Monday, March 22, 2010

HCR 2010- 2018. Maybe.

Via Reuters  3/22/2010 a good breakdown of HCR: 


I'm not responsible for errors.  How the hell would I know if there were any, huh?  --kg

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Monday, March 15, 2010

The Ring Tail Cat drops by

Ran into the woodpile.  Ran out of the woodpile.  Also hanging around the dump.  Hope I get to see one!

Friday, March 12, 2010

MSNBC this morning.  Todd talking to Brokaw. Switched to local.

Tuesday, March 09, 2010

Reprint - Benen via Daily Kos



Political AnimalUPDATING OUR POLITICAL DICTIONARIES.... Josh Marshall had a very short item the other day that I've been meaning to mention. He was helping readers understand the new political "lexicon."
"Jamming it through": to vote on a bill.

It got me thinking about how we should all update our understandings of political terms that had fairly straightforward definitions up until fairly recently.
"Obstructionism," for example, only refers to Democratic minorities opposing Republican proposals.
"Tyranny" is found when an elected Democratic majority passes legislation that Republicans don't like.
"Reconciliation" describes a Senate process that Republicans are allowed to use to overcome Democratic "obstructionism."
"Terrorism" refers to acts of political violence committed by people who aren't white guys.
"Bipartisanship" is found when Democrats agree to pass Republican legislation.
"Big government" describes a dangerous phenomenon to be avoided, except in cases relating to reproductive rights or gays.
"Treason" refers to Democrats criticizing a Republican administration during a war.
"Patriotism" refers to Republicans criticizing a Democratic administration during a war.
"Fiscal responsibility" is a national priority related to keeping our deficit in check, which only applies when Republicans are in the minority.
"Parliamentarian" is a seemingly independent official on the Hill who Senate Republicans are allowed to fire when the GOP disapproves of his/her rulings.
See how fun this is? Consider this an open thread for your own submissions.
—Steve Benen 2:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (63)

Monday, March 01, 2010

Dodd Redux

Pay attention to the excerpted paragraph -- which is what is happening.
I am reposting this from  2/4.   Link in that post has gone postal...
Cenk Uygur
Host of The Young Turk
Posted: February 2, 2010 11:12 How Bipartisanship Hurts the Country

Excerpt from end of his article:                                               
"The problem is selling out to corporate America in the guise of settling political differences. And here it comes again in financial reform. Here is what a staffer at Senator Dodd's office said recently according to the Financial Times (see correction below):






"Chris is retiring so he wants to end his career with an important regulatory reform bill and he wants to make the bill bipartisan. He is not going to risk bipartisan support to make the White House happy."
Translation:
"Chris is retiring and would like to get a high paying job on K Street, and hence, he will pretend to be bipartisan and reach convenient compromises with the Republicans in his committee to gut this bill and protect the corporate interests he will soon be serving."
And guess what, it turns out that compromises that Sen. Dodd (D) and Sen. Shelby (R) have been working on wind up reducing consumer protection, allowing the banks to take more risks and make more money at taxpayer expense. Who could have seen that coming? I guess that's another lucky break for corporate America! How can a small group of people keep getting so lucky?
Political bipartisanship is a fraud. It's meant to cover up bipartisan crime. The media and the Democrats aren't telling you the truth. The only thing they're compromising away is your interests. The people who sell out the most are the ones that are revered the most as centrists and moderates. It's all a sham. They're not centrists, they're corporatists. Don't believe the hype. Bipartisanship doesn't help you, it helps the lobbyists.
Correction: Senator Dodd's office reached out to me to say that the Financial Times quote was not an official statement from his office. That is true. I should have attributed it to a staffer as I have corrected now. Here is the statement from Kirstin Brost, the Communications Director in Dodd's office:
"Dodd strongly supports the Volcker rule. I don't know who Deal Reporter spoke to, but I speak for Chairman Dodd and Dodd is going to fight for the strongest bill he can get. He is giving the Volcker proposal careful consideration. We are having two major hearings this week with Chairman Volker and the Treasury Department to do just that."
I don't want people to misunderstand my correction. The only thing being corrected is the source of the quote. I do not believe the official statement from Dodd's office. Every report I have read indicates that they are not going to push strongly for the Volcker Rule. I hope they prove all those reports wrong, but I highly doubt it.
One more thing that should be noted, I had very high praise for the initial reform package that Senator Dodd introduced a couple of months ago. I explained on our show how it was stronger than the House or White House version and that it was a real reform package. Furthermore, I supported Chris Dodd in the 2008 presidential primaries over Barack Obama. So, I have absolutely nothing against Senator Dodd or his original proposal for reform. What I have a problem with is selling out that proposal to get a so-called bipartisan deal with the Republicans and to make corporate lobbyists happy, and in the process, making financial reform much, much weaker.
I will be the first one to give Senator Dodd tremendous credit if he does not do this and sticks to his original strong reform proposal. We'll be watching to see who was right after all."