Get Angrier

Last night, the Republicans appear to have won over 60 seats in the US House of Representatives, taking back majority control of that body, while at the same time picking up at least 6 seats in the Senate. Democrats will retain a majority in the Senate and were relieved to hold onto some critical seats there that looked like they would be hard to hold - most notably, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid held onto his seat in Nevada against all odds.

So... that was a pretty crappy night for us, really. No two ways about it. The defeat of (sorry Mom) batshit crazy non-Witch Christine O'Donnell in Delaware and baseball bat wielding loon Carl Paladino in New York by substantial double digits won't stop the so called Tea Party from tightening their stranglehold on the Republican party. They now own it. They've proved in this election cycle that they can take down in the primary any Republican who shows any hint of an interest in actually solving the nation's problems. Climate change doesn't exist, immigration should be punished (and screw the law abiding Latinos who get caught up their dragnet), the only acceptable way to even attempt to fix the economy is with more tax breaks for the rich. Welcome to the new rules.

Well I say screw that.

President Obama's going to make a speech pretty soon, and I'm sure that as usual his words will be wise, reasonable and right. But I wanted to post before he speaks to tell you that, from my point of view, election 2012 starts today.

I'm incredibly proud of the Democrats accomplishments of the past two year. Against resistance from every faction of the Republican party we've salvaged the economy, rescued the auto industry (which, amazingly, is now restored to full profitibility), delivered a stimulus package that economists agree is responsible for keeping or creating between 1.5 and 3.3 million jobs, and passed health care reform that will cover 95% of the population and will serve as our lasting legacy for generations to come.

It was the most successful Congress of the past hundred years, and seems to have started to but it wasn't enough - not nearly enough to solve the deep and lasting damage that has been done to the economy by 8 years of Republican mismanagement. And people angry. I don't blame them

The problem is that people have lashed out, in their anger, at the only people they could knowck down - the overwhelming Democratic majorities in Congress. We were in their sites, so they took us down.

I think the voters weren't nearly angry enough. I know I wasn't.

Republicans now say they want to spend the next two years obstructing, blocking, investigating and holding hearings on the Democrats. For instance,

The GOP plans to hold high profile hearings examining the alleged "scientific fraud" behind global warming, a sleeper issue in this election that motivated the base quite a bit.

Now that they have the reigns of power in the House, what are they hoping to accomplish with it? Well, nothing actually,

"If you put too much of the actual official power in the hands of the Republicans, it makes them responsible. Right now, I think they're in perfect position tactically. Control the House, object, propose stuff that Obama may veto and run on that against him in 2012.”

While the country has a 9.6% unemployment rate? Does this sound to you like a party that has any interest in, oh, I don't know, fixing things?

Me neither.

The 2012 election campaign starts RIGHT NOW. And I say, bring it on. This is a fight we have to win.

"We did it, Mr. President"

Reports are that a deal has been reached that both pro-choice and anti-abortion sides can live with. Plus a little extra cash just for Ben Nelson's Nebraska constituents.

There's an old saying that politics is like sausages in that if people could see how they are made no one would swallow it. Well, no one could say the process of passing this bill has been anything but ugly. Such is the life in our lunatic legislature.

But the passage of this bill will be a major achievement for America, for Senate Leader Harry Reid, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and for the President. A weary but fervent congratulations to them all for getting us here.

Give em Hell, Harry!

I've just had an e-mail from Move On reminding me that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:

has been under intense pressure to drop the public health insurance option.

But on Monday he defied insurance lobbyists, political pundits, and conservatives of both parties by announcing that he'll include a public option in the Senate floor bill.

That's the kind of courageous leadership we need for victory on health care. But the fight's not over yet: Sen. Reid is still under fire from conservatives, including some in his own party, who will stop at nothing to kill the public option.

Move On is asking people to sign a petition in support of Harry's efforts - I've just done so myself. So should you.

But - there is a bigger issue here. Harry Reid is facing a brutal re-election fight in Nevada, and if it were held today... he would lose.

President Obama asked him to make health care a number one priority, and to negotiate an incredibly difficult legislative process, putting him at the center of a political firestorm, just when he is most threatened. You may remember that the Democrats' last Leader in the Senate, Tom Daschle, lost a brutal election fight after Republicans put him on a hit list - they knew that taking down our leader would weaken the Party, and it did.

We can't let it happen again. Harry Reid has put his neck on the line to deliver the President's Health Care Reform - those of us who support it should back him in his Nevada fight as well. I'll talk to you soon about some ways we can all help, but in the meantime - here's a link to Harry's campaign donation page. Chip in what you can (I'm thinking $51 would be a good amount for Americans abroad as the unofficial 51st state).

Harry Reid, The Opt Out Public Option, and Joe Lieberman

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid - who by the way has just about the toughest job in Washington right now, and is facing a vicious re-election battle at the same time, poor guy - has announced that he will bring to the floor of the Senate a health reform bill that will include a version of the "public option." Specifically the opt out public option. Any questions?

Opt out what?

The public option, as you probably know already, refers to the opportunity of choosing to purchase health insurance that is government managed. Under most versions of the bill, including the one Reid is likely to propose, the public option would only be made available to a small number of people - specifically those who do not have or who lose their employer provided health insurance.

It would be not for profit, but is not intended to lose money - in face most estimates say it would reduce the government's health care expenditure. These consumers will have the option of chosing from a range of health insurance options across a national exchange, most of which would be privately managed for-profit alternatives, but one of which would be public.

The what public option?

Opt out. The opt out version of the public option means that all states will be automatically enrolled, allowing them to offer the public option in their exchange. But some people (Republicans, mainly, but some nervous Democrats as well) are making a big fuss about their preference for removing the public option as a choice.

Under the plan now proposed, any state that for whatever reason doesn't want to offer this option can choose not to offer it. States will be automatically IN the program, in other words, but if they don't want to offer people in their state the alternative of purchasing health care in this way, then they can choose to prevent people from doing buying it.

Why would they do this?

Beats the heck out of me. But then I'm not the one who's going around complaining about the supposed budget busting effects of this privision, which the CBO and almost all experts agree would actually REDUCE the cost of health care and the Federal Government's liabilities in this area.

Who is doing that?

Well, for a start - Joe Lieberman.

What's Joe saying?

Tonight he came out with a statement that he would would support a Republican filibuster of the bill as it currently stands.

And that's bad?

Well, it's certainly frustrating considering that:

1) The reasons he says he won't support the public option are not actually factually true.
2) Voting to support the filibuster is not the same thing as voting against the bill. Leaving aside the stupidity of his opposition, he could easily choose to vote against the final bill without endangering its passage. But voting with the Republicans in support of a filibuster prevents the bill from even being voted on - this is a far higher standard.
3) Democrats are barely in control of the requisite number to end a filibuster, so it's unclear whether any bill could be passed if Joe and his ilk really dig in their heels on this procedural issue.

Why would Joe Lieberman do this?

Dunno? Cuz he's kind of a schmuck?