now if only the democrats would stop cravenly ignoring the health care bill and start touting the benefits of what was their biggest accomplishment of the legislative session

Good news for my son, who's working strictly freelance now and paying out of pocket for insurance.

A lot of good the health bill does if the Republicans repel it upon gaining control of both houses.

Not gonna happen.

Also, health bill law.

Also, the Republicans plan to repel it? Maybe they will advance toward it, beating the floor with brooms, until it flees Capitol Hill?

Yup. Ain't gonna happen, but my favorite part is they're toying with the idea of using (gasp) reconciliation to achieve their repeal!

Loving this photo op.

Haha, is that a lumber warehouse?

They're all just regular Joes. I'm surprised they're not wearing flannel and overalls.

Never mind.

got a giggle out of this:

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/09/the-...te-1-horse.html

Obama and congress are an embarrassment. The Republicans have effectively stopped any progress the last two years. They've won, make no mistake about it; without the White House or congress, they won.

That folks, is fucking amazing.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/democra...obama-nominees/


We need more Grayson's. Almost every dem in office is a complete pussy.

Moe Tucker is a Tea Bagger.

Good lord.

I'm sure everyone has seen this, but just in case:

the house has passed a shitload of legislation that just sits there 'cause there's no way in hell it'll get through the senate. it's senate rules that have cocked the whole thing up. don't know how realistic it is to have the next (or the following) senate session go to majority rule, but that's the obvious solution


if every democrat was like grayson republicans would have massive majorities, not to mention the presidency

i like the guy's moxie too, but his latest campaign smear ad is way over the top

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgUbcvN6fXA&feature=fvwk

While not everyone can be Grayson, Montana's right: Americans like folks that stick to their ideological guns, so to speak. Even if they disagree with them.

Republicans flip-flop all the time, but they're perceived as being singular-minded, so that wobbliness seldom hurts them. And that perception has implications for policy. Let's be honest; a little boldness couldn't hurt the Democrats. I think it's fair to say that we know now what splitting every issue down the middle with Republicans (no matter how important or incommensurate with compromise the issue may be) and Democrat timorousness has gotten us.

That's not "over the top", that's playing to win.

Anthony Weiner ain't no pussy. Look for his u-tube clips.

There are a number of structural problems that the Democrats can do nothing much about right now, and they mostly stem from the incalculable amount of campaign cash they accepted from Wall Street for the 06 and 08 elections. When the ride ended on WS, it was much too late to turn back.

I'm not all that jazzed about changing Senate procedures or imposing limits on blocking votes. Just get private money out of campaigns. That's this country's only hope.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/...?RS_show_page=0

i'm fine with it if it's done under the philosophy that the truth well presented is not enough to win over the voting public. but then we're at the point in politics where getting elected is entirely about lying better than your opponent. and then effective democracy is dead

My disgust and hatred intensify yet again. I remain completely convinced that this garbage is still nothing but "Oh my God, there's a niger in the White House"

I'm not even convinced this bullshit will be effective.

Good piece here by Maher:

the rolling stone obama interview makes me think he may very well be playing his cards right

I'm normally not a big fan of Maher's, but a lot of this is spot on.

Another example, my republican step dad (who I love dearly) is prone to bitch about the Obama administration and that they haven't done anything for him. If he weren't in poor health, I might remind him that Obama gave him $4,500 for his 18 year old piece of shit Ford Explorer through the cash for clunkers program...and virtually rescued the American auto industry.

Perhaps you see something I don't, but the guy had two years to choose to get done a progressive agenda; after November 2, he's not going to be able to choose much of anything.

are you suggesting he's intentionally not implemented progressive policy that he could have?

I'm suggesting that he played hands-off, largely. When he did weigh in on legislation, it was, for the most part, to make it more business-friendly (cutting deals with Pharma; his pretty evident dismissal of the public option from the outset).

What I'm more interested in is what you think this RS article portends, if anything? I'm genuinely curious.

I am curious -- and cautiously optimistic -- about that, too.

before the health care debate came to the forefront he made public statements in support of the public option. while he may very well have been too hands off in the early stages of congressional wranglings (partly no doubt due to the overreach of the clintons in the early 90s), by the time he publicly engaged the writing was on the wall that the public option had a miniscule chance of survival


portends? as in what the future holds based on obama's style of governance? i got the impression in that interview that he is clear-minded, very intelligent, genuine and big picture. he explicitly says that he knew going in that he would take good legislation over politics in his first term, even if that meant risking reelection. i buy that. but i think he's also well aware that a poor showing by the dems next month will likely increase his chance of reelection. worst case scenario is that republicans regain slim congressional majorities and little is accomplished over the next 2 years. but then in 2012 dems regain the house, retain presidency, and have momentum back for more progressive legislation

my question to you would be how you think the obama administration compares to the clinton administration. because i think that's the measuring stick right now

I'm not sure how instructive a comparison would be considering the economic and political differences each guy faced. But from a policy standpoint, they've been strikingly similar; less so politically.

But one of those administrations did get healthcare reform passed thru Congress, and written into law.

Health care legislation that was what Republicans had recommended in 93. No small irony that.

Ah, but this irony remains 'hard to swallow' for the average tea-bagger.

Very nearly spat coffee all over my monitor when I read this.

Yeah, and tomorrow morning I'll wake up in a gingerbread house with magic mushroom pancakes for breakfast.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/pr...02-04-2010.html

Obama Administration Denies American Pika Endangered Species Act ProtectionSmall Alpine Mammal Declining Due to Global Warming

SAN FRANCISCO— Today the Obama administration denied Endangered Species Act protection to the American pika, a small, mountain-dwelling mammal that is on the frontlines of global warming-driven endangerment. The decision was required under a court order in a lawsuit brought by the Center for Biological Diversity, represented by Earthjustice, against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for failing to respond to a scientific petition submitted by the Center in 2007.





http://www.westernwatersheds.org/news-medi...on-pygmy-rabbit

Obama Administration Denies Pygmy Rabbit Endangered Species Act Protection

Boise, ID — In response to a lawsuit brought by conservationists, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today determined that the pygmy rabbit, a tiny bunny small enough to roll up in your hand, does not warrant protection under the Endangered Species Act. The pygmy rabbit was first identified as possibly in need of protection in 2003 and its habitat and numbers continue to to diminish.



Change you can believe in.

To the extent that it arguably was an Obama administration decision, it's probably not really politically practical in an election year to start setting precedents through federal agency rulings. You can complain about political pragmatism all you want but there it is.

Regardless broader legislative solutions are more important. Adding the Pika to an endangered list isn't going to help it much if its habitat simply ceases to exist.

The most direct power a president has is on the military, public lands and wildlife. Listing these as threatened immediately does a variety of things to force sanctuary, some of which could even include reducing emissions. That's what the ESA is. In this case, he doesn't need broad legislation to get the job done. He just said "no".

If chucking a few species was quid pro quo for bigger gains on environmental legislation, this could be forgiven. But of course it has nothing to do with that.

Trying to backdoor climate change policy through administrative decree would be political suicide and would set back efforts to confront the issue by years.

My guess is a decree like that would have next to no political impact on Obama. But the playbook says "Be cautious." So he's cautious.

Yes, if Obama had listed these species, he would have upset the Tea Party and the Republicans who are oh so close to coming to the table on climate change....

Sorry, but when you get a chance to do the right thing, you do it. Obama didn't, and it's another in a long line of environmental failures of his feeble administration.

Obama is quickly becoming Carter II, and his indecisiveness and lack of backbone may very well put a Tea Party nut job in the White House.

Not the Tea Party or even a lot of Republicans but people in the middle who are either still skeptical about climate change or at the very least extremely wary of how the government goes about curbing it, particularly during the worst recession in a couple generations. I'm not particularly pleased with his environmental record either but a president who decided to take a stand like this a month before an extremely difficult election would be gift wrapping congressional seats for the opposition.

It's exactly this kind of waffling which has democratic voter enthusiasm way down. They are going to lose seats no matter what. This should have been done a year ago.

Tea Partiers and Republicans (same fucking thing) will never believe in climate change because they are largely insane. Their homes could flood and they would insist it is all part of the natural cycle and there is no need for action on emissions. This is how stupid they are.

The people in the middle follow strong leadership. Show swift and decisive measures towards curbing this problem, explain it clearly in a way they can understand, and ram it through congress.

Obama had congress. Obama lost congress.

Game over.


I still can't believe Salazar hasn't been fired yet. What a disastrous pick that was.

Not sure how familiar you are with how the government works but you know being in the same party doesn't mean the president "has" Congress.

Like, I'm pretty sure they have their own agendas and motivations. They don't just sit around waiting for king Obama to call them and tell them what legislation to force through.

No Raj, you pick a team and you decide if you have the balls to ram your agenda through. It's what's called "checks and balances."