tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-258958672024-03-18T04:48:07.050-05:00A Big Fat Slob<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/04/11/sprj.irq.pentagon/">Because Freedom's Untidy</a><br><br>A Big Fat Slobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12643815117960627121noreply@blogger.comBlogger640125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25895867.post-59517042032459089402016-05-14T07:49:00.001-05:002016-05-14T07:49:45.222-05:00<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbt8vhQ0xwdIesxS-cQnN-Km8nmh-OVaMwLQIVi1UE2N-cqTQemXdJH9feqIG6F9iAQKCSroqkncDmWaB6QDdiQD19MwQcdBk-vCBnc4iJkuUnwl1fhVC27lytaITZk-oPlmu66A/s1600/tools.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbt8vhQ0xwdIesxS-cQnN-Km8nmh-OVaMwLQIVi1UE2N-cqTQemXdJH9feqIG6F9iAQKCSroqkncDmWaB6QDdiQD19MwQcdBk-vCBnc4iJkuUnwl1fhVC27lytaITZk-oPlmu66A/s320/tools.png" /></a></div>A Big Fat Slobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12643815117960627121noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25895867.post-83474331452706667312016-05-06T14:31:00.000-05:002016-05-06T14:31:21.127-05:00An Argument for Sanders's Superior ElectabilityBased on most recent head to head polls, here is how much better Sanders does than Clinton against Trump in key swing states:<br />
<br />
PA +55%<br />
NH +42%<br />
WI +58%<br />
OH +33%<br />
NC +250%<br />
MI +64%<br />
AZ +200%<br />
IN +85% <br />
<br />
But, you say, head to head polling isn't accurate during the primaries. <br />
<br />
Not entirely correct. With only a couple of exceptions, including Jimmy Carter's failed re-election bids, head to head polling at this point (post-March) in the primary season has been pretty accurate when compared to the actual November results. <br />
<br />
Oh, but Hillary has had shit dumped on her for 25 years and Bernie hasn't been battle tested.<br />
<br />
Yeah, not entirely true, either. <br />
<br />
Bernie has been battle tested in 14 statewide contests when all the shit you've heard about him (mainly from Shillaries) WAS thrown at him and he's still been re-elected and is still the most popular member of Congress in the country.<br />
<br />
With Hillary, the fact that she's been (mostly unfairly) pummeled by the Republicans and Fox news for 25 years is not a strength. <br />
<br />
It pretty much means that there are fewer people who are willing to be turned her way, plus Republicans inclined not to vote for anyone in response to Trump nomination, will still vote against Hillary -- those are two reasons why Sanders does so much better than she does against Trump.<br />
<br />
Bernie has a point when it comes to electability. If Sanders holds all of these states except Indiana (where he is behind by only 1 point), Trump could sin ALL the other battlegrounds, and the Democrats still win the White House. But, Bernie can probably turn Indiana & Nevada, and win NM, Colorado, Oregon, Wisconsin, Iowa, Virginia, and Florida, ending up with over 350 electoral votes.A Big Fat Slobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12643815117960627121noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25895867.post-19834227725049516052016-04-05T08:04:00.000-05:002016-04-05T08:04:30.686-05:00There's Delegate Math and then There's Electoral Delegate MathThe Democrats appear on a track to nominate someone who has trouble winning in Blue states. <br />
<br />
The reality of electoral politics today is that there are some 20+ states in which the Democratic vote just doesn't matter -- there is no way most of those those states are ever going to go Democratic, even with Trump as the Republican nominee. <br />
<br />
So, what sense does it make for the Democrats to select a nominee who performs well in red states?<br />
<br />
In states that went for President Obama in 2012, Bernie Sanders actually leads Hillary Clinton in the delegate count, 566 to 525. All of her overall delegate lead comes from states that went Romney in 2012, where she leads 718 to 414 (with Bernie winning half a dozen of the Romney states).<br />
<br />
Wisconsin goes tonight and it is looking like Bernie will continue his dominance in the states that will count in November. Good thing the Republicans have made an even worse choice this time around.A Big Fat Slobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12643815117960627121noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25895867.post-72214071133515577762016-04-04T07:09:00.001-05:002016-04-04T07:11:04.380-05:00It's the election, stupidThe Senate is back at work after recess. <br />
<br />
Well, that might be overstating it a bit. They are back in Washington, mostly.<br />
<br />
I'm back too, somewhat. In the six months in which your hero has been distracted, some stuff has happened. Trump has risen, and may be falling. Jeb! screwed the pooch. And, Scalia is a doornail. Predictably, the President has appointed a moderate Republican-approved replacement.<br />
<br />
Senate Republicans are holding steady on their threat not to give the guy a hearing, or even meet with him. Of course their reasons are make-weight and ridiculous, of course there is no such thing as the "Biden Rule". And, of course, it has nothing to do with the expectation that a Republican will be elected President and nominate a conservative. They know that Judge Garland is the best they will do now, or in January 2017.<br />
<br />
It is precisely BECAUSE they expect to be dealing with a President Clinton again that they are holding fast on the Garland nomination -- it's the only way they can counter the Trump (or Cruz) down-ballot drag. Intransigence means they can hold out the prospect of the Supreme Court coming after their guns and offering their teenage daughters abortions on demand through November. Unless given a better reason to come out than Trump or Cruz, they know that a good chunk of their kind will sleep in on election day. <br />
<br />
So, sign all the MoveOn petitions and write all the huffy editorials and letters of outrage, your reason is irrelevant and weak when measured against the desperation of trying to save Congressional majorities. A Big Fat Slobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12643815117960627121noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25895867.post-86879344346319045902015-10-02T05:38:00.001-05:002015-10-02T05:40:20.803-05:00REGISTER TO VOTE PA <b>REGISTER TO VOTE -- PA DEADLINE IS MONDAY</b><br />
<br />
The deadline for registering for Pennsylvania's November 3 elections is MONDAY 10/5. <br />
<br />
This election is for local school board, municipal and judicial races, three open seats on the seven-member Pennsylvania Supreme Court. There also are two other state appellate court openings — one each in the Superior and Commonwealth courts. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.votespa.com/portal/server.pt/community/home/13514">REGISTER ONLINE HERE</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjD80yiVZZV9yhzfjbNa4r-o4bXkxVG8HrFlElyi_rV_BQjWpaqkTSdN7eGRsBLHHs1F2Vr8ZtW4smtE457GA5tqFfS3HeM7nFY6ZGwbGn6xLIZNOQj2EoGoOasNlDPuPRUmuhMKg/s1600/register_to_vote.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjD80yiVZZV9yhzfjbNa4r-o4bXkxVG8HrFlElyi_rV_BQjWpaqkTSdN7eGRsBLHHs1F2Vr8ZtW4smtE457GA5tqFfS3HeM7nFY6ZGwbGn6xLIZNOQj2EoGoOasNlDPuPRUmuhMKg/s320/register_to_vote.png" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<b>PASS THE WORD<i></i></b>A Big Fat Slobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12643815117960627121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25895867.post-42606540809104991952015-10-01T11:01:00.000-05:002015-10-01T11:27:50.190-05:00Where's Berno?Yesterday, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/msnbc/posts/1026545594108359">MSNBC reported</a> that Bernie Sanders had stunned the political world by reaching one million individual donors before anyone had since Abraham Lincoln did it in 1863. <br />
<br />
A couple of weeks before they had released their <a href="http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/usapolls/us150826/2016/MSNBC_Telemundo_Marist%20Poll_National%20Release%20and%20Tables_September%202015.pdf">latest poll</a> on the 2016 race in which they polled voters on how the Democrats stood up in head to head battles. They measured the Democratic candidates against Trump, Rubio, Bush & Cruz.<br />
<br />
Except, the Democrats they measured were Clinton and Biden. Although the same poll took the temperature of voters feelings towards Sanders, he wasn't treated as a candidate in the poll.<br />
<br />
This anti-Sanders media bias has been noted before, and I find it hard to explain. Clearly, the decision makers are either not journalists or are not making decisions like journalists. <br />
<br />
Then I thought, well, maybe it's just me. So this morning I took a look at the MSNBC website and did some searches. I looked for stories airing on some of their top political shows -- Chris Hayes, Chris Matthews, Morning Joe, Larry O'Donnell, and Rachel Maddow from 9/1 to 10/1 & mentioning Trump, Clinton, or Sanders. <br />
<br />
I was astounded. While the results are not overly carefully vetted, what I did was try to eliminate general campaign stories or stories from the perspective of one candidate (commonly, how Hillary is handling/reacting/dealing with Trump or Sanders), and tried to count only the stories that effectively focused on the substantive message of one candidate. <br />
<br />
In the month of September, here's the total tally of pieces that focused on the substance of particular candidates:<br />
<br />
SANDERS -- 5 to 11 (most did not focus on him)<br />
CLINTON -- 75<br />
TRUMP -- 143<br />
<br />
I looked at MSNBC because of the progressive bent of the hosts. I would have thought <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/maddowblog">Rachel Maddow</a> would have had a higher percentage of Bernie spots. But she only did 4 spots on Bernie in September. Compared to 15 for Hillary and 35 on Trump. <br />
<br />
Chris Matthews, zero spots that focused on Benie, nine on Hillary, and 30 on Trump.<br />
<br />
Morning Joe gave Bernie 6 spots, the most of any of them. But he gave 29 to Hillary and an astounding 42 to Trump.<br />
<br />
Bernie is polling about twice Trump's numbers -- and that's with about 30% of the respondents not knowing who he is -- but he's getting about 8% of the coverage of Trump. If MSNBC and the others did their jobs right, more people might know Bernie better.<br />
<br />
This bias is disturbing and I find it hard to understand. Some may say its for ratings, others for political reasons. I think its a little of both. For the most part, MSNBC seems to like playing nice with the Democratic establishment. That translates into promoting Trump, who has really hurt the image of the Republican Party, and Hillary. Morning Joe's love affair with Trump is simply ratings bait. <br />
<br />
We're letting the newsmedia control the debate and pick the candidates.<br />
<br />
MSNBC has routinely given Trump gavel-to-gavel coverage of his rallies and speeches. Hillary interviews have been heavily promoted up and down the schedule. But the guy who is doing amazing grassroots things, drawing the biggest crows, and challenging one of the most secure sure-thing nominations we've seen recently, is all but ignored. It really is shameful.A Big Fat Slobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12643815117960627121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25895867.post-66755773544956484322015-09-30T07:45:00.000-05:002015-09-30T07:45:32.141-05:00Huck n Jim be backRejoice, Rejoice.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://huckandjim.blogspot.com/"> Huck and Jim</a> be back blogging.<br />
<br />
If you don't know Huck and Jim, well you just be ig'grant.<br />
<br />
Years ago, Huck 'n Jim preclaimed the Republican marriage with the Tea Party signaled the death of the Grand Old Party. It was recallin' that and watchin the Summer of Trump that got me typin fingers all itchy again to come back affer all dem years. And it turns out, same was wise Huck and Jim.<br />
<br />
Your all better off spending a minute over there than five here. So goes and checks him out, I'll be here later.A Big Fat Slobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12643815117960627121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25895867.post-79041815825834403772015-09-30T07:34:00.000-05:002015-09-30T12:16:40.410-05:00The Pope's Still CatholicWell, the Pope's plane lifted off and I swear one of the networks followed the flight on LIVE! TV in order to document the dumping of the toilets over the Atlantic.<br />
<br />
Okay, maybe I imagined that. <br />
<br />
But what I didn't imagine was the fawning and excessive coverage of the guy's visit. This is one of the few instances (well, I can't think of any other, so let's say the only instance) where FOX got it right. Looking to listen for news playing in the background while cleaning or cooking, I actually had to tune to FOX News during the Pope's visit. <br />
<br />
The guy gave three major speeches, with maybe seven to ten quotable sentences in each. The head of Russia was here this week and we didn't see as much as two minutes of his UN speech; yet these same "journalists" decided that we needed to spend entire afternoons watching an old guy in a white dress shake hands, kiss babies, and implore the sick and infirm to pray for HIM. <br />
<br />
Wait. Really!? For HIM? He's got the top job in his profession, retirement security, 70 million people who believe he's infallible, and all the babes he wants (maybe not that), yet he's telling kids in wheelchairs that HE'S the one who needs divine intervention!? Guy needs some perspective.<br />
<br />
The bad choice of wall to wall coverage aside, its the fawning, particularly from the liberals (sorry, progressives), that I don't get. Let's put aside, and not mention again, that this is a well educated, apparently intelligent guy who believes in an omniscient invisible man in the sky directing traffic.<br />
<br />
Sure, the Pope made some nice points lecturing our Congress, President, and all of us, on how to behave in a civilized society which pretends to be majority christian. <br />
<br />
But what is liberal about this guy? (Here's where FOX got it wrong, as per usu.) That he accepts climate change and environmental stewardship? The entire world accepts climate change, except for us, and environmental stewardship has been a catholic doctrine as long as I can recall (and I was raised catholic in the 50s & 60s).<br />
<br />
Speaking of doctrine, can you, can anyone, identify ANY significant catholic doctrine this guy has changed? You cannot because he has not changed anything. <br />
<br />
This Pope is, believe it or not, like it or not, a doctrinally conservative catholic. So, while he says and does Jesus-like things, that's only remarkable for the contrast with so many of his predecessors and his subordinates who shun Jesus-like statements of forgiveness and tolerance, and when was the last time you saw a Bishop in poverty?<br />
<br />
But the doctrine? <br />
<br />
This is a Pope who railed against marriage equality as <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=AjTUBgAAQBAJ&pg=PT49&lpg=PT49&dq=%E2%80%9Ca+destructive+pretension+against+the+plan+of+God%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=fuM_rpFl92&sig=Qd2nkGe-lmnExQoGc1VtVsPhliQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBWoVChMIwoGepd6eyAIVick-Ch1XJAtp#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9Ca%20destructive%20pretension%20against%20the%20plan%20of%20God%E2%80%9D&f=false">“a destructive pretension against the plan of God” </a>, a Pope who at best failed to make the same kind of public lecturing truth to power appeals when leftist clergy lives were at stake (and at worst <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/pope-francis-and-the-dirty-war">was a collaborator</a>), and a Pope who enthusiastically backs catholic doctrine on abortion, the insane anti-scientific life at conception claims, the opposition to ordination of women, and of course, the war on gays. Publically saying "who am I to judge" gay catholics, while sending letters opposing legislation to equalize their civil rights as <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=AjTUBgAAQBAJ&pg=PT49&lpg=PT49&dq=%E2%80%9Ca+destructive+pretension+against+the+plan+of+God%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=fuM_rpFl92&sig=Qd2nkGe-lmnExQoGc1VtVsPhliQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBWoVChMIwoGepd6eyAIVick-Ch1XJAtp#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9Ca%20destructive%20pretension%20against%20the%20plan%20of%20God%E2%80%9D&f=false">the work of the devil</a>, is what most people (outside the fawning American press and public) would call hypocritical. <br />
<br />
This Pope is Catholic, in every sad sense of the word. I'm happy to have my news back.A Big Fat Slobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12643815117960627121noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25895867.post-75227076274991228532015-09-21T13:59:00.004-05:002015-09-21T13:59:49.279-05:00Tips for the RepublicansAbortion is here to stay.<br />
Obamacare is here to stay.<br />
Same Sex Marriage is here to stay.<br />
<br />
There's nothing you can do about it (and you know it).<br />
<br />
Want to start winning and actually participating in the political dialogue again?<br />
<br />
Forget the things you know you can't change.<br />
Ignore the people in your party who want you to center your policies, your campaigns, your candidates on the things you know you can't change.<br />
Run serious candidates who want to talk seriously about the serious issues we're facing.<br />
You'll be amazed how the talk of Clown Cars goes away and people start taking you seriously again.<br />
<br />
You're welcome.<br />
A Big Fat Slobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12643815117960627121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25895867.post-43645007214137781722015-09-21T07:37:00.002-05:002015-09-21T07:37:43.103-05:00QUICK! While they're not looking . . . Thanks to the House for all this Planned Parenthood nonsense.....gives us a chance to round up all the guns while the wingnutz are distracted!A Big Fat Slobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12643815117960627121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25895867.post-25185677341644998902015-09-17T07:11:00.001-05:002015-09-17T07:54:39.561-05:00Okay, Can We All Move On Now?I said it a month ago, and again a week ago -- Trump will not win a single primary and by St Patrick's Day he will be a distant amusing memory.<br />
<br />
I was wrong. <br />
<br />
He may be a memory by Martin Luther King Day.<br />
<br />
Does this really need analysis? He is an empty suit in the political arena. In a field of 16 he picked up 25% support, give or take. When there are four, maybe five, serious candidates in the race, it was kind of easy for a guy with 100% name recognition, specializing in bombast and pandering to the low-brow crowd, to get the attention of every fourth voter early on.<br />
<br />
Now all that is over. He's hit his zenith and, simultaneously, brought the Republican's 2016 cycle to its nadir. <br />
<br />
Now. Can we please move on from this distraction and start dealing with the substantial weaknesses of the serious candidates?A Big Fat Slobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12643815117960627121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25895867.post-37181752014684489252015-09-17T06:54:00.002-05:002015-09-17T09:25:24.049-05:00How Democratic Votes are Diluted in PennsylvaniaThe Republican-controlled Pennsylvania General Assembly is battling the newly-elected Governor over, well, just about everything.<br />
<br />
This is a Governor elected by about ten points, which is the generally accepted definition of a landslide.<br />
<br />
But, we hear from an echoey chamber -- the Republicans gained seats in the General Assembly in that same election, so the new Governor should defer to the will of the voters. <br />
<br />
Yeah. But not quite.<br />
<br />
Pennsylvania is so Gerrymandered that last year the Republican State Senate candidates received about 53% of the vote statewide. Yet they won nearly 83% of the contested seats. That's right -- they walked away with almost 1/3 more of the available seats than they should have in a balanced district setup.<br />
<br />
On the House side, where the districts are smaller and hence harder to Gerrymander, they still managed to overcompensate. In State House elections in which Republicans did not run unopposed, they received just over 52% of the vote statewide. Yet, they were awarded with nearly 70% of the contested seats.<br />
<br />
Essentially, the Republicans had a bout a 4-point margin over the Democrats in the GA elections. Not a serious foundation to build a case against the policies of a Governor who won in a landslide. <br />
<br />
Methodology -- I looked at all contested 2014 GA races which had a nominated D & nominated R running. I ignored write-in races. I rounded all candidate totals to the nearest 100 votes -- eg. 15,453 votes became 15,500 votes. I then totaled the votes received by R & D candidates and compared the total statewide percent vote received by Rs & Ds with the percent of seats won by each party. I ignored third-party candidates. <br />
<br />
Here are the raw numbers.<br />
<br />
Senate - 16 seats<br />
13 (82%) won by Rs with 609,200 total votes (53.6%)<br />
3 (18%) won by Ds with 527,000 total votes (46.4%)<br />
<br />
House - 83 seats<br />
56 (67.5%) won by Rs with 844,400 total votes (52.7%)<br />
27 (32.5%) won by Ds with 757,700 total votes (47.3%)<br />
<br />
This kind of result is, by the way, why the move is on to award electoral college votes by district. <br />
<br />
By Gerrymandered district.A Big Fat Slobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12643815117960627121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25895867.post-53010239998619634022015-09-16T14:55:00.001-05:002015-09-16T15:28:34.139-05:00If Trump Wrote the Gettysburg Address<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMA4QV_x0V5uAmJS2PT-oNb5fH7aAkGdK4lNIHLc1qUhnBqCDf_fJpsMakvnv3EMEehgs8Y3dkKUmkc0h9TmR4oHh8KiNsvxyxvKGlZQoQY07UFSiEo2uRkLBjI9VUx7HGDXtIIA/s1600/LincolnDonald+w+hat.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMA4QV_x0V5uAmJS2PT-oNb5fH7aAkGdK4lNIHLc1qUhnBqCDf_fJpsMakvnv3EMEehgs8Y3dkKUmkc0h9TmR4oHh8KiNsvxyxvKGlZQoQY07UFSiEo2uRkLBjI9VUx7HGDXtIIA/s320/LincolnDonald+w+hat.jpg" /></a></div><i>Thank-you Gettysburg</i> (waving to the crowd)! <i>Hiya! Hey there</i> (waving at some guy in the front), <i>you made it, good to see you</i> (waving at another guy over to the side)!<br />
<br />
Wow, <b>lookit this turnout!<i></i></b> It’s something isn’t it?<br />
<br />
I tell you everywhere I go the crowds are getting bigger and bigger – thank-you, thank-you!<br />
<br />
But yet you read some of them Democrat papers and they make it sound like McClelland is surging and they're going to sweep in and end the war -- they're just gonna give up and give in folks (boos from the crowd), then they're gonna reverse the Emancipation Proclamation and go back to the status quo "antebellum" -- that's what they say. What kind of word is that anyway?!<br />
<br />
And their leader -- that McClelland, what an idiot. I fired the guy and there was a good reason for it. I know what I am doing. What a dope.<br />
<br />
The Democrats got their hands full with that Copperheads crowd too, lemme tell you. I say let them go at one another – that party is falling apart with those Jefferson strict construction Copperheads and the War democrats. Lemme tell ya, though, the army LOVES ME!!<br />
<br />
They loved it when I told McClelland <b>YOU’RE FIRED! <i></i></b> They loved it when I freed the slaves! <br />
<br />
SO now the army, <i>they all love Lincoln</i>.<br />
<br />
Speaking of the army, isn’t what they did here terrific? <br />
<br />
But hey, before I get started n that -- them Copperheads – you know where they get most of their support — <i>yeah, down here, he’s got it </i> (pointing at some guy, maybe)– FROM IMMIGRANTS, all those Germans and Irish that came over on them boats. And you know most of <i>them</i> are Papists – Catholics. <br />
<br />
Now I love my Bible as much as the next guy, its my favorite book. But those leaders in Germany and in the, waddyacallit, Irish, they know what they’re doing. It’s really the Brits you know behind this – their not sending us their best and brightest you know. They’re getting rid of their troublemakers and if it keeps going like this we’re all going to be speaking German. So we gotta put a stop to this stuff.<br />
<br />
Don’t get me wrong, I love the Germans and the Irish people – I’m sure they’re mostly good people and I have hundreds – or thousands of them working for me in the army. And they love me too – the whole army does. So now we gotta go face a failed, fired general that the Democrats are running against me – can you believe they went with that guy. What a LOO-ZER!<br />
<br />
You know who aren’t losers – all the brave guys in these graves around here.<br />
<br />
You know, it really hasn’t been all that long since this great country was formed – 4 score something – but you know, we’re gonna finish this job and make it great again. And you know this country was made great by liberty and equal men all created. <br />
<br />
Now we have this terrible terrible war thing going on and I am here to tell you, this country can’t take a lot more of this. It's a test for us, and we're gonna pass that test so big it'll make your head spin. We living gotta finish what these dead guys started doing for us.I know the war hasn’t been going so great all the time, but we got new generals in there and the way I’m gonna lead them, we’re gonna have so many victories, your’re gonna get tired of victories. No, you won’t, I know. <br />
<br />
You know what they did here was pretty terrific. I mean it was amazing what they did here and that’s why we’re here today. We should be and I’m gonna make this war great for us again . <br />
<br />
We really can’t make this place any greater than it is because what they did was pretty great, it was unbelievable, unbelievable all right. No one cares what everyone here said today, the important thing is that we get this stuff they did here and we keep it going and we’ve got some terrific plans and strategies – they are going to blow you away, believe me! <br />
<br />
So we’re going to take their unfinished work and finish it off with some really really good ideas that we’re going to be releasing over the next month or so, don’t you worry about that. <br />
<br />
And then after that this country is gonna be great again!<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>h/t picture thanks to<i></i></b> <a href="http://national.suntimes.com/national-world-news/7/72/1385110/donald-trump-haircut">Chad Merda</a>A Big Fat Slobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12643815117960627121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25895867.post-48270786183758261872015-09-16T11:09:00.001-05:002015-09-16T11:25:26.781-05:00Missed you guys.
Be right back.A Big Fat Slobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12643815117960627121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25895867.post-53585236524324690772011-02-21T08:39:00.002-05:002011-02-21T08:43:55.589-05:00Giving up the GhostDuring the last couple of years, analog ventures, disappointments, and joys have conspired to alternately interfere with the time needed to do this, the desire, or the inspiration. Finally time to recognize that this game has ended. So long, and thanks for the fish. (final h/t to G)A Big Fat Slobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12643815117960627121noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25895867.post-82933981131856600412010-06-16T10:56:00.001-05:002010-06-16T10:59:28.837-05:00Open Invite to Participate in PHAN Weekly Policy Calls<span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">From the old in-box:</span><br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The Pennsylvania Health Access Network (PHAN) is a state-wide coalition that fights for state-level and national health care reforms to improve access to quality, affordable health care for all Pennsylvanians. Since the passage of the national reform package, they have been leading efforts across the state to increase education around the benefits of reform. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Their weekly policy call series is open to everyone and is a great way to access information about specific aspects of reform and how it will impact you. Calls hosted by PHAN take place every Wednesday evening at 6:00 PM. <br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Today, the call is on Rural Health and Health Care Reform with Jon Bailey, Director of Research and Analysis at the Center for Rural Affairs. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">This line-up for upcoming calls is as follows:</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />6/23- High Risk Pools and adultBasic - Hear about PA’s proposal for High Risk Pools, including who will be eligible and what the coverage will entail. Also, get updates on the fight to save adultBasic and 43,000 Pennsylvanians from losing their health care coverage.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">6/30 - Maternal Health and Health Care Reform – with Letty Thall, Public Policy Director of Maternal Care Coalition.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">7/7 – Messaging and Health Care Reform – Bring your questions on specific aspects of reform to this call. Learn from PHAN staff about how to talk about health care reform to others including specific messaging techniques. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">For dial-in instructions, to RSVP, or questions, contact Athena at <span style="color:#0000ff;"><span lang="zxx"><u><a href="mailto:aford@philaup.org">aford@philaup.org</a></u></span></span>. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p>A Big Fat Slobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12643815117960627121noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25895867.post-71765479904721381482010-05-18T12:07:00.006-05:002010-05-18T20:38:22.364-05:00Specter Likely to Pull it OutAlthough I would not be the least surprised if Joe Sestak wins today's primary battle against Arlen Specter for the Democratic nomination in the 2010 US Senate race, I expect the end of the day will see Specter hanging on by as many as four points.<br /><br />Neither candidate has polled a majority since the race began in earnest (which is a Philadelphia suburb), leaving a swath of undecideds out there right up to yesterday's most recent poll. Generally, undecideds in these kinds of races tend to break for the challenger, and I suspect that will also be the case today.<br /><br />Offsetting that, however, is the GOTV. Any one of Specter, the Obama machine, the Pennsylvania Democratic Party, the Ed Rendell machine, and the Pennsylvania Unions may boast of enjoying one the most effective GOTV forces this side of Mason-Dixon. Together, as they are for Specter, it is an awesome juggernaut that can situate Specter to compensate for the undecideds going to Sestak.<br /><br />Up against that is the weak Sestak statewide campaign, which didn't even manage to put an office in all of the key regions, much less a GOTV effort. This morning Sestak's campaign distributed a list of party locations for this evening. I think they have half a dozen in the entire state, most within 100 miles of Philadelphia. Nothing in the Northeast beyond the Lehigh Valley -- the Poconos, Wilkes Barre, Scranton, Northern Tier, all but ignored tonight and throughout hte campaign.<br /><br />But for the snippet of video showing a creepy Specter boasting about switching parties to "enable me to get <span style="font-style: italic;">re-e-lect-ted</span>", Sestak's family-run campaign would have left him where he was a few months ago -- down 20 points to a mean spirited, Iraq-supporting, Anita Hill bashing, Thomas-supporting, Kagan-opposing-now-supporting, half-deaf, party-switching, octogenarian Republican recovering from cancer.<br /><br />This race should not have been close. Sestak should have had it sown up months ago. The main reason he didn't was his stubborn insistence of using his family to run their first statewide campaign. Ignoring offers of assistance, office space, and personnel tendered by Democratic faithful before he even announced a final decision to run, his campaign has been the poster child for why one needs to switch staff when moving from a local district race to a statewide effort.<br /><br />Of course, Sestak's anemic debate performance didn't help -- but an experienced staff could have better trained him for the event.<br /><br />So, when Sestak is suddenly out of a job, it won't be Arlen Specter's fault, or President Obama's, he can just look around the Thanksgiving table for the reasons.<br /><br />By the same token, if he does manage to hold off Specter and win this, no credit is due to his campaign staff. If they knew how to do their jobs, this would not have been a nail-biter depending on poor turnout in Philadelphia for success.A Big Fat Slobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12643815117960627121noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25895867.post-81419940757765583722010-04-01T08:46:00.003-05:002010-04-01T09:00:00.733-05:00Wilkesberry Banning Cell Phones for Driving, Riding, WalkingFrom this morning's local rag (this speaks for itself):<br /><br /><h1>Wilkes-Barre moving to ban use of cell phones while driving, riding, walking<br /></h1> <div class="dateLine"> <span class="author"><span style="text-transform: uppercase;">By Matthew Harras (Staff Writer)</span></span> <br /> <span class="date">Published: April 1, 2010</span> </div> <br />WILKES-BARRE - Hang up your cell phone or risk getting pulled over. That's the choice Wilkes-Barre drivers and others face in less than a month after the City Council passed one of the most comprehensive cell phone safety ordinances in the country last night. <p>No longer content waiting for the state to act, city council last night adopted an ordinance banning the use of hand-held devices while "operating a motor vehicle, bicycle, riding on a skateboard or other self-propelled device, or walking on public sidewalks" in Wilkes-Barre, joining four other cities across the state that put similar laws in place over the past six months. <br /></p><p>The Wilkes-Barre ordinance goes further than the others in comprehensively covering cell-phone use while operating any moving vehicle, which is defined to include "self-propelled devices" such as bicycles, skateboards, and roller-blades. Most controversially, the ordinance also bans cell-phone use on city sidewalks unless the user "remains stationary during the entire call".<br /></p><p>Council Vice Chairwoman Kathy Kane said her motivation in pursuing the ordinance was to allow the city to curb a nationally growing problem of distracted drivers fiddling with their cell phones and make up for the lack of statewide restrictions. As for the expansion of the coverage to non-motor vehicles and walking, Kane said "it has been conclusively shown that cell phone use distracts the user and operating a bicycle while distracted can be just as dangerous as a vehicle. The United States Military bands military personnel from using cell phones while walking, as do major employers such as Sanofi. This is because of the serious safety concerns and we should be equally concerned for the safety of our citizens."<br /></p><p>Responding to assertions that the motor vehicle coverage may not be consistent with state law, Kane told us "I think it's enforceable." "Will people like it? Probably not,", said Kane, the major proponent of the new law, "but we want to stop people from doing it. It's a real hassle, and maybe if they know if it's enforced they'll stop."</p><p>Wilkes-Barre Solicitor Tim Henry said police would begin stopping drivers, riders, and walkers on April 18. </p><p>Under the ordinance, drivers, riders, and walkers would be banned from talking, dialing, answering, text messaging or browsing the Web on their cell phone. The use of hands-free mobile devices such as Bluetooth headsets would be permitted. Unlike other towns in the state, users could be stopped and cited for simply using their phone instead of getting fined only when involved in accidents or traffic offenses such as speeding. </p><p>Mr. Henry said his office reviewed ordinances from other communities to decide which provisions could be adapted for Wilkes-Barre, including Allentown and Luzerne, which passed its ordinance in August 2009 and levies a $75 fine for violations.</p><p>"We took a look at theirs while crafting ours, of course, so we didn't have to reinvent the wheel," Mr. Henry said. "You get to see some ideas that other people had and take the best ideas from each one and incorporate it that way."</p><p>Just how much motorists could be fined remains undecided. From Ms. Kane's perspective, fines should be escalating and need to have sufficient bite to convince violators to deter chatting while driving.</p><p>"Personally, I think the higher the better," she said. "Young people don't care if it's $20 or $25."</p><p>The Council adopted fines $75 and $150 for first offenses with a grace period in effect before police officers begin handing out tickets. </p><p>"Council advised the police department for the first 30 or 45 days to pull somebody over, warn them, tell them about the ordinance," he said. </p><p>Contact the writer: mharras@citizensvoice.com</p>A Big Fat Slobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12643815117960627121noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25895867.post-81234222834365949822010-03-31T16:57:00.005-05:002010-03-31T18:55:51.480-05:00Georgia AG to Gov: Health Reform Lawsuit Hogwash<div style="text-align: justify;">Georgia's Democratic Attorney General Thurbert Baker refused to comply with a request from Republican Governor Sonny Perdue to join with other (all Republican) Attorneys General in their lawsuit against the Federal Government over the recently-enacted (<span style="font-style: italic;">LOVE saying that</span>) health insurance reform.<br /><br />Putting it much better than <a href="http://www.abigfatslob.com/2010/03/when-youre-dead-lay-down.html">yours T</a> (there's a shocker), General Baker let Sonny know just why the litigation is so wrong-headed. His <a href="http://law.ga.gov/vgn/images/portal/cit_79369762/157880827Response%20to%20Perdue.pdf">correspondence</a> was recently released:<br /></div><br /><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">In short, this litigation is likely to fail and will consume significant amounts of taxpayers' hard-earned money in the process.<br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">Throughout the history of this nation, our courts have been reluctant to overturn legislative acts unless a clear constitutional violation is shown. While your letter does not suggest specific claims in the proposed litigation, I will address two that have been raised publicly regarding the law. Some believe that the law's requirement that all individuals purchase health insurance is unconstitutional. I believe such an argument is highly unlikely to succeed. In fact, earlier this month, an appellate court decision rejecting such arguments was issued in the only case I am aware of to be litigated on this topic to date.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">As you may know, then-Governor Mitt Romney proposed and signed into law in2006 a bill thatrequires all Massachusetts residents to purchase health insurance. <span style="font-style: italic;">[Egads. Mittens!? Really??!]</span> A suit was brought against theCommonwealth by a plaintiff who alleged that the requirement violated his rights under the Fifth,Seventh and Eighth Amendments of the United States Constitution and various provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution. In <span style="font-style: italic;">Fountas v. Commissioner of the Department of Revenue</span>, 2010 Mass.App. Unpub. Lexis 223 (Marchs, 2010), the Massachusetts Court of Appeals rejected all of those arguments.<br /></div></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">I also understand that some believe that the Act's expansion of eligibility for Medicaid violates states' rights by requiring the state to spend additional money to insure more people. While there may be disagreement with that provision as a matter of budgetary priority and policy, I am sure you are also aware that Medicaid is a joint federal-state program in which Georgia's participation is voluntary and in which federal funding provides approximately 60% of our state Medicaid funds. The right of the United States govemment to require action by states as a condition of receiving federal funding has been litigated repeatedly, including in the United States Supreme Court, and is well established in our nation's constitutional law<br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">* * *</span><br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">For the reasons stated above, I cannot in good conscience file a lawsuit against the United States that I believe has little or no chance of success and will undoubtedly consume significant state resources in atime of severe budgetary crisis.</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">Poor Mittens. What is he to do? After doing the right thing in Massachusetts (at the time he said it should be the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/20/romney.health.care/index.html">model for a national reform</a>), he now turns around and condemns an essentially similar national reform. So the Baggers and Wingnutz will shun him for what he did as Governor, and the moderate and liberals will laugh at him for his duplicity. And he <span style="font-style: italic;">sooooo </span>wants to be President.<br /></div>A Big Fat Slobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12643815117960627121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25895867.post-37219477892247459682010-03-29T18:06:00.001-05:002010-03-30T08:57:43.966-05:00Rethugs Thugs and Outliers<div style="text-align: justify;">Yesterday on Meet the Press, Chuck Schumer waived off David Gregory's invitation to pile onto the Republicans over the insults, threats, and acts of violence directed at Democratic Members of Congress in reaction to the health insurance reform law. Senator Schumer correctly noted that those behaving reprehensibly represented "outliers" of those opposed to the new law, and that it would be wrong to tar all the rest.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />We'll leave aside for the moment the sad fact that no one within eye or ear shot of the various acts and slurs lifted a finger to stop the "tiny fraction", or even wagged a finger, much less collared them for processing by the authorities. And as to the cover of darkness brick throwers, no one to whom those yahoos have boasted has yet to drop a dime.<br /><br />Schumer passed on the opportunity to use this question to assess the responsibility of the Republican Party leadership for the series of violent and extreme actions we've seen directed at Democratic Members of Congress recently. He may have thought it impolitic after lecturing Lyndsey Graham on the Republican threat of refusing to work with Democrats on the other pressing issues before Congress.<br /><br />But hearken back to the days of the Obama-McCain campaign. Recall those accusations against the now-President? How <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvXf9AUHTqM">McCain would egg on the crowd</a> by asking them "Who is the real Barack Obama?" and wait for their answer -- "Terrorist!" Throughout that summer and fall the Republican standard-bearers allowed their supporters to shout "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fB0lBXRdnU&feature=related">Treason!</a>" or "Kill Him!" at their rallies. Instead of throwing them out, or correcting their supporters, McCain and Palin paused to enjoy the huzzahs of the crowd. (McCain, unevenly and only halfheartedly, sometimes <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/opinion/12rich.html">murmured objections</a>, infrequently enough to make them ineffective.)<br /><br />With the top of the ticket giving them cover, Republican leaders told their faithful that Senator Obama was "<a href="http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/GOP_hits_rock_bottom_Calls_Obama_in_an_official_release_terrorists_best_friend.html">a terrorist's best friend</a>". After the election, Republican leaders, like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, gleefully attend the Tea Bagger rallies, prominently featuring racist and violent signs and pictures attacking the President and Democrats. They encouraged the claims of socialism, that the President was leading an attack on freedom or ushering in totalitarianism. No correction, no objection, no call for serious discourse. They delighted as the Baggers, with Republican Congressional encouragement, disrupted town hall meetings for the very purpose and effect of preventing reasoned discourse.<br /><br />Two years into this ugly campaign, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/23/michele-bachmann-i-want-p_n_178156.html">Michele Bachman</a> now tells supporters to consider policy disputes an armed conflict, in which she is "a foreign correspondent behind <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">enemy</span> lines". Warning about "<span style="font-style: italic;">nefarious things</span>" going on in Washington, she shrilly laments for the very <span style="font-style: italic;">existence</span> of the country: "the people . . . .are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country." And, after seeing violence directed at Democrats in Congress, Bachman exhorts "the people" to prepare for war: "I <span style="font-style: italic;">want</span> people . . . <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">armed and dangerous</span> . . . we need to fight back . . . having a revolution every now and then is a good thing."<br /><br />Under what scenario is this sort of talk tolerated from a Member of Congress? Under what circumstances would that member's party leadership not condemn and disown the comments?<br /><br />Sadly, in today's Republican Party -- we have witnessed a two-year campaign in which incitement has become not only an acceptable way to whip up the base, but and essential element of the opposition strategy.<br /><br />Michele Bachman can get away without criticism from her leader, because just a week before that he referred to a supporter of health insurance reform as a "<a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTc1OWI4MjFkY2Y5YWQ5Y2MxMmYxZDc2MDM5N2QxNmM=">dead man</a>": [He's] a dead man. He can’t go home to the west side of Cincinnati."<br /><br />And, while the reform legislation was passing the House, Iowa Congressman <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/22/king-health-secession/">Steve King</a> took the bullhorn at a Tea Bagger rally to issue these calming works about what needs to be done with the Democratic majority: "<span style="font-style: italic;">Let’s <span style="font-weight: bold;">beat that other side to a pulp</span>! Let’s <span style="font-weight: bold;">take them out</span>. Let’s <span style="font-weight: bold;">chase them down</span>. <span style="font-weight: bold;">There’s going to be a reckoning</span></span><span style="font-weight: bold;">!</span>" (King is the same guy who <a href="http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/steve-king-to-conservatives-implode-irs-offices.php">essentially justified</a> the nut who flew a plane into the IRS building in Texas.)<br /><br />Those Tea Baggers who spat on Congressmen, hurled epithets and slurs at them are indeed outliers and don't represent the greater majority of the opposition. But they were given cover, and permission, to act out by the Republican leadership tolerance of this sort of thing for the last two years -- by the creation of an appearance of the propriety of such conduct, by the indirect and direct expression that this kind of action is necessary to preserve our freedoms, to save our country. In a more sane environment, those surrounding these "outliers" would denounce them, would oust them from their midst to avoid being tarred with their brush. Just as in more sane times an outlier Congressman would be taken to task for intemperate words.<br /><br />But when the <a href="http://republicanleader.house.gov/">minority leader</a> of the House suggests a colleague is a 'dead man' who can't go home; when a member of Congress grabs the bullhorn before an angry mob with vicious posters and ugly chants, and exhorts them that the only way to deal with the opposition is to "beat them to a pulp", we are not in sane times.<br /><br />After seeing the horrifying dividend paid on their two-year campaign, John Boehner went to t<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dsEEcJugdc">he airwaves</a> to recruit the brick throwers, the spitters, the gun shooters, to work for his campaign. Does anyone really need to say that he <a href="http://vodpod.com/watch/3305524-mark-potok-john-boehner-a-day-late-and-a-dollar-short">missed the point</a>?<br /><br />In a more sane environment, he would have asked those with knowledge of these criminals to turn them into authorities. He would have urged the Tea Baggers to cleanse their ranks of the loonies, the racists, and the violent among them. In a more sane environment, Sarah Palin would have been shamed into taking down her graphic of <a href="http://gort42.blogspot.com/2010/03/carney-in-crosshairs.html">rifle crosshairs</a> on the Democratic Congressmen who supported the health insurance reform legislation. Instead, she is cheered for defiantly calling on her following to "<a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ioGbSpdeytUZln_DmxXLf2C5-pGwD9EOI4580">RELOAD!</a>". And <a href="http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=12222377">they do</a>.<br /><br />The Republican Party leadership condones, encourages, and participates in this rhetoric of violence in response to policy differences. That political disputes ought not be addressed in civil discussion on the issues is further underscored by their second strategy -- preferring process arguments, procedural complaint, and atmospherics to discourse. Their legions, and particularly the outliers among them, are hearing that there is no use talking, there is nothing to talk about, that dangerous and fearful things are happening, and that the discourse is no way to deal with the Democrats. They then see their heroes using gun sights to target Democrats, calling for them to be beaten to a pulp, exhorting them to reload.<br /><br />In all these ways and many more, over the last two years the Republican leadership has ,directly and indirectly, in manners veiled and plain, granted cover to the worst of their fools to behave in the worst of ways. And while the actors are themselves to blame for their actions, the Republican reaction to those violent and threatening outliers continues to be tone-deaf and some, like King and Palin, seem to take delight in incitement. When they do, it is for people like Cantor, Boehner, and McConnell to let them know that that is not how the loyal opposition behaves in a mature democracy. Instead, they recruit the angry to work on their campaigns, <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/26/staff-tries-to-clarify-cantor-remarks-after-police-say-incident-was-not-threat-but-random-gunfire/?fbid=nkNyBIXT0zg">make up</a> stories about angry gunshots through their own windows, and keep repeating slogans suggesting a national <a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/can-no-revive-the-republicans/">Armageddon</a> is upon us. <br /><br />Leaders don't act that way on the national stage -- outliers do.<br /><br />Robert Greenwald and the <a href="http://www.bravenewfoundation.org/">Brave New Foundation</a> team have recently gathered over 50,000 signatures on a <a href="http://www.facebook.com/cuentame?v=app_10531514314">Petition</a> to the Republicans to take ownership of this insane environment and to encourage them to take more serious action to quell the violence of the Tea Baggers. Here's a suggestion to the Republicans, start with policing your own ranks.<br /><br />All of which leaves me to wonder, what punctuation would fit the title of this piece?<br /></div>A Big Fat Slobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12643815117960627121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25895867.post-1285974043892534342010-03-27T09:34:00.005-05:002010-03-27T11:51:07.403-05:00Bloggers, Pols, and Wannabes Overwhelm Rooney'sAbout 100 NEPA Bloggers, Politicians, Candidates, staffers, and groupies of all, descended on Rooney's in Pittston last night for the umpteenth OT Blogger Happy Hour organized by <a href="http://gort42.blogspot.com/2010/03/happy-hour-today.html">Gort,</a> but the first to attract such widespread attention. Most interesting, the<a href="http://citizensvoice.com/news/candidates-meet-the-faces-behind-the-screen-names-1.701475"> print media was there</a> to cover the bloggers.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.blogger.com/john%20yudichak">Phyllis Mundy</a> was there, gracious as always. Rumor has it <a href="http://www.votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=CPA49438">John Yudichak</a> was also in attendance. I did see a suit with a haircut, that might have been him. <a href="http://www.specter2010.com/">Democratic-turned-Republican-turned-Democrat</a> Arlen's paid and volunteer staff was there in force, but the Sestak folks were apparently too busy with their campaign to become the <a href="http://joesestak.com/Home/Home.html">Senator from MSNBC</a> to send anyone by. <a href="http://www.luzernecounty.org/county/commissioners/stephen_anthony_urban">Commissioner (why doesn't anyone listen to me) Steve Urban</a>, <a href="http://www.mayorleighton.com/">Mayor (is that a City Contract or a Donation Card in Your Pocket) Tom Leighton</a>, and many others put in appearances.<br /><br />The valiant staff at Rooney's clearly had no idea what they were getting into. They smiled and tirelessly tried to keep up with the beer, wine, and food orders. Expecting not much, we were pleasantly surprised with the good food, beer and wine selections.<br /><br />The NEPA Bloggers seem to have come of age.A Big Fat Slobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12643815117960627121noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25895867.post-2574013792656215932010-03-25T05:21:00.006-05:002010-03-25T15:52:31.582-05:00Coverage Kerfuffle<div style="text-align: justify;">Yesterday I was thrice told that Senators and Representatives exempted themselves from the just signed health reform law.<br /><br />This is yet another example of the exasperated and desperate simply making things up to stir the pot. Actually, <a href="http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act-as-passed.pdf">the bill</a> (page 157) <span style="font-style: italic;">requires</span> Members of Congress to participate in the exchanges:<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote>(D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE-<br /><br />(i) REQUIREMENT- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are–<br /><br /> (I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or<br /><br /> (II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).</blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Okay, kids? Can we now agree that the claim you heard in the echo chamber -- that Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi are not subject to this reform -- is just another made up "fact" about the health insurance reform law? So, how many more lies and distortions are you going to believe and blather on about until you embarrass yourself again? Didn't you ever <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A">hear this</a> saying?<br /><br />Now, there is <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34900_Page2.html">some confusion</a> about how far down the Congressional line this applies -- it is clear it will apply to Congressional personal staff. But, it looks like some Committee professional staffers might be excluded from mandatory participation. STOP THE FREAKIN' PRESSES!!! The Architect of the Capitol and committee lawyers might be able to "<span style="font-style: italic;">keep the insurance they have</span>". Damn, the bastard kept another promise.<br /><br />I'd like to see direct Congressional employees in this thing, as well as the President and White House staff. But if this is the best argument against the <strike>bill</strike> law, well, do I need to point out how weak it is?<br /><br />This is another example of the strategery here -- talk about anything except the substance. Talk about the process (but never mention that the law passed with a majority of both chambers and a super-majority in the Senate), raise distraction, embrace distortion, but never ever talk about the 750,000 who filed bankruptcy last year because this law had not been enacted, or the 150,000 babies born with birth defects last year who will now be insurable, and for heaven's sake, don't let small businesses hear that they are getting up to 35% in tax credits for every dollar they spend on health insurance.<br /></div>A Big Fat Slobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12643815117960627121noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25895867.post-46612234537951993102010-03-23T17:05:00.008-05:002010-03-24T15:27:30.736-05:00When You're Dead, Lay Down<div style="text-align: justify;">I took the title of this piece from a line someone tossed out on the Republican lawsuits and threats after yesterday's wonderful signing ceremony (I think it was <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-begala">Paul Begala</a>). Whoever said it, it was good advice.<br /><br />President Obama was still handing out pens when the Republican attorneys general filed their <a href="http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/complaint.pdf">complaint</a>. (I guess, unlike John Boehner, they had had plenty of time to learn what was in the bill and prepare their complaint.) The lawsuit was filed in State Court in Florida. (You'll soon see it removed to Federal Court.)<br /><br />The complaint tells us that the health insurance reform legislation, which -- it bears repeating -- was approved by a Senate super-majority and a majority in the House -- is "an unprecedented encroachment on the liberty of individuals . . . by mandating that all citizens and legal residents of the United States have qualifying healthcare coverage or pay a tax penalty." (Paragraph 2.)<br /><br />The complaint was prepared by <a href="http://www.bakerlaw.com/davidbrivkin/">David Rivkin</a> and <a href="http://www.bakerlaw.com/leeacasey/">Lee Casey</a>, partners in the D.C. office of the law firm Baker Hostetler LLP. They previously served in the Justice Department under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Their arguments were previewed in a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082103033.html">Washington Post piece</a> last summer.<br /><br />I am going to try to resist the legal jargon and case citations, but before we jump into the Constitutional arguments, one has to understand two points:<br /><br />i. under the Constitution's "<a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html">Commerce Clause</a>" the Federal Government has the authority to regulate commerce and to enact all laws "necessary and proper" related to that power; and,<br /><br />ii. the '<a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html">tax and spend</a>' clause (there really is such a thing) gives the Federal Government the power to levy taxes for the "common Defence and general Welfare of the United States".<br /><br />Okay, the Republican attorneys general argument goes like this:<br /><br />1. "[T]he [health insurance reform] Act compels said persons to have healthcare coverage, whether or not they wish to do so, or be subject to sanction. . . . The Act is directed to a failure to engage in activity . . . . Such inactivity by its nature cannot be deemed to be in commerce or to have any substantial effect on commerce, whether interstate or otherwise. As a result, the Act cannot be upheld under the Commerce Clause". (Complaint, para.64-65.)<br /><br />2. The act imposes a penalty -- a tax -- on people who don't purchase health insurance. The Republican argument is that the tax isn't Constitutional because "It is to be levied upon persons for their failure or refusal to do anything other than to exist and reside in the United States" -- that is, a coercive tax penalty on "inactivity" is unconstitutional.<br /><br />The Commerce Clause argument is too cute. In a weak high school debate, it might score a point. In the grown-up world, it fails. The fundamental flaw (and there are <a href="http://www.acslaw.org/pdf/Lazarus%20Issue%20Brief%20Final.pdf">many other flaws)</a> is the conceptual blinder required to view "inactivity" as not having the ability to affect interstate commerce.<br /><br />Individuals not purchasing health insurance have as great and substantive impact on interstate commerce as individuals purchasing the coverage -- it is the lack of coverage which precipitates the crisis. Estimates are some 750,000 personal bankruptcies are filed annually caused by the lack of any, or of adequate, health insurance. That, alone, is quite enough to establish the interstate commerce nexus for Constitutional purposes.<br /><br />And this is not an unexamined area of the law. The Federal Courts uniformly reject precisely this "inactivity" argument. For example, Federal law requiring former sex offenders to register have been upheld against a claim that the Commerce Clause could not regulate "non-activity" (ie, not registering) and the Federal law criminalizing the failure to make child support payments was also upheld against the same claim that the Commerce Clause does not regulate "non-payment".<br /><br />Remember when the Supreme Court struck down the Federal law making it a crime to carry a gun in a school zone? It did so on Commerce Clause reasoning that the act of carrying a gun in a school zone was not an activity which, if repeated elsewhere, would have an effect on interstate commerce. While it is a case that Rivkin & Casey like to point to, the obverse of the reasoning undermines their argument -- it is incontestable that the failure to have adequate health insurance -- the "decision not to act", if you like -- has a direct and substantial impact on commerce.<br /><br />The taxing powers claim similarly fails. First, remember that the Congress can adopt any tax enacted to support any of its enumerated powers. Therefore, if the legislation passes muster under the Commerce Clause, then the taxing provisions are Constitutional. Second, the general tax and spend powers are interpreted very broadly and even if some exceedingly activist Court ignores the interstate commerce nexus, the power to tax for the general welfare is broad enough to sustain the Act. The assertions in the complaint that it is a coercive penalty and not a revenue-producing tax is another word play that has no legal implication -- from a Constitutional law perspective, there is no difference between a coercive tax and a revenue-producing tax.<br /><br />The Republican attorneys general should just lay down (and encourage John McCain to join them).<br /></div>A Big Fat Slobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12643815117960627121noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25895867.post-10467217596454294832010-03-22T12:52:00.001-05:002010-03-22T12:54:39.131-05:00NEPA Blogger Meet Up This Friday, Candidates WelcomeFrom <a href="http://gort42.blogspot.com/2010/03/blogger-meetup_21.html">Gort</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote>The next blogger meetup will be Friday March 26th at Rooney's Irish Pub 67 S. Main St. Pittston, PA 18704 starting at 5PM. There is big bar area with tables off to the side and plenty of free parking across the street where the Tomato Festival is held. It's easy to find just drive north on River Street from W-B and it's on the left.<br /><br />It looks like we will have a good turnout. So far I have received confirmation from about 15 campaigns for Congress, State Senate and State House that the candidate and/or supporters will be attending. That includes Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians and Pastafarians.<br /><br />Our political bloggers from Luzerne and Lackawanna counties will be there along with our readers, commentators and people who are just interested in local politics.<br /><br /><br />This is an informal mixer with no speeches scheduled. There is no charge for admission.<br /><br /></blockquote>A Big Fat Slobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12643815117960627121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25895867.post-47332034595573247192010-03-22T12:11:00.004-05:002010-03-22T12:16:07.085-05:00Senate to House: You can Trust Us Here's a Signed DocumentOver half of the Senate has signed a letter to the House promising to support the House reconciliation package. And we all know, if you have a signed document in your possession, you can't go wrong (h/t <a href="http://www.xmradio.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=XM/Channel/XMChannelBio&chid=1202144014897">Tim Farley</a>):<br /><br /><object width="340" height="285"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BTUy_mlpgy4&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BTUy_mlpgy4&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="340" height="285"></embed></object>A Big Fat Slobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12643815117960627121noreply@blogger.com0