Filibuster Follies

With 35 million people uninsured, and Big Insurance on the verge of receiving hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies through health care reform, the idea that a Blanche Lincoln, Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson or Mary Landrieu could sabotage a public option should be a wakeup call to all of us as to the dysfunctionality of our Senate.

Of course, the reason conservative members of the Democratic Caucus are able to wield such power is the anti-democratic, not constitutionally-mandated filibuster, which requires a super-majority of 60 Senators to pass legislation.

That's why so many pro-democracy folks are urging Majority Leader Harry Reid to use the procedural process of " reconciliation" to pass a public option if they can't muster 60 votes. Reconciliation allows for a simple majority of 51 Senators to approve certain budgetary matters.

The problem is that it's not clear whether reconciliation would work. A senior staffer for a key progressive Senator tells me that even if Reid wants to go that route "the process would require that both the Senate HELP and Finance Committees go back and redo their legislation. Ditto for the House." Once that was accomplished, reconciliation would still be "enormously complicated and depends on the Parliamentarian ruling that a proposal falls within specified budgetary contours."

Which brings us full circle to why we need to reform the anti-democratic filibuster, as Congressman Alan Grayson and others are calling for. Last week I moderated a conversation with Rhode Island Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse during which he spoke of a growing interest among his colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, and in the Democratic Caucus, about limiting the abuse of the filibuster. (I confess that I myself dream about abolishing it--I go to sleep and wake imagining a world rid of it!) The filibuster was established under Senate rules that have been repeatedly altered over the years, and it could be altered once again by just 51 Senate Democrats and Vice President Biden as the presiding officer--through the so-called "nuclear option".

As The Nation's Washington, DC Editor Christopher Hayes recently wrote, "The filibuster has become a cancer growing inside the world's greatest deliberative body. What was once a rarely invoked procedural mechanism has metastasized and turned into a de facto supermajority requirement for any legislation. In the 103rd Congress (1993-94) there were forty-six votes on 'cloture,' the motion to override a filibuster and allow something to be considered on the floor. In the last Congress, the 110th, the first one in which Republicans were in the minority, there were a record 112."

There are some who fear that such a rule change would come back to haunt us--what would have happened if President Bush and a Republican Congress had pursued a similar tactic? Writer and longtime Nation contributor Thomas Geoghegan questions that fear: "Let's deal with the canard that the filibuster 'saved' us from Bush. What's the evidence? Judicial nominations: that's the answer [progressives] give. Go ahead, name someone we blocked. Roberts? Alito? Of course there's Bork, whom we blocked in the 1980s. But we didn't block him with a filibuster... On the other hand, Republicans and conservative Democrats use their filibusters on labor, health, the stimulus, everything."

We have to win the fight for health care reform with as robust a public option as we can by deploying our Democratic majority. Afterwards, we need to put an end to the filibuster follies once and for all.

Comments (160)

1. kind of reminds me of how the polish diet in the 18th century, consisting of the nobles of the realm who voted on policy, was ineffective in that one dissenter could stop everything.

   not that bad, but still bad.

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/25/2009 @ 12:27pm

2. Jesus Katrina. The filibuster is the only safeguard we have left to keep radicals from ruling the roost. That was true during the Bush Administration as well as the present one. Your problem is that you don't recognize the radicals on your own side of the aisle. Unless you think like them, which of course would explain your line of reasoning.

   A bill that will effect 6% of the nation's economy should be debated to the fullest measure. If the Senate cannot must the 60 votes it needs for passage, it should be scrapped. That's the way it works for both sides. If this were a good bill, which of course it is not for a myriad of reasons, or if it were popular, polls show it is not, democrats would have no problem in getting it through the Senate.

   But when you have a situation when you have such a partisan divide over the very merits of HC reform to begin with, reconcillation should not even be thought of, let alone used.

   Your problem is that you think, like most other radicals, that you can shove this down the people's throats whether they like it or not. I'm sure you don't even care if you lose control of the government as a result. That's how important the principle of 'We are doing it because we can", is to you.

   Start listening to the majority of the people and then work on a compromise from that place. you will have your reform, a reform palatable to all.

   How about writing a piece calling for that compromise.

   Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/25/2009 @ 12:31pm

3. Katrina:

   "We have to win the fight for health care reform with as robust a public option as we can by deploying our Democratic majority. Afterwards, we need to put an end to the filibuster follies once and for all."

   Agreed.

   Here's a special to The Nation from yours truly, B Kool.

   Interesting how little play Darwin's gotten as of today.....

   IS THERE GRANDEUR IN THIS VIEW?

   Today, Nov. 24th, 2009 marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of the Species". The first run of 1,250 copies was sold on the first day, and a firestorm of controversy was ignited which still burns today in various forms, some --needlessly, in my opinion-- quite furiously.

   Yet, as incredible as the idea is that we are "simply" the products of impersonal forces blindly shaping the characteristics of both humans and every other living thing, it seems that those who are profiting most from the ramifications of this unprecedentedly explosive idea in the history of ideas are corporate behemoths who do so via the employment of manipulation techniques used to cynically exploit our human weaknesses. I think it's high time that the general population bears the fruits of Darwin's profound idea. It must start, as so many things must, with understanding --and most crucially, with a minimum of fear.

   As the sharp thrust of science –particularly since, say, Galileo and Newton-- has made clear, the only rationally useful way to proceed in the understanding of our world and our known universe is through a judicious use of that eminently useful tool of the wise of any generation, Occam's Razor, or more precisely, the principle of parsimony.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/25/2009 @ 12:34pm

4. That is, we understand reality best when we utilize the explanations that most economically reflect the data and/or the broadly exhibited outlines of what was just observed.

   To put it bluntly, God, gods and the "supernatural" are now officially condemned to the sidelines of any contest considered to be genuinely fair. These hobgoblins from our deep evolutionary past are best viewed as the remnants –still potent though they are-- of a world where humans had no broader comprehension, or useful context, of the world in which they were born.

   Now, thankfully, we have a remarkable context in which to place ourselves temporally and spatially-- in a universe that is currently understood to be 13.7 billion years old and vast beyond our comprehension, containing more stars (and by extension, planets) than there are grains of sand on all the beaches of the Earth!

   In spite of this spanking new and incredible reality, humanity broadly, seems incapable of expanding its collective mind to think in more useful and life affirming ways, and while being treated to Hubble views of uncountable numbers of galaxies beyond our own, we insist on the navel gazing of our various tribalisms, including racism and bigotry, here on Earth.

   I know the terror that many feel when they even begin to entertain the thought that they are, again, "simply" a vast aggregation of cells in communication with each other, ultimately producing something we refer to as "consciousness". The terror of contemplating that one's own existence is most likely limited in space and time is understandable. Death is the greatest fact of life.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/25/2009 @ 12:34pm

5. But we have something to combat the worst of our fears. It is nothing less than the power of the universe within. Our own human minds are essentially the biological equivalent of the external universe. Not literally, of course, but usefully nonetheless because the human nervous, endocrine and other intertwined bodily systems are something that, if fully comprehended, are worthy of our most profound contemplation, and worthy even of a form of (secular) worship, perhaps. We should no more wish to extinguish another human being than we should wish to destroy an entire world.

   In fact, the transformation that must occur in the human species to ultimately enable our long term survival must involve the expansion of our human capacity to value life more broadly than just human life. If any "religion" is worthy of our adherence it is simply a religion that holds all of life to be something, if not quite "sacred", then pretty damned close.

   This is going to take some real doing, obviously. One of the most pervasive characteristics of life is that it feeds on other forms of life. We, as humans though, have the capacity to rethink our relationship to the living world and to each other, in ways that are affirming of the value that is due to the entire web of life on the only planet in the universe that we know to harbor life.

   The answer, as a multitude of philosophers and commentators both religious and secular have maintained for thousands of years, lies in love. We have a great, dark capacity for destructiveness and hatred as human beings, but it is equally true that our capacities for love, philosophy and contemplative living in cooperation with each other have also been demonstrated, if far less commonly.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/25/2009 @ 12:34pm

6. If we are, on one level, caught in a tangled web of divided loyalties based on the interminably complex movements of our own biology as well as a vast jumbled ball of societal constructs, we are certainly, on another level, capable of slicing through this Gordian knot with the powerful concepts that Charles Darwin first opened the book on one hundred fifty years ago.

   As another great thinker so wisely once said, "The errors of religion, generally speaking are dangerous, those of philosophy are merely ridiculous". It is prime time to move past the dangers of own deeply seated fears, and open our eyes to the light of our own personally generated love, humility and life affirming ingenuity.

   That we have it in us, I think there can be no denying. It's up to humankind to solve this conundrum before the conundrum dissolves us –for good. In the end, we will find our grandeur, or we will expire trying. God or no gods, we supply our own referees on this court, or we devolve into a game with no rules and more significantly, no winners.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/25/2009 @ 12:34pm

7. I dedicate my Darwin piece to Thanksgiving 2009.

   Let's just call it a national day of mourning with reference to Obama's planned escalation in Afghanistan.

   Finally, the Floyd's Wall LP is celebrating its 30th anniversary this 11/30. I nominate it as one of the great musical compositions of our time.

   Lyric from "In the Flesh?":

   Tell me is something eluding you sunshine? Is this not what you expected to see? If you wanna' find out what's behind these cold eyes You'll just have to claw your way through this disguise!

   This one's for the Afghan and Pakistani children:

   www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0v07InoFiU

   This one's just a damn good denouement for the record and its concept:

   www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCMHmDnfD6I

   Choice lyric:

   Good morning, Worm your honor. The crown will plainly show The prisoner who now stands before you Was caught red-handed showing feelings Showing feelings of an almost human nature; This will not do.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/25/2009 @ 12:46pm

8. Happy Thanksgiving....I mean "War Day".

   Peace out, ~B

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/25/2009 @ 12:46pm

9. Jesus Katrina.

   Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/25/2009 @ 12:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   i thought she was jewish, or half jewish...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/25/2009 @ 12:48pm

10. One more thing....

    As we are the nation to live in infamy for the first use of the atomic bomb, I recommend James Carroll's superb "House of War" to gain an understanding of how we got to where we are today. For one thing, dropping the bomb was not necessary to avoid an invasion of Japan and end the war. The bomb was more the natural outcome of sheer lunacy unleashed.

    The Pentagon is now our Temple of the Bomb. It's a monolith to war that was never originally intended for permanency.

    One way or another, it won't be permanent.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/25/2009 @ 1:03pm

11. Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/25/2009 @ 12:48pm

    Sorry, should there be a comma in there? Spelling and grammar aren't my strong points.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/25/2009 @ 1:04pm

12. "Of course, the reason conservative members of the Democratic Caucus are able to wield such power is the anti-democratic, not constitutionally-mandated filibuster, which requires a super-majority of 60 Senators to pass legislation"

    Yep, I'm guessing this is the same argument you roll out whenever a Bush or Reagan is trying to appoint an "originalist" judge rather than one of your "living document" types.

    That damn, unconstitutional, obstructionist filibuster!

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/25/2009 @ 1:05pm

13. "Of course, the reason conservative members of the Democratic Caucus are able to wield such power is the anti-democratic, not constitutionally-mandated filibuster, which requires a super-majority of 60 Senators to pass legislation"

    Yep, I'm guessing this is the same argument you roll out whenever a Bush or Reagan is trying to appoint an "originalist" judge rather than one of your "living document" types.

    That damn, unconstitutional, obstructionist filibuster!

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/25/2009 @ 1:05pm

14. Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/25/2009 @ 1:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    lol...just feeling impish today. preparing for family tomorrow...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/25/2009 @ 1:12pm

15. Posted by b_FOOL_66 at 11/25/2009 @ 1:03pm

    Fool, where do you get off rewriting history. The dropping of the atom bombs on Hagasaki and Hiroshima produced far less loss of life, especially American life, that would have resulted in a full scale invasion of Japan which was unwilling to consider a peaceful surrender until they were forced to.

    It's obvious to me that you are one of these America haters. If you want to join America's enemies, go live where they train in the dessert. Wrap a towel around your head and praise Allah. But if you want to remain an American citizen, a privlidge, (if you even are one), then shape up.

    Japan was a ruthless enemy who started the war by bombing our base in Pearl Harbor. We ended it by bombing their war making capabilities and fighting them from island to island at great loss of life to our nation's finest young men and women.

    Before the bombs were dropped, Japan was warned and leaflets were dropped to give civilians time to evacuate. America was in no mood at that time to prolong war, especially now that Hitler, (probably another hero of yours), was defeated after the loss of a similar number of lives lost in the pacific, to say nothing of the millions exterminated.

    Satan dwelled in Germany in WWII and Hitler and Tojo both got what they deserved.

    America is a peaceful nation but we will never shy away from a fight if our and our allies interests are threatened. Our way of life is the model for freedom loving people everywhere. If, in yor heart of hearts you find that you cannot be included in that group and be grateful for the sacrifices of others who gave you that standard of living, then it's time to look elsewhere for residence. I doubt that you even live in America anyway.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/25/2009 @ 1:18pm

16. "Jesus Katrina. The filibuster is the only safeguard we have left to keep radicals from ruling the roost."

    ~"Licker of pistols" at 12:31 pm

    Let's see.....who are the "radicals" in this country again?

    The filibuster has, in point of fact, become a tool for "tools" like Lieberman, Coburn and other assorted yingyangs to hold often widely popular legislature hostage to the whims of intransigent asswipes i.e. radicals more or less.

    Health care with a robust public option should be passed via the reconciliation process whereby a simple majority is all that is required. The deeper problem though, is not so much structural as it is a matter of unfettered and unabashed high stakes bribery of government officials by corporate behemoths.

    The depth of the current morass makes the Gilded Age look fairly tame by comparison, and it's rapidly spiraling out of control.

    Just witness The "O" as he performs for the luxury boxes.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/25/2009 @ 1:19pm

17. Furthermore, an American President, any American President knows that we have to fight. This includes Barack Obama, who even though he has to be dragged kicking and screaming to a decision, knows that he has no choice.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/25/2009 @ 1:19pm

18. Posted by "the Licker" at 1:18pm

    Thanks. I enjoyed the unmasking.

    Now, do you call yours "Precious" like Steven does?

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/25/2009 @ 1:23pm

19. Posted by b_FOOL_66 at 11/25/2009 @ 1:19pm

    Reconciliation is not an option for democrats. If it is used, so many democrats who enjoy their cushy existance in the Senate will undoubtably see the error of the ways of the radicals in their midst and fall back on their basic instincts for political survival. Don't you understand that the country does not want this version of HC and that it is totally unaffordable?

    The adults understand it, especially the adults in the House and Senate. It's only for radicals, like those who contribute their so-called journalistic skills to this publication, who would even consider reconciliation in such an important piece of legislation.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/25/2009 @ 1:25pm

20. Now, do you call yours "Precious" like Steven does?

    Posted by b_FOOL_66 at 11/25/2009 @ 1:23pm

    Fool, no clue what the hell you're talking about.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/25/2009 @ 1:27pm

21. Before I take off and prepare to enjoy the holiday....

    We had broken the Japanese imperial code. We knew that they were on there knees and the emperor was ready to surrender.

    I know it blows a hole in the mythology, but the case is well documented. Carroll's "House of War" spends some time on the issue and furthermore, is an outstanding recapitulation of the thought process that led to such atrocities as the Dresden and Tokyo firebombings that, themselves, killed innocents on a scale similar to the atom bombs.

    We became addicted to Ultra Violence. It's what war ultimately leads to all too commonly.

    Incidentally, "War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning" by Chris Hedges is also highly recommended reading.

    I've been heaping high praise on Hedges for his masterwork, "Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy, and the Triumph of Spectacle", and I would nominate him as spokesperson for our planet in the wake of the death of Carl Sagan.

    We need many more with the courage of a Chris Hedges.

    He's a national treasure.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/25/2009 @ 1:34pm

22. Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/25/2009 @ 12:46pm

    I can't really complain about long posts, some of the short ones seem to just be incoherent text messages ("heheh" and "LOL" and "so much for ..." and "I can't answer your post so I'll put you on ignore" and "Just look at this website! It demolishes your pathetic argument!" and such) but if the post has nothing to do with the blog topic, wouldn't it be better to find a better place for it?

    Posted by Mistral at 11/25/2009 @ 1:40pm

23. A bill that will effect 6% of the nation's economy should be debated to the fullest measure. If the Senate cannot must the 60 votes it needs for passage, it should be scrapped. That's the way it works for both sides. If this were a good bill, which of course it is not for a myriad of reasons, or if it were popular, polls show it is not, democrats would have no problem in getting it through the Senate.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/25/2009 @ 12:31pm

    Actually, the way it works is that a bill needs 51 votes to become law.

    Posted by nkurland at 11/25/2009 @ 1:40pm

24. "....but if the post has nothing to do with the blog topic, wouldn't it be better to find a better place for it?"

    ~Mistral at 1:40pm

    Fair enough, Mistral. In my defense, I've been blogging here quite regularly since sometime around 2004 or so, and I suppose I figure I'll every so often take the liberty of posting something a bit lengthier than the usual post.

    I don't do it very often, --although I've had a few over the past week or two-- but I believe the 15oth anniversary of "The Origin of Species" is a pretty damned worthwhile cause for a lengthy treatment. Especially since it hasn't gotten nearly the press it deserves.

    And frankly, Darwin is always on topic if you simply scan the usual drivel that litters these blog spaces.

    We clearly have a whole of lot of evolving still to accomplish.

    I welcome reader comments. Thanks, Mistral.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/25/2009 @ 1:57pm

25. Posted by b_FOOL_66 at 11/25/2009 @ 1:34pm

    'We became addicted to Ultra Violence. It's what war ultimately leads to all too commonly.'

    FOOL, nobody during WWII was addicted to ultra violence. Japan attacked us. Hitler was extermininating millions in the killing centers. What we and the rest of our allies did succeed in doing in crushing our enemies in WWII was to make it clear that we would NEVER let that kind of agression rear it's ugly head again.

    Somwhere along the way, idiots like yourself were brainwashed into thinking that America was somehow responsible for gassing and shooting 14 million Jews, Gypsies, slavs, Homosexuals (that one should really piss you off), handicapped and POW's.

    Or that the Empire of Japan with their ruthless advances in Asia and in the pacific should have been allowed.

    Now you're on Obama's case because he, like all other President's with a brain, realizes that liberal votes are nice, but there are a whole lot more votes out there from people who are aware that there are people trying to destroy our country and need to be stopped.

    Enjoy your Thanksgiving. Say a prayer, as you're stuffing your face tomorrow for the guys and gals in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere in the world who are sacrificing there holiday so that you can go sit on your overstuffed, ignorant, fat ass and watch football as you fall asleep in your drunken , and drug induced stupor. Maybe for at least one second you can find it in your heart, (if you have one), to give thanks.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/25/2009 @ 2:12pm

26. I make it a point to point out hypocrisy on any side or BOTH sides....filubuster-busting is one such case. Before the Right loved it, the Left hated it....each has chnaged seats-

    "Maybe that's why Frist now calls the "nuclear option" the "constitutional option." Cloaking radical ideas in comforting language is a strategy that long precedes the GOP's recent filibuster flip-flop."---Ari Berman "The Nation"

    http://www.thenation.com/blogs/outrage/2194

    "As the filibuster battle drags on, the list of GOP holdouts might well shrink. It certainly has over the past two months. "Everybody's breaking towards us," says one pro-nuclear Republican Senate aide.

    Does that mean Frist has reached the magic number? The answer should come before Memorial Day."----Duncan Currie "The Weekly Standard"

    http://www.weeklystandard.com /Content/Public/Articles /000/000/005/541ogpls.asp

    Posted by Mask at 11/25/2009 @ 2:13pm

27. Isn't this the national version of the Massachusetts hypocracy of revoking and then reinstating the Governor's ability to appoint a Senator based purely on, let's call it what it is, TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY?

    The present generation of Libs and Dems are setting great examples, nice and fresh! You just remember all of this when Conservatives regain power, partially next year and mostly, if not completely, in 2012.

    The math for the GOP reaching 51 Senators isn't that daunting when a 3-year horizon is factored in!

    Posted by Happy at 11/25/2009 @ 2:34pm

28. We clearly have a whole of lot of evolving still to accomplish.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/25/2009 @ 1:57pm

    This misreading of evolution as a metaphor for progress was debunked by Stephen Jay Gould. People think of evolution colloquially as developing "higher" organisms out of "lower" organisms. But this is not the way it works in the real world: evolution just as often results in a decrease in complexity. Things only appear to "progress" because it's impossible to reduce complexity below that of single celled (or virus) organisms, while at the other end of the scale complexity can increase without limit.

    Posted by Mistral at 11/25/2009 @ 2:39pm

29. "Pro-democracy folks" want to dump the filibuster? Nonsense!

    In the ringing words of the Nation's own editorial board: "This is not an issue of Republican versus Democrat, nor even liberal versus conservative; this is a moment when we decide whether this country will remain a democracy in which those who govern must play by the rules, or will become a winner-take-all system where the gravest fear of the founders--tyranny of the majority--will be the lasting legacy of [the President and Congressional leadership]." (link: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050425/editors)

    I'm sure your board will be shocked--shocked!--to see you spouting such pro-tyranny, anti-democratic hooey.

    Posted by norge66 at 11/25/2009 @ 2:39pm

30. I'm sure your board will be shocked--shocked!--to see you spouting such pro-tyranny, anti-democratic hooey.

    Posted by norge66 at 11/25/2009 @ 2:39pm

    They're worried that the filibuster is anti-Democratic, not that it's anti-democratic.

    Posted by Mistral at 11/25/2009 @ 2:43pm

31. Posted by Happy at 11/25/2009 @ 2:34pm

    Sorry, Happ...can't quote Rush...how about his brother, David?

    April 08, 2005

    Invoking The "Nuclear Option" - There Is No Other

    "I must confess that I will begin to feel foolish recommending such restraint if there is any truth to the reports that Senate Republicans plan on abandoning the misnamed "nuclear option" to prevent the Democrat minority from filibustering the president's judicial appointments.

    If Republicans even think about caving on this issue, they will pay a price. This is no time for fecklessness. Democrats couldn't be more insincere when they complain that the nuclear option is designed to forestall debate or to give the president absolute power over judicial appointments.

    Senate Democrats have no business blocking his appointments for political or policy reasons. A rule to prevent them from doing what neither party ever did in the past is not changing the rules, and it is not exercising a nuclear option.

    I actually think this issue is so serious that it might, along with the immigration issue, eventually trigger an exodus of conservatives from the GOP. If those of us who advocate playing by the rules can't even count on GOP politicians to safeguard the president's judicial appointment power -- then what can we trust them to do?

    If they don't have the courage to exercise the non-nuclear, nuclear option, do you think we'll ever again get anyone to the right of David Souter appointed to the Supreme Court? And if we don't, they might as well just throw in the towel on the Culture War.

    This is a political hill to die on, and I pray GOP honchos wake up -- soon."----Posted by David Limbaugh at April 8, 2005 04:39 PM

    Posted by Mask at 11/25/2009 @ 2:44pm

32. BTW, no doubt our Right-wing friends will tell us it's "COMPLETELY DIFFERENT" on judicial appointees than health care bills.

    Why?...it just is...or similar long-winded rhetoric.

    Just as I'm sure Ms vanden Heuvel is today.

    Posted by Mask at 11/25/2009 @ 2:47pm

33. Yep, I'm guessing this is the same argument you roll out whenever a Bush or Reagan is trying to appoint an "originalist" judge rather than one of your "living document" types. That damn, unconstitutional, obstructionist filibuster! Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/25/2009 @ 1:05pm |

    I can recall Dems doing that with a Bush nominee because he hadn't done things like...be a judge...before he was nominated to the federal bench.

    How dare they exercise discretion in the face of nepotistic and/or twaddle-brained appointments.

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/25/2009 @ 2:55pm

34. Everybody loves the filibuster when it helps them and hates it when it hurts, so I can't blame Vanden Heuvel for sharing the common hypocrisy on that question.

    But to call it "pro democracy" to use it to pass a bill that the public strongly opposes is a more distinctive form of democracy on her part. Pass the bill if you want, and either reap the rewards or suffer the consequences, but don't insult our intelligence this way.

    The problem with reconciliation (and I'm sure Ms. Vanden Heuvel knows this) is that it is traditionally used for budget reconciliation (to ensure that they HAVE a budget). Using it here would be tantamount to admitting that the provisions affect taxes and are tax increases, that the bill is an IRS initiative, and that the provisions for jailing people for not having health insurance are serious. And then, of course, they wouldn't have the filibuster the next time THEY wanted to use it. They could do it, but it's not as simple as she pretends.

    Posted by Graeme at 11/25/2009 @ 2:59pm

35. Correction: "Distinctive form of democracy" should have read "distinctive form of hypocrisy" in the last. I have no idea why every time I watch the Congress in action (both parties) I start to confuse those two words...

    Posted by Graeme at 11/25/2009 @ 3:03pm

36. that the provisions for jailing people for not having health insurance are serious.

    Posted by Graeme at 11/25/2009 @ 2:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    is that really in there?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/25/2009 @ 3:11pm

37. well, it appears the big business supporters still wish to saddle american business with the extraneous, expensive, time consuming and distracting task of doing something other than concentrating on their business...

    like providing social services at least as well provided by a public entity.

    pro business? dumping this crap on business is "PRO BUSINESS"?!?!?!?!?

    goddamn america. grow up and get with the program and stop supporting moronic ideologues with a profit to make on your misery, poor health, and ignorance.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/25/2009 @ 3:24pm

38. Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/25/2009 @ 3:11pm

    "is that really in there?"

    Of course it is. Where do you get your news from? Pelosi and Obama were defending it a couple of weeks ago. Obama says that people who don't pay for comprehensive insurance are free-riding on the system. The IRS will collect a 2.5 percent income penalty for those without government-specified (i.e., high cost) health insurance, and if you don't pay it, you can be put in jail for up to five years. This is scary, and unprecedented.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/25/2009 @ 3:53pm

39. By the way, statements to the effect that health reform is popular are simply lies. The latest Rasmussen poll has Obama's popularity at negative 15, with the major reason being most people don't want the socialized medicine bill passed.

    "Current poll data are brutal for the Democrats. In the Rasmussen survey, President Obama's approval index, the difference between those who strongly approve and strongly disapprove of his performance, has hit a record low of -15. Overall, voters disapprove of Obama by 54-45%. That's no doubt in part because voters have also turned decisively against the Democrats' health care proposals, opposing them, currently, by 56-38%.

    Meanwhile, voters now favor Republicans over Democrats by seven points on the generic ballot, 44-37%."

    www.powerlineblog.com

    Posted by pontificus at 11/25/2009 @ 3:56pm

40. Gold up another $21 today. The destruction of the dollar continues apace. Hope and Change!

    Posted by pontificus at 11/25/2009 @ 3:59pm

41. We clearly have a whole of lot of evolving still to accomplish.

    Posted by b kool at 1:57pm

    This misreading of evolution as a metaphor for progress was debunked by Stephen Jay Gould...

    Posted by Mistral at 2:39pm

    Hey, Mistral. That was a thoroughly tongue in cheek statement which I would have thought was fairly obvious.

    That's one of the problems of typed communication, of course. Lack of the ability to convey inflection and a bit of sarcasm.

    Anyhoo, the larger point holds that we as a species have been shaping our own evolution at least since the honing of the first crude tools. Now, the process of self-contrived evolution is in overdrive.

    Here's hoping we don't drive over the proverbial cliff. Catch you guys on the flip.

    Peace, ~B

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/25/2009 @ 3:59pm

42. Here's a short list of The Nation articles that seem to advocate the use of the filibuster. At the end of the day both sides, if they were honest, would admit if it helps them it's good; if it helps the opposition it's bad.

    Just saying.....

    "I Am Free--To Think--To Speak" posted by Katrina vanden Heuvel on 03/02/2005

    Fight for the Filibuster posted by John Nichols on 04/26/2005

    Checks, Balances and the Duty to Filibuster posted by John Nichols on 01/27/2006

    Frist's Fury Over Filibusters posted by John Nichols on 11/15/2004

    The No-Nuke Deal posted by David Corn on 05/24/2005

    Fight for the Filibuster posted by Peter Rothberg on 05/23/2005

    Posted by Incoming at 11/25/2009 @ 4:02pm

43. "Of course, the reason conservative members of the Democratic Caucus are able to wield such power is the anti-democratic, not constitutionally-mandated filibuster, which requires a super-majority of 60 Senators to pass legislation."

    What does "constitutionally-mandated" have to do with anything? Certainly the underlying health care bill is not "constitutionally-mandated," or even constitutional, for that matter. If we did things that were only constitutionally-mandated...well, there wouldn't be a lot of things we'd be doing.

    In the Senate, we have unlimited debate for two reasons: First, senators are only elected every six years, so "getting the job done quickly" isn't exactly their main concern. Second, senators were originally elected by their state legislatures, so obeying the "popular will" wasn't a prime concern either - this is obviously not as true today, although I wish it were. Today's is a fairly strong version of the cloture rule - for a while, the senate required a 2/3 vote to end debate; briefly, the vote was 2/3 of all senators.

    Of course the filibuster is "anti-democratic." But we are a republic, not a democracy. The entirety of the Constitution is "anti-democratic." Forbidding Congress from making laws that might be very popular is certainly not democratic! Is it "democratic" to forbid states from "pass[ing] any...law impairing the obligation of contracts" or forbidding Congress from passing any "bill of attainder or ex post facto Law?" No!

    Democracy is the unlimited pursuit of the people's will. Republics limit that Democracy somewhat by removing the people from the action directly. Constitutions further limit Democracy by limiting what can be done.

    Yes, the filibuster is anti-democratic, and we are better for it.

    Posted by art.vandenlay at 11/25/2009 @ 4:15pm

44. Anyhoo, the larger point holds that we as a species have been shaping our own evolution at least since the honing of the first crude tools. Now, the process of self-contrived evolution is in overdrive. Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/25/2009 @ 3:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    As Dennett, Dawkins et al currently are arguing, the consciousness of self may be more of a non-localized experience of genetically encoded, causally determined biological functions which serve the "interests" of genes, but not human beings, species or individual. We may be merely passengers on the evolutionary ride,, and have no say in whether we go over the cliff. Of course, this view is similar to the much older teachings of the East, especially Buddhism, Tao and Zen.

    nevertheless, even if it's a ride as a passenger, it's certainly a great experience. I share your hope, and wish you a peaceful and contented Turkey weekend.

    Posted by gren at 11/25/2009 @ 4:29pm

45. I love humor columns. This is one of the best. It helps us cope with reality. Thanks for the laugh Katrina.

    Posted by victormature at 11/25/2009 @ 4:39pm

46. The 60 vote necessity is proving its worth right now, for without it, this country would be governed by a political philosophy barely 20% of the population supports.

    Posted by mrboast at 11/25/2009 @ 5:03pm

47. Congratulations on aiming at the real target. Pundits and web sites on the left as well as the right seem obsessed with finding reasons why President Obama should be blamed for failing to pass this legislation by dictatorial fiat. He is not the problem; nor is he the enemy.

    Posted by mmacdon at 11/25/2009 @ 5:36pm

48. "We had broken the Japanese imperial code. We knew that they were on there knees and the emperor was ready to surrender. "

    That is absolute rubbish. The only terms that Japan was prepared to accept before the atomic bombings were 1) only a token occupation, 2) the Japanese handle their own disarmament, 3) the military regime, not just the Emperor, were to remain in power and 4) no trials of alleged Japanese war criminals.

    There was considerable opinion in the Japanese cabinet that they could get better terms if they held off on negotiation until they had badly bloodied the Americans on Kyushu.

    Even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there were enough hard-liners to attempt a coup to avert Japanese surrender.

    Posted by brunowe at 11/25/2009 @ 5:39pm

49. I used to get really annoyed at Sen. Norm Coleman's insistence that the filibuster should be done away with. Now that my party is in control again I like the idea of getting rid of it. And the adventure begins again... the adventure ends during the next computerized voting machine fraud, then I'll want it back again.

    Posted by Milhaus at 11/25/2009 @ 5:42pm

50. Some fair system. PROTECT THE PRIMO-HEALTH CARE FOR THE RICH and THE LIFE-TERMERS, THEY NEED THE BEST. Expense- all other

    Only people who haven't had the courage to leave the United States don't know how screwed, chewed and BBQ'd we really are here. It's like those who JUST BELIEVE. Believe you know it all. Don't bother with the facts. BELIEVE..BELIEVE

    My vote-ABOLISH the ANT-I-TRUST and I will trust Wal-mart to do the job. And do it very well. Face it. You will get a day to die. And even if you are sitting at the Mayo Clinic, that may not even keep the grim reaper away. Everyone dies. Even you with insurance.

    Just get rid of the rip-off health care we have now. If you are on Medicaid with no income besides the gov(social security, diability, etc.) then you just go to the Emergency Room and line up for your $25,000 one hour stint operation, a fews days rest at about $3,000 per day and your good to go.

    Or if you are a crackhead, meth head, or heroin addict ...get your free health care..Some pain Medication, and a bed for the night. $2,300. Yes, I've seen it happen. Ridiculous A suite at the Four Seasons is less. Yet, The U.S. is paying that(60%)Rip. Or if you get your Medicare...do you care about the price...hell, no as long as you don't have to pay...let the US pick up the rip-off price. Don't even bother to look at the bill. Not your concern. Just keep getting yours.

    For others pay as you go. $465 for a 15 min fish hook removal. $485 for 2 X-rays. Ridiculous Since this debate started I've asked many people in my con. community what their experiences have been. 4 thought covered, each owned several thousand that wasn't covered. One a nurse who gave her own kid an IV...Charged over $600. Again, Ridulous.. FREE MARKET HEALTH CARE

    Posted by sandyj321 at 11/25/2009 @ 6:00pm

51. Posted by brunowe at 11/25/2009 @ 5:39pm

    You need to reread your history. Our firebombing of Japanese cities already had Japan on its knees. The dropping of the nuclear bombs was a signal to the Soviets.

    The Japanese were already talking peace with the Soviets on August 2nd. And while there was hard-line coup, it is doubtful that it would have been successful even if the bombs had not been dropped.

    Posted by srjenkins at 11/25/2009 @ 6:05pm

52. Katrina is correct that the filibuster is effectively a super-majority and it is a check on the power of the majority. Whether that is good or bad usually depends on where you sit. It seems like only yesterday that Republicans didn't like the filibuster because Democrats were using it to block Bush's judicial appointments.

    Personally, I think its a good speed bump. Without the filibuster, it would be too easy to make important changes without a consensus that the change should be made and it would be too easy to undo acts of prior Congresses every couple of years. The Senate is supposed to be a deliberative body that is less subject to the passions of the day that the House. I say keep the filibuster. It protects us all.

    Posted by dfurth at 11/25/2009 @ 6:47pm

53. Comrade Katrina only likes the filibuster when it suits her agenda. Or is she for the MA Kennedy Senator replacement scheme. When a Republican is Governer, change the law so he can't appoint someone to fill a vacancy such as 2004 when Kerry ran for Pres and then change it back when Kennedy dies so a Democratic Governer can make an instant appointment. I suppose Katrina would make the fulibuster legal only when the Democrats are in the minority. Personally after watching these morons on both sides of the isle pass crap for the past 40 yrs, I think nothing should be made law with less then 66 votes.

    Posted by mike-usn-ret at 11/25/2009 @ 7:40pm

54. >>>" Once that was accomplished, reconciliation would still be "enormously complicated and depends on the Parliamentarian ruling that a proposal falls within specified budgetary contours." <<<

    I don't know who this staffer is KVH, but I think she is OVERSTATING the complexity of the Budget Reconciliation process. If Bush could get 3 tax cuts through budget reconciliation, why can't the Dems get this done with healthcare?

    Wiki does a decent job on describing the process:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)

    Posted by Metteyya at 11/25/2009 @ 7:43pm

55. In fact, since nearly everything AFFECTS the budget, the Dems should be using budget reconciliation as often as the Repubs use the filibuster. This will stop the unconstitutional use of the filibuster right in its tracks.

    If Pelosi and Reid do NOT know how to use the power they have, then they should step aside and let someone else who does take command.

    Posted by Metteyya at 11/25/2009 @ 7:48pm

56. Maybe one day will invade some country because of a 51 vote. But since Clinton, the "Bipartisan party of NO" which only takes 41 has been the real democracy killer!

    41 forty one 41 forty one 41 forty one 41 forty one

    is killing people killing people, killing the Founders hopes, killing the planet

    Posted by winyahn at 11/25/2009 @ 7:55pm

57. Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/25/2009 @ 1:03pm:

    You are dead wrong about the bombing of Japan. The only alternative to avoid invasion was the bomb because Japan would Never surrender. More-over, an invasion would have meant the complete destruction of the country plus Russia was preparing to invade from the north which would have resulted in a partitioned Japan when it was all over. Casualty estimates of an invasion were 1 million American and 12 million Japanese, minimum. The war had to be ended quickly. Even after the second bomb, it took the Emperor to override the military and declare a surrender.

    Posted by pyeatte at 11/25/2009 @ 9:12pm

58. I'm not sure abolishing the filibuster would be a good thing. Sure right now you(Katrina) thinks its a bad thing to have yet in the same paragraph you state "what would have happened if President Bush and a Republican Congress had pursued a similar tactic? Writer and longtime Nation contributor Thomas Geoghegan questions that fear: "Let's deal with the canard that the filibuster 'saved' us from Bush." Whats wrong with trying to prevent an incomplete resolution from coming to fruition. Why not debate until the best possible solution is discovered. Whats the rush. Rather than abolishing the filibuster wouldn't it be better to perfect it's use and put certain limitations so that it doesn't totally hold up the process, but refines it.

    Posted by DrPiggy at 11/25/2009 @ 9:37pm

59. Hillary troll?

    Posted by winyahn at 11/25/2009 @ 9:41pm

60. Katrina, You are wrong. The filibuster is not unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled in US vs. Ballin (1892) that the House and Senate are parlimentary bodies that are free to make up the rules that govern their operation and do so by a majority vote. The Filibuster is a precedent in the Senate and not having a time limit on a senators speech is an operational principle established by a majority of the Senate. Your entire thesis is therefore invalid.

    I wonder, when the Democrats were filibustering GW Bush's judicial appointments, were you equally opposed to the filibuster then??? I suspect not.

    Posted by ThePowerPickle at 11/25/2009 @ 10:04pm

61. I wonder, when the Democrats were filibustering GW Bush's judicial appointments, were you equally opposed to the filibuster then??? I suspect not. Posted by ThePowerPickle at 11/25/2009 @ 10:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    if only they had. I don't recall any filibuster at all.

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/25/2009 @ 10:32pm

62. I understand Katrina's point however I want to point out that it was supported with a statements that I find to be untrue.

    The assertion that only the Republicans "abused" the filibuster doesn't make sense. I specifically remember during the Bush years that many bills failed cloture votes and were dropped because the Democrats threatened to veto. Many more bills didn't even come to the floor because the Democrats let it be known that they would filibuster. I'm disturbed that Katrina goes out of her way to count the cloture votes during Republican Minority in 93-94 and 97-98 but not the number from 2001-2006 when the democrats were in the minority with a Republican president. The assertion that no judges were denied confirmation because of the filibuster is simply not true. Many never made it out of committee because the democrats said they would filibuster. Doesn't she remember the bipartisan group of moderate senators from both parties that compromised on judges? Their goals was to remove the threat of the Republican nuclear option because there were a large number of democratic senators that had "litmus" tests for judges that would have denied confirmation to any non-liberal leaning judge being confirmed.

    Secondly, the thought that Blanche Lincoln or Mary Landreau are "conservative democrats" is ludicrous. They would support the public option if they lived in another State. Are they wrong not to represent their constituents or to desire re-election?

    I would like to enact my beliefs into law, however I do not think it right to insist that the Republicans live by the filibuster when they are in the majority and then stab them in the back as soon as we are back in power. We promised a post partisan world. Or was that only for people who agreed with us?

    Posted by bsmllc at 11/25/2009 @ 10:37pm

63. The assertion that only the Republicans "abused" the filibuster doesn't make sense. I specifically remember during the Bush years that many bills failed cloture votes and were dropped because the Democrats threatened to veto. Many more bills didn't even come to the floor because the Democrats let it be known that they would filibuster.

    Posted by bsmllc at 11/25/2009 @ 10:37pm

    She makes this point that during the "Bush" years, hence the statement, "Let's deal with the canard that the filibuster 'saved' us from Bush." I think the issue with each party especially now is that when it's not working to there advantage they want to abolish it. Seems to me many in politics would like to use it like a light switch,turn it off when they it works against them then turn it back on when it works to there advantage. You know the old saying "you can't have your cake and eat it to".

    Posted by DrPiggy at 11/25/2009 @ 11:01pm

64. .......I do not think it right to insist that the Republicans live by the filibuster when they are in the majority and then stab them in the back as soon as we are back in power. We promised a post partisan world. Or was that only for people who agreed with us?

    Posted by bsmllc at 11/25/2009 @ 10:37pm

    Silly (but a fair & balanced) you.......you know KvH's answer to that last question. It's the same answer as just about all Lefties on this blog.

    Posted by Happy at 11/25/2009 @ 11:07pm

65. Katrina Vanden Heuvel is BLOODY IDIOT.

    Filibusters are the only way that the minority power in Senate has any power at all in legislative process.

    The framers of the constitution PURPOSEFULLY made it difficult to pass laws, making sure that checks and balances exist in all branches of government precisely so that, as much as possible, majorities would be behind the passage of any law.

    What this fool calls "dysfunctionality" is what the founding fathers were aiming for to make sure that congressmen from less populous and less wealthy states could still have an egalitarian voice in the governing body.

    Just like a true liberal, Vanden Heuvel thinks she's smarter than the founding fathers, calling the entire consitution dysfunctional because it is blocking a law that she wants.

    She asks, what's wrong with the system of government that my pet law won't pass? When she should be asking, what's wrong with my pet law that's keeping it from passing?

    Posted by TonyV at 11/25/2009 @ 11:09pm

66. Hurricane Katrina. The reason why this bill is in deep trouble is because it's a bad bill, not because of the filibuster. Let's take a good look.

    1. It dosen't bend the cost curve. Wasn't this the main reason we started this whole process? 2. Faulty accounting. Does anyone believe we are going to root out waste and fraud in Medicare to pay for this? ha ha ha! 3. The majority of the american public is against the bill 4. The Louisiana Purchase. If it's such a great bill...why do we have to bribe a Democrat with $300 million? nuff said. 5. Honesty. Adding millions of people into the system is not going to save us money. 6. Timing. Let's focus on jobs and the deficit instead of trillion dollar entitlement programs 7. Unconstitutional. Americans get fined for not having health insurance? Really? 8. 100% Partisan. Why can't we buy insurance across state lines? GREAT idea. I could go on and on...but you get the picture.

    Posted by russwaehler at 11/25/2009 @ 11:35pm

67. >>>Katrina Vanden Heuvel is BLOODY IDIOT. Posted by TonyV at 11/25/2009 @ 11:09pm<<<

    If you believe the Founders intended to trump the simple majority requirement to pass legislation with "Senate rules", then YOU are the idiot! Why stop at 60 votes? Why not have a Senate rule that says you need 100% of the Senate to pass legislation if Senate rules are supposed to trump the Constitution?

    >>>I do not think it right to insist that the Republicans live by the filibuster when they are in the majority and then stab them in the back as soon as we are back in power. Posted by bsmllc at 11/25/2009 @ 10:37pm<<<

    You sound like a Republican pretending to be a Democrat. I say take the power the voters gave us to pursue a progressive vision of America, and only reach out to Republicans when they can be helpful in solving the myriad of problems facing this country. I think we can get a lot Republican support for serious campaign finance reform - publicly funded elections - but on healthcare they have NEVER been interested in reform at all.

    We will work with Republicans when we can, but when they routinely thwart majority rule by abusing the filibuster, will use ALL power at our disposal - including a "proportional" increase in the use of budget reconciliation in response to filibusters - to pursue the progressive vision of America the voters voted for on November 4th of last year.

    Posted by Metteyya at 11/26/2009 @ 02:09am

68. Even after the second bomb, it took the Emperor to override the military and declare a surrender.

    Posted by pyeatte at 11/25/2009 @ 9:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Stupid libs! The U.S. was massing troops in california who came straight from battle victory in europe ie the 45th division by passed Okla. straight to Cal. to prepare for invasion of Japan with casualty estimates at 80% to 90%! To bad is wasn't their fathers and grandfathers who would have died if we hadn't dropped the two bombs!

    Posted by IndianLease at 11/26/2009 @ 05:01am

69. Remember how the libs screamed under Clinton and the first four years of Bush when "Cloture" was considered? The national liberal media went bonkers on it and now they ignore it when Demwits used it to ram unwanted healthcare takeovers down our throats!

    Make it illegal for Demwits to use filibuster next time!

    Posted by IndianLease at 11/26/2009 @ 05:05am

70. Oh, that's just what I want, Metteyya, a "progressive" vision of America. When hell freezes. You, Katrina, and your ilk have already done enough to lower this country's standards. Republicans are against this bill because IT IS A BAD BILL, not because they don't want to try to improve healthcare in this country. But as usual, you're about doing something, anything. You don't care if it's a credible idea, you just care if it "sounds progressive." Well-intended bad ideas are the centerpiece of American liberalism, historically; yet you press on, hell bent on more money (that we don't have) spent in the service of waste. If progressives could be honest for one second about the truth of bureaucracy, inefficiency, corruption/graft, unions, then Republicans and centrist Democrats could sit down and have a reasonable conversation with you. But you can't, so we won't. In the meantime, you'll go on with your evil stereotypes re white men, corporations, etc etc.

    I can't wait til Katrina goes on This Week again; I love watching George Will make mincemeat of her....

    Posted by uck at 11/26/2009 @ 05:13am

71. Two Points

    GWB Used Reconciliation several times?

    We had a deal with Russia "granting" him Eastern Europe. Would he have risked that?

    Posted by N2Sman at 11/26/2009 @ 06:42am

72. 1. The dems fought "tooth and nail" to keep the filibuster during the Bush Term Im sure KVH felt the same way as they did.

    2. Laws passed from reconciliation would need to be re-newed, just as bush's tax cuts expired.

    KHV, the majority of americans DO NOT supports this health care legislation...you are in the minority.

    PS. notice the huge budget gaps in maryland and virginia. where do you think they are going to get the money to pay for expanded medicaid benefits.

    it would be nice if you would blow off the dust on the legislation and actually READ IT!

    Posted by lilvinnyb at 11/26/2009 @ 07:53am

73. Before the bombs were dropped, Japan was warned and leaflets were dropped to give civilians time to evacuate.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/25/2009 @ 1:18pm

    leaflets tied to incendiaries make for tough reading.

    One should recall that LeMay was likely a sociopath.

    Posted by Blair Wooff at 11/26/2009 @ 08:06am

74. Yes Blair, I know that but the question is was Russia a deterrent to our dropping the 2 A bombs on Japan as posed above.

    Posted by N2Sman at 11/26/2009 @ 08:41am

75. The filibuster is an abomination on the constitution, an abcess that needs to be lanced asap. The minority IS the minority and they should act and be treated as such. No grandstanding bullsh*t filibuster rule which would be ammended by the founders if they saw it now should be in place. My understanding of the Parlimentary system is - you are the minority sit down, shut up-we, the majority, have business to attend to. This is for Dem or Rep. We the govt and voters are so fu**ed up with this I could throw up. If there are Aliens out there near Earth I do not blame them for not contacting us-Do we try to talk to a swarm of Killer Bees?

    Posted by N2Sman at 11/26/2009 @ 10:48am

76. yet you press on, hell bent on more money (that we don't have) spent in the service of waste.

    yes, Afghanistan, Iraq... get the picture?

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/26/2009 @ 10:53am

77. 41 forty one 41 forty one 41 forty one 41 forty one

    killing people killing people

    killing the Founders hopes

    killing the planet

    ---------------------- let's go with 55 then! I wonder if this will ever see the light of day. I would love to think post health care, it may.

    Posted by winyahn at 11/26/2009 @ 12:53pm

78. Why not have the filibuster option?Legislation seems to be a two way street.The party in power shapes and makes,the opposition does just that.The Republican party is using the filibuster as an art form so find a different way to keep things moving.The problem today is the corporate Senators that are running things in Washington.They are on both sides of the aisle.If someone who posts here doesn't think we have to "reform"our health care system they plain just don't get it.Unfortunately for Americans the corporate Senators in both parties seem to have won the day.When Joe Lieberman threatens a filibuster and he has taken $2 million from insurance companies,run a banner headline.Crook takes $2 million to oppose reform.

    Posted by whatozz at 11/26/2009 @ 1:02pm

79. THANKSGIVING WISDOM FOR AMERICAN SOCIALIST/PROGRESSIVES

    On Thanksgiving, it is customary that Americans recall to mind the experience of the Pilgrim Fathers This year, it is especially appropriate that we do so--as we pause, in the midst of an economic maelstrom, to count our remaining blessings and to reflect on the consequences of our election of a President and a Congress intent on "spread[ing] the wealth around."

    We have much to learn from the history of the Plymouth Plantation. For, in their first year in the New World, the Pilgrims conducted an experiment in social engineering akin to what is now contemplated; and, after an abortive attempt at cultivating the land in common, their leaders reflected on the results in a manner that Americans today should find instructive.

    William Bradford, Governor of the Plymouth Colony, reports that, at that time, he and his advisers considered "how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery." And "after much debate of things," he then adds, they chose to abandon communal property, deciding that "they should set corn every man for his own particular" and assign "to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end."

    The results, he tells us, were gratifying in the extreme, "for it made all hands very industrious" and "much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been." Even "the women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression."

    Posted by pontificus at 11/26/2009 @ 1:05pm

80. THANKSGIVING WISDOM FOR AMERICAN SOCLIAST/PROGESSIVES PART 2

    Moreover, he observes, "the experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years . . . amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times . . . that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing." In practice, America's first socialist experiment "was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort."

    In practice, "the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors and victuals, clothes etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it."

    Posted by pontificus at 11/26/2009 @ 1:06pm

81. THANKSGIVING WISDOM FOR AMERICAN SOCIALIST/PROGRESSIVES PART 3

    Naturally enough, quarrels ensued. "If it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men," Bradford notes, "yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And [it] would have been worse if they had been men of another condition" less given to the fear of God. "Let none object," he concludes, that "this is men's corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them."

    The moral is perfectly clear. Self-interest cannot be expunged. Where there is private property and its possession and acquisition are protected and treated with respect, self-interest and jealousy can be deployed against laziness and the desire for that which is not one's own, and there tends to be plenty as a consequence.

    But where one takes from those who join talent with industry to provide for those lacking either or both, where the fruits of one man's labor are appropriated to benefit another who is less productive, self-interest reinforces laziness, jealousy engenders covetousness, and these combine in a bitter stew to produce both conflict and dearth.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/26/2009 @ 1:06pm

82. I just wanted to add my support for the weakening of the cloture threshold to a simple majority, in order for it to mesh with the intended functioning of the Senate. That this obscure not-constitutionally mandated procedural rule gives a fractional minority the ability to impede the functioning of our greatest deliberative body is a travesty. Further, it has been abused more and more frequently: in the 1950s, only 8% of legislation faced a filibuster threat, whereas in the last congress, a staggering 70% of proposed legislation was held hostage by the maneuver. The filibuster prevents the Senate from acting in a responsive and effective manner, rendering it helplessly hostage to a tiny minority of senators who themselves represent a tiny fraction of the nation's population. This is undemocratic.

    gunslinger1 contends that "A bill that will effect 6% of the nation's economy should be debated to the fullest measure." Indeed, it should. But that cannot truly be done when a supermajority of senators needs to be coerced into support simply to DEBATE the bill. Again, this is not a democratic process. A majority of senators want this bill to be debated, and a majority of senators want this bill to be passed, yet the unrealistic supermajority requirement precludes the translation of the will into meaningful legislation.

    Further, gunslinger1 adds "The filibuster is the only safeguard we have left to keep radicals from ruling the roost." Yet in the instance of HC reform, 56 senators consistently support the bill -- far greater than a simple majority, and hardly the "radicals" he refers to. Rather, it is the radicals of the obstructionist right, whose obstinate and regressive mentalities, invoke with increasing frequency, a procedural roadblock to stymie meaningful

    Posted by kirquaker at 11/26/2009 @ 2:10pm

83. CONT'D

    legislation, precisely when the nation needs it most. It is in the immediate sense extremely frustrating, but in the long run, very harmful. For the Right are obstructing progress in a time of crises. Be sure to send your thanks and regards to the Party of No.

    Posted by kirquaker at 11/26/2009 @ 2:12pm

84. Again, this is not a democratic process. A majority of senators want this bill to be debated, and a majority of senators want this bill to be passed, yet the unrealistic supermajority requirement precludes the translation of the will into meaningful legislation.

    Further, gunslinger1 adds "The filibuster is the only safeguard we have left to keep radicals from ruling the roost." Rather, it is the radicals of the obstructionist right, whose obstinate and regressive mentalities, invoke with increasing frequency, a procedural roadblock to stymie meaningful

    Posted by kirquaker at 11/26/2009 @ 2:10pm

    It's not a democratic process and shouldn't be. We are a republic, not a pure democracy.

    The founders in their wisdom had studied history and found that a pure democracy was one of the worst forms of govt after totalitarianism.

    John Quincy Adams - "The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived."

    Noah Webster - "In democracy … there are commonly tumults and disorders … Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth."

    James Madison - "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights ofproperty; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

    John Adams - "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/26/2009 @ 4:04pm

85. "It's not a democratic process and shouldn't be. We are a republic, not a pure democracy."

    Ok, Granted. And the illuminating selection of quotations is highly appreciated; I'm not sure how much of a Thanksgiving it would be without the annual Websterian aphorism.

    But the fact remains that this initially obscure procedure has insidiously weaseled its way into the everyday functioning of the Senate, precluding the elected majority from transmitting its will into law. The American People deride congress (65% disapproval) precisely because of this insurmountable roadblock.

    And this prevents the public-at-large from judging elected representatives on actual, positive merits -- those of policy -- for they are prevented from enacting substantive law. The incentive for the minority then becomes stalling and killing legislation, rather than offer alternatives.

    Posted by kirquaker at 11/26/2009 @ 4:48pm

86. BullSh*t pontificus, let the Capitalists be sent to Oblivion for the "every man for himself, for the common good" crap. You saw what GB and gang did to the country in 8 looooong years. Go Go Go Capitalists - No rules - No Regulations - Derivatives up the kazoo - Leverage up the a**. Are you kidding me. AND they are at it with O's permission again! You never learn your lesson, Pilgrims Smilgrims !! To quote a Russian dictator "we will bury you" He didn't but Progressive-Liberals WILL. How long do you think the very rich 5% will own 95% of the wealth of the country. Forever you think! Yes some Capitalism is good : The corner restaurant, pharmacy etc. But the strangle hold you and your fellow philosophers (I use the term loosely) have aided the 5% to have on Our country WILL be ended one day!!! Although I know why GB is smirking all the time-He knows the above.

    Posted by N2Sman at 11/26/2009 @ 7:25pm

87. I must comment on the "Democracy can't work' diatribe. I'm probably not learned enough for a full dissertation on Democracy per se. But I know the following : The Lobbying obscenity contrived to its latest Frankenstein form is Killing our "Democracy". Also and finally , for now, the Zillions of dollars spent in our elections by private contributors is a sure poison to our "Democracy". I don't know if Democracy can work given a chance but the above abominations must be ended.

    Posted by N2Sman at 11/26/2009 @ 7:36pm

88. One day when [url=http://www.wowgoldinfo.info]wow gold[/url]LV Bags women's dresses were [url=http://www.maple-story-mesos.com/]maplestory mesos[/url]Replica Watcheson sale [url=http://www.dandear.com/]Fashion jewelry[/url]at the Far East Department Store, a [url=http://www.replicawatches8.com]Replica Watches[/url]dignified Replica Rolex [url=http://www.aion-gold-buy.com]aion gold[/url] middle-aged man

    Posted by qqlovee at 11/26/2009 @ 8:37pm

89. <a href="http://www.replicahandbags963.com">Designer Handbags</a> <a href="http://www.replicahandbags963.com">Louis Vuitton replica handbags</a> <a href="http://www.replicahandbags963.com">Replica Handbags</a> <a href="http://www.rolexreplica123.com">Replica Rolex</a> <a href="http://www.rolexreplica123.com">Replica watches</a> <a href="http://www.rolexreplica123.com">Rolex Replica</a> <a href="http://www.rolexreplica123.com">Rolex shop</a> <a href="http://www.rolexreplica123.com">Rolex</a> <a href="http://www.gucci-handbags.org">Gucci bag</a> <a href="http://www.gucci-handbags.org">Gucci handbags</a> <a href="http://www.gucci-handbags.org">Gucci</a> <a href="http://www.louisvuittoninfo.com">Louis Vuitton</a> <a href="http://www.louisvuittoninfo.com">LV Bags</a>

    Posted by qqlovee at 11/26/2009 @ 8:38pm

90. A young louis vuitton replica cowherd named Designer Handbags designer replica bags Niulang the cowherd happens across designer handbagsseven fairy sisters bathing in a lake. Encouraged by his replica louis vuitton mischievous companion the ox,

    Posted by qqlovee at 11/26/2009 @ 8:39pm

91. Well people, the Senate used to be appointed instead of elected.That should give you a little insight into their procedures and traditions.A much more conservative institution than the House.Look at how our favorite western Senator manipulated his Finance Committee for weeks and got maximum exposure and campaign money for himself from the people he is supposedly going to reform.He helped torpedo any type of reform through his personal form of foot dragging.Any time an obstructionist minority party comes up with their idea of reform tells any thinking person that there is credence to the idea that our health care system needs an overhaul.Max was so slow however, that he allowed the enemies of reform to crank up their media machines.What would these representatives think if they had medical bills proportionate to the ones that bankrupted their constituents?What would they do if they didn't have the Naval Hospital at Bethesda to get treated at?How about having procedures not covered as determined by a faceless health care bureaucrat?Who is footing the bill for their insurance?Do we the taxpayer pay it or does the Congressperson?So now we will have a watered down bill caused by conservative Democrats and a President that forgot about" changing "America.The millions that donated small amounts of money to the President are waiting to see if their donation will be repaid.They are seeing that the Senate is hopelessly lost in corporate contributions.We the people's only filibuster is an election.Let's make the correct decision moving forward.

    Posted by whatozz at 11/26/2009 @ 8:59pm

92. Posted by N2Sman at 11/26/2009 @ 7:25pm

    "BullSh*t pontificus, let the Capitalists be sent to Oblivion for the "every man for himself, for the common good" crap."

    Stop drinking the kool-aid, son. Read and understand. You can deny reality with your profanities etc., but the fact remains that every socialist society has failed, and this country was built on the principles that you have been duped into hating. I will close with Governor William Bradfords observations on human nature:

    "Let none object," he concludes, that "this is men's corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them."

    Posted by pontificus at 11/26/2009 @ 9:04pm

93. One should recall that LeMay was likely a sociopath.

    Posted by Blair Wooff at 11/26/2009 @ 08:06am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Clearly psychological projection at best from an inmate!

    Posted by BigPasture at 11/27/2009 @ 12:11am

94. ponti my man, Read me again. I do not want t0 eliminate Capitalism. Capitalism is like a wild NFL player-He must be guided closely, some more rules regulations) for him on a daily basis. Especially when he succeeds he need calming and if nec, a taking to to bring him back to reality. (Blankenfein could use this service) Tell me true pont: the dabacle caused by the Reagan through shrubs into 2008 and almost a Depression was started by RWR (ke deregulate all) Clinton drank the Kool Aid and continued such (Nafta). But bush*t made it into an art form, increasin the deficit from a surplus given him, giving massive tax cuts to the Rich primarily with money we did not have, and allowing, cheering Wall St to go Bananas with Bad Loans, Derivatives, leveraged money to the Hilt and beyond, and stock manipulation. When are you ever going to understand these wild boys must have independene regulation, must be broken up-start with GoldG, and must be constantly WATCHED by independent bodies.

    Posted by N2Sman at 11/27/2009 @ 07:06am

95. Posted by N2Sman at 11/27/2009 @ 07:06am

    Thanks for repeating the leftist narrative for the nth time I've heard it here at The Nation and elsewhere. I think it's utter nonsense, of course, but you ably repeat it, albeit you could perhaps use a dictionary for some of the more difficult words.

    Reagan rescued this nation from Carter's lunacy, if you lived through this period you would know what I'm talking about. Obviously you didn't and therefore don't.

    Today's crisis was caused by liberal regulation of banks requiring them to discard traditional lending requirements for social reasons. That's the reason why the housing bubble was created in the first place. Blaming it all on 'unregulated capitalism' is akin to a pagan religion blaming bad weather on the gods being angry. Before you start throwing any virgins in virtual volcanoes, you should take the time to research the crisis a little more analytically.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/27/2009 @ 07:57am

96. Well Blowhard answer me this ,who are all the "new"foreclosures?These economic policies have been in place for 25 years now.They have celebrated running a company over contributing to a company's growth and strength.It is the real out growth of where Ron made his living ,the entertainment industry.Let's put the spotlight on our leaders of industry,sports,and entertainment.Let's change the economic relationship between owners and workers.Put the workers back to a subservient position in society.Find Dick Armey and see if he knows anyone of the money hiders.Help me chase down all the beneficial effects of the Bush tax cuts on the economy.When I was a kid I loaded the manure spreader with cow shit to spread on the plowed corn field.This post of yours Ponti-Blowhard won't help anything grow .

    Posted by whatozz at 11/27/2009 @ 08:25am

97. ponti my man, Read me again. I do not want t0 eliminate Capitalism. Capitalism is like a wild NFL player-He must be guided closely, some more rules regulations) for him on a daily basis. Especially when he succeeds he need calming and if nec, a taking to to bring him back to reality. (Blankenfein could use this service) Tell me true pont: the dabacle caused by the Reagan through shrubs into 2008 and almost a Depression was started by RWR (ke deregulate all) Clinton drank the Kool Aid and continued such (Nafta). But bush*t made it into an art form, increasin the deficit from a surplus given him, giving massive tax cuts to the Rich primarily with money we did not have, and allowing, cheering Wall St to go Bananas with Bad Loans, Derivatives, leveraged money to the Hilt and beyond, and stock manipulation. When are you ever going to understand these wild boys must have independene regulation, must be broken up-start with GoldG, and must be constantly WATCHED by independent bodies.

    Posted by N2Sman at 11/27/2009 @ 07:06am

    This is what public schooling accomplishes-it creates brainwashed little marxists who were taught all kinds of propaganda, but very little if anything in accurate history, civics, and economics.

    Even recent history like the Bush term is already been subjected to leftist revisionism

    Unfortunately, their years of brainwashing by leftist teachers has rendered them beyond restoration to cognitive thinking.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/27/2009 @ 09:06am

98. This is what public schooling accomplishes-it creates brainwashed little marxists who were taught all kinds of propaganda, but very little if anything in accurate history, civics, and economics.

    Even recent history like the Bush term is already been subjected to leftist revisionism

    Unfortunately, their years of brainwashing by leftist teachers has rendered them beyond restoration to cognitive thinking.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/27/2009 @ 09:06am

    Very good Anti! You have learned your lessons well.

    Funny thing is, if you take the words "little marxists" and change them into "little fascists" and then the word "leftist" everytime you used it to "fascist". You actually end up with a true statement.

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/27/2009 @ 09:50am

99. Anti, your projecting again.

    Posted by Denise29 at 11/27/2009 @ 09:59am

100. Posted by pontificus at 11/27/2009 @ 07:57am

     Reagan wouldn't have passed the NEW GOP Purity test (as established by Jim Bopp, Jr.).

     RR may have promised to "return us to the Good Ol Days of the 1950s".....but you new Glenn Beck right-wingers want to go back to "the Good Ol Days of the....1890s"....and that's never, ever, ever going to happen and you look like morons for suggesting it.

     Posted by Mask at 11/27/2009 @ 10:19am

101. You actually end up with a true statement.

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/27/2009 @ 09:50am

     Which would look like this:

     This is what public schooling accomplishes-it creates brainwashed little fascists who are taught all kinds of propaganda, but very little if anything in accurate history, civics, and economics.

     Even recent history like the Bush term is already been subjected to fascist revisionism

     Unfortunately, their years of brainwashing by fascist teachers has rendered them beyond restoration to cognitive thinking.

     Now that's what I call leftist revisionism!

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/27/2009 @ 10:44am

102. Sorry for the delay, I was making a batch of Pomegranate Martini's for all the leftists here. :)

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/27/2009 @ 10:47am

103. Check out this link on a story concerning what the extremeists on the right are up to concerning our childrens textbooks. Scary thing is it's happening. Textbook publishing used to carried out by a number of publishers. But now there is only one or two. And guess who owns them?

     http://seesdifferent.wordpress.com/2009/08/21 /texas-republicans-want-textbooks-rewritten-to-exclude-liberals/

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/27/2009 @ 11:07am

104. Very good Anti! You have learned your lessons well.

     Funny thing is, if you take the words "little marxists" and change them into "little fascists" and then the word "leftist" everytime you used it to "fascist". You actually end up with a true statement.

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/27/2009 @ 09:50am

     What complete nonsense. Our public schools are filled with marxist teachers and the NEA is a radical leftist if not marxist union.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/27/2009 @ 11:10am

105. Since Texas textbook standards describe how other states will receive their textbook contents, it is quite worrisome. We all know that Texas is the spawn of miscreants. As Texas textbook standards go, so goes the nations textbook standards.

     Scary huh?

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/27/2009 @ 11:45am

106. NEA is a radical leftist if not marxist union. Posted by antisocialist at 11/27/2009 @ 11:10am

     You have got to be kidding. The NEA was founded in 1857 and championed the need for public education. Because of the 43 educators who assembled together in Philadelphia in 1857, education which was once a priviledge of only the few, became the right of every American citizen.

     Radical? Hardly. Marxist? Gimme a break.

     You always talk about other people who you see as "Hating America".

     Believe me Anti.. You are speaking of yourself.

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/27/2009 @ 12:05pm

107. Radical? Hardly. Marxist? Gimme a break.

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/27/2009 @ 12:05pm

     You have to be one of the few people in this country who doesn't think the NEA is a radical leftist organization.

     <The history of the NEA is an interesting one. In 1938, it was an association of educators led by John Dewey. But in that year the Institute for Social Research, founded by the Comintern, appeared on the Columbia University campus, taking over Teachers College, the country's most influential school of education. Better known as the Frankfurt School, it had contributed to the death of the Weimar Republic and its delivery to the Nazis, and then fled to the United States.

     In ideology, the Frankfurt School eschewed the economic aspects of Marxism and promulgated a substitute based on Marx's 1843 preachments. Later labeled neo-Marxism, the program called for the destruction of religion, the family, education and all moral values, along with the capture of the intellectuals and the instruments of mass communication such as press, radio and films. To this it appended a new Freudianism, which reduced human relationships to rampant sexuality and the grossest pleasure principles -- a program its secret founder boasted "will make America stink."

     The Frankfurt School's program, implemented by the NEA, made the goal of education not to educate the young but to give them an anarchic "self-esteem" and deprive them of any sense of what's wrong or right. The "track" system, whereby the bright students could learn at a faster pace and the less bright at a pace of their own, was abolished, condemning the brighter students to boredom and the slower to frustration. And it preached the alienation of children from parental guidance, urging them to "inform" on their families.

     cont

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/27/2009 @ 12:46pm

108. NEA website

     Recommended Reading: Saul Alinsky, The American Organizer

     An inspiration to anyone contemplating action in their community! And to every organizer!

     Saul Alinsky wrote the book on American radicalism - two books, in fact: a 1945 best-seller, "Reveille for Radicals" and "Rules for Radicals" in 1971. The "Reveille" title page quotes Thomas Paine... "Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul."

     Saul Alinsky, who was a labor and civil-rights activist from the 1910's until he died in 1972, has written here a guidebook for those who are out to change things. He sets down what the goal is: a society where people are free to live, and also aren't starving in the streets. A society where there is legal and economic justice. Then he sets out to say how to get there.

     Alinsky spends a lot of time critiquing the idea that "The end does not justify the means." What end? What means? He feels that there are circumstances where one can and should use means that in other circumstances would be unethical. I am not sure I agree, but Alinsky certainly speaks with the voice of experience.

     Alinsky's goal seems to be to encourage positive social change by equipping activists with a realistic view of the world, a kind of preemptive disillusionment. If a person already knows what evil the world is capable of, then perhaps the surprise factor can be eliminated, making the person a more effective activist. Alinsky further seems to be encouraging the budding activist not to worry to much about getting his or her hands dirty.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/27/2009 @ 12:51pm

109. More from the NEA on why teachers need to read Saul Alinsky

     <Alinsky, the master political agitator, tactical planner and social organizer didn't mince words...

     "Liberals in their meetings utter bold works; they strut, grimace belligerently, and then issue a weasel-worded statement 'which has tremendous implications, if read between the lines.' They sit calmly, dispassionately, studying the issue; judging both sides; they sit and still sit.

     "The Radical does not sit frozen by cold objectivity. He sees injustice and strikes at it with hot passion. He is a man of decision and action. There is a saying that the Liberal is one who walks out of the room when the argument turns into a fight.

     "Society has good reason to fear the Radical. Every shaking advance of mankind toward equality and justice has come from the Radical. He hits, he hurts, he is dangerous. Conservative interests know that while Liberals are most adept at breaking their own necks with their tongues, Radicals are most adept at breaking the necks of Conservatives.

     "Radicals precipitate the social crisis by action - by using power. Liberals may then timidly follow along or else, as in most cases, be swept forward along the course set by Radicals, but all because of forces unloosed by Radical action. They are forced to positive action only in spite of their desires ...>

     http://www.nea.org/tools/17231.htm

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/27/2009 @ 12:53pm

110. Posted by antisocialist at 11/27/2009 @ 12:53pm

     When your country is heading off a cliff because of the greed and selfishness of conservative policies that favor only the wealthy, then a RADICAL change in direction is necessary to avert total disaster.

     Posted by Metteyya at 11/27/2009 @ 12:58pm

111. Posted by antisocialist at 11/27/2009 @ 12:53pm

     When your country is heading off a cliff because of the greed and selfishness of conservative policies that favor only the wealthy, then a RADICAL change in direction is necessary to avert total disaster.

     Posted by Metteyya at 11/27/2009 @ 12:58pm

     If that were the case, I might agree with you. But we have been headed just the other direction towards a marxist/socialist nation since the days of FDR.

     Conservatives like Reagan and to some extent the more moderate Bush merely have slowed the pace from the faster goals of the left.

     So I do agree that we need a radical change. But I want a radical change to return to a Constitutional Republic that follows the Constitution

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/27/2009 @ 1:02pm

112. what larry means to say is he's a fucking social parasite who worked for a company that sucked off the tit of the american taxpayer making bombs...

     larry's a squirmy, dirty fuck...don't fall for his games...

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/27/2009 @ 2:19pm

113. On the Invasion of Japan thing...no sarcasm intended:

     Why would we have HAD to ultimately physically invade the Japanese home islands, i.e., w/o dropping the big ones instead? I mean, didn't we have their asses surrounded, navally blockaded, on home islands dependent on imports of everything from rubber to foodstuffs?

     Where the hell were they going to go?

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/27/2009 @ 2:39pm

114. ...I never really got an explanation of that one that I can recall...just this "inevitable invasion" stuff.

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/27/2009 @ 2:40pm

115. RONALD WILSON REAGAN

     Count the letters

     6 6 6

     Posted by N2Sman at 11/27/2009 @ 3:03pm

116. Anti-socialist what private grade school,high school,and college did you attend?

     Posted by whatozz at 11/27/2009 @ 4:03pm

117. You can't leave a major war in such a state. Were we to have surrounded them forever? I believe, admitted or not, the allies were surely in the bloodlust frame of mind (Dresden, Germany, etc. Forgive me but Truman did "what came next". All the pieces were in place for the right conclusion. Almost fate.

     Posted by N2Sman at 11/27/2009 @ 4:07pm

118. Tell me Santi,who was the liberal,Ron or Nancy Reagan.?Someone had to shape young Ron's thinking.So who are the conservative Radicals?Rush,Glenny,or Sean?Are these three recognizable conservative faces products of public schools?Do any of the three possess a degree from an institution of higher learning?They all are shepherds of legions of sheep.If any of them were in the military they would be manning the flamethrower.Rush says health care reform is a step back.My question is from what?When I grew up in the 60s-70s my mother stayed at home and ran the house.Now it takes 2 incomes to pay the mortgage ,monthly bills,and put aside 3 dollars to save.That is progress from what?The family unit was pretty solid when I grew up.Now,it seems to be in a state of disintegration.So how does this apply to the filibuster?It seems the conservative body has little or no connect with common Americans.How else would Tom Coburn sit on unemployment benefits for disabled Americans amongst others for three weeks.Oh ,he wasn't a doctor was he?This is what the minority party does.How about Joe Lieberman? He campaigned on the merits of health care reform. Now to keep his face in the news for weeks and to continually get free air time he is the great rival of health care.He also is raking in the bucks.It seems the filibuster might be a personal economic "boost" for Senators.

     Posted by whatozz at 11/27/2009 @ 4:34pm

119. Anti-socialist what private grade school,high school,and college did you attend?

     Posted by whatozz at 11/27/2009 @ 4:03pm

     I attended public schools that were in the most conservative county in the US at the time-Orange County CA. Even in my elementary school, we have military days with fighter jets, choppers and other attack vehicles on display. My parents were members of the John Birch Society.

     I put my kids through private and home schools.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/27/2009 @ 4:37pm

120. Santi-Iwill not comment on home schooling. My brother is a public school teacher and coach.He is as far away from being a Marxist or Socialist or other label you fall on getting out of the shower.I am tired of attacks on education by conservatives.Go to the schools and work to make a difference.Make a student laugh,think,and develop themselves for their future life.How many critics on either side go to the schools and do that?So do the military vehicles make someone think action is better than words?How is an opponent of China receptive to their intrusion of our economy.Please don't bore me with a larger deficit under Obama. This door has been open for a number of years.I do not understand your support of this policy.

     Posted by whatozz at 11/27/2009 @ 5:45pm

121. Jeebus Anti, your parents were part of the John Birch society??!?? No wonder you are the way you are. Criips!!!!

     Posted by Denise29 at 11/27/2009 @ 6:32pm

122. Talk about indoctrination, and not being able to freely express yourself!

     Posted by Denise29 at 11/27/2009 @ 6:34pm

123. Santi-Who was the liberal,Ron or Nancy? Why has Ron Reagan embraced the liberal side of the aisle?

     Posted by whatozz at 11/27/2009 @ 6:34pm

124. "larry's a squirmy, dirty fuck...don't fall for his games... Posted by urmygyro" Amen, pal.

     I have a theory I'd like to share. Here it is:

     According to several researchers currently called "conspiracy" theorists, the earth is multi-cultural, on a vast scale. My theory relates to the so-called Book of Revelations, the number 666, and the so called 'shape shifters ' of ancient documents and cultures.

     According to some ancient texts found in Ireland, there is a natural resonance frequency that causes the "shape shifters" to lose their momentary appearance, or form. Lizards, demons, vampires, the 'children of Satan', dragons and several other themes; have been described by several translators of the Emerald Tablets, found in Ireland a century ago, but I haven't had time to verify or research much of this. Here's my possible connection:

     The number '666', the so called 'Mark of the Beast", could, perhaps, be the magic frequency that causes this temporal appearance breakdown. I'd like to test this hypothesis myself, but have not yet had the opportunity to do so....

     666 Hz. ( Hertz), the unit of frequency, vibration, or pitch, corresponds VERY closely to a note, or pitch, of 2 E's above Middle C, on a piano. Played on a guitar, this is a pitch on the sixth string, 12'th fret. On a small soprano recorder (6" long, $40 cost), it's played by the first two holes stopped.

     One of these days, I'm going to get a chance to see if some of the reptilian scum who have hijacked this country for their own evil, demonic purposes will show their true appearance when subjected to such a 'vibration' or pitch. Meanwhile, I fully expect some of the reptiles that correspond on these pages to call me 'crazy' or 'anti-semite' or worse. I'll get over it.

     Posted by DejaVu at 11/27/2009 @ 7:30pm

125. Talk about indoctrination, and not being able to freely express yourself!

     Posted by Denise29 at 11/27/2009 @ 6:34pm

     that indeed is what liberalism teaches.

     I was taught to be a thinker, to read as much as possible, to examine all political and philosophical views. My parents like me were independents

     My father had an IQ of 180. There was nothing he could not do. Taught himself to fly while recovering from his wounds in Europe at the end of WWII. He was one of the founders of the NHRA (National Hot Rod Assc). My father read non stop right up to the moment of his death, reading more than 12 hours per day.

     It was my grandfather, a WWI hero and graduate of Temple University that taught us the evils of FDR and liberalism. He instilled in us the independent spirit.

     The reason that I fight liberalism is that it never promotes individual achievement, individual responsibility, or individual accountability. It is a scourge on all that makes this country great and I will continue to fight it as I have for 50 years until the day I die.

     I believe in liberty and freedom while you liberals seek to enslave everyone to the govt.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/27/2009 @ 8:50pm

126. Santi-Who was the liberal,Ron or Nancy? Why has Ron Reagan embraced the liberal side of the aisle?

     Posted by whatozz at 11/27/2009 @ 6:34pm

     I always felt sorry for President Reagan having a son like Ron Jr. who just didn't have the personal character strength to try and be a man. Instead he pursued ballet and when he failed at that, he became a flaming liberal.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/27/2009 @ 8:53pm

127. This is what public schooling accomplishes-it creates brainwashed little marxists...

     Unfortunately, their years of brainwashing by leftist teachers has rendered them beyond restoration to cognitive thinking.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/27/2009 @ 09:06am

     Let's play Lil' Marxist Fill-in-the-blank!!

     _____________ attended Calvert Elementary (PUBLIC) School... Natrona County (PUBLIC) High School.

     His father was a soil conservation agent for the U.S. (PUBLIC) Department of Agriculture

     He attended PRIVATE Yale University, but, as he stated, "[he] flunked out." Among the influential teachers from his days in New Haven was Professor H. Bradford Westerfield, whom ____________ repeatedly credited with having helped to shape his approach to foreign policy.

     ____________ later attended the (PUBLIC) University of Wyoming & (PUBLIC) University of Wisconsin...

     Posted by winyahn at 11/27/2009 @ 8:56pm

128. What complete nonsense. Our public schools are filled with marxist teachers and the NEA is a radical leftist if not marxist union.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/27/2009 @ 11:10am |

     The gap between reality and fantasy which you so self-righteously occupy is increasingly unsettling. What other conspiracy theories have you to explain the mundane goings on of our common lives?

     Posted by kirquaker at 11/27/2009 @ 8:56pm

129. Anti,

     After reading about your dad, this particular projection is really clear!:

     "I always felt sorry for President Reagan having a son like Ron Jr."

     Posted by winyahn at 11/27/2009 @ 8:58pm

130. Posted by antisocialist at 11/27/2009 @ 12:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Hardly the unnerving account you evidently see it to be.

     Posted by kirquaker at 11/27/2009 @ 9:01pm

131. So who are the conservative Radicals?Rush,Glenny,or Sean?Are these three recognizable conservative faces products of public schools?Do any of the three possess a degree from an institution of higher learning?

     Posted by whatozz at 11/27/2009 @ 4:34pm

     I've said before:

     1. I seldom listen to Rush, when I do, he is good entertainment. Rush Limbaugh does not shape or influence conservative thinking. He is adept at reading what conservativism is thinking and postulating and then adapting it to his entertainment program.

     2. Beck, I've never seen or heard.

     3. Hannity, I don't care for. He is rather a simple thinker who doesn't go beyond what works as spin for tv or radio.

     None of them do I consider to be influential to most conservatives like myself.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/27/2009 @ 9:01pm

132. Posted by antisocialist at 11/27/2009 @ 12:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Hardly the unnerving account you evidently see it to be.

     Posted by kirquaker at 11/27/2009 @ 9:01pm

     So we can count you as a supporter of teachers being radical agitators?

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/27/2009 @ 9:03pm

133. "My parents like me were independents ," the types of independents who felt that the Republican party was far too liberal and encumbered by their wild big-government inclinations.

     I'm sure, like many others, you claim the mantle of philosophical and moral independence in thought, but were, regardless, inculcated by the "grandfather, a WWI hero and graduate of Temple University that taught us the evils of FDR and liberalism."

     And while it's captivating that your father had such a towering, um, IQ, it remains that the pithy precepts that "liberalism ... never promotes individual achievement, individual responsibility, or individual accountability" are tired and specious.

     Posted by kirquaker at 11/27/2009 @ 9:14pm

134. Posted by antisocialist at 11/27/2009 @ 12:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Hardly the unnerving account you evidently see it to be.

     Posted by kirquaker at 11/27/2009 @ 9:01pm

     So we can count you as a supporter of teachers being radical agitators?

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/27/2009 @ 9:03pm |

     How can I possibly extricate myself from your robust line of reasoning of guilt by association? That I do not find the (questionably sourced) account unsettling or the notion of educators pursuing positive social change and justice abhorrent does not mean I support a sort of teacher-as-radical-agitator paradigm.

     Posted by kirquaker at 11/27/2009 @ 9:27pm

135. How can I possibly extricate myself from your robust line of reasoning of guilt by association? That I do not find the (questionably sourced) account unsettling or the notion of educators pursuing positive social change and justice abhorrent does not mean I support a sort of teacher-as-radical-agitator paradigm.

     Posted by kirquaker at 11/27/2009 @ 9:27pm

     Questionably sourced? I took it directly from the NEA website and provided the link

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/27/2009 @ 9:58pm

136. So we can count you as a supporter of radical agitators?

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/27/2009 @ 9:03pm

     I bought that a new Whirlpool washer with this feature.

     Posted by winyahn at 11/27/2009 @ 11:47pm

137. This is what public schooling accomplishes-it creates brainwashed little marxists...

     Unfortunately, their years of brainwashing by leftist teachers has rendered them beyond restoration to cognitive thinking.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/27/2009 @ 09:06am

     Let's play Lil' Marxist Fill-in-the-blank!!

     _____________ attended Calvert Elementary (PUBLIC) School... Natrona County (PUBLIC) High School.

     His father was a soil conservation agent for the U.S. (PUBLIC) Department of Agriculture

     He attended PRIVATE Yale University, but, as he stated, "[he] flunked out." Among the influential teachers from his days in New Haven was Professor H. Bradford Westerfield, whom ____________ repeatedly credited with having helped to shape his approach to foreign policy.

     ____________ later attended the (PUBLIC) University of Wyoming & (PUBLIC) University of Wisconsin...

     And the envelope please, it's that little Marxist gay-dad chicken hawk face shooting penguin Dicky CHENEY.

     --------->Calvert Evilmentary public schooling creates brainwashed little marxists...

     Posted by winyahn at 11/27/2009 @ 11:52pm

138. I attended public schools that were in the most conservative county in the US at the time-Orange County CA. Posted by antisocialist at 11/27/2009 @ 4:37pm

     I attended public school in Orange County, CA in the early 60's. I never saw any military hardware nor was any school I attended considered "conservative". My parents were liberals and my step dad was a building contractor. As kids we used to raid the orange groves that surrounded the expanding "burbs". My step dad was a member of the NHRA. We used to build early versions of "dune buggies" and race them at Lake Matthews in Riverside County.

     Your memories of ultra-conservative stuff and the John Bircher's in orange county are fabricated. Who is the real "Larry"?

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/28/2009 @ 04:48am

139. Your memories of ultra-conservative stuff and the John Bircher's in orange county are fabricated. Who is the real "Larry"?

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/28/2009 @ 04:48am

     History debunks you once again

     http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7031.html

     <In the early 1960s, high school auditoriums were filled to the rafters with students excused from classes to attend Fred Swartz's Southern California School of Anti-Communism.

     Walter Knott, inventor of the boysenberry and owner of the amusement park Knott's Berry Farm, ran a right-wing foundation from the park's premises that distributed materials to visitors on topics such as "The Socialist Plan for Conquest" and "Communism on the Map." And it was in Orange County that the John Birch Society, named after a Baptist missionary killed by Chinese communists, really took off, spreading its message of impending communist revolution and United Nations plots to destroy the U.S.>

     <Anti-communist politics were also an important part of a new grass-roots conservative movement that emerged in California, particularly Orange County, in the post-war years.

     By the early sixties, thousands of middle-class men and women were gathering in suburban living rooms and kitchens, planning to overturn the dominant liberalism of Governor Pat Brown and Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. The new conservatives were passionately committed to an agenda that included a drastic reduction of government influence in economic and personal matters, an end to "social engineering," and a return to traditional American values. Some activists joined the John Birch Society and the Christian Anti-Communist Crusade. In 1964 California conservatives strongly supported Barry Goldwater's presidential campaign>

     http://tinyurl.com/ygpu7sh

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/28/2009 @ 09:00am

140. It sounds like these people helped Ron set the stage toscrew up California's and the nation's futures.Kudos to this group of California Me-Me's.Just think, 40 years after these meetings and the seeds of disaster were starting to show.Now let's move to 2009 and we are in the ditch.Perhaps these people should have worked together with liberals to help society move forward.

     Posted by whatozz at 11/28/2009 @ 10:12am

141. Oh but whatozz, why would we want to work together to help our country, even Goldwater had changed his tune before he died, and the rightys called him,"GOLDWATER", a turncoat! The right is turning this country on its head, and what for? What the hell for?

     Posted by Denise29 at 11/28/2009 @ 10:17am

142. That there is sacasm in the first sentence I used in my last thread, just in case no one got it.

     Posted by Denise29 at 11/28/2009 @ 10:19am

143. History debunks you once again. Posted by antisocialist at 11/28/2009 @ 09:00am

     No Larry. History doesn't debunk me. You can post all the tinyurls you want.

     I was there. I lived in Orange County, when I was growing up. I'm a witness. I don't need your history. My greatgrandfather owned a big chunk of Riverside County and San Bernadino County at one time. He was a Basque immigrant who came to the United States in the late 1800's. He was a sheepherder. My family on both sides were heavily invested in early southern california hisory.

     So you can take your tinyurls and put them where the sun don't shine..

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/28/2009 @ 11:28am

144. I hate the filibuster, except when I love it. I am hopeful that it will save us from the economic disaster of federalized health care. I like the fact that controversial legislation has the built-in brake of the filibuster so that there is the possibility of blocking really bad legislation by either party.

     Posted by tomonthebay at 11/28/2009 @ 11:53am

145. Just saw Buffy St Marie sing "Universal Soldier", everything old is new again, sigh.... .

     Posted by Denise29 at 11/28/2009 @ 11:56am

146. Any "John Bircher's" that were around at the time were a fringe group of crazies. That most people made fun of. They were a minority of idiots.

     Sounds a bit like Anti.. Wow Anti, you were born into a crazy bunch and then continue to spread the virus.

     Bircher's are known for their twisted anti-socialist ideas. A bunch of Libertarians actually. Did you know Anti that there has never been a libertarian society that worked? Like all birchers you would oppose things like collectivism or wealth redistribution. You would oppose things like immigration reform, yet you worship Reagan, who gave amnesty to illegal immigrants for the purpose of promoting cheap labor.

     Birchers like you opposed the civil rights act of 1964. You oppose the United Nations.

     On the plus side your ilk does advocate the dismantling of the Federal Reserve System. A slim point of agreement with me. But not for the same reason. I would like to see the banking system nationalised, for reasons of transparency and accountability.

     But, by and large your ideology is is flawed and unrealistic.

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/28/2009 @ 11:59am

147. From now on we can peg Anti as a John Bircher wannabe. Finally some closure on what makes this "nut" click..

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/28/2009 @ 12:01pm

148. Regardless of the senate rules concerning the fillibuster, we will not be getting healthcare reform. What we will end up with is a giveaway to the insurance companies. The house and the senate aswell as the executive branch are all on the take.

     The people will not get anything. The people will just get bent over a stump and reamed.

     There is no need to "hope" for "change". This President has done a great job of fooling the american people. He is nothing but another schill for the oligarchs and capitalists.

     If we want healthcare we will have to fight for it. Tooth and Nail. I would suggest that everyone stop making any payments to healthcare providers. Tell them nicely to fuck off. I would also suggest that everyone who has a health issue go to the emergency room. I would suggest that you go to the emergency room for "made up" stuff. And demand treatment for that hangnail.

     We need to stress out the current for profit healthcare system to the max. And then refuse to pay. "Refuse To Pay" this is the most important thing. To hell with your damn "credit rating", what good is that anyway?

     We will rebel by accessing the current system and bankrupting it.

     Go to the local Emergency Room today!

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/28/2009 @ 12:39pm

149. Denise-You are right ,it is time to find common ground and work together to right the ship.If this health care reform bill passes it will be an insurance company boondoggle.Both political parties know health care costs are out of control.Who has the political courage to call out the insurance companies?Bernie Sanders does and at least part of the reason is the wide support given to him by his constituents.On the other hand power brokers such as Max Baucus are bought and paid for by insurance concerns.It is easily seen at the web site Open Secrets.What bothers me is no conservative has stepped forward to help reform the health care system.You mean to tell me that states that have a single large insurance company covering 90+% of their population are getting the best coverage for their premium dollar?Ask Alabama's Senators that question.At the same time have they weighed in on health care costs?We hold our military in high esteem and rightly so.They have their own system of hospitals and care facilities.Is this not socialized medicine?We as a country made a decision to allow our seniors to live out their lives in relative comfort with Social Security and Medicare.Conservatives have been angry with these programs since their inception.They have chipped away at them for years.This year however they became the defender of Medicare,a bald attempt to garner senior support.Stepping along a parallel path,AARP,supported health care reform.This organization supports itself primarily through selling Medicare supplemental insurance provided by United Health Care.At that moment anyone who has been following the health care saga knew the fix was in.To Chaosen-We have to fight tooth and nail for real reform.This group in Washington is an embarrassment on both sides of the aisle.

     Posted by whatozz at 11/28/2009 @ 4:09pm

150. G-d if we worked together just imagine what we could accomplish! What an exciting time it would be, left and right trying to come to consensus and doing it, what a concept, truly. Yea, yea, I know, only in my dreams, but a worthwhile dream non the less.

     Posted by Denise29 at 11/28/2009 @ 5:30pm

151. The POTUS has disappointed his followers (voters) in that his words are lofty, his deeds are minimal at best. Please read Matt Taibbi's article in this month;s Rolling Stone. This is mandatory reading for us, Progressive-Liberals. I agree the present Health Care bill is a gift to the private Health COs. The most that can be said about it in a positive way is the "foot in the door" argument And I'm guessing the PO is dead and Triggers will be the end result. I don't have to explain that crushing disappointment. So here we are 1 year with O as Pres.What to do? Repugs are hopeless to us-they can afford to be the Psycho Talk party because they rule. The B Dogs are so bought and paid for they too are hopeless. The Progressive Dems are trying to swim in these Tsunami waters. Progressive Liberals and Independents must join together and come up with a powerful candidate who cannot be bought to challenge O for the Presidency in 2012. It's 2010 already- 5 wks. We must minimize the lofty, nose in the air, intellectual pontificating, and again attain the Presidency. Do it right this time.

     Posted by N2Sman at 11/28/2009 @ 6:01pm

152. You would oppose things like immigration reform, yet you worship Reagan, who gave amnesty to illegal immigrants for the purpose of promoting cheap labor.

     Birchers like you opposed the civil rights act of 1964. You oppose the United Nations.

     On the plus side your ilk does advocate the dismantling of the Federal Reserve System. A slim point of agreement with me. But not for the same reason. I would like to see the banking system nationalised, for reasons of transparency and accountability.

     But, by and large your ideology is is flawed and unrealistic.

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/28/2009 @ 11:59am

     You don't know anything.

     I was in high school in OC while you were probably not even born.

     And you are wrong on immigrants. I support amnesty for the illegals who are are and working.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/28/2009 @ 7:18pm

153. Santi-I agree with you on illegal immigrants but when does it end?Your state borders Mexico so I can understand the problem.Here in Minnesota there are also a large number of illegals.Why do we allow the employers to not pay a stiff price?We seem to make low cost labor our priority.It is class warfare at it's best.

     Posted by whatozz at 11/28/2009 @ 9:22pm

154. Birchers like you opposed the civil rights act of 1964. Posted by chaoszen at 11/28/2009 @ 11:59am | ignore this person | warn this person

     Don't forget that the ENTIRE Demoncrat house and Senate were against the civil rights act of 1964 supported by the Republican party. Yea, John Birchers and Demoncrats are one in the same!

     Posted by BigPasture at 11/29/2009 @ 12:45am

155. What is even funnier is how Sen. Al Franken blatantly LIES about history just like his fellow lefist marxist!

     "… When President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, he is said to have turned to an aide and remarked, 'We have just lost the South for a generation.' The Republican Party became the home to Southern bigots and still is today.

     While the Democratic Party lost the South that year, they did gain my dad. A lifelong Republican who voted for Herbert Hoover and every GOP candidate through Nixon, Dad switched parties in 1964 because the Republican nominee, Barry Goldwater, voted against the Civil Rights Act ... He never voted Republican again."

     The supposed strident switch by Franken's dad is somewhat curious considering the fact that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed largely due to the support of Republicans. According to Congressional Quarterly, in the Senate, 82% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act, while only 69% of Democrats did. Twenty out of twenty-one southern Democratic senators voted against the Act. In the House, 80% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act versus 61% of Democrats. Ninety-two of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it.1

     Upon signing the Civil Rights Act, President Johnson cited Republicans for their "overwhelming support" of the Act.2

     Why would Franken's father switch parties on account of this issue?

     Yes, Senator Goldwater voted against the 1964 Act, but to brand him as racist, or to imply anything similar, is simply ignorant and unknowing of Goldwater's career.

     Posted by BigPasture at 11/29/2009 @ 12:53am

156. The truth is that Goldwater had a rich history of championing civil rights, including his success in desegregating the Arizona National Guard before President Truman had even done so with the U.S. Armed Forces.3

     Before he was a public official, Barry Goldwater integrated his family business. When he was a city councilman in Phoenix, he became a founding member of the Arizona NAACP, and he remained a proud member until his death.4

     In the Senate, he strongly supported both the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts.5 Although he eventually regretted his vote, his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based strictly on political ideological grounds. As a strong conservative, he believed that two of its sections, Title II and Title VII, unlawfully overextended the role of the federal government.6

     If Franken's father wanted to steer clear of racists, he may have wanted to shy away from the direction of Democratic Senators Al Gore Sr. (the former VP's dad) and former KKK member Robert Byrd, who participated in an unsuccessful 74-day filibuster in an attempt to stop the Civil Rights Act.7

     The left really loves nurturing LIES and LIARS!

     Posted by BigPasture at 11/29/2009 @ 12:54am

157. We will rebel by accessing the current system and bankrupting it. Go to the local Emergency Room today! Posted by chaoszen at 11/28/2009 @ 12:39pm |

     And possibly prevent people who need care (and have insurance) from getting it? Nah.

     You'll need to find a plan without collateral innocents, Chaos, but kudos for creativity.

     I still think the all-sickee march on the K-street denizens of the health insurance lobbyists is your best bet, but I like the "sponsor a free clinic" meme too (because someone actually gets care while highlighting the gap).

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/29/2009 @ 07:33am

158. BP-Johnson was right in his remarks,1964 was the watershed in flipping the parties.It was a different way to hide ideological beliefs.I didn't know you knew Al Franken who hails from St.Louis Park,Minnesota.Why the continuing shots at Al.Was Strom Thurmond involved in the filibuster?There was a rich tradition with that "hero" of the Senate.Your pal Trent"sneak out of town to lobby"Lott was a protege If I recall.Anyone can throw mud,is Mccain in Barry's seat?Now there is a guy with a large pocket and matching shovel.He has a history that stretches from Keating to Abramoff.A nice upstanding conservative who with a more "intelligent" choice of a running mate could be President.

     Posted by whatozz at 11/29/2009 @ 08:10am

159. whatozz, you'll notice that BP has no answer for that.

     Posted by Denise29 at 11/29/2009 @ 10:49am

160. 'G-d if we worked together just imagine what we could accomplish! What an exciting time it would be, left and right trying to come to consensus and doing it, what a concept, truly. Yea, yea, I know, only in my dreams, but a worthwhile dream non the less.' -- Denise29

     'The only thing in the middle of the road is yellow lines and dead armadillos' -- James Carville

     Posted by HonestLiberal at 11/30/2009 @ 08:07am