1115.org

Ladies and Gentlemen, Sarah Palin’s finest moment at the National Tea Party Convention (acronym CROCK*) in Nashville:

The weirdest part of the evening came not during the speech but during the following Q&A session. Asked what she thought that a Republican-controlled congress’s top three priorities should be, she answered: stop spending, energy policy and … well, here’s the whole quote, judge for yourself:
I think, kind of tougher to put our arms around, but allowing America’s spirit to rise again by not being afraid to kind of go back to some of our roots as a God fearing nation where we’re not afraid to say especially in times of potential trouble in the future here, where we’re not afraid to say, you know, we don’t have all the answers as fallible men and women so it would be wise of us to start seeking some divine intervention again in this country, so that we can be safe and secure and prosperous again. To have people involved in government who aren’t afraid to go that route, not so afraid of the political correctness that you know – they have to be afraid of what the media said about them if they were to proclaim their alliance to our creator.

This was, as befits anyone who lusts to be the next Republican president after Georgie Porgie, a pre-screened, pre-selected question. In other words, what her Palinality delivered was not an off-the-cuff response but a carefully pre-composed answer.

So if we’re going back to the glory days of seeking divine intervention in times of potential trouble — and, really, isn’t any time a time of potential trouble? — I dare say we should also restore the monarchy. Just for consistency. Plus, I so want to see Sarah Palin reigning for a good thirty or forty years, to be succeeded by Bristol Palin.

* Why should the acronym make any more sense than the movement itself?

Sarah P. teaches this to her children (and you teach it to your children and grandchildren, too, don’t you, dear reader?): “Name calling by anyone is just unnecessary.” And retard is a very bad name for one of Sarah P.’s key political props God’s own children, so Sarah Pee can take deep umbrage if someone calls someone else a “f’ing retard”. But apparently the rules for when “f’ing retard” constitutes objectionable name calling are even more complex, and less easily understood, than the infield fly rule.

According to Sarah P., using the word “retard” is derogatory to developmentally challenged children only if it’s applied to people one does not agree with:

This morning on Fox News, host Chris Wallace asked Sarah Palin about her public call for White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to resign after reports surfaced that he called a group of liberal activists “f—ing retarded.” Palin reiterated her call for Emanuel to “step down” and explained that while she’s not “politically correct” or “one to be a word police,” she was committed to “reaching out and to helping the special needs community.” But when Wallace asked Palin about Rush Limbaugh’s endorsement of the language, Palin said she was fine with Limbaugh’s satirical comments. “I didn’t hear Rush Limbaugh calling a group of people whom he did not agree with ‘f-ing retards,’” she said. “There is a big difference there”:
PALIN: I agree with Rush Limbaugh. He was using satire to politically correct —

WALLACE: He used the “r” word.

PALIN: He used satire. Name-calling by anyone, I teach this to my children and you teach it to your children and grandchildren, too. Name calling by anyone is just unnecessary. It just wastes time. Let’s speak to the issues and — [...]

PALIN: I didn’t hear Rush Limbaugh calling a group of people whom he did not agree with ‘f-ing retards’ and we did know that Rahm Emanuel has been reported, did say that. there is a big difference there. Again, name-calling, using language that is insensitive, by anyone, male, female, Republican, Democrat, is unnecessary. It’s inappropriate. Let’s all just grow up.

So, as best as anyone can tell from this developmentally challenged lady’s statement, even Sarah P. would not take any objection to the following statement: “Who does this dumb-shit lady think we are, effing retards?” (Cliff’s Notes adds this helpful gloss: note that the term, which would be objectionable if applied to those one disagrees with, is being applied to oneself and one’s cohorts. Hence, unexceptionable. Also, being used in the context of political satire. Hence, doubly unexceptionable.)

The people who set up some of the Senate’s most charming practices — the filibuster, the hold — are starting to look awfully naive.

Somehow, it never occurred to them that these rules could be abused?

Not just for the kind of rampant political obstructionism that the Republicans have displayed over the last three years, but for the most blatant and flagrant political extortion.

The latest, and most colossal, example of the latter is provided by Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama:

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) has put an extraordinary “blanket hold” on at least 70 nominations President Obama has sent to the Senate, according to multiple reports this evening. The hold means no nominations can move forward unless Senate Democrats can secure a 60-member cloture vote to break it, or until Shelby lifts the hold.

“While holds are frequent,” CongressDaily’s Dan Friedman and Megan Scully report (sub. req.), “Senate aides said a blanket hold represents a far more aggressive use of the power than is normal.”

The Mobile Press-Register picked up the story early this afternoon. The paper confirmed Reid’s account of the hold, and reported that a Shelby spokesperson “did not immediately respond to phone and e-mail messages seeking confirmation of the senator’s action or his reason for doing so.”

Shelby has been tight-lipped about the holds, offering only an unnamed spokesperson to reporters today to explain them. Aides to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid broke the news of the blanket hold this afternoon. Reid aides told CongressDaily the hold extends to “all executive nominations on the Senate calendar.”

According to the report, Shelby is holding Obama’s nominees hostage until a pair of lucrative programs that would send billions in taxpayer dollars to his home state get back on track. The two programs Shelby wants to move forward or else:

- A $40 billion contract to build air-to-air refueling tankers. From CongressDaily: “Northrop/EADS team would build the planes in Mobile, Ala., but has threatened to pull out of the competition unless the Air Force makes changes to a draft request for proposals.” Federal Times offers more details on the tanker deal, and also confirms its connection to the hold.

- An improvised explosive device testing lab for the FBI. From CongressDaily: “[Shelby] is frustrated that the Obama administration won’t build” the center, which Shelby earmarked $45 million for in 2008. The center is due to be based “at the Army’s Redstone Arsenal.”

Though a Shelby spokesperson would not confirm that these programs were behind the blanket hold, the Senator expressed his frustration about the progress on both through a spokesperson to both CongressDaily and the Federal Times.

A San Diego State University professor and Congressional expert told the Mobile paper “he knew of no previous use of a blanket hold”…

What’s the difference between Shelby and a two-bit mugger? Shelby does his mugging in full public view. Not just shamelessly, but proudly. Because apparently in this day and age, extortion of this kind — informed by the maturity of a three-year old and no sense of ethical conduct whatsoever — does nothing to hurt your re-election prospects. It may even boost them, as grateful Alabamans tell themselves “He makes a great Senator, he brings money to the state!”

This is so farcical, it’s like a SNL skit on steroids.

The city of Colorado Springs — the second largest city in Colorado — has bravely decided to sacrifice itself in order to put on an object lesson for the rest of the country on what happens when a stubborn refusal to raise taxes collides head-on with the decline in tax revenue resulting from the Republican-voodoo-economics recession.

This tax-averse city is about to learn what it looks and feels like when budget cuts slash services most Americans consider part of the urban fabric.

More than a third of the streetlights in Colorado Springs will go dark Monday. The police helicopters are for sale on the Internet. The city is dumping firefighting jobs, a vice team, burglary investigators, beat cops — dozens of police and fire positions will go unfilled.

The parks department removed trash cans last week, replacing them with signs urging users to pack out their own litter.

Neighbors are encouraged to bring their own lawn mowers to local green spaces, because parks workers will mow them only once every two weeks. If that.

Water cutbacks mean most parks will be dead, brown turf by July; the flower and fertilizer budget is zero.

City recreation centers, indoor and outdoor pools, and a handful of museums will close for good March 31 unless they find private funding to stay open. Buses no longer run on evenings and weekends. The city won’t pay for any street paving, relying instead on a regional authority that can meet only about 10 percent of the need.

“I guess we’re going to find out what the tolerance level is for people,” said businessman Chuck Fowler, who is helping lead a private task force brainstorming for city budget fixes. “It’s a new day.”

Some residents are less sanguine, arguing that cuts to bus services, drug enforcement and treatment and job development are attacks on basic needs for the working class.
[...]
The 2010 sales-tax forecast is almost $22 million less than 2007.

Voters in November said an emphatic no to a tripling of property tax that would have restored $27.6 million to the city’s $212 million general fund budget.

Sometimes, there’s no choice but to raise taxes. That is to say, the alternative is a form of municipal suicide.

Scott Brown was duly sworn in yesterday, and hit the ground running. That is to say, he started talking out of his ass as if to the manner born:

Newly-sworn Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown says the last economic stimulus bill did not create even one new job, a claim that most economists would dispute.

Brown made the assertion moments after he was sworn in Thursday by Vice President Joe Biden to the seat held for nearly half a century by the late Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy.

Convening his first news conference, Brown said the last economic stimulus bill didn’t create a single new job. He added that it may have retained some jobs, but didn’t create any new ones.

Something tells me that Brown is going to be hearing a lot about all the new jobs created just in Massachusetts. Unless, of course, Democrats just throw up their hands and say what’s the bloody point?

Chris Wallace of Fox News seems to literally have a hard-on for Sarah Palin, and he makes no … ahem… bones about it:

WALLACE: We’re going to be down in Nashville with her at the National Tea Party Convention, and I’m excited. First of all, I’m excited to finally meet and interview Sarah Palin. We’ve been interviewing her like Captain Ahab and the great white whale for the last year and a half. [...]

IMUS: When you interview her, will she be sitting on your lap? (LAUGHTER)

WALLACE: One can only hope. (LAUGHTER)

Chrissie, baby, your daddy must be so proud of you!

Lee Fang of ThinkProgress:

If the Senate bill is signed into law, Brown and his GOP allies fear that the country will act like Massachusetts — where an astounding 79% of people support the healthcare system and millions of previously uninsured people now have health care.

The Massachusetts universal health system is credited with reducing the uninsurance rate in Massachusetts from about 10% to 2.5%. The population of Massachusetts is about 6.5 million. The number of previously uninsured people who now have health care in Massachusetts is roughly half a million.

Keep it real, guys!

So now it looks like the possibility of passing a healthcare reform fix in the Senate via budget reconciliation is going down the toilet:

As it turns out, Senate Democrats may not be able to force healthcare legislation through the chamber on a simple majority vote.

Republicans say they have found a loophole in the budget reconciliation process that could allow them to offer an indefinite number of amendments.

Though it has never been done, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) says he’s prepared to test the Senate’s stamina to block the Democrats from using the process to expedite changes to the healthcare bill.

Experts on Senate procedural rules, from both parties, note that such a filibuster is possible. While reconciliation rules limit debate to 20 hours, senators lack similiarconstraints (double sic) on amendments and could conceivably continue offering them until 60 members agree to cut the process off.
[...]
House Democrats have said they would not pass the Senate healthcare bill unless changes are made through reconciliation, which is necessary because Republicans control 41 Senate seats, enough to block legislation through the regular process.

But Republicans may end up having that power even under reconciliation.

“You could keep offering amendments until you don’t have any more to offer,” said a congressional aide, who said he did not know how long senators would be willing to stay in the chamber to move the reconciliation package. “What the body’s tolerance would be is unknown.”

A former Senate Republican leadership aide said: “The limit is on debate, not on consideration of amendments.”

This would be practically like an old-fashioned filibuster. Republicans would have to stand there and offer amendment after amendment. After they ran out of anything that sounds remotely sensible, they would have to offer one totally ridiculous amendment after another. The obstructionism would be as clear and self-evident as standing there and reciting the phone book.

So, could this be the time that Democrats will say to Republicans: “Go right ahead, suckers, bring the Senate to a grinding halt. Let’s see how long you can keep it up. We’ll make sure it’s splashed all over the news every single night till you call it off. We’ll make sure every last American hears about it, and understands exactly where the process of government is broken, and exactly who is responsible. We’ll make sure every last American understands exactly what level of obstructionism Republicans have been displaying for the last three years, and how totally unprecedented it is.”

No, I don’t think so either. Healthcare reform seems to have suddenly become the new national security. Democrats just know that public sentiment is with Republicans. They are terrified of making an issue of it, of forcing this kind of showdown. They are worried-to-death that Americans will regard Republican resistance to healthcare reform as heroic.

So how else can Democrats fight this filibuster-by-amendment plan?

Reid or another Democrat could make a point of order that using amendments to stall a reconciliation bill violates the spirit of the Budget Act of 1974, which sets up for expedited consideration of budget-related bills.

Reid or another Democrat could argue that offering unlimited amendments violates the spirit of limiting debate.

The parliamentarian has ruled that the limit on debate does not allow senators to filibuster the motion to proceed to a reconciliation bill. The parliamentarian could rule that the same concept applies to amendments.

And here’s the considered judgment of The Hill on the possibility of Democrats seeking “a ruling by the parliamentarian that Republicans are simply filing amendments to stall the process”:

But such a ruling could taint the final healthcare vote and backfire for Democrats in November.

I have no idea what the hell “could taint the final healthcare vote” even means. But it sounds like just the kind of phrase that’s capable of paralyzing Democrats.

One thing’s for sure, it certainly looks like House members were right to insist that they jolly well weren’t going to pass the Senate healthcare bill without ironclad guarantees that the Senate would make the agreed-upon changes via reconciliation.

It’s funny how Republicans are able to keep inventing a new killer obstructionist tactic every time they need one. And how Democrats keep finding new and inventive ways to demonstrate “No sir, no can do!” in glorious technicolor.

You may have heard that Democrats have agreed to swear in Scott “Cosmopolitan” Brown today, one week ahead of the date that he himself had picked, February 11. But that’s okay, because he himself demanded to be seated a weak earlier. And as everybody knows, a centerfold model is entitled to change his or her mind.

Now that his election as Senator from Massachusetts has been certified, Scott Brown wants to get to work — and much more quickly than his colleagues in the Senate had prepared for. Brown’s campaign counsel asked Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick to sign the formal certification by tomorrow morning, so Brown can take the papers and present them to the Senate tomorrow and demand that he be seated.

But Brown and the Senate leadership had agreed to swear the new senator in on Feb. 11, which would give Brown the time to put a staff together and find a place to stay in Washington. Is Brown breaking the deal? (He suggested Feb. 11 himself.)

“They’re moving forward with controversial issues and nominations. These are votes where his vote is the deciding one,” an outside Brown adviser said.

“This man is now the certified winner in Massachusetts. The question is whether he’s sworn in or not. There are real optical concerns about [the Senate] moving forward with a nominee — Craig Becker — who they would in 48 hours not be able to move.”

Becker is a National Labor Relations Board nominee who is seen by critics as too pro-labor. His nomination is incredibly important to Democrats’ labor union base, which has spent in excess of $300 million to elect Democrats over the past several years. Brown also wants his say on Obama’s nominee to head the General Services Administration and his nominee for solicitor general. Becker’s nomination was held up by Sen. John McCain.
[...]
Jim Manley, a spokesperson for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, said that “if he wants to be sworn in tomorrow, that’s fine by us.”

Doesn’t it violate the laws of physics or something for Senate Republicans to be both an immovable object and an irresistible force?

Independent pollster Research 2000 conducted a scientific poll of 2,003 self-identified Republicans for Daily Kos. Here’s just a small part of what we learned about Republican voters.

Bruce Bartlett was a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a Treasury official under George H.W. Bush. In a post titled “Why I Am Not a Republican“, he says:

I can only conclude from this new poll of 2003 self-identified Republicans nationwide that between 20% and 50% of the party is either insane or mind-numbingly stupid.

I think that 20% to 50% is an underestimate. I think some proportion of the Republicans who share these beliefs had to have realized that it was better not to confess such beliefs to a pollster.

Incidentally, 76% of Republicans also believe that abortion is murder. If the 34% who believe that the birth control pill is abortion are just a subset of these folks, then 34% of Republican voters believe that using the birth control pill is murder. If the two samples are completely independent, then 76% of 34% = 26% believe that using the birth control pill is murder. I can only conclude that 26% to 34% of Republicans nationwide are stark raving mad.