Politics on HuffingtonPost.com

Dan Agin: Armistice Day, the Great War, and Brains: A Tale of Woe

2009-11-07T17:27:36Z

What do we remember? Veteran's Day--November 11th--was once called Armistice Day, the day the mangled soldiers started coming home in 1918.

The problem with war is that the men who declare and manage a war usually don't go to war. Had the politicians of various countries been obligated to live in combat on the front lines, it's doubtful that the ferocious carnage of the First World war, the so-called Great War, would have occurred. The casualties of that war are truly staggering, an estimated total of 16 million deaths and 21 million wounded. The Central Powers had the death of 4 million soldiers, the British 3.5 million, the French about 2 million, and the Americans 326,000 dead. The war turned parts of the European continent into a butcher shop, a huge industrial machine to produce human blood and meat, with an insidious ancillary embellishment: the most important battles were fought on soil contaminated by centuries of agriculture fertilized by human and animal waste. Trench warfare constantly exposed soldiers to contaminated soil. In a time without antibiotics and only primitive microbiology, even a minor wound could be a fatal outcome of infection.

Two facts about head injuries during the First World War are salient. First, because of the nature of trench warfare, the heads of soldiers were usually more exposed than the rest of their bodies, so that 25 percent of all cases of penetrating wounds were brain injuries or injuries to the cerebellum or cranial nerves. Second, the higher muzzle velocity of smaller bullets with a pointed shape allowed easy penetration of the helmet and skull, but the muzzle velocity was not high enough (as it was in the Second World War) to destroy large areas of the brain with shock waves and cavitation. The result was that brain injuries due to bullets (or most shrapnel) were usually discrete, and if the soldier recovered, the neurological deficits were usually focal. The trenches, in effect, provided a massive observational field to relate specific brain injuries to specific neurological and behavioral deficits.

During the Great War, most psychiatrists believed that war does not create any special kind of psychosis, or at least any long-lasting mental disorder. This was consistent with the prevailing notion that all madness involves hereditary tissue damage.

So what did military psychiatrists and neurologists do with their cases of battlefield psychological trauma--so-called "shell shock"? The answer is an ugly interlude in the history of medicine--the "treatment" of shell shock by punishment with electric shock. The physician usually associated with this interlude is the British psychiatrist Lewis Yealland, but the reality is that the famous British neurophysiologist Edgar Adrian, a later Nobel Laureate, was also involved.

In 1917, Adrian and Yealland (Adrian the senior author) published an extensive report in the British medical journal The Lancet on their treatment of common war neuroses. Adrian was a temporary captain in military service as a neurologist at the Connaught Hospital in Aldershot, and Yealland was a resident medical officer at the National Hospital for the Paralyzed and Epileptic, Queen Square, London.

The authors considered shell-shocked soldiers to be afflicted with hysteria. They stated that "the chief phenomena underlying the hysterical type of mind are weakness of the will and of the intellect, hypersuggestibility, and negativism. The majority of patients are below the average normal intelligence as judged by the Binet-Simon intelligence scale, and others who are more highly equipped prove to have an unstable history either personally or in the family." The authors stated explicitly that one is born an hysteric and does not become one.

The treatment method reported by the authors was the use of electric current applied to relevant parts of the body coupled with manipulating suggestion. In difficult cases, the intensity of electric current was increased to the point of pain.

Both combat effects--shell shock and physical brain damage--changed neurology and neuroscience. War has always been a most excellent way to spur medical progress, and the gruesome First World War was the most excellent way that had yet happened. Everything changed, all of neurology, psychiatry, neuroscience, and psychology.

The hell of the First World War ended on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918. Brain science, and especially neuropsychiatry, would never be the same.

House Health Care Vote: Breaking Updates

2009-11-07T14:44:39Z

The House of Representatives is set to vote on major health care reform legislation today. Check this page throughout the day for the latest news, or follow live streaming video and Twitter updates HERE.

12:58 PM ET -- White House Pool Report About Obama Meeting With House Dems

Motorcade departed Cannon 12:25, arr. WH 12:30, taking route down Independence Ave.

POTUS walked toward Oval w/ axelrod, Reggie Love, and Phil Schiliro of leg affairs.

Readout of caucus meeting from Bill Burton:

The President made the case that Congress has a historic opportunity today to provide stability and security for those who have insurance, affordable coverage for those who don't and bring down the cost of health care for families, small businesses and the government. He said that we have made more progress on comprehensive reform than any administration and any Congress in the past 70 years - and we should take this historic opportunity to pass health care reform so that he can sign a bill by the end of this year.

Feldmann
CSM

12:43 PM ET -- President Obama To Speak Live From White House At 1:15PM

12:23 PM ET -- Democrats Finish Meeting With President Obana House Democrats are speaking to reporters after concluding a meeting with President Obama about the health care vote today.

12:09 PM ET -- Dem: I'll Vote For Health Care If Stupak Passes, Predicts It Will

Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), one of the few remaining undecided votes on health care, said she would support the legislation if it included a provision that would restrict the ability of insurers to cover abortion.

If the amendment offered by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich) is not passed by the House - and a vote will come on Saturday - Kaptur said she would remain "undecided" on whether to support the broader reform effort.

"For some people this is a make or break issue," she said, when asked if other anti-abortion Democrats would be satisfied enough to vote for health care reform merely by having the Stupak amendment come to a vote.

Speaking to reporters before going into a caucus meeting with President Barack Obama, the Ohio Democrat predicted, ultimately, that the Stupak amendment would pass. The entire Republican caucus, which includes 177 members, seems likely to support the measure. And Stupak claims to have 40 Democratic lawmakers backing his effort. That would give the amendment 217 votes - one shy of passage. But Kaptur said she believed others would come on board.

"I honestly don't have a list," she said. "I think Mr. Stupak and others might be the best ones to ask about that but I believe that there are large numbers that will vote for our amendment and I think it will pass."

Asked what she was hoping to hear from the president on the issue, Kaptur replied: "I hope he says something!" The White House, she added, had yet to talk to her about her concerns with the legislation.

"Nothing in our amendment changes existing law," she said, "it maintains existing law, but it doesn't absolve the bill of existing law."

--Sam Stein

11:39 AM ET -- Dem: Anti-Abortion Lawmakers Will Support Bill Without Stupak Amendment

A high-ranking Democrat said on Saturday that he expects many of the party's anti-abortion members to support health care legislation even if a provision making abortion less accessible is defeated on the floor.

Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) told the Huffington Post he felt confident that a compromise reached last night -- to allow a vote of Rep. Bart Stupak's (D-Mich.) amendment, which would make it harder for insurers to provide abortion -- would placate lawmakers on the fence, regardless of whether the amendment passed.

"Will that be sufficient?" Honda asked. "I didn't hear anybody say 'Yeah, that would be sufficient. But I think there is a sense that it would (satisfy these folks)."

Honda similarly predicted that if the Stupak amendment were to pass (likely with full Republican support), he did not suspect that pro-choice lawmakers would drop their support of the bill.

As for what he hoped to hear from President Obama, who is briefing lawmakers starting at 11:25, Honda said:

"I think he is going to come in and reassert his principles. I hope that he says that he thinks we have a good situation now."
--Sam Stein

11:24 AM ET -- Rangel Feeling Confident A stream of lawmakers have been arriving in the Cannon House Office building for today's big health care strategy session with the president. Virtually all have been ignoring the press. But as he walked by the roped off reporters, Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) turned and smiled.

"You feeling confident Chairman Rangel?"

"Yep," he replied, before moseying into the conference room.

Rep. Rob Andrews (D-N.J.) seemed similarly chipper, telling the Huffington Post that he felt good about the upcoming vote.

Those two, however, were far more optimistic than others. Most lawmakers seem sullen as they are entering the premise and several have simply offered don't-know-like shrugs.
-- Sam Stein

11:02 AM ET -- Obama Set To Brief Lawmakers At 11:15 A White House aide tells the Huffington Post that the president is on schedule to come to Capitol Hill to rally support for health care legislation.

Obama's trip to the opposite side of Pennsylvania Avenue was announced on Friday. But there was nervous chatter on the Hill that he would delay or even cancel the trip if the Democratic leadership felt passage of legislation was out of reach. The president, an aide said, remains slated at this point to arrive and talk with lawmakers at 11:15 -- a small point of relief for anxious Democrats.

The aide did not elaborate as to whether Obama would field questions from his fellow Democrats or merely help whip up support for the legislation. Among the big questions left unanswered is how the President feels about the amendment offered by Rep. Bart Stupak (D- Mich.), which would drastically restrict the coverage of abortions by health care insurers.
--Sam Stein

10:46 AM ET -- The President's pitch. What is the White House telling fence-leaning Democrats? The AP's Eric Werner talked to Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Penn.) who "said he heard from Obama, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Education Secretary Arne Duncan. Their message: 'This is a historic moment. You don't want to end up with nothing,' said Altmire, who remained undecided."

10:10 AM ET -- Rep. Dingell to preside over House for first time since 1965 Medicare vote. Democrats wavering on the health care bill will have their heart-strings tugged by the man overseeing today's planned vote: Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), the Dean of the House of Representatives and the longest-serving member in history.

Dingell's late father, also a congressman, introduced the first bill to provide national health insurance in 1933, and his son has continued a tradition started by his father by introducing health care legislation at the beginning of every session of Congress.

Rep. Dingell last led debate on a vote on April 8, 1965, the day the House passed legislation creating Medicare, according to his office.

10:08 AM ET -- House Hispanic Caucus balking at bill over immigration provisions. (AP) As drafted, the health care legislation permits illegal immigrants to purchase coverage with their own money inside the insurance exchange that would be created -- a provision that the 23-member Hispanic Caucus wants retained in any final compromise that reaches Obama's desk.

The controversy surrounding illegal immigrants remains "a work in progress," Rep. Nydia Velazquez, a New Yorker and chairwoman of the Hispanic Caucus, said after a meeting in Pelosi's office on Friday.

One lawmaker who attended the session, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the private talks, said members of the Hispanic Caucus sought and received assurances from Pelosi that she and the leadership would support them as the bill made its way through the House and ultimately to the president's desk. But this lawmaker said the speaker was not able to get a pledge in return that the Hispanics would all vote for the bill regardless of how their issue was ultimately settled.

Despite the uncertainty, Hispanic lawmakers generally have a strong incentive to support the legislation. According to the Census Bureau, nearly 31 percent of Hispanics are uninsured, roughly double the rate of 15 percent for the U.S. population as a whole.

10:02 AM ET -- What happens if Democrats don't have the votes? The answer is easy: they won't vote -- at least on Saturday. Democratic leaders insist that they can get the legislation passed today, but

9:20 AM ET -- Bishops endorse health care bill. "The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops delivered a critical endorsement to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Saturday by signing off on late-night agreement to grant a vote on an amendment barring insurance companies that participate in the exchange from covering abortions."

8:39 AM ET -- Compromise reached on major potential health-care hurdle. HuffPost's Ryan Grim reports: As the House of Representatives inches toward a final vote on comprehensive health care reform this weekend -- the most dramatic domestic policy debate in several generations, a reorganization of a sixth of the economy - the only thing the parties can talk about is abortion and immigration.

"It tells you something about our country," remarked one distressed member of Congress, who didn't want to be named speaking ill of this fine land.

What it tells isn't pretty: The ranks of the uninsured are steadily being filled, with the number approaching 50 million. Health care costs are rising at a rate several times that of inflation, eating into the take-home income of the majority of the American people and threatening to break the federal budget in less than a decade.

Yet the talk is of abortion and immigration.

All day on Friday, House leaders struggled to reconcile the pro-life and pro-choice wings of the Democratic Party. Over the last several weeks, the pro-choice bloc, consisting of nearly 200 Democrats, had gradually come to terms with an amendment authored by Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.).

The intent of the amendment was to keep the debate about health care rather than abortion and it would make clear that - as is current law - no federal funds would be used for abortion. "Our hope was that we could continue the current ban on federal funding for abortion so the issue wouldn't bog down the overall health reform legislation," wrote Capps at the time.

That wasn't enough for pro-life Democrats. On November 3, Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.) offered a more conservative compromise, one that restricted abortion in a bunch of extra ways and would require one private plan in the exchange not to cover abortion.

The divorce from reality had been filed by this point, considering that most insurance plans -- even using pro-life numbers -- do not cover abortion.
Story continues below

Still, pro-choice Democrats swallowed the compromise, but said they'd go no further. Health care reform, said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), a staunch pro-choicer and co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, should not be a vehicle to drive a pro-life social agenda.

That's when Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) re-entered the debate. Stupak is a longtime pro-life advocate and had been pressing his concerns upon House leadership. On Friday, Ellsworth withdrew his compromise language from negotiations, according to several House sources, sending the debate back to the starting line, where Stupak was waiting.

Stupak, in meetings with Pelosi and other members of leadership, pressed to include, instead, his own amendment that would ban the public health insurance option from funding abortion and also ban any private plan operating within the exchange from funding abortions. Under Stupak's plan, a woman buying private insurance from within the exchange with her own money would not have a choice of a plan that covered abortion.

During the early afternoon, Pelosi was leaning toward including some more moderately blended version of Stupak and Ellsworth's amendment's as part of the health care bill that would be sent to the floor, several aides told HuffPost. Just before 5:00 PM, Stupak and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), who battled over abortion while the bill moved through Waxman's Energy and Commerce Committee, huddled on the House floor. Leaving the floor, the generally talkative Waxman gruffly brushed off reporters, asserting his alleged right "not to be swarmed."

Tempers flared. A Democratic congressman told House Republicans, who then told the Huffington Post, that Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) was asked to leave a leadership meeting where the pro-life agreement was being considered. DeGette is firmly pro-choice, and it was thought, the source said, that she would not agree to the deal. "False," said a leadership aide, saying that "she had to leave to attend another meeting. Other pro-choice members [were] in there with leadership, as well as Waxman."

Either way, the question came down to who had the votes. Stupak's driving argument was that he had more than the forty members he needed to "take down the rule" - legislative lingo for defeating a bill on the House floor before it comes for a final vote. No one was sure whether Stupak actually had the 40 votes, but pro-choice Democrats were skeptical.

As the night and the meetings wore on, Pelosi shifted, multiple aides said, and was leaning toward allowing a floor vote on the Stupak-Ellsworth amendment rather than inserting it into the bill. The logical conclusion is that Pelosi determined she would lose too many pro-choice and progressive votes in the process of harnessing pro-life Democrats.

Shortly after midnight, Stupak addressed the Rules Committee and requested a floor vote on the amendment, ending a day of drama, but leaving open questions that will be answered tomorrow: Does his amendment have enough votes to pass? If it does, will pro-choice Democrats flee and sink the bill?

The thinking among leadership is that allowing a vote -- regardless of the outcome -- helps win votes for final passage. If it passes, then pro-lifers line up behind health care reform. If it fails, at least they had their vote. For pro-choicers, if the amendment passes they can still fight to remove it during negotiations with the Senate -- which rejected tough abortion restrictions.

Meanwhile, aides from both parties say, the GOP is planning out how it will game the language in its motion to recommit - an alternative measure aimed at stamping out the bill that the minority is entitled to introduce. The GOP could include language supporting Democrat-backed proposals, such as single-payer health care or a robust public option -- and then vote present, allowing a majority of Democrats to carry the vote to victory and complicate things for leadership. (Dems probably wouldn't have the votes, however, for single-payer, believe it or not.)

Or the GOP could toss out anti-immigration language. That effort could garner the support of a big enough bloc of Democrats to give Pelosi genuine concern that it could prevail. Here we wander further from reality: undocumented workers currently get free medical care at great expense to the American people at emergency rooms across the country. The GOP's alternative approach, as it's been described in the past, denies that reality while simultaneously turning businesses into immigration-enforcement arms. People here illegally, however, would still be able to go to the emergency room for free.

Lost in the back and forth are the tens of millions without insurance and the nation's broken health care system. More surprising than the behavior of Congress, perhaps, is the fact that it has gotten as far as it has.

7:45 AM ET -- The Democratic 'no' votes. HuffPost's Jeff Muskus reports: House leaders, with the help of the White House, frantically whipped for health care votes Friday in advance of a floor vote, but the number of Democrats planning to vote against reform continues to rise.

As of 6 p.m. Friday, 26 House Democrats have stated that they will oppose the health care bill. The confirmed "No" votes so far: John Adler (N.J.), Brian Baird (Wash.), John Boccieri (Ohio), Dan Boren (Okla.), Bobby Bright (Ala.), Travis Childers (Miss.), Artur Davis (Ala.), Lincoln Davis (Tenn.), Bart Gordon (Tenn.), Parker Griffith (Ala.), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.), Larry Kissell (N.C.), Suzanne Kosmas (Fla.), Frank Kratovil (Md.), Jim Marshall (Ga.), Eric Massa (N.Y.), Jim Matheson (Utah), Mike McMahon (N.Y.), Charlie Melancon (Louis.), Walt Minnick (Idaho), Collin Peterson (Minn.), Ike Skelton (Mo.), Bart Stupak (Mich.), John Tanner (Tenn.), Gene Taylor (Miss.) and Harry Teague (N.M.).

This level of opposition isn't fatal to health reform -- Democrats only need 218 of their 258 votes to pass the bill -- but it makes leadership's margin for error much smaller.

Unsurprisingly, 15 of those 26 are Blue Dogs. Several from rural areas cited the familiar Blue Dog complaint of "regional disparities" -- typically a shorthand for the different state levels of reimbursement under Medicare -- although the bill headed for a vote contains a public option that is not tied to Medicare, not the so-called "robust" option Blue Dogs have opposed for months.

Some of the bill's opponents are from districts where lack of health care coverage is less of an issue. Bart Stupak's longstanding drive for stronger anti-abortion language made his opposition a virtual certainty. And Baird said that he would oppose the bill in part because a report from Medicare actuaries is still forthcoming.

The most common complaint among the confirmed "No" votes, however, is overall cost. "Congress should not pass a bill that costs more than $1 trillion or increases the financial burden on middle class families and small businesses," Adler said in a statement Friday. "First and foremost, I cannot vote for legislation with this big of a price tag in today's economic climate," Childers said Wednesday.

Several of the confirmed "No" votes said they would prefer a package more like the weaker Senate Finance Committee bill.

Allison Kilkenny: Focus On The Family Funds Anti-Gay Referendum, Loses

2009-11-07T14:21:28Z

While much of the nation's attention has been focused on the sad story of Prop 1 in Maine, another much happier story has been unfolding in Washington where the gay and lesbian community took another step toward equality with the approval of Referendum 71.

R-71 expands domestic-partnership rights, and has been called the "everything but marriage" bill. The referendum expands the rights, responsibilities, and obligations of registered domestic partners and their families to include all rights, responsibilities, and obligations granted by or imposed by state law on married couples and their families.

So while it may rightfully frustrate same-sex marriage supporters that the state still insists upon treating gays as a specialized class unworthy of the "marriage" title, R-71's passage is still a sign of a broader move toward equality. Simply, it means Washington is becoming more pro-gay, and that full rights are within reach.

During the lead-up to the vote on R-71, a new group named the "Youth Revolution" emerged in Washington. Though the organization claims to represent "teens" and "20-somethings," the group has ties to the Family Policy Institute of Washington, which funneled around $200,000 into a campaign PAC in an effort to defeat R-71. The connection between Youth Revolution and FPIW is Russell Johnson, the Executive Director of Youth Revolution, and Director of Governmental Affairs for James Dobson's Focus on the Family/Family Research Council, an affiliate of FPIW.

But wait! You're thinking that young people are totally more pro-gay than old people, and YR is wasting a lot of time and money trying to curb a national movement toward egalitarianism. Just look at this helpful illustration of the majestic way mother nature kills bigots:

Looks to me like the nation is getting more tolerant of gays and gay marriage, and Washington state is ninth on that list. Someone better tell Russell Johnson and YR!

Or maybe we shouldn't waste our breath. After all, we're talking about an organization that thinks this kind of thing appeals to young people (this video is currently featured on YR's website):

Oh my.

Hopefully, this will lead to more widespread layoffs at the Focus on the Family lair as it did in the wake of the Yes on Prop 8 campaign when FoF had to fire 202 employees, or 20 percent of their workforce, just to pay the half a million dollar bill the group acquired whilst destroying gay marriages.

Say it with me: Good riddance. Good riddance to intolerance and hatred.

Update: The original article stated that "Youth Revolution" poured money into the WA Race. It was actually Family Policy Institute of WA that funneled the $200,000, not Youth Revolution. The connection between the organizations is Russell Johnson, but it was FPIW that dumped $200,000 into a campaign PAC. Also, Focus on the Family did about $91,000 worth of independent spending on top of that. However, YR did create and distribute voters guides that were based on the personal political choices of Joe Fuiten, a local preacher who happens to be on the FPIW board. You can find the voter guides posted on the YR website.

Cross-posted from Allison Kilkenny's blog. Also available on Facebook and Twitter.

Health Care Vote: Latest Updates

2009-11-07T14:15:38Z

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama made a last-minute personal appeal to Democrats to pass landmark health care legislation Saturday as the House opened debate on a bill to expand coverage to millions of the uninsured.

Emerging from a closed-door meeting with the president, Speaker Nancy Pelosi predicted passage of the bill later in the day, adding, "We will pass health care reform."

"He came here to say, `This is what we said we would do in the campaign. Let's do it,'" Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said after the meeting.

Obama made his trip to the Capitol complex as abortion rights lawmakers voiced anger at a last-minute concession granted to foes of the procedure, who were given a vote on their proposal for stronger restrictions on abortion coverage.

"There is a risk" that some in the Pro-Choice Caucus would vote against the legislation if the stricter curbs are adopted, said Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo.

The bill would cost $1.2 trillion over the next decade. It would provide health coverage to tens of millions of Americans who don't have it now, require most employers to offer it to their workers and prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage based on a person's medical history.

"The status quo is unaffordable and unsustainable. Health care reform benefits all of us," said Rep. Allyson Schwartz, D-Pa., as debate opened on the House floor.

House passage of the bill is crucial if Obama is to accomplish his top domestic priorty and fulfill the biggest promise of his campaign last year. But the legilation still faces multiple hurdles and a Senate vote on it might not occur until next year.

Republicans were united in their opposition to the bill.

"The American people need to understand this is about a government takeover of the whole health care system," said Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga.

The most contentious issue is a new government-run insurance plan that would be offered alongside private coverage within new purchasing marketplaces, or "exchanges," where individuals and small businesses could shop for and compare options.

The abortion agreement was reached at midnight Friday after hours of intense negotiations brokered by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. Democratic Reps. Bart Stupak of Michigan, Brad Ellsworth of Indiana and other abortion opponents fought for and won an opportunity to insert tougher restrictions into the legislation during debate, despite fervent opposition from pro-choice liberals who are a driving force behind the overall bill.

"We wish to maintain current law, which says no public funding for abortion," Stupak said.

Federal law currently prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or situations in which the life of the mother is in danger. Left unresolved is whether individuals would be permitted to use their own funds to buy insurance coverage for the procedure in the federally backed insurance exchange envisioned under the legislation.

Stupak's amendment would deny abortion coverage to anyone who gets federal insurance subsidies or buys a policy from the government. People could buy separate policies covering just abortions using their own money.

DeGette called Stupak's amendment "the biggest restriction on a women's right to chose that's been considered on the floor of the House" in her 13 years in office.

The leadership's hope is that no matter how the vote on the abortion measure turns out, Democrats on both sides of the abortion divide will then unite to give the health care bill a majority over unanimous Republican opposition.

With Democrats' command of the necessary votes looking tenuous, Obama threw the weight of his administration behind the effort to round up support. He and top administration officials worked the phones to pressure wavering lawmakers.

Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pa., said he heard from Obama, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Education Secretary Arne Duncan.

Their message: "This is a historic moment. You don't want to end up with nothing," said Altmire, who remained undecided.

Democratic leaders hoped to hold the vote Saturday evening, but Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland said it could be delayed.

Democrats hold 258 seats in the House and can afford 40 defections and still wind up with 218, a majority if all lawmakers vote. But all 177 Republicans were expected to vote "no," and Democratic leaders faced a series of complications trying to win the needed votes for their complex and controversial legislation that would affect one-sixth of the economy and touch the lives of countless Americans.

___

Associated Press writers David Espo and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar contributed to this report.

___

On the Net:

GOP weekly address: http://tinyurl.com/yjltlpx

Steve Marmel: First HuffPost Blog: When Wrong, We Need to Own up to It

2009-11-07T12:36:15Z

Hi. Welcome to my first blog on HuffPost.

Me? I started as a journalist, morphed into a stand up comedian with a right-wing POV, and then - when my politics changed in 2005 - took a long (and currently continuing) break from comedy. (There's a bio in here for all the specifics if you really care.)

Which brings me to the first topic: When we blog about something four seconds after it happens, we have to admit when we're wrong, if we find out we are.

And for me, that means Bill Sparkman.

First, this happened right after lunatic Minnesota Cock-A-Doodle-Doofus Michele Bachmann went off on census workers. One was found dead at the corner of "Deliverance" and "Squeal like a piggie" with the word "FED" scrawled on his chest, and everybody assumed it was an anti-government attack -- including me.

So, does this a-hole from Minnesota get to continue walking around like she’s not complicit in the death of this census worker? Or do we finally start holding people accountable for their words and actions?

I’m sure she’ll wake up tomorrow, surrounded by thread count and people telling her what she wants to hear. I’m sure tomorrow, she’ll blather on about something with zero insight, and no concern for consequence.

And Bill Sparkman will be dead.

Congratulations, Michele Bachmann, lunatic from Minnesota. You’ve made a difference.

Woo! Look at me! Right on top of it!

Then, today's story.

(ChattahBox)—Nearly two-months after the naked body of census worker, Bill Sparkman, 51, was found hanging from a tree in a remote forest in Kentucky with the word “fed,” scrawled on his chest, authorities are no closer to solving the case. And they still are investigating Sparkman’s death, as a suicide despite the fact that his hands were bound and he was hanging from a tree.

Authorities investigating Sparkman’s death told the Associated Press that they are becoming increasingly doubtful that the census worker’s death was the result of anti-government sentiment. And they may be settling on a conclusion of suicide.

As evidence that Sparkman’s death may have been due to suicide, authorities point to the fact that his hands were loosely bound, still affording the census worker some mobility to manipulate the rope tied to a tree. Authorities say Sparkman died of asphyxiation where his body was found.

Investigators also point to the absence of defensive wounds on Sparkman’s body.

Woo! Look at me! Probably way off.

Look, maybe this guy hanged himself. Maybe he was starting to write "FEDerline Sucks" on his chest and he only got through first three letters. (Too soon?) All I know is that regardless, it's a tragedy and there are were connections to be made between the rabid attacks on census workers, and this guy's death.

But the fact is, I went off half-cocked. I jumped to conclusions. And that's what Glenn Beck is for.

Look... I still despise Michele Bachmann. I think she's stringy inside and out, a despicable opportunistic loon, and if she wasn't the Washington idea of what a surprisingly attractive woman is, she'd be on the same "nobody cares what you have to say" bus with Carrie Prejean and Sarah Palin.

I think she's a dangerous bucket of race-war-starting manipulation and intellectual dishonesty.

The jury's still out on Sparkman's death - tragic regardless - but I should have waited. And what I won't do was "well, it could've been so the opinion stands!" With that logic, it could have been Daniel Boone's Zombie. Not good enough to let sit.

Perhaps I was wrong on this one. It seems as if I might have been. And in a world where the first blog up wins, that probably happens more than it should.

So for this piece, and maybe going forward in my adventures on HuffPost, you can help me:

1) Enjoy.

2) Disagree with me if I'm wrong. How else will I know? You may convince me that I am.

3) Share with Facebook friends, Myspace friends, Friends Friends... or your enemies. If you agree with me, read me. If I drive you nuts, send me to your buddies to piss them off. I make a great gag gift.

4) Go to my website: Marmel.com or join me on Twitter at @MARMEL. Join the fanpage on Facebook. Isn't that how it all works these days?

5) And most importantly, engage. If you think I'm right or wrong, I want to know. And man, when I'm squirming from the bottom of the "I screwed up" well, I'm a hoot. It would be the journalistic equivalent of busting me shirtless on "Cops."

I like this place. I find it worthwhile and am looking forward to it. It's my next level of Jackassery on a brand new platform. Twice a week, although today's special. Today, I got my account.

It's gonna be great to be here.

And whether you're reading me because you like the stuff, or watching me like Nascar hoping for the latest blog-related car crash, I'll be glad to have you on board.

Mike Stark: Cantor & Nazism; H1N1 & Wall Street; Billionaires for Wealthcare

2009-11-07T09:48:41Z

I spent the day on the Hill interviewing Representatives about Wall Street and how they were able to jump the line to get the H1N1 flu vaccine before pregnant women and children.

Yesterday, I spent the day with the Billionaires for Wealthcare and witnessed some truly scary moments.

When I got home today, I saw TPM reporting that Eric Cantor has come out against Rush Limbaugh's Nazi rhetoric. I was surprised. When I asked him about it several weeks ago, Cantor (and John Boehner, and Virginia Foxx and Michelle Bachmann and Jean Schmidt and scores of other republicans) remained silent.

Congress and Wall Street jumping the line to get the H1N1 flu vaccine
On November 5, 2009, we learned that Goldmann Sachs, Citibank, JP Morgan and other elite banks on Wall Street received hundreds - maybe thousands - of doses of the H1N1 flu vaccine before at risk groups like pregnant women, young children, school and hospital workers. After receiving billions in bailouts and bonuses (after running our economy into a ditch), these privileged executives scored a vaccine that is in short supply.

When kids contract H1N1, there's a not-insignificant chance that they will die. When middle-aged executives contract the H1N1 flu, they get a little under the weather. You've got to be a real bastard to jump the line.

Rep. Minnick is probably the most conservative Democratic Congressman. And he's not happy with the banksters.

Rep. King is from Long Island. He counts a lot of Wall Street workers as constituents. And he's not happy with the banksters.

Rep. Shaddegg is a leader amongst Republicans. And he's not happy with the banksters.

Rep. Defazio is consistently progressive in his politics and he's seeing eye-to-eye with Blue Dogs, Republicans and virtually every other Representative I spoke with today. And he's not happy with the banksters.

Rep. Bright is a business-friendly blue-dog Democrat through and through. And he's not happy with the banksters.

When you've got conservative fire-breathers like John Shaddegg singing in harmony with Long Island Republicans like Peter King and red-state blue dogs like Bobby Bright and Walt Minnick... When liberal Democrats like Peter Defazio are humming along too... well... that doesn't happen too often.

Maybe Wall Street's act is finally starting to wear thin.

Walt Minnick Video
Bobby Bright Video
John Shaddegg Video
Peter Defazio Video
Peter King Video

Billionaires for Wealthcare
As most of you probably know, yesterday Representatives Michele Bachmann, Steve King and the rest of the Republican caucus, along with Mark Levin and several other conservative celebrities rallied their base against health care reform on the Capitol steps.

The Billionaires for Wealthcare showed up; I followed them around for a couple of hours.

These folks have always made me laugh. Their shtick is creative and fun. what I hadn't thought about is how dicey (meaning borderline - or actually - dangerous) their work can be. In fact, when they finally broke character and went home for the day, I spoke with one of the troupe. He told me that at one of their outings, he watched one of his performers take a punch to the face.

I put this video together to show you what it can be like in the lion's den...

Eric Cantor -- finally -- says something tepid about Rush Limbaugh's Health Care/Nazism comparisons
From TalkingPointsMemo.com:

"Do I condone the mention of Hitler in any discussion about politics?" said Cantor, who is the only Jewish Republican in Congress. "No, I don't, because obviously that is something that conjures up images that frankly are not, I think, very helpful."

Video from the not-so-wayback machine...

Democrats Clear Impasse Blocking Health Care Vote

2009-11-07T05:30:19Z

Emerging from a closed-door meeting with the president, Speaker Nancy Pelosi predicted passage of the bill later in the day, adding, "We will pass health care reform."

"He came here to say, `This is what we said we would do in the campaign. Let's do it,'" Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said after the meeting.

"There is a risk" that some in the Pro-Choice Caucus would vote against the legislation if the stricter curbs are adopted, said Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo.

"The status quo is unaffordable and unsustainable. Health care reform benefits all of us," said Rep. Allyson Schwartz, D-Pa., as debate opened on the House floor.

Republicans were united in their opposition to the bill.

"The American people need to understand this is about a government takeover of the whole health care system," said Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga.

"We wish to maintain current law, which says no public funding for abortion," Stupak said.

DeGette called Stupak's amendment "the biggest restriction on a women's right to chose that's been considered on the floor of the House" in her 13 years in office.

Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pa., said he heard from Obama, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Education Secretary Arne Duncan.

Their message: "This is a historic moment. You don't want to end up with nothing," said Altmire, who remained undecided.

Democratic leaders hoped to hold the vote Saturday evening, but Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland said it could be delayed.

___

Associated Press writers David Espo and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar contributed to this report.

___

On the Net:

GOP weekly address: http://tinyurl.com/yjltlpx

Compromise Reached On Health Care Bill: Anti-Abortion Amendment To Be Given Floor Vote

2009-11-07T05:13:59Z

As the House of Representatives inches toward a final vote on comprehensive health care reform this weekend -- the most dramatic domestic policy debate in several generations, a reorganization of a sixth of the economy -- the only thing the parties can talk about is abortion and immigration.

"It tells you something about our country," remarked one distressed member of Congress, who didn't want to be named speaking ill of this fine land.

Yet the talk is of abortion and immigration.

The intent of the amendment was to keep the debate about health care rather than abortion and it would make clear that -- as is current law -- no federal funds would be used for abortion. "Our hope was that we could continue the current ban on federal funding for abortion so the issue wouldn't bog down the overall health reform legislation," wrote Capps at the time.

But that wasn't enough for pro-life Democrats. On November 3, Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.) offered a more conservative compromise, one that restricted abortion in a bunch of extra ways and would require at least one private plan in the exchange not to cover abortion.

In reality, most insurance plans -- even using pro-life numbers -- already do not cover abortion.

Still, pro-choice Democrats swallowed the compromise -- while saying they'd go no further. Health care reform, said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), a staunch pro-choicer and co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, should not be a vehicle to drive a pro-life social agenda.

Tempers flared. A Democratic congressman told House Republicans, who then told the Huffington Post, that Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) was asked to leave a leadership meeting where the pro-life agreement was being considered. DeGette is firmly pro-choice and it was thought, the source said, that she would not agree to the deal. "False," said a leadership aide, saying that "she had to leave to attend another meeting. Other pro-choice members [were] in there with leadership, as well as Waxman."

Either way, the question came down to who had the votes. Stupak's driving argument was that he had more than the 40 members he needed to "take down the rule" -- legislative lingo for defeating a bill on the House floor before it comes for a final vote. No one was sure whether Stupak actually had the 40 votes, but pro-choice Democrats were skeptical.

Shortly after midnight, Stupak addressed the Rules Committee and requested a floor vote on the amendment, ending a day of drama, but leaving open questions that will be answered Saturday: Does his amendment have enough votes to pass? If it does, will pro-choice Democrats flee and sink the bill?

Meanwhile, aides from both parties say, the GOP is planning out how it will game the language in its motion to recommit -- an alternative measure aimed at stamping out the bill that the minority is entitled to introduce. The GOP could include language supporting Democrat-backed proposals, such as single-payer health care or a robust public option -- and then vote present, allowing a majority of Democrats to carry the vote to victory and complicate things for leadership.

Computers, Records Seized At ACORN Offices In La.

2009-11-07T01:42:16Z

NEW ORLEANS — State investigators raided ACORN offices on Friday, taking away computer hard drives and documents as part of a probe into alleged embezzlement and tax fraud when the organization's national headquarters was based in New Orleans.

"This is an investigation of everything – ACORN, the national organization, the local organization and all of its affiliated entities, specifically as it relates to any potential violations of Louisiana law," Assistant Attorney General David Caldwell said.

ACORN staff on the scene declined to comment, but an attorney for the group said in a statement the raid was prompted by allegations that former ACORN employees had removed or altered electronic documents and may do so in the future.

Attorney Pamela Marple said ACORN was cooperating and called the raid exhaustive, saying investigators wanted "virtually every document in the possession of ACORN and any related entity."

The raid was the latest development for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Videotapes released recently showed ACORN employees offering tax advice to two people in Baltimore posing as a prostitute and her pimp. The videos led Congress and state governments to cut funding for ACORN.

State prosecutors said their probe into the New Orleans offices stemmed from allegations made last year by board members involving embezzlement at ACORN nearly a decade ago.

ACORN last year settled an internal dispute and a lawsuit involving accusations that Dale Rathke, the brother of the group's founder, Wade Rathke, made around $948,000 in improper credit card charges in 1999 and 2000. The Rathke family and a donor repaid the money and no charges were ever brought.

Last month, Attorney General Buddy Caldwell, the father of David Caldwell, said he would step up an investigation into allegations that the embezzlement may have been as high as $5 million.

ACORN said the $5 million figure was "a worst-case scenario" for what the embezzlement potentially could cost the group.

For 33 years, ACORN's national headquarters was based in New Orleans after Wade Rathke moved here in the 1970s from Little Rock, Ark., where he started the organization. The embezzlement scandal led the organization to move its headquarters to Washington, D.C., earlier this year, a move that allowed the national organization to distance itself from the Rathkes.

David Caldwell said he did not know which former ACORN employees removed the computers.

"We're going to grab the stuff, make copies," he said, "and get it all back to them so whatever entities are doing business with them are able to do so."

___

Associated Press writer Janet McConnaughey contributed to this report.

Cindy Padilla, New Mexico Cabinet Official, Resigns After DWI Arrest

2009-11-07T01:34:19Z

SANTA FE, N.M. — A top official in Gov. Bill Richardson's cabinet has resigned over a drunken driving arrest just days after she was appointed to a spot in President Barack Obama's administration.

Secretary of Aging and Long-Term Services Cindy Padilla submitted her resignation on Oct. 26. The governor's chief of staff requested the resignation because the administration has a zero tolerance policy for drunken driving, according to a Richardson spokeswoman.

In late October, Padilla was named principal deputy assistant secretary in the Administration on Aging, which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. She was to start Nov. 16, but that has been postponed at her request, department spokeswoman Vicki Rivas-Vazquez said Friday. No new start date has been set.

Padilla resigned her state cabinet post two days after Santa Fe police arrested her on drunken driving charges.

According to a police arrest report, Padilla's chemical breath tests showed a blood-alcohol level of .08 percent and .07 percent. New Mexico's standard for presumed intoxication is .08 percent.

Padilla earned $105,000 a year as head of the Aging and Long-Term Services Department, according to state records.

Michael Spanier is serving as acting department secretary.

Obama Visits Wounded US Soldiers At Walter Reed

2009-11-07T01:23:53Z

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama spent nearly two hours visiting wounded U.S. soldiers Friday afternoon.

The president met with 19 soldiers being treated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, as well as the families of three soldiers in intensive care, and hospital staff. He also awarded two Purple Hearts.

The president's visit came a day after an Army psychiatrist who once trained at Walter Reed hospital allegedly killed 13 people at Fort Hood. The White House says the hospital visit was planned before the shootings.

Friday's visit was Obama's first to Walter Reed since taking office, though he visited as a presidential candidate.

(This version CORRECTS to Walter Reed Army Medical Center.)

Chris Weigant: Friday Talking Points [100] -- Whigging Out

2009-11-07T00:34:29Z

I will explain that silly subtitle in a moment, but first we've got to delve even deeper into rampant silliness. If such silliness and unseriousness does not appeal to you, then I strongly suggest you skip down and begin reading with this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award. Consider yourselves warned.

This column today celebrates a milestone -- triple digits on the odometer! That's right, as hard as it may seem to believe, this is the one hundredth volume of your weekly Friday Talking Points column. For a little over two years now, we've brought you our thoughts on "the week that was in politics," and for a little less time than that, we've announced our weekly winners of both the aforementioned MIDOTW as well as the ignominious Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week. And we wrap it all up with some practical, good old-fashioned, home-brewed Democratic spin, our Talking Points for the week ahead.

Initially, this concept met with some scorn. To some, "spin" and "talking points" are ugly words, which proper ladies and gentlemen don't use. My feeling, however, is that Democrats are so woefully bad at getting their own message out -- especially in the short, easy-to-digest soundbites to which the mainstream media is addicted -- that I certainly couldn't do any harm by making such suggestions, and indeed might do some good. It's been enough to keep me going for 100 columns, and I see no sign of Democrats mastering the art of "framing" their subjects, so another 100 columns being necessary isn't entirely outside the realm of possibility.

But enough back-patting and self-congratulating. Oh, wait, one more -- if you'd like to hear what I sound like trying to talk politics at 8:30 in the morning, there's a program note at the end of this with a link to a podcast interview I did today. If that sort of thing interests you, then check it out.

But I promised you some silliness, so silliness I will now provide. Whenever "100 episodes" comes to my mind, I can't help but think of South Park. The war in Iraq began about three weeks before the 100th episode of South Park aired, and at the time there was virtually nothing but jingoistic pro-war opinions being voiced on television. South Park, known mostly for lowbrow (and, some say, conservative) political views, put their finger on the pulse of both the anti-war and pro-war positions at the time, and came up with a summation that seemed downright brilliant at the time, and still does.

I won't go into too much detail of the plotline of this episode (you can read a transcript of it, if you'd like). Suffice it to say it had half the town protesting against the war, and half the town protesting in favor of the war. The kids were assigned a report on how the Founding Fathers themselves would view the Iraq war, which Eric Cartman tried to weasel out of by attempting to send himself into a "flashback" to the past. He finally succeeds, and is on hand for the Founding Fathers debating the Declaration of Independence in the Continental Congress, and the question of whether to go to war with England or not. Here's the South Park take on how this debate went:

HANCOCK:  Mr. Franklin, where do you stand on the war issue?

FRANKLIN:  I believe that if we are to form a new country, we cannot be a country that appears war-hungry and violent to the rest of the world. However, we also cannot be a country that appears weak and unwilling to fight to the rest of the world. So, what if we form a country that appears to want both?

JEFFERSON:  Yes. Yes of course. We go to war, and protest going to war at the same time.

DICKINSON:  Right. If the people of our new country are allowed to do whatever they wish, then some will support the war and some will protest it.

FRANKLIN:  And that means that as a nation, we could go to war with whomever we wished, but at the same time, act like we didn't want to. If we allow the people to protest what the government does, then the country will be forever blameless.

ADAMS:  [Holding a slice of chocolate cake] It's like having your cake, and eating it, too.

CONGRESSMAN 2:  Think of it: an entire nation founded on saying one thing and doing another.

HANCOCK:  And we will call that country the United States of America.

Cartman returns from his flashback to find the town killing each other in a riot which happened because the mayor told the anti-war protesters and the pro-war protesters that they'd have to share the town park on the same day. Cartman, uncharacteristically, is the voice of reason which ends the town's fighting, as he gives his report from the stage:

I learned something today. This country was founded by some of the smartest thinkers the world has ever seen. And they knew one thing: that a truly great country can go to war, and at the same time, act like it doesn't want to. You people who are for the war, you need the protesters. Because they make the country look like it's made of sane, caring individuals. And you people who are anti-war, you need these flag-wavers, because, if our whole country was made up of nothing but soft [expletive deleted] protesters, we'd get taken down in a second. That's why the Founding Fathers decided we should have both. It's called "having your cake and eating it too."

But the true silliness is at the very end, when the two groups embrace each other and start singing Donny And Marie's "Little Bit of Country/Little Bit of Rock and Roll," and then get completely surreal. Which is a good way for us to open our column today.

EVERYBODY:  We're a little bit country, and we're a little bit rock-n-roll!

STUART:  We can be a nation that believe in war...

MR. MACKEY:  And still tells the world that we don't.

EVERYBODY:  Let the flag for hypocrisy fly high from every pole! We're a little bit country, and we're a little bit rock-n-roll!

RANDY:  Well, goodnight everybody. It sure has been great bringing you a hundred episodes.

SKEETER:  We want to thank our guests, the pro-war people. [Applause] And the anti-war people. [Applause]

STAN:  [Mystified] What the Hell are they doing now?

KYLE:  [Covers his nose and shuts his eyes tight] Ah, I don't know.

EVERYBODY:  For the war, against, the war, WHO CARES?? One hundred episodes!

KYLE:  I hate this town. Ah, I really, really do.

Now that we've got the silly and surreal out of our system, let's just move on, shall we?

While Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi certainly made a bid for winning the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week by scheduling a debate on the healthcare reform bill in the House, she has not yet delivered. She did try an interesting tactic to try to speed things up, though. After getting her bill "scored" by the Congressional Budget Office, she posted it online for 72 hours, making good on an earlier promise to do so (which, it should be noted, the Republicans never bothered to do when they were in charge). But that meant the debate and vote was pushed out to Saturday. Congress in session on a weekend! You could have knocked me over with a feather when I heard that.

But Pelosi accomplished this by being crafty. Next week, the House was planning to take half the week off for Veterans' Day -- so Pelosi told everyone that they could have the full week off if they voted on the healthcare reform bill first. This is why our legislators will be in the chambers this weekend -- to get extra vacation time next week! Which is fine, since (for once) they'll actually deserve a few days off. But this maneuver flew under most people's radar, which is also why it was a brilliant political tactic for Pelosi to employ. Now, rumors are flying today (including one which says the vote's not going to happen until next week), so we'll see what happens next week.

For this week, however, we've got to at least give Speaker Pelosi an Honorable Mention for moving things forward on healthcare reform.

But this week's uncontested Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week is newly-minted Representative Bill Owens, of the twenty-third House district in the great state of New York. Owens captured NY-23 this Tuesday, winning a very strange race which was really an intra-Republican donnybrook. A moderate Republican was on the ticket, but so was an ultra-conservative backed by Sarah Palin and the rest of the usual suspects from the "Small Tent" faction of the Republican Party. The Republican dropped out of the race, and actually endorsed the Democrat, strangely enough. Who actually won -- even stranger.

Now, the mainstream media mostly ignored this race, because it didn't easily fit in their storyline of "Republican Revival!" But this district going Democratic is simply stunning. It also presages some interesting struggles for the direction of the Republican Party in next year's primaries, which I wrote about yesterday.

But the truly jaw-dropping part of the story is that over a third of the district (with reapportionment, the district has changed boundaries over the years) has been represented by a Republican in the House of Representatives since before the Civil War. Part of the district has had a Republican representative since 1856 -- when the Republican Party began. And in Franklin Country, the last non-Republican representing them in the House was named George Simmons... who was a member of the Whig Party.

The Swing State Project website has more details, if you're interested. There are no districts which have remained Democratic (even partially) since the Civil War -- there used to be a few in Texas, but Tom DeLay took care of that. There is still one district in Pennsylvania with as long a pedigree for the Republicans, but the news of NY-23 switching parties is truly groundshaking, one would think.

Unless one got their news from the mainstream media, of course. Sigh.

Anyway, we simply can't think of a more impressive Democrat this week, or indeed a more impressive Democratic feat in quite a while. So this week's MIDOTW voting wasn't even close. Our hands-down Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week is none other than Bill Owens. Well done!

[Unfortunately, Representative-Elect Bill Owens does not have an official House webpage yet, so you'll have to wait a week or so to congratulate him.]

But enough of Republicans "Whigging out," as it were (see, I told you I'd work that in...). Sadly, we must turn to our own disappointments this week. While the Democratic candidates for governor in New Jersey and Virginia were disappointing, this week we unfortunately have to return to an old standard for our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid really has got to go. I have said it before and I doubtlessly will say it again, but it is time for Senate Democrats to wake up and realize that the only thing Harry is "leading" them to is a possible disaster at the polls next year.

While activity and hopefulness was emanating from the House, with Pelosi moving healthcare reform one more step forward, Harry Reid may have killed the entire effort for the year over in the Senate. No, that's not an exaggeration. Harry seems to think he's got all the time in the world to get this done. In the summer, he attempted to talk tough about deadlines for Max Baucus, and deadlines for introducing the bill under budget reconciliation rules which only need 50 votes (instead of 60) -- but such talk has apparently been long forgotten by Reid.

Reid's office leaked this week that the Senate may not even bring a bill to the floor until December... or maybe not even this year. Perhaps next year, if they can find the time, who knows?

Reid clumsily attempted to walk this back later, by saying he shares Obama's goal of getting it done this year, but it was pretty weak medicine indeed after his earlier statements.

Somebody please tie Harry to a chair so I can throw this bucket of cold water in his face: "Harry -- if it doesn't get done this year, it is not going to get done in an election year. And Harry, you don't get the whole calendar to play around with. You have to schedule in some time for a conference committee between the houses after the Senate votes, or there will not be time to finish the bill."

December, I would like to strongly remind Democrats, is the traditional month when the caucus votes on their leadership. This is the month when they replace people in positions like... oh, I don't know... Senate Majority Leader, for instance. And any Senate Democrats frustrated by the pace of their leadership (which includes, by the way, committee chairs -- I'm just saying...) need to start a whispering campaign in the cloakrooms of the Capitol that if healthcare reform fails by this December, then they will be voting some new leaders in for next year. Because, at this point, we simply don't have time for the Nevada voters to chuck Reid out next year.

Maybe that'll wake Harry up. It's certainly worth a try.

For the record-shattering thirteenth time, we sadly must award Harry Reid the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

[Contact Harry Reid on his Senate contact page to let him know what you think of his actions.]

Volume 100 (11/6/09)

One hundred epsiodes! Woo hoo!

Sorry, I apologize, I dealt with that silliness earlier and it won't happen again, I promise. Ahem.

We now turn to our Friday Talking Points for this week. I had notions of digging through the last 99 columns and presenting some sort of "best of" section here today, but sadly, it has been too busy a week politically, so we must forego such pleasures and offer up some commonsensical ways for Democrats to speak of what's been going on of late. As always, the full archive of all 100 of these columns is available at fridaytalkingpoints.com (which I registered for those people who find it easier to spell than chrisweigant.com).

For those of you who are newcomers to this column and were drawn in by the number 100 beckoning you from the headline, welcome! The core of this column is presented weekly (some would say "weakly," but we cheerfully ignore them, as always) in the hopes of providing some snappy one-liners to Democrats for the upcoming week.

Originally, this was solely for the purposes of Democratic officeholders who are scheduled to appear on Sunday chat shows, but I have found over the months that they work just as well talking to your strange cousin or uncle, or to the conservative you have to share an office with.

In other words, anyone can use them! Feel free! Try it today!

Dachau? Really?

This one is just odious, I have to admit. Because this sort of thing shows up at political demonstrations more and more, but this wasn't a rally or a demonstration, officially it was a "press conference" hosted by Representative Michele Bachmann, complete with lots and lots of Republicans standing on the stage and speaking from the podium. A photo of what I'm talking about is available at ThinkProgress, I should add. This should be used by any Democrat debating healthcare reform this weekend with any Republican, since even if they weren't there, it is just as useful.

"Before we begin, I would like to denounce -- and invite my colleague to equally denounce -- whoever it was at the Republican 'press conference' earlier this week who saw fit to wave giant signs equating our efforts to provide affordable healthcare coverage to all Americans with a photograph of a pile of naked, dead bodies taken at the Dachau concentration camp. I think this sort of thing is despicable, I think it is a slap in the face to all Jewish people in America, and I think it deserves the strongest sort of condemnation, no matter what party you are from. I noticed that while this enormous sign was fully visible from the stage, not one of the speakers addressed it in any way whatsoever. I think that is shameful, and I invite my colleague to join me in denouncing such tactics." (Turn to Republican you're being interviewed with, at this point, and watch them squirm....)

Good thing there was government healthcare available....

This one is a tightrope to walk, so as not to fall into a pit of glee over someone's misfortune -- but that should not stop anyone from pointing out the thick, thick irony of it all.

"You know, Dana Milbank of the Washington Post had a very interesting article the other day, where he pointed out the fact that during the Republican anti-government-healthcare rally someone suffered a heart attack and, quote, Medical personnel from the Capitol physician's office -- an entity that could, quite accurately, be labeled government-run health care -- rushed over, attaching electrodes to his chest and giving him oxygen and an IV drip, unquote. Now, if this crowd was so morally against the concept of government healthcare, then by all rights they should have waited for a private-sector ambulance to arrive, and let the victim die in the meantime. But I noticed -- just as I notice many in these crowds who seem to be Medicare-eligible -- that they're just fine with government healthcare for themselves, it is merely others they do not wish to extend the privilege to. I find this ironic, personally."

We need some stronger candidates

This week's election results are going to be a major subject this weekend. So Democrats have got to be ready to talk about the lessons learned.

"I think that what New Jersey and Virginia tell us is that Democrats simply have to do a better job at recruiting good candidates. Deeds, in Virginia, by all accounts didn't run a very good campaign, and Corzine was the wrong man at the wrong time, since Wall Street experience isn't exactly what people are looking for these days in their politicians. But I'm confident that next year, Democrats will do a much better job of lining up good candidates that know their districts and have a good chance at winning."

Poll the stay-at-homes

If I was in charge of the Democratic National Committee, I would hastily be putting a poll out in the field in New Jersey and Virginia with some seriously open-ended questions. Due to micro-targeting, I would aim this poll at two groups: registered Democrats who previously voted (including new voters from 2008), but didn't in this election; and independents who fit the same criteria. The single-most important question I would ask: "Why did you stay home this time around?" Followed up by the equally-important: "What could we do in the next year to get you back to the polls?"

"Democrats need to take one big lesson away from this week's results in New Jersey and Virginia -- the Republicans were more motivated. They had the momentum. And if we don't regain that momentum on our side, then 2010 is going to be pretty grim for Democrats. So I would tell my party's leaders to ask the citizens of Virginia and New Jersey who didn't vote this time around 'why did you stay home?' I would examine their answers very closely, and I would put out a memo to each and every Democratic member of Congress stating exactly where we are falling short in our voters' eyes. Because if we don't turn this around, next year is going to be devastating for us come election day."

Put up, or shut up

No matter what the answers are to the poll just mentioned, the follow-through is just as important. Democrats need to produce. Now. If they have any hope of holding on to their congressional majorities next year, they need to get busy and convince the voters they know what they're doing.

"I suspect if you did poll the stay-at-home voters, that they would tell you in various ways that they are disappointed with the Democratic Party. They expected some big changes, and all they've seen so far is smaller changes and a lot of arguing. On issue after issue, Democratic voters are becoming dispirited and disillusioned with the progress made so far. Now is not the time for the normal timidity of a midterm election year, now is the time to get some things done. Now is the time to produce. Now is the time to put up, or shut up. Because if we can't manage to do so in the next year, last week's election is going to look like a picnic to Democrats by comparison."

The Republicans splinter

However, those last few were pretty sobering, so let's end here with a gratuitous slap to the face of the Republicans, and then finally with the one thing Democrats can brag about from last week. This first one should send some chills down a few Republican spines, I would warrant.

"For all the talk of how the Democrats did last week, the media seems to be largely ignoring the absolute cage match happening over in Republicanland. Two party factions -- one who wants to get back to a 'big tent' concept, and one who wants only the purest of the pure -- are heading for some epic collisions next year. And the thing the Republicans should really worry about -- the thing that would keep me awake nights if I were a Republican -- is the specter of a third-party challenge from the right in next year's general elections. I see a real possibility of the Republican Party splintering off into two mutually-antagonistic sides over the question of 'party purity' next year. Which, I have to admit, fills me with delight as a Democrat."

Flip my Whig

OK, this one is just rubbing their faces in it, but since it was the only happy result from Tuesday, it should be kept handy if needed.

"For all this talk of a Republican Renaissance, did anybody notice that Democrats took a House seat last week in upstate New York? In some parts of this district, they have been represented by a Republican since before Abraham Lincoln was elected president. In particular, the last non-Republican to represent Franklin County was from the Whig Party. That seems like it's worth a mention, if we're talking about drawing sweeping conclusions from last week. Republicans lost a district they've held for over 150 years -- that doesn't happen every day in American politics, does it?"

[Program Note: Back in FTP [75] I was interviewed by "TJ and The Tux" for their podcast program on EastVillageRadio.com, to talk about Obama's first 100 days. Since then, they've renamed their program "Shock and Awesome," and they graciously had me back on again today to talk about Obama's "first year" and the recent elections. So if you'd like to hear me sipping caffeine and attempting to talk about politics (and my cat) at 8:30 in the morning, check it out. Click on the "Listen" button for Nov. 06, 2009 -- it's at about an hour-and-a-half in to the show.]

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

Fred Karger: Will NOM's Maggie Gallagher Fire Carrie Prejean?

2009-11-06T23:25:06Z

Californians Against Hate

November 5, 2009

Ms Maggie Gallagher
President
National Organization for Marriage
1100 H Street, NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Maggie:

Are you going to fire Carrie Prejean? Donald Trump did.

I was shocked and dismayed to hear yesterday that your lead spokeswoman, the "future of our movement, and the future of America*" according to you, has starred in a sex video, as reported by TMZ.

Carrie dropped her $1 million law suit yesterday against the Miss California USA Pageant, as soon as news of her sex video was exposed. She filed her law suit back in August claiming, of all things, "religious discrimination." Sound familiar?

Are you going to keep her as a paid consultant, Maggie? Are you going to keep her photo and that praise that you heap upon her all over your National Organization for Marriage (NOM) web site?

Does she still represent the true "family values" that you and your NOM Executive Director, Brian Brown espouse.

What does your high powered Board of Directors think? What does your largest backer, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church) think of this scandal?

Carrie has been a big fund-raiser for NOM, a speaker, you've flown her all over the USA, you have even shared the stage with her, and now this news comes out.

I read that San Diego's own Charles LiMandri, who was your General Counsel on the Yes on Prop 8 campaign, is also Carrie's lawyer. Bet he was surprised to hear about that sex video, too. He usually has a lot to say, but yesterday only said that, "it's a confidential settlement, and he can't discuss it."

I feel sorry for Carrie. She is just a young woman trying to make something of her life.

It will be interesting to see how you handle this one, Maggie. Will you be a voice of reason and compassion, or will you toss her to the sharks?

I would hope that you will reflect on this moment in history.

Will you embrace someone whose life is so different from your beliefs? Or will you demonize, bully, rip apart and treat Carrie like someone who has less rights than you have.

Time will tell.

Sincerely,

Fred Karger
Founder
Californians Against Hate

* From Maggie Gallagher's September 18, 2009 introduction of Carrie Prejean, at Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council sponsored Voters Value Summit in Washington, DC.

Barbara Coombs Lee: The Newest Star of Human Liberty

2009-11-06T23:22:30Z

Human liberty isn't just a single light on our horizon, but more like stars in a constellation. Each freedom achieved, each choice secured, each dignity acknowledged, helps shape the whole, and the light of each emerges in its own time.

Who decides if a dying patient can ask their doctor to help them to a humane and peaceful death? Today Compassion & Choices as well as our opponents on the other side of this question recognize the stars are aligned to make it an emerging focal point in the struggle for liberty.

Why this question? Why now? Because new technology, cultural and economic shifts and rising expectations create needs and opportunities in the development of any social movement. Sometimes dramatic events precipitate a change. Fifty years ago death came with speed and certainty. Today it more often drags its victims down in a long, agonized process of decreased function and increased suffering.

Fighting for their country in World War II, many black Americans experienced acceptance and responsibility in the military they lacked at home. At the same time the spread of agricultural mechanization offered fewer jobs for those without a high school education. Businesses found racial intolerance made their companies less attractive as investments. Conditions were ripe to consider the question: Who decides if race defines opportunities? When Rosa Parks refused to relinquish her seat on a Montgomery bus she helped ignite the movement that brought desegregation.

Who decides if married couples may use birth control? For years, state legislatures decided, the Catholic Church supported them and few questioned those authorities. But conditions changed. Women who held jobs during World War II were expected to return to domestic pursuits after its close, but in the 1950's a rising number wanted to hold successful careers and achieve equality.

Economic, cultural and technological changes empowered women to push for reproductive choice, and in 1965 the U.S. Supreme Court decided Griswold v. Connecticut, finding that a state's ban on contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy. To some, a woman in control of her own fertility threatened family and society. Reproductive choice made a lot of people very uncomfortable. Pushing past that discomfort, the majority of Americans came to recognize the right of couples themselves to decide on intimate, personal matters free from government intrusion.

Today, a new medical reality defines the border of acceptable autonomy. Remarkable advances in medical technology have prolonged the dying process and spurred questions about how and where we die. Gradually, a cultural shift is making discussions of death more acceptable in America. The demographic leviathan of the Baby Boomer Generation, whose attention was once on reproduction, increasingly confronts issues around their mortality. And in 2005, when Michael Schiavo asked who decides if his wife Terri should be allowed to die with dignity, Americans recoiled in horror as politicians tried to establish their right to override state courts and make end-of-life decisions.

The newest star in the constellation of autonomy and personal freedom emerges at the edge of life. Its light will shine fully when we establish the right of all terminally ill, mentally competent adults to control their last days. Securing the liberty to access medication one may choose to ingest to achieve a peaceful death establishes the over-riding principle that end-of-life decisions reside with patients themselves, not doctors, not politicians and not the government or religious leaders.

Local and national politicians may be uncomfortable publicly supporting this principle, but that's expected. Social movements gain strength from the recognition that established powers are incapable of adapting to changing social needs and expectations.

Discomfort alone should not control laws. A 1986 Supreme Court case, Bowers v. Hardwick, upheld Georgia law against certain sex acts between consenting and loving adults. Justice Harry Blackmun dissented, citing "the rights of those whose choices upset the majority." He wrote, "No matter how uncomfortable a certain group may make the majority of this Court, we have held that '[m]ere public intolerance or animosity cannot constitutionally justify the deprivation of a person's physical liberty.'" In 2003, Justice Blackmun's logic prevailed, and Bowers v. Hardwick became obsolete.

Compassion & Choices serves people facing death and protects their choices: to accept offered treatment or not; to focus treatment primarily on the quantity of life or its quality; to die at home, in hospice or at the hospital. In Oregon, Washington and Montana they also have the legal choice - and only a small minority access it - to ask their doctor for medication to bring about a peaceful death. The next great human liberty battle is to establish the right of every American to exercise such choices, the intimate, personal end-of-life choices that seem to make so many people uncomfortable.

Who decides if a dying patient can ask their doctor to help them to a humane and peaceful death? As never before, that is a question that galvanizes American opinion. That is the question emerging as the brightest star on society's horizon. Compassion and Choices works not only for those facing the end of life, but for all those who chart the path of social progress by the constellation of human liberty.

Liz Krueger: Marriage Equality in New York: The Time Is Now

2009-11-06T23:13:50Z

I have recently written to Democratic Conference Leader John Sampson urging him to bring marriage equality legislation to the floor for a vote the next time the legislature is in session. I strongly support marriage equality as a basic civil rights issue. I know that there are a significant number of Senators who do not support the bill, but believe it is our duty as a legislative body to have a meaningful debate on marriage equality and give every Senator an opportunity to publicly vote his or her conscience on this critical issue.

Under current New York law, lesbian and gay couples are denied the basic protections provided to heterosexual couples. In such areas as property ownership, inheritance, health care, hospital visitation, taxation, insurance coverage, child custody, pension benefits and testimonial privileges, married couples have a host of important rights and protections. Denying gays and lesbians access to those benefits - as well as the many responsibilities which come with civil marriage - is a violation of the basic principle of equal protection.

Those who argue against marriage equality usually base their arguments either on 1) religious grounds or 2) on their belief that marriage should be reserved for relationships centered around procreation and child rearing. The first argument fails to recognize both the separation of church and state and the fact that many denominations do in fact already recognize same sex marriages. The second argument is just plain silly.

Legalizing same-sex marriage would not and could not force any religious officials to do anything - religious institutions already choose who can or cannot get married within their denominations for both same and opposite sex marriages and they would continue to do so. It would not require any change of religious teachings or actions. The only institution which would be required to recognize same-sex marriages would be the State.

Similarly, family- and procreation-based arguments fail to recognize how many same-sex couples are in fact raising children, as well as how many opposite-sex married couples are not. Marriage equality would benefit same-sex couples, but it would also provide huge benefits to their children, who would gain many protections by having their parents' relationship legally recognized.

Denying couples marriage recognition by the State serves to discriminate not only against the individuals wishing to enter into those marriages, but also harms all of us who remain living in a society where we know that we are allowing family, friends and neighbors to be discriminated against by their government.

New York has a reputation for being at the forefront in the fight to eliminate the vestiges of discrimination, but we have not kept up with many of our neighboring states when it comes to ensuring basic equality for lesbian and gay New Yorkers. In the last year, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine (which unfortunately recently voted to reverse recognition of same sex marriages) have joined Massachusetts by acting to legalize same-sex marriage. Joining these states will serve to demonstrate the ability of our institution to act on critical issues at a time when many doubt that we have that capacity.

I do not know that this legislation will pass, although I am optimistic. But whether we have the votes to pass marriage equality legislation or not, it will be a credit to the Senate and a vindication of the rules changes we made this summer, if leadership brings the bill up for a vote. It will demonstrate that we are becoming more democratic as an institution, and that we are willing and able to discuss and vote on issues critical to our State without requiring that the outcome be predetermined. A vote on marriage equality would thus also be a significant step toward fulfillment of efforts to reform the institution of the Senate.

The Governor has called us back for a special session on November 9th and 10th, and I believe this is the perfect opportunity for us to act on marriage equality legislation. Doing so will be a basic step toward creating equality for all before the law and in demonstrating our ability as a legislative body to take action on critical issues impacting so many New Yorkers.