ammunition is going?" he said.


Read more: http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richardson-report/obama-birthers-movement-part-one-080409#ixzz0NzTm5XLR

Posted by: drindl | August 12, 2009 1:26 PM | Report abuse

"mikeinmidland _ Sorry, I AM misinformed. We have a local gay and lesbian group called Code Pink that works publicize the hate crimes directed at homosexuals. I was under the impression that they were national. So, we have two different groups with the same name. Interesting and confusing."

Code Pink seems more apt for a gay-rights group. I wonder how the anti-war people got that name.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 12, 2009 1:26 PM | Report abuse

drindl:

No "death threats" have been made AT TOWN HALL MEETINGS (which is what I said). Do you want to know how many death threats GWB got over 8 years?

chrisfox8:

And "gay" used to mean "happy" once upon a time.

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 1:26 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:

As I stated, traditional "monogamy" is between one man and one woman

==

Monogamy refers to fidelity in a relationship and has nothing to do with the gender of the two people.

You are a libelous knucklewalking bigot.

I have a partner I have been with for fifteen loyal years, and unlike your "wife", mine didn't come in the mail in a plain brown wrapper.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 12, 2009 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Wrong as usual, Joked. I have posted several instances of death threats to congressmen. I don't have time to humor you by repeating them. Beleive what you want, you're a loon.

Posted by: drindl | August 12, 2009 1:22 PM | Report abuse

"It's not name-calling. I am stating a fact."

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 1:22 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:

As I stated, traditional "monogamy" is between one man and one woman -- you "gays" have co-opted that word too -- it was simply an analogy because "drindl started lecturing on CIVILITY.

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 1:20 PM | Report abuse

But mibrooks is right that they are not violent, and I appreciate the sentiment. Here's a good piece In Equire tht demonstrates where all this unhinged behavior started-- with the R leadership. Guilty, guilty, guilty:

1. Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma said the bailout was the start of America's downfall. "To abandon a market-oriented society and transfer it to a Soviet-style, government-centered, bureaucratic-run and mandated program, that is the thing that will put the stake in the heart of freedom in this country."

2. Congressman Pete Sessions of Texas said that Obama intended "to inflict damage and hardship on the free enterprise system, if not kill it."

3. Congressman Ron Paul of Texas said that "socialism" was too mild a word for what Obama was doing because taking over corporations "adds a fascistic aspect to socialism."

4. Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota said she wanted her constituents "armed and dangerous" because Obama was planning "re-education camps for young people." She also said that "Thomas Jefferson told us having a revolution every now and then is a good thing."

5. Ambassador Alan Keyes called Obama a communist who is trying to establish "an American KGB."

6. Rush Limbaugh Show guest host Mark Davis told a joke about a soldier who has only two bullets in his gun when he meets Osama Bin Laden, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi — and uses both bullets on Pelosi before strangling the other two.

7. Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama put his considerable weight behind the "birther" movement: "His father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven't seen any birth certificate."

8. Legislators in thirty states filed Tenth Amendment "sovereignty" laws as a symbolic gesture of defiance to Washington.

9. Tens of thousands of YouTubers watched a video called "Revolution Now," in which a masked man claiming to be a soldier and an "anonymous American patriot" warned of growing resistance within the military. "There's a revolution brewing," he said. "We have allowed the tyrants to take over this country."

10. Seven percent of the country thought, at a time when the Republicans were almost unanimously resistant to everything the Democrats proposed, that the GOP was being too cooperative. That's roughly 21 million seriously alienated people."

http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richardson-report/obama-birthers-movement-part-one-080409

And imagine how many of them own guns. Now, I have owned a gun, and I do not consider that of itself to be a bad thing. But if you own a gun and you beleive batsh*t crazy stuff, then you may be dangerous.

All this apocalyptic talk means we are in a very dangerous time.

Posted by: drindl | August 12, 2009 1:19 PM | Report abuse

mikeinmidland _ Sorry, I AM misinformed. We have a local gay and lesbian group called Code Pink that works publicize the hate crimes directed at homosexuals. I was under the impression that they were national. So, we have two different groups with the same name. Interesting and confusing.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | August 12, 2009 1:19 PM | Report abuse

LOL, drindl. What's next, chrisfox8 lecturing us on the true meaning of monogamy?

==

How dare you impugn my relationship, your drooling racist cretin.

Chris C, I object to this libel.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 12, 2009 1:17 PM | Report abuse

No one has threaten to lynch or shoot anyone at these town hall meetings (let alone actually ASSAULT someone on the left).

Cf. Violence from the political left in the USA (10/27/07 Code Pinkster, Desiree Anita Ali-Fairooz, was arrested for assault) less than two years ago:

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN24604518

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSgXWAfH9ec

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 1:14 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks, you are woefully misinformed. From the Code Pink website:

What is our mission?

CODEPINK is a women-initiated grassroots peace and social justice movement working to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, stop new wars, and redirect our resources into healthcare, education, green jobs and other life-affirming activities. CODEPINK rejects foreign policies based on domination and aggression, and instead calls for policies based on diplomacy, compassion and a commitment to international law. With an emphasis on joy and humor, CODEPINK women and men seek to activate, amplify and inspire a community of peacemakers through creative campaigns and a commitment to non-violence.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 12, 2009 1:10 PM | Report abuse

These tactics by MoveOn and others will backfire on them

==

Posting this at a time when Republicans are acting like rabid dogs is just ... *precious*

Do you even care about appearing honest?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 12, 2009 1:09 PM | Report abuse

drindl - Code Pink is mostly reacting to the hatred and bigotry directed at homosexuals in this country. Now, some think they are over-reacting, at least sometimes, but that group wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the cr*p gays and lesbians put up with. ANd, you are quite correct about the lack of violence by Code Pink (and I am amazed that they haven't become violent).

Posted by: mibrooks27 | August 12, 2009 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Lisa Murkowski, in contrast to the former governor of her state, appears to be a reasonable and moderate Republican. They do still exist!

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 12, 2009 12:55 PM | Report abuse

"The barbaric behavior at these town hall meetings only illustrates the sad remains of the Republican party. While this phony outrage may excite the rabid GOP base, it's a hugely repulsive to ordinary citizens..."

Yeah, I wonder how this looks to the rest of the country who consider health care a serious issue and not just a game? The mainstream press is doing its best to posit all this as organic, grassroots protesting, but it's pretty clear that this is not. It just makes the party seem that much more unhinged.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 12, 2009 12:47 PM | Report abuse

But happily, not all republican lawmakers are dishonest:

"Sarah Palin’s claim last week that President Obama plans to institute bureaucratic “death panels” has been called “crazy” and “nuts” by pundits and lawmakers looking to distance themselves from the untrue and ugly rhetoric. But perhaps the harshest rebuke came last night from a fellow Alaskan, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R), who said while speaking to a crowd in Anchorage that she was “offended” by Palin’s baseless attack:

“It does us no good to incite fear in people by saying that there’s these end-of-life provisions, these death panels,” Murkowski, a Republican, said. “Quite honestly, I’m so offended at that terminology because it absolutely isn’t (in the bill). There is no reason to gin up fear in the American public by saying things that are not included in the bill.“

Posted by: drindl | August 12, 2009 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Code Pink doesn't threaten to lynch or shoot anyone.

Posted by: drindl | August 12, 2009 12:40 PM | Report abuse

RickJ:

Did you express the same outrage against Code Pink during the Bush Administration?

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 12:29 PM | Report abuse

The barbaric behavior at these town hall meetings only illustrates the sad remains of the Republican party. While this phony outrage may excite the rabid GOP base, it's a hugely repulsive to ordinary citizens...

Posted by: RickJ | August 12, 2009 12:24 PM | Report abuse

They're probably mostly on welfare, jetrain.

Posted by: drindl | August 12, 2009 12:23 PM | Report abuse

I know unemployment is high, but are all of these mobs retirees or umemployed people (or the same people bused all over near their home area doing the work of their lobbyist sponsors)? Who else would have time (or take precious time off of work) to attend one of these just to shout down their congressional rep and anyone they disagree with? Like Bill Maher....we are a stupid country.

Posted by: jetrain | August 12, 2009 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Demonstrating against Bush oustide a FUNDRAISER is not the same as disrupting a town hall meeting.

Perhaps if the media had been *invited* to the event, they would have covered it better.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 12, 2009 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Blade, Ddawd's rght -- it's not worth your time.

Posted by: drindl | August 12, 2009 12:09 PM | Report abuse

I expected some trouble, DDawd, but not to this degree. Not an orgy of gun-buying, death threats, swastika signs and talks of lynching. It's chilling that this is America, 2009.

Posted by: drindl | August 12, 2009 12:08 PM | Report abuse

If Ben Nelson ever votes against the Dems on a cloture vote, then fine, kick him out of the party. Right now Obama is calling him the "Ambassador to the Right." Moderate and conservative Democrats have a place and a purpose.

If you think that a liberal Dem could get elected in Nebraska, you've got another think coming.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 12, 2009 12:07 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade:

"Chrisfox8" has BOASTED about his multiple partners, so please don't lecture me either.

Back on topic:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/12/analysis-press-largely-ignored-incendiary-rhetoric-bush-protest/

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 12:05 PM | Report abuse

"@JakeD - Bisexual doesn't mean promiscuous, per se, just that the individual is attracted to members of both sexes. Likewise, heterosexual doesn't necessarily mean monogamous.

BB"

Stop, let's not talk to this bigot about this sort of thing.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 12, 2009 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Reminds me of a column I read once lampooning all the columns and talking heads wondering if blacks would start rioting in the streets if Obama lost. It basically asks the same thing about white people. Who knew it was actually sort of prescient?

Posted by: DDAWD | August 12, 2009 11:57 AM | Report abuse

I'm just reporting the news, bhoomes. Righwing violence and hate rhetoric is on the rise, and the FBI is concerned that another Timothy McViegh type act of domestic terrorism is likely. Talk to the FBI, not me. You can see it all around you--these things happen in waves.

"Likewise, heterosexual doesn't necessarily mean monogamous."

You've a gift for understatement, Blade.

Posted by: drindl | August 12, 2009 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: DDAWD | August 12, 2009 11:44 AM | Report abuse

"During this past Senate session, Ben Nelson voted with the Dems only 32.61 percent of the time, pretty much making him a Republican in reality. Getting rid of him or at least damaging him beyond repair doesn't exactly hurt Democrats."

Nelson is one of the most unreliable Democrats, but not THAT unreliable. He votes with the party about twice as often (one of the lowest)

Other interesting facts.

Saxby Chambliss showed the most party loyalty for Republicans with about 94%, but only like 30th among all senators.

McClusky was the most loyal.

Nelson is the least loyal Democrat only Specter, Voinovich, Snowe, and Collins are less loyal. (Specter was an R at the time)

Posted by: DDAWD | August 12, 2009 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Drindl I think you had to much coffee this morning, you making Glen Beck seem reasoned and measured.

Posted by: vbhoomes | August 12, 2009 11:26 AM | Report abuse

I listened to one of the town hall meetings yesterday. C-SPAN radio played Ben Cardin's meeting. He got hit with some hostile questioning and impressed me with his demeanor. He didn't lose his temper and treated his questioners with respect, but didn't give ground. I'm increasingly thinking that Spectre is going down, one way or the other. I didn't hear that meeting, but it sounds like he's advertising for a part in Grumpy Old Men III.

@JakeD - Bisexual doesn't mean promiscuous, per se, just that the individual is attracted to members of both sexes. Likewise, heterosexual doesn't necessarily mean monogamous.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 12, 2009 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Maybe you're thinking of Ben Nighthorse Campbell, who was a senator from colorado.

Posted by: drindl | August 12, 2009 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Just wondering...When did Ben Nelson drop the "Whitehorse?" The word draws a blank in a search of his official site.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 12, 2009 11:18 AM | Report abuse

The news is full of hateful rightwing eliminatinism. The lynch mob mentality -- which is never far below the surface is emerging in full ugly bloom:

A local right-wing blogger called “Send A Rope” is following around Rep. Tomn Perriello, taping him and accusing him of being a “traitor” for voting for clean energy reform. The blogger, who encourages readers to send pieces of rope to Congress and the White House, declares on his website, “I don’t think that there are enough trees or rope in Washington DC to handle all the traitors you would find there.” In a YouTube video, the blogger ominously warns, “I hope it doesn’t come to us having to do what we all think is coming with these guns, but you better be ready if it is.”

Posted by: drindl | August 12, 2009 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Just a reminder for folks to keep up the good work -- maybe we can muzzle this racist monster once and for all:

"Fox News host Glenn Beck has been under fire in recent weeks for his comments that President Obama is a “racist” with “a deep-seated hatred for white people.” Since ColorOfChange called on its members to urge Beck’s advertisers to drop his show, three advertisers have pulled out. Today, ColorOfChange announced that Geico Insurance is joining them:

“On Tuesday, August 4, GEICO instructed its ad buying service to redistribute its inventory of rotational spots on FOX-TV to their other network programs, exclusive of the Glenn Beck program,” said a spokesperson for GEICO Corporate Communications in an email to ColorOfChange.org. “As of August 4, GEICO no longer runs any paid advertising spots during Mr. Beck’s program.“

Posted by: drindl | August 12, 2009 11:08 AM | Report abuse


The public option is a bargaining chip, and I will trust Obama to use it at the appropriate time. Other provisions are more important.

There are other ways to increase competition in the insurance industry. Anti-trust laws on the books, for instance, may increase competition in many states.

Similarly, even if the drug companies have some sort of deal on price controls, the administration can effectively reduce demand for new & improved combo drugs by re-regulating or increasing enforcement of advertising practices.

Once the legislation is signed.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 12, 2009 11:05 AM | Report abuse

More ugly brownshirt violence:

" The New Hampshire Republican Volunteer Coalition urged its members to make their voices heard today in Portsmouth, NH outside of a high school where President Obama was discussing health care reform. Sure enough, right-wing protesters came out not just in protest of health care, but also furiously offering the suggestion that undocumented immigrants should be sent back to their home countries with “a bullet in their head.”

“Why are we bankrupting this country for 21 million illegals who should be sent on the first bus one way back from wherever they come from. We don’t need illegals. Send them home once. Send them home with a bullet in their head the second time. Read what Jefferson said about the Tree of Liberty — it’s coming baby.”

Posted by: drindl | August 12, 2009 11:05 AM | Report abuse

"It's not name-calling. I am stating a fact."

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 11:00 AM | Report abuse

This is the ugly face of the radical right today:

Last week, The Hill reported that Rep. Brian Baird’s (D-WA) office had received a fax that depicted President Barack Obama as the Joker and warned of “Death to All Marxists! Foreign and Domestic!” The Secret Service has said that the fax was “ an investigative intelligence matter.” Now, a second member of Congress is reporting that he received the same fax. On CNN this morning, Rep. David Scott (D-GA) — whose office was recently vandalized with a swastika — held up a printout of the fax, adding that the picture of Obama he received had “the swastika on his forehead.”

Scott said that the fax also included racial slurs aimed at him and the statement “the Ethiopian cannot make himself white.”

Posted by: drindl | August 12, 2009 11:00 AM | Report abuse

drindl:

It seems you've conveniently forgotten that he proudly boasts about being BI-sexual (even if you ignore the fact that traditional "monogamy" is between one man and one woman). No analogy is perfect, but your lecturing on CIVILITY leaves the door wide open.

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 10:46 AM | Report abuse

The data shows that Medicare PLUS delivers no better care than regular Medicare. Therefore the extra subsidies to private insurers to administer Medicare PLUS are a waste of money.

That's how a cut of subsidies to insurance companies is not a cut of Medicare, and certainly not a cut in services.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 12, 2009 10:45 AM | Report abuse

I'm very happy to see this, to deal with the rising tide gun-buying and violence:

"Federal authorities have launched an effort to detect lone attackers who may be contemplating politically charged assaults similar to the recent murders of a Kansas abortion doctor and a Holocaust museum security guard.

The effort, known as the "Lone Wolf Initiative," was started shortly after President Obama's inauguration, in part because of a rising level of hate speech and surging gun sales.

"Finding those who might plan and act alone, the so-called lone offenders ... will only be prevented by good intelligence, the seamless exchange of information among law enforcement at every level, and vigilant citizens reporting suspicious activity," said Michael Heimbach, the FBI's assistant director for counterterrorism.

Secret Service spokesman Malcolm Wiley said the FBI is sharing information with his agency.

Agents from all of the FBI's 56 field offices have been dispatched on a range of assignments, said two U.S. law enforcement officials who were not authorized to speak publicly about details of the program

Hate groups have multiplied across the USA, from 602 in 2000 to 926 in 2008, reports the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks extremist groups and works to limit their activities. Mark Potok, director of the center's Intelligence Project, said the lone attacker is an extension of the "leaderless resistance" concept of activism advocated by white supremacist Louis Beam.

Potok cites the attack by James von Brunn, an elderly white supremacist charged with fatally shooting black security guard Stephen Johns at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in June. That attack came 10 days after abortion provider George Tiller was shot to death at his church. "No one in the world would have expected an 88-year-old man would do that," Potok said of von Brunn.

Posted by: drindl | August 12, 2009 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Cornell1984:

The liberal Congressmen (and Obama) seem to be forgetting who their bosses are.

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 10:39 AM | Report abuse

What an ugly comment, as usual, JakeD. What makes you think that someone who is gay is automatically non-monogamous? You show your bigotry every time you open your mouth. I doubt if the Washington Post really likes the idea of gay-bashing on their forums?

How would you like it if other posters started jeering at you about whether your nurse had brought you your jello yet?

Posted by: drindl | August 12, 2009 10:36 AM | Report abuse

vbhoomes:

Besides that obvious hypocrisy re: GWB, their incivility here on the Fix effectively preempts either drindl or chrisfox8 from such hollow complaints.

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 10:35 AM | Report abuse

More powerful enemies of Obama pull out wads of cash to defeat healthcare reform. Blue Dogs will be the target and these folks are going to feel the pressure ratchet up from all sides:

"The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is perhaps the most powerful and well-funded foe of much of President Obama’s governing agenda, just announced that it’s running a “multi-million-dollar” national ad campaign attacking the Dems’ health care reform proposals as “expanded government control of health care”.

I’ve obtained a detailed state-by-state breakdown of the first round of the Chamber’s ad spending from an ad buyer for labor unions, and it provides an interesting glimpse into this well-armed business group’s view of the health care battleground:

Indiana $429,105
Maine $156,345
Tennessee $89,985
Colorado $494,630
Arkansas $218,390
Kentucky $127,220
South Carolina $55,495
North Carolina $745,215
Ohio $20,000

Total:$2,336,385

Big money in this round of buying is concentrated in Indiana, Colorado, Arkansas, and North Carolina. It’s hard to know precisely who the targets are, but here are the key Dem lawmakers in these states:

Indiana: Senator Evan Bayh and key House Blue Dogs like Baron Hill and Joe Donnelly.
Colorado: Senators Michael Bennet and Mark Udall.
Arkansas: Senators Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor.
North Carolina: Senator Kay Hagan and Blue Dog Heath Shuler.

The TV spot takes direct aim at the public option, showing a balloon being inflated until it bursts, as it attacks the public option and asks voters to call Congress. A script of the radio spot is here"

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/us-chamber-sinks-big-money-into-ads-in-handful-of-key-states/

Posted by: drindl | August 12, 2009 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Obama's approval is 48%, disapproval is 52%. Keep saying he is popular. As we have seen by Chris's reference to someone else writing Ted Kennedy's autobiography, liberals have never been very good at math. If the president says he is going to cut $300 billion from medicare subsidies, how is that not a cut in Medicare?

Posted by: Cornell1984 | August 12, 2009 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Screaming at townhall and interrupting the speaker is only allowed if the crowd chants YES WE CAN and WE LOVE YOU OBAMA. Any other interruptions will merit arrest.

Posted by: Cornell1984 | August 12, 2009 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Okay Drindl but somehow I get the idea that when protesters against the Iraq War who yelled and screamed at Bush about "He lied, people died" did not draw the ire of the left at that time. If you have some previous postings from that era where you were upset about the uncivil dialogue showned to Bush, I would like to see them.

Posted by: vbhoomes | August 12, 2009 10:26 AM | Report abuse

LOL, drindl. What's next, chrisfox8 lecturing us on the true meaning of monogamy?

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2009 10:25 AM | Report abuse

An autobiography of Ted Kennedy that was written by a reporter for the Boston Globe? Wouldn't that make it a biography?

One should remember that insurance companies employ US citizens and are well represented in states like Florida, Nebraska, Omaha and Texas. When democrats want to put a big chunk of a states economy out of business, maybe they will actually meet resistance.

Posted by: Cornell1984 | August 12, 2009 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Stephen Hawkins defends Britian's health system from attacks by very stupid and fact-free reporters:

"Remember how Investor's Business Daily's editors went on and on about how if genius astrophysicist Stephen Hawking had been from a socialist hell hole like England, his health care system's death panel would have deemed him useless and snuffed out his life--completely unaware that Hawking--a professor at Cambridge--is and always has been, a British citizen?

Well that subtlety didn't escape one of the world's smartest men. Hawking himself had this to say to his...concerned supporters...at Investor's: "I wouldn't be alive today if it weren't for the NHS. I have received a large amount of high quality treatment without which I would not have survived."

Posted by: drindl | August 12, 2009 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Shouting at your representative is out of line. Shouting other people down is out of line. Maybe the problem is these folks just grew up in home where no one taught them there is such a thing as manners. Being loud, crude and boorish in public is unacceptable to the civilized.

Posted by: drindl | August 12, 2009 10:16 AM | Report abuse

TO: vbhoomes @ 9:53 a.m.:

Conspiracy? More like official policy with (not so?) unintended consequences.

Or have we seen this movie before?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gb0mxcpPOU

***

MORE EVIDENCE THAT GOVERNMENT WARRANTLESS TELECOM SURVEILLANCE IS A PRETEXT TO HARASS AND CENSOR

Scroll to the bottom of this ACLU "comments" thread to see the latest apparent affronts to the U.S. Constitution:

http://blog.aclu.org/2009/01/26/internet-filters-voluntary-ok-not-government-mandate

Posted by: scrivener50 | August 12, 2009 10:15 AM | Report abuse

The Fix writes
"make sure to check our review of the Boston Globe's terrific autobiography of the Massachusetts senator."

[pedantic interlude]

An autobiography is written by the subject of the book.

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 12, 2009 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Drindl the only one I saw who was way out of line was the guy who manhandled the gentleman who said he had the right to leave. I don't know if he was for or against the public option but if he had pushed me that way, I would had decked him.

Posted by: vbhoomes | August 12, 2009 9:58 AM | Report abuse

I think "frustrated voters" is accurate. They voted for McCain, and are frustrated that Obama is a popular and effective president.

Of course, their frustration has little to do with health care reform, and they are also hooligans, etc.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 12, 2009 9:57 AM | Report abuse

During this past Senate session, Ben Nelson voted with the Dems only 32.61 percent of the time, pretty much making him a Republican in reality. Getting rid of him or at least damaging him beyond repair doesn't exactly hurt Democrats.

Posted by: Pupster | August 12, 2009 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Thanks scrivner. After 20 years in the Air Force, I was unaware we had embarked on a conspiracy. Learn something new everyday.

Posted by: vbhoomes | August 12, 2009 9:53 AM | Report abuse

" facing frustrated voters who booed and jeered him over his party's plan to overhaul the nation's health-care system."

from the Specter article -- the Post needs better reporters. These aren't 'frustrated voters' -- they are hooligans, rabble-rousers and thugs usng brownshirt tactics to shut down debate and deny other americans their first amendment rights.

Posted by: drindl | August 12, 2009 9:49 AM | Report abuse

CC: Fix Pick #3 is broken. Your link goes to the title story for the week, which has changed. I think the link you want is:
http://www.dmcityview.com/archives/2009/08aug/08.06.09/cover.shtml

Posted by: Blarg | August 12, 2009 9:35 AM | Report abuse

OFFICIAL 2006 AIR FORCE VIDEO DISCUSSES 'SURGICAL PRECISION' OF MICROWAVE / LASER DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSGprwJx_zs&NR=1

Posted by: scrivener50 | August 12, 2009 9:22 AM | Report abuse

HEALTH CARE RABBLE ROUSERS: SYMPTOM OF AN AMERICAN GESTAPO

• Federal community volunteer/policing programs front for extremists?

"When you see the abuse of power, you've got to speak."

-- VP candidate Joseph Biden, Aug. 27, 2008, Democratic National Convention

Team Obama: Ban the unconstitutional, warrantless covert tracking of unjustly "targeted" U.S. citizens via GPS devices and/or cellphones...

...the electronic backbone of a federally-enabled vigilante American Gestapo that is stalking, harassing and destroying the lives and livelihoods of thousands of Americans targeted and slandered for their politics, their ideology, their ethnic background, or their whistle-blowing.

Stop a social genocide/politicide that is stealing democracy at the grassroots.

And ban the experimental testing and use of silent, injury- and illness-inducing microwave and laser "directed energy weapons" on American citizens -- weapons that YOUR administration, your Pentagon, your security and intel agencies, are promoting and proliferating.

President Obama: We who know the signs and symptoms of directed energy weapons attack are concerned about the etiology of that bald streak on the left side of your scalp behind the ear. White House staff: please read this article:

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america

OR (if link is corrupted / disabled):

http://NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "GESTAPO USA"

Posted by: scrivener50 | August 12, 2009 9:08 AM | Report abuse

It's good to put Ben Nelson's feet to the fire. Whether it helps him or hurts him with his electorate is less important than forcing him to examine his own stances and make him defend them. There is no benefit to having a Dem in name only who votes Republican most of the time. If he prefers, let him switch. Abandon the masquerade. Let him fend for himself.

Posted by: Pupster | August 12, 2009 9:08 AM | Report abuse

These tactics by MoveOn and others will backfire on them. It just may give a reason for Sen Nelson and other conservative dems to switch parties. The WH and liberal dems can only get the public option by shoving down it our throats after they have lost this debate. Doing so, would probably doom the dems for generations to come.

Posted by: vbhoomes | August 12, 2009 8:32 AM | Report abuse

I understand the logic of watching Democratic Senators from McCain states. However, Robert Byrd of WV doesn't count, for two reasons.

1) WV is a blue state that just couldn't vote for a black president. They love free stuff from the gummint.
2) Robert Byrd is almost as old as WV. He's not up for re-election until 2012 and I don't think he will run if he is still living. Regardless, he will vote his conscience. (Or his chief of staff's conscience, assuming he's conscious.)

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 12, 2009 8:28 AM | Report abuse

vbhoomes, pls email me at

mark_in_austin@operamail.com

Thanks, in advance.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | August 12, 2009 7:29 AM | Report abuse

If you would like to help pressure Congress to pass single payer health care please join our voting bloc at:
http://www.votingbloc.org/Health_Bloc.php

Posted by: letsgobuffalo | August 12, 2009 6:43 AM | Report abuse

Re Nelson: You gotta do what you gotta do... Nelson has generally stood outside the Democratic voting bloc in Congress (like Snowe and Collins for the Republicans). It is what it is, particuarly in a state like Nebraska. However, Nelson is probably also reacting to the phony irrational mobs that are gaining media coverage at present. They seem to want to shut down any debate and tar and feather anyone that would tamper with the esixting health care mess. (I disagree slightly with the Administration on a quick solution to health care. It would be good to take a measured approach to ensure a robust and just health care system. However, civil debate doesn't seem possible on these types of issues...)

Re Corzine: This race will get much closer

Re Claire McCaskill: My sentiments as well. The hooligans have taken over.... Republican debate generally consists of trying to overshout someone without ever listening to what they say...

Posted by: RickJ | August 12, 2009 6:35 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company