scandal

How do you think you get to vote totals like 290-130, or 73-27? Through bipartisanship. Through having members of both parties being willing to support important legislation that Americans demand.
Do you want to know the real unspoken difference between 1964 and 2010? It's the South. It always has been.
As Krystol says, in 1964 the House vote was 290-130. Here's how the House vote broke down by North/South:
* Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
Only 7 out of 97 Southerners of both parties supported it. 283 out of 316 Northerners did.
A very similar result ensued in the Senate:
* Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
* Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%)
At the time, the Southerner oppositionists said much the same about Civil Rights as the naysayers say today about Healthcare: That it's un-American, communist, and will spell the end of the politicians trying to pass it.
In fact, it did leave permanent damage to the Democratic party in that it once and for all began the end of Democratic strength in the south, a Democratic bastion since the Civil war and Reconstruction.
Today, all those Southern Democrats who just said 'NO' to civil rights have become Republicans. They are the very same Republicans (in spirit and philosophy) who are saying NO to progressive legislation today, including healthcare.
We had bipartisanship in 1964 because the GOP was a more moderate and centrist party, and because the Democrats were effectively two parties under one roof: a moderate centrist Northern wing and a reactionary absolutist Southern wing which had to be pushed out of the way to get something accomplished.
That southern wing attached itself tot he Republican party and its philosophy of rejectionist conservativism has taken over that party such that there are few if any moderate Republicans left. Some get literally kicked out of the party (Arlen Specter), some are derided as RINOs (Olympia Snowe). The GOP has become that ugly hard boiled cyst of Southernism, and it refuses to act in bipartisan fashion on any issue.
No wonder the only way we can pass important legislation in 2010 is by narrow majorities that the House Leader and Whip are able to cobble together. That achievement makes the event even more historic, certainly not less so.

How do you think you get to vote totals like 290-130, or 73-27? Through bipartisanship. Through having members of both parties being willing to support important legislation that Americans demand.
Do you want to know the real unspoken difference between 1964 and 2010? It's the South. It always has been.
As Krystol says, in 1964 the House vote was 290-130. Here's how the House vote broke down by North/South:
* Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
Only 7 out of 97 Southerners of both parties supported it. 283 out of 316 Northerners did.
A very similar result ensued in the Senate:
* Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
* Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%)
At the time, the Southerner oppositionists said much the same about Civil Rights as the naysayers say today about Healthcare: That it's un-American, communist, and will spell the end of the politicians trying to pass it.
In fact, it did leave permanent damage to the Democratic party in that it once and for all began the end of Democratic strength in the south, a Democratic bastion since the Civil war and Reconstruction.
Today, all those Southern Democrats who just said 'NO' to civil rights have become Republicans. They are the very same Republicans (in spirit and philosophy) who are saying NO to progressive legislation today, including healthcare.
We had bipartisanship in 1964 because the GOP was a more moderate and centrist party, and because the Democrats were effectively two parties under one roof: a moderate centrist Northern wing and a reactionary absolutist Southern wing which had to be pushed out of the way to get something accomplished.
That southern wing attached itself tot he Republican party and its philosophy of rejectionist conservativism has taken over that party such that there are few if any moderate Republicans left. Some get literally kicked out of the party (Arlen Specter), some are derided as RINOs (Olympia Snowe). The GOP has become that ugly hard boiled cyst of Southernism, and it refuses to act in bipartisan fashion on any issue.
No wonder the only way we can pass important legislation in 2010 is by narrow majorities that the House Leader and Whip are able to cobble together. That achievement makes the event even more historic, certainly not less so.

Why is your avatar pointing a gun? Who is he aiming at?

My pleasure, chopfuck!

Let me help you.
Spookyturtle = Chopfuck extraordinaire.
Your wife = The jewel in your eye you waited years to bring here legally.

This was an op-ed in today's Chicago Tribune. It made me mad when I read it so I thought I'd make the rest of you mad too.
* I don't know if this figure of 400,000 deportations under Obama is accurate, but if it is I'm shedding no tears.
* What does the phrase "non-criminal undocumented immigrants" even mean?? If you are here "undocumented", meaning you evaded US immigration law, then you have BROKEN that law meaning you are a LAWBREAKER who has committed a CRIME which is what the definition of the word CRIMINAL is. So how can you be a non-criminal? That phrase is inherently nonsensical.
I am all for immigration reform. But I'm also in favor of respect for our laws. No one is above the law. No one. Not the President, not members of Congress, and certainly not people who break immigration laws and then have a sense of entitlement and "outrage" that they are being mistreated.
Obama’s moral failure on immigration
March 18, 2010
I'm a community organizer. Last week, I did something I never thought would be possible. I met with the president of the United States in the West Wing of the White House.
President Barack Obama met for 75 minutes with 14 leaders from across the country to discuss immigration reform — and the destruction of some 1,100 immigrant families a day through deportations carried out by his administration.
The meeting was tense, blunt and passionate. And there was a racial irony to our discussion. Our labor, faith and immigrant rights leaders included seven Latinos, three Asians and four whites. We were meeting with our country's first African-American president, the son of an immigrant father. His senior advisers at the meeting included three African-Americans (one the child of immigrants), a Latina, a Chinese-American woman and a white woman.
There were years of intertwined friendships and relationships at the table, including my own with the president that began when he was a Chicago community organizer in 1986. Yet, despite all of these ties, we were there to tell him about his moral failure on immigration, and his looming political catastrophe.
Immigrant families are destroyed every day through deportations, Deepak Bhargava of the Center for Community Change, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit advocacy group, told Obama. Latinos are angry and feel betrayed that the Obama White House has increased deportations and hasn't advanced reform, which could result in a nightmare for Democrats in the fall elections.
The president was just as blunt. He said that he and 45 to 47 Democratic senators support immigration reform. The problem, he said, is the lack of Republican support. Obama said his administration is shifting the focus of deportation onto undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes. If Americans come to believe the government is serious about immigration enforcement, he said, they will support reform measures that allow undocumented immigrants to gain legal status here.
Obama's wrong. Immigration is hunting down teens, workers, mothers, not just criminals. According to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement reports, President George W. Bush's second term began with 246,000 deportations a year. Under Obama, the number is closer to 400,000. The administration's lack of leadership on immigration reform and its increased deportations of non-criminals has created a toxic relationship with Latino immigrants.
The president agreed to call on Republican senators to join in a bipartisan push, but the administration's spin is still that Republicans will need to step up first if immigration reform is going to be passed. This sounds like blame-shifting.
The president is poisoning the well of political support he received from Latinos. And Republicans aren't lining up to stand next to him on immigration.
On Sunday, tens of thousands of marchers will be on the streets of Washington, D.C. We hope that this participatory democracy will cause Republicans and Democrats to focus on legislative solutions for immigration reform. We will continue to push Obama and other leaders such as Sen. ####### Durbin to have courage.
In the U.S., we change stupid and broken laws. That is why first lady Michelle Obama and women across the U.S. can vote. That is why President Obama and I can eat at the same lunch counters in the South.
A law that allows the destruction of 400,000 families a year is immoral. Obama needs to make an honest push for immigration reform and stop his administration's reign of terror against non-criminal undocumented immigrants.
Something is afoot in immigrant communities. In Chicago, courageous young immigrants are "coming out," publicly declaring that they are undocumented and unafraid of the consequences. If immigration legislation stalls, President Obama may provoke a new period of civil rights confrontations — aimed at him.
Joshua Hoyt is the executive director of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights.

This is why the guy cannot run anything but his mouth!
I HOPE they pull of this dumb@ss stunt in congress. After all the health care debacle will no tbegin for four years plenty of time for all the morons that vote for it to be tossed out and whole thing repealed.
If a defense contractor bought votes the way Pelosi and Reid do, someone would be going to prison. I am ashamed at these tactics in THIS country. This is Banana Republic type stuff. Not even the B@lls to stand up and have a vote on a real bill.

Thanks
I just did too. That's my first and probably only use of this voting thing.

Thanks
I just did too. That's my first and probably only use of this voting thing.

Yeah, I know. I didn't take it personally . I did vote you up, though.

Consider the reaction of AIPAC vs. J Street to this mess, as reported in this article.
More and more, AIPAC is going to find fewer and fewer American Jews supporting it, and wondering why.
I never voted Likud in Israel, why on Earth would I consider supporting its mouthpiece in the US?
It's so refreshing to have J Street on the scene to give some balance to Israeli public opinion.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1156583.html
'U.S. administration is ignoring a host of Palestinian provocations'
By Natasha Mozgovaya, Haaretz Correspondent
Eric Cantor, a leading Republican official in the U.S. House of Representatives, on Monday lashed out at the Obama administration's recent criticism of Israel over its announcement that it would construct 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem.
Israel drew angry reactions from the U.S. and the Palestinians by announcing new construction in the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood during a visit by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden last week.
Israeli envoy to the U.S. Michael Oren, meanwhile, told the country's diplomats there that U.S.-Israeli relations face their worst crisis in 35 years.
Republican Whip Cantor (R-VA) called the U.S. reaction to the Israeli announcement "irresponsible."
"In an effort to ingratiate our country with the Arab world, this administration has shown a troubling eagerness to undercut our allies and friends," Cantor said. "Israel has always been committed to the peace process, including advocating for direct talks between Israelis and Palestinians, in effort to bring this conflict to an end. Unfortunately, the Palestinian government continues to insist on indirect talks and slowing down the process."
Cantor continued by accusing the U.S. administration of ignoring "a host of Palestinian provocations that undermine prospects for peace in the region."
He said, "Where is the outrage when top Fatah officials call for riots on the Temple Mount? Why does the Palestinian Authority get a pass when it holds a ceremony glorifying the woman responsible for one of the deadliest terror attack in Israel's history? Surely, the administration's double standard has set back the peace process."
Cantor also said that Israel continues to be a world leader in the fight against terrorism and against the prospects of a nuclear Iran.
"For this administration to treat our special relationship with Israel, one of our closest and most strategic democratic allies, in this fashion is beyond irresponsible and jeopardizes America's national security," said Cantor.
The Republican Jewish Coalition said Monday that it was also deeply upset by the recent tone and actions of the Obama administration regarding Israel.
"The strident and unwarranted escalation of tension, which has turned a minor diplomatic embarrassment into a major international incident, has raised serious concerns about the administration's Israel policy from a variety of mainstream voices," RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks said.
"We believe the administration's actions are disproportionate and one-sided," he added.
On Sunday, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee condemned the recent statements from the U.S. government regarding its ties with Israel, amid tensions over Israel's recent announcement of its construction plan.
"The Obama administration's recent statements regarding the U.S. relationship with Israel are a matter of serious concern," said AIPAC in a statement.
AIPAC is considered the most influential pro-Israel pressure group in the United States.
"AIPAC calls on the administration to take immediate steps to defuse the tension with the Jewish State," the statement said.
The pro-Israel group urged the U.S. government to move past the recent diplomatic upheaval between Washington and Jerusalem.
"The Administration should make a conscious effort to move away from public demands and unilateral deadlines directed at Israel, with whom the United States shares basic, fundamental, and strategic interests," the AIPAC statement said.
The leftist pro-Israel group J Street, meanwhile, released a statement Monday supporting the Obama administration's recent actions.
"As Vice President Biden said, 'Sometimes only a friend can deliver the hardest truth.' That is what he, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and White House Senior Advisor David Axelrod have done in recent days - and J Street, along with many friends of Israel, stands solidly behind them," said J Street executive director Jeremy Ben-Ami.
"Bold American leadership is needed now to turn this crisis into a real opportunity to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is a fundamental American national security interest," he said.
Abraham Foxman, who heads the Anti-Defamation League, told Haaretz he believes U.S. President Barack Obama is a friend of Israel.
"But I think it's a mistaken and counterproductive strategy and flawed analysis of what is in the best interest of the U.S.," Foxman said. "Support of Israel has served the U.S. interests more than supporting anyone else in the world."

Well isn't that special.

As to the "undisputed" part - the settlements are to be built on land in Ramat Shlomo that was annexed as part of east Jerusalem in 1967.
That is - it was not part of pre-67 Green Line Israel, but it is part of 1967 Jerusalem annexation, as opposed to the rest of the West Bank which was not annexed.
Official Israeli policy distinguishes these two categories, and justifies settlements in Jerusalem neighborhoods (as opposed to, say, Ma'ale Adumim) even after the 2003 road map agreement to halt settlements. Everyone in Israel knows that no one else sees it that way and that it will inflame Palestinian passions whenever this justification is used. Still, it plays to the hard right-wing popular sentiment in Israel - many of whom would be willing to annex the West Bank itself and either deprive its residents of citizenship or even talk of deportations. That's how they would "deal" with the need to maintain a Jewish Israel as a democratic state in a one-state solution.
As to the "large faction in this country that will support Israel, not matter what it does" ---
I know what you mean Bill, but you didn't phrase it very well. You meant to say that many support Israel, and support all actions it takes no matter what they are".
I support Israel. I support Israel unconditionally. That doesn't mean I support every government action or policy. But it does mean that I support the state and what it represents.
Try substituting "America" for Israel, and you'll see what I mean.
Do you support America, no matter what it does? Even after Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, CIA renditions, waterboarding.... ?
The answer is yes, of course you do. America is your home, you are a loyal American, you support America. You may criticize government policies you disagree with, but you don't stop supporting the nation itself. That's how we (the "enlightened left" of Israel) see our support for Israel.

Gore was absolutely right about the Lockbox back in 2000. At the time, we were running surpluses coming out of the Clinton years. If instead of squandering them on the Bush tax cuts, we had used them to pay down the Social Security IOUs, the funding situation for SS would be substantially different today. We would still need to adjust it to handle the baby boomer retirees - we've known for decades now that SS is not self sufficient as the Baby Boom retires. That needs to be fixed through a combination of reduced benefits and higher SS payroll contributions, and (I think) also through an enlightened policy of gradually increased immigration to replace the workforce ranks. Those decisions would all have been that much easier were we not in the budget mess we're in.

So, who's ready to call Ray LaHood a RINO? That is the kneejerk response from the VJ right to any Republican who dares to agree with a Democratic proposal, right?
Beyond politics - Why Republicans should support health care reform
By Ray LaHood
March 14, 2010
I've been a Republican all my life, when I served in the Illinois legislature, when I worked for members of Congress and when I served in Congress. During the 2008 presidential election, I supported Republican Sen. John McCain. I have always been — and still am — a fiscal conservative, an advocate for a smart, but restrained, government.
For those reasons and others, most people wouldn't expect me to be an advocate for comprehensive health care reform. But the truth is, I believe there is no bigger issue to solve and no better chance to solve it than now.
If I were still a member of Congress, I would proudly vote for the bill that President Barack Obama is championing and I would urge my colleagues to do the same, not because I don't believe in fiscal discipline, but because I do.
We do not need to look that far down the road to see the pain that failure to pass health care reform will cause. Americans of every background, class, race and political persuasion are suffering. We have the best health care system in the world, yet more than 40 million Americans lack access to it, a reality that is morally reprehensible. Health care is an essential, as important as food, water and shelter. Those who don't have it are left without the tools to survive.
In the coming days, Congress has a chance to change that. The bill that will be voted on will reduce the deficit by about $1 trillion over the next two decades, and will reduce waste, fraud and abuse in the health care system. It will slow the rate of growth in health care costs and put America back on the path toward fiscal sustainability.
The bill will give families and small business owners greater control over their own health care. It will expand coverage to more than 31 million Americans and will include tax credits to individuals, families and small businesses, giving them the same choices that members of Congress have to purchase private coverage. It will create state-based exchanges that will bring competition and transparency to insurance markets. And it will put in place common-sense rules of the road to hold insurance companies accountable and end some of the most outrageous practices of the insurance industry.
Never again will people be denied coverage because they have a pre-existing condition. Never again will insurance companies be able to raise rates unfairly — like the 60 percent hikes expected in Illinois.
While the ultimate vote on health care may not be bipartisan, the ultimate bill certainly is.
There are several Republican ideas in the bill. It allows Americans to buy health insurance across state lines. It increases the bargaining power of small businesses by allowing them to pool together — much like large corporations or labor unions — to bargain for a better insurance rate. It gives states the flexibility to come up with an alternate health care plan, and it gives them resources to reform our tort system by developing new ways to deal with medical malpractice.
I also feel compelled to remind my former colleagues that contrary to what many people have been saying, the bill explicitly prevents federal dollars from being used to fund abortion. It ensures not only that those seeking abortion coverage will be required to pay for it with their own money, but also that their personal money will never be commingled with federal funds. As a former congressman with a 100 percent pro-life voting record, I'm comfortable supporting this bill.
There isn't one member of Congress who represents a district that is without a health care crisis. There are good, hardworking men and women in every part of this country who work for a living, but not at a business that offers the opportunity to purchase health insurance. On their own, the cost of insurance is just plain out of reach.
During my time in Congress, I was known for reaching across the aisle. I did it not for the sake of bipartisanship alone, but in order to get important things done.
Now, my former colleagues have the opportunity to change the lives of their friends and neighbors for the better by voting for health care reform.
Ray LaHood, a former Republican congressman from Illinois, is secretary of transportation in the Obama administration.

Legalize cocaine in the US.
Regulate it, license the distributors and retailers, tax the bejeezus out of it.
Impose import tariffs on it, have Federal inspectors assess it for quality.
Import it directly from licensed growers in Bolivia, Columbia, etc.
Once the legal market is well established the Mexican cartels will have no reason for remaining in business and the violence will dissipate.
Do the same for other controlled substances they are trafficking, and it will dissipate even further.
In short - legalize drugs in the US, treat drug addiction in this country as a public health issue rather than a criminal matter. All sorts of problems will start to be rectified. The jails won't be as crowded, funding will go to methadone clinics and job training sessions rather than prisons, street crime in the US will be reduced, the awful carnage in Mexico and other countries will be reduced, tax revenues will increase, ... what's wrong with this picture?
The War on Drugs is a failure. It always has been. It's time to have that recognized, and move on to an enlightened drug policy.

So, who's ready to call Ray LaHood a RINO? That is the kneejerk response from the VJ right to any Republican who dares to agree with a Democratic proposal, right?
Beyond politics - Why Republicans should support health care reform
By Ray LaHood
March 14, 2010
I've been a Republican all my life, when I served in the Illinois legislature, when I worked for members of Congress and when I served in Congress. During the 2008 presidential election, I supported Republican Sen. John McCain. I have always been — and still am — a fiscal conservative, an advocate for a smart, but restrained, government.
For those reasons and others, most people wouldn't expect me to be an advocate for comprehensive health care reform. But the truth is, I believe there is no bigger issue to solve and no better chance to solve it than now.
If I were still a member of Congress, I would proudly vote for the bill that President Barack Obama is championing and I would urge my colleagues to do the same, not because I don't believe in fiscal discipline, but because I do.
We do not need to look that far down the road to see the pain that failure to pass health care reform will cause. Americans of every background, class, race and political persuasion are suffering. We have the best health care system in the world, yet more than 40 million Americans lack access to it, a reality that is morally reprehensible. Health care is an essential, as important as food, water and shelter. Those who don't have it are left without the tools to survive.
In the coming days, Congress has a chance to change that. The bill that will be voted on will reduce the deficit by about $1 trillion over the next two decades, and will reduce waste, fraud and abuse in the health care system. It will slow the rate of growth in health care costs and put America back on the path toward fiscal sustainability.
The bill will give families and small business owners greater control over their own health care. It will expand coverage to more than 31 million Americans and will include tax credits to individuals, families and small businesses, giving them the same choices that members of Congress have to purchase private coverage. It will create state-based exchanges that will bring competition and transparency to insurance markets. And it will put in place common-sense rules of the road to hold insurance companies accountable and end some of the most outrageous practices of the insurance industry.
Never again will people be denied coverage because they have a pre-existing condition. Never again will insurance companies be able to raise rates unfairly — like the 60 percent hikes expected in Illinois.
While the ultimate vote on health care may not be bipartisan, the ultimate bill certainly is.
There are several Republican ideas in the bill. It allows Americans to buy health insurance across state lines. It increases the bargaining power of small businesses by allowing them to pool together — much like large corporations or labor unions — to bargain for a better insurance rate. It gives states the flexibility to come up with an alternate health care plan, and it gives them resources to reform our tort system by developing new ways to deal with medical malpractice.
I also feel compelled to remind my former colleagues that contrary to what many people have been saying, the bill explicitly prevents federal dollars from being used to fund abortion. It ensures not only that those seeking abortion coverage will be required to pay for it with their own money, but also that their personal money will never be commingled with federal funds. As a former congressman with a 100 percent pro-life voting record, I'm comfortable supporting this bill.
There isn't one member of Congress who represents a district that is without a health care crisis. There are good, hardworking men and women in every part of this country who work for a living, but not at a business that offers the opportunity to purchase health insurance. On their own, the cost of insurance is just plain out of reach.
During my time in Congress, I was known for reaching across the aisle. I did it not for the sake of bipartisanship alone, but in order to get important things done.
Now, my former colleagues have the opportunity to change the lives of their friends and neighbors for the better by voting for health care reform.
Ray LaHood, a former Republican congressman from Illinois, is secretary of transportation in the Obama administration.