“It’s really easy to blame people for so-called voting against children,” Bush said in an interview on Fox News Sunday.Yep, that's how they play the game. If you watch that video of Reagan's speech from 1964 that I posted earlier you'll see they've been doing it for a long time. If you don't agree with their solutions to problems, which usually involve empowering bureaucrats, you don't care about the problems. It's old and tiresome.
"That, to me, is very distressful because we have a system; if countries have information that the country is working on a nuclear-related program, they should come to us. We have the authority to go out and investigate," he said.
"But to bomb first and then ask questions later, I think it undermines the system and it doesn't lead to any solution to any suspicion, because we are the eyes and ears of the international community."
So let's get this straight. This worthless bureaucrat didn't even know about the site and still says there was no evidence of it existing, even though we've all seen the pictures. Given that, this guy is upset with Israel for not consulting with him before acting. Because, you know, he's the decider. He's got the title and a Nobel Prize, too! Never mind that he nor his organization have ever stopped any other country from getting nuclear weapons, and don't even think about the fact he's apparently a stooge for Iran or any other middle eastern country that wants to obtain them. How anybody can believe the IAEA and the UN in general are anything other than useless, bureaucratic crony pits is beyond me.
The new version will underscore that illegal immigrants will not have access to the expanded program. It will ease adults off the program in one year, rather than the two in the vetoed version. And it establishes a firmer eligibility cap at 300 percent of the federal poverty line, just more than $60,000 for a family of four.Those are valid concerns, but if you'll recall my post from a few days ago examining the details of the bill, the biggest problems I have with it are that it's to be funded with an increase in tobacco taxes, which is unlikely to pay for more than the outreach and enrollment provisions. I tend to agree with Rep. Joe Barton who compares this attempt with putting lipstick on a pig:
"It may a be a good pig. It may be a nice pig. It might be intended to be the right kind of pig," said Barton, the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. "But it's still a pig."Some Republicans are complaining that the fires in California kept many of those who would have voted no from attending the vote. Ed Morrisey at Captain's Quarters has even more timing shenanigans from the Democrats:
So what happened today? The debate on HR 3963 will occur under a "closed rule" -- which means Republicans can't offer amendments. The GOP Whip claims that this is the 40th time that rule has been invoked by the majority. Also, the bill got filed last night at 11:25 pm, almost a midnight run, and the House started debating it at 11:20 this morning, just shy of 12 hours after publicizing the text. Most of the people debating this bill havenh't even read it yet.Yeah, it does look like they're trying to sneak it in while everybody was distracted by other events. However, Bush has said he'll veto it again because it still has the stupid tobacco tax and outreach provisions. He's offered to bump up spending on the program to $20 million if those are taken out, but apparently those are the most important on the pro side.
I felt sick this morning when I saw the Republican minority invoke cloture on the attempt by progressives to deny Bush's latest KKK judicial nominee confirmation. Yesterday I warned that Judas goat Ben Nelson was working with Trent Lott in rounding up the votes to thwart the progressive strategy. Thanks to Diane Feinstein (D-CA), he succeeded.The poster then goes on to list the names of the supposed Senate turncoats. The roll call vote is here. Feinstein and Ben Nelson are taking the most heat from the lefties because they equate compromise with capitulation. They actually believe the politicians in the House and Senate are supposed to take marching orders from them. Oh, did I mention Joe Lieberman also voted against the moonbats? How long will it be before he makes another appearance in blackface?
<...>
The win today is being cheered by reactionaries, homophobes, Republican partisans, corporate interests, and racists as a huge victory. After the Republicans passed cloture to shut down debate 62-35, Southwick sailed to victory 59-38. So who were the Democrats who screwed us, Democrats who every progressive should do all they can to defeat?
Well, of course, first and foremost is the horrific and utterly corrupt and contemptible Dianne Feinstein, without whose connivance, Southwick would still be bottled up in committee hearings. And then of course, there's Bush's point man inside the Democratic caucus, Ben Nelson. The full list of Democrats who officially joined the GOP for the day:
With votes like these, it's difficult to believe the Democrats are the majority party in Congress.The Dream Act she's referring to is yet another setback today for the left and other illegal immigration amnesty advocates. It was shot down in the Senate today, which is a good thing as far as Fred Thompson is concerned. His article from his campaign website: Democrats' DREAM Act is a Nightmare.
Cry baby, indeed.
Just so you know who the cowards are, here are the losers that voted against Rep. Stark.
Jason Altmire (PA), Chris Carney (PA), Joe Donnelly (IN), Brad Ellsworth (IN), Heath Shuler (NC)And here are the cretins that voted 'present':Dan Boren (OK), Lincoln Davis (TN), Baron Hill (IN), Tim Mahoney (FL), Charlie Melancon (LA), Dennis Moore (KS)And, just so you know, these fools hurt Rep. Stark's feelings.
In a move that will up the pressure on Hillary and Barack Obama to stand firm against the Senate telecom immunity FISA bill, MoveOn and a dozen top progressive blogs will launch an all-out campaign tomorrow to pressure the two Senators into publicly declaring their support for Chris Dodd's threat to place a hold on and filibuster the bill, Election Central has learned.
MoveOn spokesman Adam Green tells me that the group will send out an email to "thousands" of its members tomorrow morning, and thousands more throughout the day, asking them to call the offices of Hillary and Obama and demand that they publicly affirm their support for Dodd.
<...>
In another move that points to the significant degree of coordination among the top liberal blogs on the FISA issue, Green says that the following bloggers will also be directing their readers to call Hillary and Obama's offices and press them on this:DailyKos, Atrios, OpenLeft, Firedoglake, MyDD, Glenn Greenwald, Crooksandliars, AmericaBlog, Digby, Taylor Marsh
Oh, good. At least it will give them something else to do instead of constantly attempting to drum up outrage by taking out of context comments made by Rush Limbaugh and others.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 21 — As Senator Barack Obama prepared to give a major speech on Iraq one morning a few weeks ago, a flashing red-siren alert went up on the Drudge Report Web site. It read, “Queen of the Quarter: Hillary Crushes Obama in Surprise Fund-Raising Surge,” and, “$27 Million, Sources Tell Drudge Report.”Within minutes, the Drudge site had injected Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s fund-raising success into the day’s political news on the Internet and cable television. It did not halt coverage of Mr. Obama’s speech or his criticism of her vote to authorize the war in 2002, but along the front lines of the campaign — the hourly, intensely fought effort to capture the news cycle or deny ownership of it to the other side — it was a telling assault.
Mrs. Clinton’s aides declined to discuss how the Drudge Report got access to her latest fund-raising figures nearly 20 minutes before the official announcement went to supporters. But it was a prime example of a development that has surprised much of the political world: Mrs. Clinton is learning to play nice with the Drudge Report and the powerful, elusive and conservative-leaning man behind it.
That man, Matt Drudge, came to national prominence a decade ago as a nemesis of the Clintons who used the Web to peddle, gleefully, the latest news and rumor generated by the Monica Lewisnsky scandal.
How interesting. Is Hillary really feeding info to Drudge to help undercut Obama? If that's what's happening then what's the purpose of this investigative piece? Is it to help her create an image as being Drudge friendly in order to appeal to moderates or is it to help Obama, or anybody else who wants to challenge her from the left, by portraying her as a traitor to their cause? At least one lefty blogger accuses her of "sucking up to wingnuts".
"They sure don't care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq. Where are you going to get that money? Are you going to tell us lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to fund the war? You don't have money to fund the war or children but you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President's amusement."Again, that's just standard, boilerplate Moonbat rhetoric. But here's the catch: It's not shocking to me because I'm someone who regularly reads political/activist blogs and politics in general. People outside this demographic will react differently upon hearing him.
“I’m just amazed that the Republicans are worried that we can’t pay for insuring an additional 10 million children. They sure don’t care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal War in Iraq."
”President Bush’s statements about children’s health shouldn’t be taken any more seriously than his lies about the War in Iraq. The truth is that that Bush just likes to blow things up – in Iraq, in the United States, and in Congress.
After Rep. Pete Stark made his harsh statements against the Republicans and Bush over the SCHIP veto, the right wingers are trying to change the subject again by feigning outrage against him.After giving a few examples of how Republicans are supposedly feigning outrage, he puts up the poll. At some later time, it's not clear when, the transcript for the entire speech was added to the bottom of the post. Apparently a software glitch caused the delay, but there's still nothing noting just which statements made by Stark are controversial.
Are these macho tough guys really offended that some congressman made these comments in a debate? Are their feelings hurt on behalf of the president? Does CNN really believe that's what's going on? Does anyone think that what Pete Stark said on the floor yesterday truly upset the Republicans?As I said before, what political operatives and others accustomed to such heated rhetoric think isn't the issue. His comments weren't posted on a blog likely to be seen only by those familiar with memeorandum. People not familiar with Moonbat sites don't know what actually goes on in them, and they'd probably be appalled if they were ever to find out. To their ears, what Stark said sounds very different from how it's perceived by digby.
"This is sick. The right is going after the 12 year old who gave the Saturday Democratic address supporting the SCHIP program. Remember him?I believe they'll find that attempting to dismiss controversy over legitimately outrageous statements, going so far as pretending they weren't said, is even more difficult than their previous gambit trying to gin up faux outrage of their own.
<...>
Think Progress reports that the pathological rightwing freakshow has accused this family of being "rich" because Graham earns a scholarship to go to private school, and his sister goes to a special school paid for by the state because she was handicapped by the accident. Oh, and they have a house they bought years ago for 55,000 when the neighborhood was dicey. Apparently, they should be living in their car and the handicapped daughter should be selling pencils on the street corner. That's the world these empty souls want to live in.
On the eve of the House vote on overriding the President's veto, this new survey, conducted by National Public Radio, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and the Harvard School of Public Health lays out a pretty stark political equation in favor of expanding the program. From the summary:She then quotes the first few paragraphs of the summary of the poll (pdf), though her link doesn't go to what she cut and pasted. Maybe she's doing things the Think Progress way now and assuming nobody will ever click the links anyway. I don't need to quote as much as she did from the summary, but there's one sentence that's particularly important:
This asking was followed by a version of the question that provided proponents’ and opponents’ strongest arguments. Even when presented with these pros and cons, support stays at 65 percent.That naturally made me curious to find out what pros and cons are presented in the poll (pdf). But the first thing I noticed was the third question. Check it out:
3. Over the past couple of weeks, Congress and the President have been debating the renewal of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, also known as SCHIP (esschip). Would you say you have heard a lot, some, not too much or nothing at all about this issue?52% have heard nothing or some degree of not too much. 28% know some degree of some, and 20% say they know a lot about it, probably consisting of activists, better informed people in general, and perhaps a few who will say they know a lot about it because they want to appear better informed. Apparently this group in general just doesn't know much about the issue. That fact is essential to the outcome of the next important poll question, which is relevant to the summary quote:
20 A lot
28 Some
21 Not too much
31 Nothing at all
* Don’t know
-- Refused
5. (Supporters say the expansion would prevent children who are already covered from losing their coverage and provide health insurance for millions of low-income children who are currently uninsured. They also say the program has been shown to be effective over the past ten years). (Opponents say the expansion would encourage some families who have private health insurance to drop it in favor of government funded coverage. They also say the expansion will wind up covering some children in middle-class families). After hearing these arguments, would you say you support or oppose the increased funding for this program? (em)One of the strongest arguments for the pro side is the Families USA lie. Keep in mind many of those polled don't know enough about to issue to see it as a lie. They're likely to take it as face value. And look at the opposing view presented. The first part is a dishonest re-framing of the argument. The critics say this will discourage people from obtaining private insurance if they don't have it already. The second part, with middle class, is very misleading. There are other suspicious questions in the poll, and be sure to read them, but as far as I'm concerned these two taken together reveal it as a push poll by interest groups. Any cursory examination of it makes that clear. However, Karen Tumulty posted it simply as the latest polling results.
65 Support
28 Oppose
6 Don’t know
* Refused
Support for reauthorizing and expanding SCHIP didn't fade much even after people heard the strongest arguments for and against adding 4 million children at a cost of $35 billion. Support for the plan stayed at 65 percent overall.The press release from Keiser Network quoted NPR as saying researchers were were struck by "how strong support for the bill remained even after people were given the arguments against it." That suggests the "issue is not likely to go away anytime soon".
Morning Edition, October 19, 2007 · Lawmakers are already starting to hammer out another version of the State Children's Health Insurance Program after a failed vote to turn back President Bush's veto. The current program expires Nov. 16. A recent poll by NPR, Kaiser and Harvard suggests that Americans will support a significant expansion.They intend to use the bogus poll as the voice of the people and leverage to try again to get something like the last monstrosity they tried to ram through. The other players in this; Families USA, Kaiser, Commonwealth Fund, and CPBP are all on the same message.
The operative definition that congressional Republicans are looking for would fall into the "face-saving" category. They've lost this one politically; they know it; they just want it over. I would look for them to beg President Bush to seize on any modification to declare victory and retreat.She's just doing her public relations job.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
It is the purpose of this Act to provide dependable and stable funding for children's health insurance under titles XXI and XIX of the Social Security Act in order to enroll all six million uninsured children who are eligible, but not enrolled, for coverage today through such titles.
In response to your letter of July 10, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has examined available estimates of the number of children who lack health insurance but are eligible for Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance program (SCHIP). Some empirical studies have found that there are between 5 million and 6 million such children. In contrast to those studies, the Administration recently estimated that a much smaller number, 1.1 million children, lack health insurance but are eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP.So they're going with the higher number, naturally. But let's go back to the stated goal of this legislation; to make sure every uninsured child that's eligible for this is covered. The assumption is that if a child is uninsured the best remedy is to get them enrolled in what is essentially public insurance. Notice the emotional argument designed to overwhelm common sense.
Title VII: Revenue Provisions - (Sec. 701) Amends the Internal Revenue Code to increase the excise tax on: (1) cigars; (2) cigarettes; (3) cigarette papers; (4) cigarette tubes; (5) smokeless tobacco; (6) pipeless tobacco; (7) pipe tobacco; and (8) roll-your-own tobacco. Allows a credit of $500 against such increased excise taxes. Makes such tax increases on tobacco products effective January 1, 2008, and payable on or before April 1, 2008. (em)here are so many problems with this it's hard to know where to start. I don't know how anyone can square the contrast in principles if they believe smoking is an unhealthy activity which should be discouraged, while at the same time believing it makes moral or reasonable sense to fund other government activities with the proceeds from that activity. What's more, this revenue is to be extracted by demanding more money from those who are not only disproportionately poor, but also addicted to nicotine. There exist poor people, even with families, who will put back groceries if that's what it takes to get their smokes. It's also practically wrong-headed. If more people stop smoking because it costs more, which is the first stated goal of anyone who wants to raise the tax, then the tax base will shrink.
SEC. 2113. GRANTS TO IMPROVE OUTREACH AND ENROLLMENT.`(a) Outreach and Enrollment Grants; National Campaign-
`(1) IN GENERAL- From the amounts appropriated under subsection (g), subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary shall award grants to eligible entities during the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2012 to conduct outreach and enrollment efforts that are designed to increase the enrollment and participation of eligible children under this title and title XIX.
`(2) TEN PERCENT SET ASIDE FOR NATIONAL ENROLLMENT CAMPAIGN- An amount equal to 10 percent of such amounts shall be used by the Secretary for expenditures during such period to carry out a national enrollment campaign in accordance with subsection (h).
Support efforts to cover families — While enthusiastic outreach efforts aimed at enrolling children are critical, a growing body of evidence shows that providing family-based coverage appears to make a substantial difference. States have aggressively expanded eligibility for low-income children, but working parents are still likely to lack coverage. In most states parents qualify for Medicaid only if they have income far below the federal poverty line. In the typical state, a parent in a family of three loses Medicaid eligibility when her income surpasses 67 percent of the federal poverty line. A parent working full time at $7.00 per hour earns too much to qualify for Medicaid in 37 states. New research finds that family-based Medicaid expansions that cover parents result in a significant increase in Medicaid participation among children who already are eligible. (em)So there you have it. If they get their way, part of that outreach to get all uninsured kids will be to pay off their parents with socialized medicine. Well, they have research that says if you give parents socialized medicine, it's easier to get their kids enrolled. After all, this is about helping sick kids. If you don't agree with it you're just a big old meanie.
A week ago yesterday, Stewart said, he sent an e-mail to reporters covering the insurance issue, alerting them that "bloggers have done a little digging and turned up that the Dad owns his own business (and the building it's in), seems to have some commercial rental income and Graeme and a sister go to a private school that, according to its Web site, costs about $20k a year -- for each kid -- despite the news profiles reporting a family income of only $45k for the Frosts.
"Could the Dems really have done that bad of a job vetting this family?" Stewart asked in the e-mail.
He explained yesterday that such e-mails are "part of regular conversation with reporters."
"I pointed out something that had been in the blogs for a couple of days and had been of increasing interest, but I also raised skepticism as to the content," Stewart said.
Hours later, he said, he sent two follow-up e-mails waving reporters off.
A plain reading of that will lead an honest person to conclude Stewart received information pertaining to the story, that he was skeptical of, and relayed it to reporters. Shortly thereafter he discovered the information was no good and sent another email saying as much to reporters. So, what's wrong with what he did? Is it suspect because his sources were bloggers? Okay, if you believe his information was unreliable because it came from blogs, that's an arguable point, though not everybody will agree with it in all instances. Where's the smear of Graeme Frost ?
Karen Tumulty, Time Magazine's National Political Correspondent since 2001, had this to say about the actions taken by Mr. Stewart:
"In this case, with few exceptions, most journalists saw the smear for precisely what it was--and wrote it that way." (emphasis mineWow. She's certainly gives the impression she's accepted it as a given with her casual use of the word. Is it a smear because it the subject matter consists of financial and asset information for the Frost family? Hey, you Democrats pushing this are to blame for that. The profile of the Frost family published in Baltimore Sun lists their income at $45,000/year. It also includes this interesting bit:
"I am incredibly thankful," said Frost, who works full time for a medical publishing firm. Her husband, Halsey, is a full-time woodworker.
From the profile we get the kind of work they do, their income, and the picture of them in their kitchen. Noticeably absent from the profile is any mention of Graeme Frost or his Democratic Radio Address. Keep all this in mind for later reference.
This, apparently, is what passes for a policy debate these days.The link takes you to ABC Political Radar story. The second sentence is:
UPDATE: Think Progress gives us the electronic paper trail.You can probably guess which post that link goes to. Yet she posted it casually, without comment or qualification, as if it's somehow a legitimate and undisputed paper trail. She apparently felt reassured enough to pen, the next day, an article for Time Magazine online titled: : The Swift-Boating of Graeme Frost , in which she repeats many of the talking points in the Think Progress post, apparently without bothering to check out the claims.
I suspect that the next time something like this happens, Stewart won't be so quick to hit the Send button.
"Forgive me if I already told you this, but a blogger that I trust (and who hadn't written anything on this issue yet) tells me that after spending a lot of time on this, they now believe there's no story there, that the family is legit," Stewart wrote in one e-mail, according to the text he provided to The Courier-Journal.Has it been determined yet who that mystery blogger was?
After House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office became aware of the Frosts through a healthcare interest group, FamiliesUSA, Democratic leaders turned to Graeme to deliver the party's weekly radio address Sept. 29.So we have a direct connection between the Frosts and Families USA, a Soros funded outfit that promotes the spread of leftism and socialism. Their name is a ruse to sucker people unfamiliar with the issues over to their agenda.
Took a brief nap this afternoon, and while I was asleep an entire propaganda war waged by “photojournalists,” stringers, caption writers, and bureau editors unraveled like a cheap sweater snagged on a bit of twisted metal infrastructure.
Bastards. This stuff really pisses me off. There’s no way every single piece of news coming out of there (or Iraq, for that matter!) could possibly be analyzed, and they know it.
But you know how Jews are—always trying to guilt you into giving them sympathy. Or a good deal on a used Lincoln Towncar.Michelle Malkin has more.
"We should work diplomatically and aggressively to give them reasons why they don't need to build a bomb, to give them incentives. We have to engage in very aggressive diplomacy. I'd like to bring in allies when we can. I'd like to use carrots as well as sticks to see if we can change the nature of the debate."Geeze. That sure is reassuring. And how about his domestic agenda? What does he offer for Connecticut other than the lame campaign promise that he won't spend as much time in Washington as Lieberman(!)?
This kind of scary hatred, my dad used to tell me, comes only from the right wing--in his day from people such as the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy, with his tirades against "communists and their fellow travelers." The word "McCarthyism" became a red flag for liberals, signifying the far right's fascistic tactics of labeling anyone a "communist" or "socialist" who favored an active federal government to help the middle class and the poor, and to level the playing field.The quotes provided by Davis, as well as things I've heard from his boosters around the blogosphere seem to imply he is right about the tactics of the Lamont brigades. It's a bit strange to hear someone like Lieberman, who until now has been considered a liberal/progressive Senator, being called a
Welcome to the party, Pal. And I don't mean that in a nasty way. I just mean, well, yeah, you are finally getting a taste of what so many others have been seeing and documenting for so long.
Notice they don’t accept any of the blame themselves, even though any competent editor should have noticed the fraudulent nature of this photograph long before it reached the newswires.Dan Riehl has found even more photos from Mr. Hajj that are mighty suspicious.
