Deconstructing the wingnut view of health care reform

It's interesting sometimes, in limited doses, to see what the other side thinks about certain issues. Of course, usually it's very clear and you don't have to read any of the hate-driven garbage: you know, "Sotomayor bad, Buchanan good" or "Where's the birth certificate?" or "Don't tax me, bro!" But on an issue as complex as health care reform, even though it has the wingnuts in a tizzy, it's important to show them just where they are wrong in their analysis. And, naturally, they're wrong a lot.

I don't even mean this in terms of the standard GOP "I've got mine, screw you" mentality, the endemic selfishness that ultimately drives nearly all American conservatives today. Rather, I want to point out the inherent flaws in the argument from the Right, and to do so, I'll go to a part of Florida Blast Off! rarely covers: the largely wealthy, über-Republican southwest -- specifically Naples.

Today's example of wingnuttery from southwest Florida comes from Naples Daily News columnist Ed Farmer (left), who is trying to show us that he really doesn't agree with the fringe nutjobs who, driven nearly insane by the idea of a black president!!!!1!!eleven!!, are shouting down members of Congress at all these health care town halls -- honest, he doesn't! But, naturally, he's not very convincing.

They’re not throwing rotten vegetables at those town meetings about health care, are they?

They’re not throwing punches like members of the Japanese parliament, are they?

They’re not carrying swastikas, as the ever-embarrassing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed, are they?

And they’re not breaking the noses of town meeting moderators, the way a guy throwing a folding chair did to Geraldo Rivera on his TV talk show 20 years ago, are they? OK, forget this example.

Better yet, let's forget all those examples, Ed, because they all suck and they all miss the point. For starters, just because they're not throwing rotten vegetables or punches yet doesn't mean they won't. For Jeebus' sake, Ed, a guy in New Hampshire was openly carrying a pistol outside the president's town hall meeting just this week! Rotten vegetables are a convenient strawman, sure, but they kind of pale in comparison to bullets.

And as for your statement about Speaker Pelosi, Ed, well, you're just flat out wrong (nice respect for the speaker, by the way ... shouldn't you be embarrassed about your mistake?). Do you even do the slightest amount of fact-checking? Nazi imagery has been spotted at numerous town hall meetings, including swastikas. And even if you say, well, that one swastika (in Fort Collins, Colo.) had a circle and line through it, as if to say "No Nazis," first, the image was still there, and second, think less literally about swastikas -- maybe you'd prefer the picture (shown here, as seen on CNN) of President Obama with a Hitler mustache, displayed at a Michigan town hall. Face it, Ed: you blew it.

I have neither the time nor the energy to take apart the entire column, although it would be remarkably easy to do so. But I'll just make a couple of other points, Ed. You say:

Many Americans fear having the federal government making life-changing health care decisions rather than their own doctors. When the president made a reference to an elderly person just being given a pain pill rather than a state-of-the-art treatment, the remark scared some people. Their blood pressures rise when Pelosi talks about mobs and labels big insurance companies as immoral villains.

Ah, yes, a variation on the old "Many people say ..." canard. "Many people" (like, maybe, seven) also say that Ashton Kutcher is the greatest actor who ever lived, but that doesn't make it true.

Anyway, first of all, big insurance companies are immoral villains, Ed. We can argue about that another time, because I suppose that's a matter of opinion. But your first sentence there, about "the federal government making life-changing health care decisions rather than their own doctors," well, again, it's just flat out wrong. Doctors aren't making those decisions now, Ed -- insurance companies are! Surely you're not so naïve that you didn't know that?! And they're doing a piss-poor job of it, too. Under the president's plan, the government will have no more say in health care decisions than insurance companies have now, and indeed, it's likely to be a lot less. Get your facts straight, Ed, because until you do, you're just embarrassing yourself and your newspaper.

And finally, the whole idea of that frightening, big, scary federal government taking over, well, that just chaps you and your fellow wingnuts, doesn't it, Ed? But look at it this way: the government can't possibly do health care (or, really, anything else) worse than the private sector has. Let me be blunt: you had your chance with privatization when the Bush crime syndicate was in charge. And it was a colossal failure. The subprime mess, skyrocketing government spending, damage to the environment, and, yes, shitty health care all were results of deregulation under Drunky McStagger, and we're paying the price for it today. Hell, yes, I trust the government more than I do a bunch of insurance companies to make decisions on funding health care, and you know what else? I would be willing to pay more in taxes, even though I have health insurance, to let those less fortunate have health coverage as well. But I know you wingnuts don't do compassion ....

Anyway, Ed, thanks for the entertainment, but if you're going to come to the ballpark (to extend the metaphor in your column) on health care reform, you need to bring more than a Wiffle bat.

Florida gun nuts: breaking records through paranoia

It should come as a surprise to no one that gun permits and applications in Florida are on a record pace, as barrel-strokers with small penises* throughout the state react to an alleged threat that has virtually no chance of happening -- and even if it does, they're not going to immunize themselves by buying now. Wow, talk about stupid ...

Anyway, here are the facts:

Florida gun owners are grabbing up concealed-weapon permits at a record pace.

It might be concern for President Barack Obama's record on guns or fear that a bad economy will cause crime to rise, or reaction to last year's guns-at-work law. Or maybe a combination of all three is behind the rapid rise in applications for pistol-toting permits, state officials say.

"We're still sitting on about 50,000 applications," said Agriculture Commissioner Charles Bronson. "We're getting in about 14,000 or 15,000 a month and whenever they get a good slug out, they're getting another 15,000 in."

Bronson went to the Legislature last spring for authorization to hire 61 temporary employees — bringing the total to 202 — who have helped whittle down a backlog that then stood at 90,000 for all types of concealed-weapon permits. The backlog, alone, was roughly equal to all the applications received in 2008 — 90,331 — and the department received 75,520 applications in the first six months of this year.

That puts the state on pace for nearly 150,000 concealed-weapon permit applications this year. Most applications are approved, department spokesman Terence McElroy said, because the law allows any law-abiding gun owner to get a license. Few crooks are dumb enough to plunk down the $117 application fee if they have a felony record.

Oh, wait, it gets better. Check out what the NRA has to say about this:

Marion Hammer, a former president of the National Rifle Association who has lobbied the Legislature on guns for decades, is not surprised by the jump.

A law passed last year prohibits employers from banning guns in the workplace as long as they're safely locked in employees' cars. That led many to seek concealed-weapon permits to allow them to do so.

Obama's record as an Illinois legislator and U.S. senator also was alarming, Hammer said, along with the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor and the congressional clout of Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Ca.

"It really shouldn't surprise anyone that the changes in the political landscape are driving a lot of these applicants," Hammer said. "There are over 6 million gun owners in Florida, people who care about freedom, who care about the Second Amendment, who are concerned about their ability to protect themselves."

Hold on ... I thought Obama was coming personally to take away everyone's guns? He's going to get help from Schumer and Pelosi? And Justice Sotomayor? Wow -- I hadn't heard that one yet.

The article goes on to quote a spokesman from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, who injects some much-needed sanity into the debate.

"It's a little bit absurd. It's paranoia to a certain extent," [the Brady Campaign's Peter] Hamm said. "We've seen nothing out of this administration whatsoever. Law-abiding citizens who are getting permits because they think the government is coming to take their guns away are just wrong — it's an absurd, cartoonish myth."

Yes. Precisely. I mean, the Obama administration has permitted concealed weapons in national parks, for crying out loud. Let me make this clear: No one is coming to take away your guns. (Even though I personally wouldn't mind if they did.) And you firearm fellators out there who think that getting your permits now will shield you? Granted, you won't lose your guns, but a higher tax on ammunition is just going to get you even more. Didn't think about that one, did ya?

But what would you expect from the state where the Agriculture Commissioner, who supervises the processing of gun permit applications, is named Charles Bronson? Or where a candidate seeking to replace Bronson in the 2010 elections, state Sen. Carey Baker (R-Eustis), owns a gun shop and is an NRA Life Member?

All this from a gross misreading of the Second Amendment. It'd be funny if it weren't so tragic.

UPDATE (3:39 pm 8/11/09): I seem to have struck a nerve out in Idaho.

---

* Based on my assumption that the vast majority of gun owners have, um, endowment issues; the size of their gun is inversely proportional to their penis size. I think.

Netroots Nation: a clarification

(ooh, I made a rhyme!)

Okay, evidently my efforts to stir up a hornet's nest over Netroots Nation succeeded too well. Perhaps I should clarify, because rather than just giving a swift yet generally painless kick in the nuts to the hyper-sanctimonious Kossacks (my original intent), I've ended up with friends sniping at each other -- I mean, I don't mind disagreement, but I don't want it to get personal. Even an uncivil dirty fucking hippie like me has boundaries, y'know ...

My intention was to criticize two particular elements of the Code Pink incident at NN: the fact that the Pinkers were hustled from the room when they dared to protest Nancy Pelosi's speech, and the failure of others at the event to challenge Rep. Pelosi on the impeachment issue (and others where she, in my opinion, has fallen short as Speaker). Whether or not the CP protest was appropriate or civil or necessary was beyond the scope of my post; I happen to believe it was appropriate, but I respect those who believe otherwise.

As for challenging Pelosi directly, I find it difficult to believe that in a gathering of over 1,000 progressives (real ones and PINOs, I guess), not one was able to get Nancy off her precious talking points and try to delve into the real issue: why did she take impeachment off the table in 2006 when it was absolutely the wrong thing to do (it gave the Bush crime syndicate virtual carte blanche to do whatever the fuck they wanted)? I'm not targeting specific individuals, many of whom are my personal friends with whom I agree on nearly every other issue. I'm just saying that it's unfortunate when we miss opportunities to get real answers from our elected officials, who were put there precisely to clean things up in Washington.

Granted, I wasn't there. If I had been there, I would have been waving my arm frantically or first in line at the microphone or however they allowed questions (if they did). But I wasn't. So you can dismiss my opinion as talking out of my ass. Or we can examine how, as progressives, we might be able -- with all due respect to the people from whom we seek answers, and they deserve respect just as human beings, regardless of their titles -- to confront, politely yet firmly, those who work for us as Americans.

I'm not planning to make nice in Denver. If I have the chance to ask someone something, I will, just as I did with Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Sen. Bill Nelson. I'm not going to be foolish about it ... but complacency and manners haven't gotten us very far to this point.

UPDATE (11:12 am 7/25/08): Newcomer to the blogosphere (and to the Blast Off! blogroll) drawin' has a similar perspective.

Why I didn't go to Netroots Nation

It's no secret that I've not been much of a fan of Daily Kos ever since the front-pagers there took on their holier-than-thou attitude about progressivism, essentially becoming almost DLC-ish in their refusal to confront misbehaving (i.e., insufficiently progressive) Democrats. Long-time Blast Off! readers -- both of you -- might recall my little flame war (okay, I diaried, they flamed) back in '06 when I dared to criticize then-Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for taking impeachment off the table. Oddly, the Kossacks changed their tune a year later ... but I digress.

It seems the latest flap amongst the ideological purists who dominate the so-called "Orange Satan" is over -- horrors! -- the Code Pink protesters who attempted to remind Speaker Pelosi of her oath to uphold the Constitution. According to eyewitnesses, they were chanting things like "Impeachment!" when Pelosi spoke, but they were hustled out of the room before the next speaker, Al Gore, came to the podium.

Naturally, our orange pals were incensed that reality interfered with their lovefest:

If Code Pink's goal is to prevent people from wanting to join Code Pink, they're succeeding -- [Bill in Portland Maine]

I don't necessarily mean to pick on Bill personally -- he was plenty nice to me online when I appeared on a certain TV game show a couple of years ago -- but his attitude, evidently shared by the vast majority of commenters at dKos, demonstrates the biggest problem I think we as progressives face today: an almost pandemic unwillingness to "make waves" -- a fear of controversy and confrontation, whether it's against Republicans themselves or against those on our own side who incessantly enable and kowtow to Republicans. I left a comment over there, of course, but I figured I'd expand on it a bit ...

Why is it so objectionable when a progressive group attempts to make a statement to one of those enablers (in this case, Speaker Pelosi) about her utter ineffectiveness? We progressives like to wave the Constitution around and say that we, unlike people on the Right, adhere to the values and ideals contained therein, yet there are some among us (I'm looking at you, Netroots Nation) who would restrict a group's freedom of expression for the sake of politeness?

I for one am tired of treating our piss-poor congressional leadership with kid gloves, like their shit doesn't stink. The fact is, Code Pink and those like them are right -- impeachment not only should be on the table, the hearings should have been underway for weeks or months by now. The Speaker has utterly failed to justify the faith that I, and so many of my progressive friends, placed in her upon her ascension to that lofty position. And now her apologists at Daily Kos still say that we have to be nice?

That's why I didn't go to Netroots Nation. I've no desire to be told that I need to sit still and be quiet and not advocate that our Democratic leaders wake up and smell the coffee. I knew it would be like that from the moment I heard about the conference. So I chose to stay home rather than put up with the Politeness Patrol.

Look where "playing nice" has gotten us already, folks. You can have your Netroots Nation -- I'd rather chant with the sinners than fluff with the saints.

(cross-posted at Pax Americana ... and at Daily Kos, just to see if anyone's paying attention)

Before you rush out and spend your tax rebate ...

... please note that it's not a gift, or strictly speaking even a rebate. As I've been saying (at least on the radio show) for a while now, it's an advance:

The package, which passed the Senate 81-16 [and the House 380-34], will send rebate checks to 130 million Americans in amounts of $300 to $600 for people who have an income between $3,000 and $75,000, plus $300 per child. Couples earning up to $150,000 would get $1,200.

The checks are an advance on next year's refunds, and most, if not all of the money, will be deducted from taxpayers' refunds in 12 months' time.

I mean, if you want to spend it now, that's your decision ... but you'll have to pay it back, one way or the other, next year.

Thanks, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi! You two are the bestest!

/snark

(I can haz real congreshnul leederz pleez?)

UPDATE (3:07 pm 2/8/08): A couple of commenters have pointed out that CNN.com revised the article, removing the boldfaced quote above, because supposedly it's not a check that will have to be repaid. One anonymous commenter explained that "technically it is an advance, but it is an advance on a one time tax credit given to everyone. You won't owe more on your taxes because of this."

So it's a credit that is being given now (well, by May), rather than next year during filing? I'm getting confused. Let me see what some other sources have to say and I'll get back to you ...

UPDATE (3:16 pm 2/8/08): Okay, it's beginning to make a little more sense. I found the Republican part of the stimulus package (that is, the part that helps the upper class and not the lower and middle classes):

The biggest winners in the economic rescue plan now awaiting President Bush's signature are likely to be Americans with more expensive homes who will be able to refinance their home loans at cheaper rates.

For those who can take advantage of them, the bill's mortgage market provisions are likely to give more of a long-term financial boost than the tax rebates of $600 directed to individuals and $1,200 to couples, economists said.

The stimulus package temporarily raises the maximum size of mortgages that government-sponsored mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can purchase and market as securities from $417,000 to as high as $729,750 in expensive parts of the country such as New York and California.

You know this is good news for Republicans because the photo accompanying the article features Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), and David Vitter (R-Pampers Louisiana) ... all Republicans, all people who are happy because they can send piddly checks to you and me while the people who really matter, the ones who write them their big campaign donations (directly or indirectly, doesn't matter), will get a big financial boost.

I'm sure they'll all be running right out to WalMart to spend, spend, SPEND!!!

UPDATE (8:07 pm 2/8/08): Yes, I'm a dumbass. See final update above.

Remember Mark Foley?

Disgraced former Rep. Mark "maf54" Foley (R-Fla.) is still in the news. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) has been investigating Foley's interaction with male House pages, but they can't obtain a key piece of evidence:

State investigators believe they cannot complete an investigation of Mark Foley unless U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi hands over the computers the former congressman used when he was in office.

[...]

The FDLE began an investigation into the messages last year at the request of former U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, also a Republican.

The investigation was stymied last summer, [FDLE Commissioner Gerald] Bailey suggested, when House of Representatives General Counsel Kerry Kircher refused to turn over the computers.

"Access to these computers is critical to the Department's ability to move this case forward," Bailey said in a statement released Tuesday.

Pelosi's office said Bailey's letter was received only last week because of security screening.

Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said Pelosi's office acknowledged the House may have constitutional concerns.

Constitutional concerns? As in free speech, or search and seizure, or what?

What benefit could Pelosi, or the House of Representatives generally, gain by withholding Foley's computers? I think this stinks somehow ... and I hope the FDLE continues to apply pressure. If Foley's behavior was illegal, it ought to be investigated fully and prosecuted appropriately.

Give me a fucking break

Where does one begin with a Washington Post headline that is ridiculous, an article even more ridiculous, and self-serving quotes from a bunch of fucking enablers?

Well, right here, I guess, with an article entitled "Key Setbacks Dim Luster of Democrats' Year."

Handed control of Congress last year after making promises to end the war in Iraq, restore fiscal discipline in Washington and check President Bush's powers, Democrats instead closed the first session of the 110th Congress yesterday with House votes that sent Bush $70 billion in war funding, with no strings attached, and a $50 billion alternative-minimum-tax measure that shattered their pledge not to add to the federal budget deficit.

"I'm not going to let a lot of hard work go unnoticed, but I'm not going to hand out party hats, either," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.).

On Iraq, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday: "Nobody is more disappointed with the fact that we couldn't change that than I am." But Pelosi was not about to accept Republican assertions that her first year as speaker has been unsuccessful, saying: "Almost everything we've done has been historic."

Unable to garner enough votes from their own party, House Democratic leaders had to turn to Republicans to win passage of a $555 billion domestic spending bill after the Senate appended $70 billion to it for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war funding passed 272 to 142, with Democrats voting 141 to 78 against it.

At the risk of stating the obvious, the primary reason the Democrats were unable to effect change is because so-called "leaders" like Emanuel and Pelosi caved in at every turn! How dare they claim disappointment when they know full well -- or should know -- that they had numerous opportunities to make a real difference, from ending the illegal war in Iraq to FISA and SCHIP. Why not just keep passing things and make Drunky McStagger keep vetoing them? When he vetoed SCHIP, he just looked petty and hateful (which, of course, he is) ... so what's wrong with making him dig his own political grave? Instead, facing a lame duck president of the opposing party, the Democrats repeatedly gave him what he wanted.

It's fucking idiotic. What's that line about insanity? It's doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. How can we get congressional Democrats to understand that Drunky and the Republicans won't play fair?! Never have, never will. The bullshit about "let's all get along" has gone on far too long. Nancy and Rahm and Harry and Pete Stark and the rest of those DLC bootlickers need to shut the fuck up and get to work being, you know, a real opposition party, instead of the D-FUCKED Caucus they are now.

All I want for Christmas is my country back.

Four hundred days

That's how much time is left in the Bush crime syndicate. Four hundred days until January 20, 2009.

And, sadly, even though we are approaching the end of this, the most destructive and corrupt administration in history (yes, even more so than Nixon, and I'm confident history will bear that out), the Republicans still are able to get their way almost unimpeded, because so-called "Democrats" like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, whom we trusted to use the Democratic congressional majority to make some real, substantive -- and positive -- changes, have done virtually nothing other than roll over whenever Republicans wanted something. Why in the high holy fuck would a Democratic majority leader -- Reid -- refuse to honor the "hold" Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) wanted to place on FISA, yet he honors the hold by Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) on a funding bill that enjoys overwhelming congressional support?

I really don't get it. I honestly, truly don't.

We need progressive challengers next year to these so-called Democrats. A lot of challengers. In the meantime, we have 400 more days to watch the Bush crime syndicate -- and their congressional enablers -- wipe their collective asses with the Constitution. Four hundred days. And the damage continues ...

WATB of the Week: Kathleen Parker

Did you see the latest inanity spewed forth by WaPo syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker? This week, Parker whined about the supposed slamming of her BFF Laura Bush following the First Robot's donning of a Muslim head scarf during a visit to Saudi Arabia.

Check this out:

Unlike most who have commented, I was there. The controversial photo shows Mrs. Bush donning a black headscarf decorated with the iconic pink bows signifying breast cancer awareness. It was the only time Mrs. Bush covered her head during the trip, and the episode lasted perhaps a minute.

The scarf was a gift to Mrs. Bush from a dozen Saudi women who shared their experiences fighting breast cancer with the first lady. The morning meeting was touching and intimate, the sort of bonding experience that opens hearts and minds in diplomatically useful ways.

Upon receiving the gift, Mrs. Bush did what any decent, well-mannered person would do. She demonstrated her appreciation by placing the scarf on her head. In Saudi Arabia, it was a sweet, wordless gesture of friendship and mutual respect.

Yet to read and hear remarks over the past few days, you'd think Mrs. Bush had organized a pilgrimage to the stoning fields.

Oh, puke. Look, Kathy, if you love Laura that much, why don't you just marry her? Or just, you know, rearrange her circuitry?

It gets better:

On Monday, a column posted on The Jerusalem Post's Web site carried the headline, "Our World: Laura Bush's embrace of tyranny." Huh? Columnist Caroline Glick wrote that Mrs. Bush's donning of the scarf and her visit in general were symbolically "deeply disturbing."

Ms. Glick's point, reiterated elsewhere throughout the blogosphere, was that Mrs. Bush was effectively endorsing the subjugation of Saudi women by wearing the scarf.

And that, my friends, is basically the last you hear of Laurabot's scarf episode, as Parker takes a sharp right turn (what else?) to harp about what a wonderful diplomat Mrs. McStagger was as she traveled to raise awareness about breast cancer, yadda, yadda.

Could it be that Parker subtly sidestepped the scarf issue -- after bringing it up and whining about it -- because it would seem hypocritical? A right-wing columnist hypocritical? Perish the thought ...

But the Right hammered Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi for doing the same thing six months (or, if you prefer, one Friedman Unit) ago! HuffPo collects the atrocities.

Now, I can't find a specific example of Parker criticizing Pelosi for the scarf, but since so many of Parker's ideological allies do, it stands to reason that she would have, given the opportunity. And if there's one thing I can't stand, it's hypocrisy. So, Kathy, I'd like to offer you a frosty mug of shut the fuck up. Come back when you think you have the moral high ground again, so I can slap you down once more. It's fun!

Nancy Pelosi is full of shit

What the hell is Nancy Pelosi thinking?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Sunday that Congress cannot end the war in Iraq without President Bush’s approval.

Voters, she told Fox News Sunday, “want it to end and they had expectations that Congress could end it.”

But, she added, “You know we can’t without a presidential signature.”

That is a difference in tone from the defiant stand she took when campaigning for Congress and when she took over as speaker.

That's utterly ridiculous and incorrect on its face. First of all, Congress could simply refuse to fund the war other than enough money to bring the troops home or redeploy them appropriately.

Or, you could do what one Democratic presidential candidate suggests:

But Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson challenged Pelosi’s assertion just a little later Sunday.

He told ABC News’s “This Week” that Congress could “de-authorize” the war without Bush’s signature, using a resolution already introduced by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.).

“I believe a national movement could be built to support that,” Richardson said. “The president cannot veto that because it would be under Article I of the Constitution. That is the decisive step that the American people want. There is a disconnect between the voters and what’s happening in the Congress.”

Seriously, Nancy, you know you're wrong, and it's embarrassing to think that the Speaker of the House, whom we essentially elected to lead the Democratic majority in the House in opposition to Drunky McStagger's ruthless abuses of power, is either so ignorant or so mesmerized by the Republicans that she would say something as ludicrous.

Does anyone wonder anymore why we need progressive challenges in primaries next year? Richardson is right, and it's time to end that disconnect and send a message to the Democratic leadership that we mean business. The American people deserve better than what we have.

Pelosi's priorities

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi remains firmly opposed to impeachment. Here's why:

"The question of impeachment is something that would divide the country," Pelosi said this morning during a wide-ranging discussion in the ornate Speaker's office. Her top priorities are ending the war in Iraq, expanding health care, creating jobs and preserving the environment. "I know what our success can be on those issues. I don't know what our success can be on impeaching the president."

Democratic Party leaders do not have the votes to pass an impeachment resolution. And Democrats could be judged harshly for partisan gridlock, just as the American people turned on Congressional Republicans in the 90s for pursuing the impeachment of President Clinton.

In the first question of the morning, Pelosi was asked if she supported a proposal by Washington Rep. Jay Inslee to impeach beleaguered Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

The Speaker looked down and rubbed her temples wearily. "I would like us to stay focused on our agenda this week," she said. Today the entails finalizing ethics and lobbying reform. Tomorrow it will mean expanding children's health care and boosting Medicare benefits. By the end of the week the House will likely pass an energy bill and legislation will be brought to the floor that reins in the Bush Administration's warrantless wiretapping program.

Now, it's not like Nancy doesn't see what the rest of us see; she knows that the Bush crime syndicate is full of scofflaws and sycophants. But, like the concern trolls who infest the blogosphere, she doesn't seem to care all that much:

She is greatly disturbed by the lawlessness of this Administration and its contempt for checks and balances. "I take an oath to defend and protect the Constitution, so it is a top priority for me and my colleagues to uphold that." She notes the vigorous oversight hearings held by committee chairman like John Conyers and Henry Waxman.

But Pelosi sees impeaching Gonzales and his superiors as a distraction from the ambitious agenda she has crafted for the House. "If I can just hold my caucus together," she says, "I can take them to this progressive place."

Nancy, I've always liked you, but you're being completely inconsistent. I appreciate your priorities, but isn't "defend[ing] and protect[ing] the Constitution" not just "a top priority," but the top priority?

See, letting the Bush crime syndicate continue to deface and defile the Constitution is, by definition, a violation of your oath to defend and protect the Constitution. And that's true of every member of Congress. Be "greatly disturbed" all you want, but I don't see how that protects the Constitution.

You say, well, you don't have the votes. I call bullshit. An impeachment trial, be it for Gonzales or "Dick" or even Drunky McStagger himself, would bring to light all of the "high crimes and misdemeanors" committed by this "administration." Even people on the GOP side of the aisle are suggesting that impeachment is beginning to make sense, at least for Gonzales.

I have news for you, Nancy: the country already is divided -- 70/30 in favor of impeachment, last I looked. Your priority ought to be making sure the division -- you might even call it a cleavage -- doesn't get any worse ... and the best way to do that is to remove the dividers from office. Uphold your oath, Madame Speaker. Impeach the criminals, and let's begin to restore dignity to America.

(h/t watertiger)

How Kossacks view impeachment -- then and now

I don't mean to whine about being flamed -- certainly, I can take it, and I did, plenty of it -- but I can't help but laugh a little at the way things have changed around here in just a few short months ... basically not much more than a Friedman Unit.

I'm simply amazed at how Kossacks are responding to the idea of taking impeachment off the table when it's Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) doing the taking ... but last fall, when I said Speaker Pelosi was ignoring a mandate by doing the same thing, I was roundly castigated at dKos ...

Back in November, shortly after the election, I posted a diary wherein I dared to criticize Speaker Pelosi and others in the Democratic congressional leadership for taking impeachment "off the table." I felt then, as I do now, that there was no tactical or strategic benefit to disavowing impeachment right away, indeed, I felt that the Bush crime syndicate would be even more likely to ignore anything Congress might do unless impeachment were a real threat. As the comments demonstrate, Kossacks were none too pleased by my position, and I heard it pretty much from all comers, both here and elsewhere.

Today, though, Sen. Feingold posted a diary saying essentially what my commenters said in November -- no, let's wait, impeachment isn't going to do any good, what's the point, yadda yadda -- but the attitude has shifted completely. Kossacks everywhere are falling all over themselves to urge impeachment and to point out the flaws in Sen. Feingold's opinion (and I agree that said opinion is mighty flawed, too).

So, what's different about today's diary as compared with mine back in November? Could it be that those of us who have been advocating for impeachment since the moment Democrats took on the majority might have been right after all?

Maybe it's the source? Some lousy Z-list blogger versus a member of the United States Senate? Possibly, but I don't think that's it. The opinions have validity regardless of who is voicing them.

What about the timing? Have things changed so much since November that what seemed totally unpalatable back then today is not only hoped for, but demanded? You know, maybe that's true for the Kossacks who stomped all over my diary last fall ... maybe they just changed their minds. But if that's the case, they're not very smart, because the impeachable offenses have been patently clear since well before November ... indeed, they've been obvious since around 2003. And I don't think Kossacks are that stupid ... on the contrary, these are among the most brilliant folks with whom I've ever had the pleasure to associate. So, it's not that things have changed drastically since November ...

So what is it? Why was the idea of impeachment so noxious in November and so de riguere now? I mean, normally I'm not the type to say "I told you so," but ... well, make of it what you will. I'm just glad to be on the same side of the debate as most everyone else here, this time.

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos)

Pelosi liveblogging: Epilogue (A Quinn Martin Production)

Okay, I'm finally home, it's late, and I'm wiped out. But first, a few final thoughts and observations from a tremendously exciting and invigorating day:

• After I'd finally completed uploading all the pictures and re-formatting all the liveblogging, I was on my way out of the hotel when I encountered many of the other blogger types, on the other side of the lobby from where I'd been ensconced, merrily going on with their "pajama party." I was bummed that I'd missed much of the "party," but I became positively disconsolate when they told me that Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, my congressional crush, had just been hanging out with them for a few minutes on her way out the door! They got pictures with her and everything!
  
  Oh, I imagine I'll get over it ... but I was so close ...
  
  [Note to Rep. Schultz's husband: I'm kidding, man. I'm totally not stalking your wife. I mean, yeah, maybe I do have a crush on her, but I'm harmless, really. Seriously. Ask anyone. Defensive? What do you mean? I'm not being defensive. You're being defensive. Oh, never mind.]



• Looking back, I kind of wished I'd asked Rep. Pelosi about her decision right after last fall's election to take impeachment off the table. I felt it was the wrong decision then and I still do. It would have been interesting to hear her answer. But, unfortunately, I was too busy being jostled about in the scrum to get her picture to remember to ask her a question.



• On the way home, I was flipping through the preset stations on my car radio, and two of them were playing the same song at the same exact time. Yeah, I know that happens periodically, but when was the last time you heard Modern English's Melt With You on two stations simultaneously? Weird.



• I'm pretty blogged out now, so I might just take tomorrow (well, by now I guess it's today) off. Hopefully readers will enjoy the liveblogging as a review of Saturday's events, and the pictures are there for viewing and sharing (and photoshopping, if you're feeling feisty). I'll tag all the posts with "Pelosi liveblogging" and put a permanent link on the sidebar, too.

Thanks for visiting and hanging out today for the liveblogging. Hope you enjoyed it.

J-J photo blogging, part 2

Here's a compendium of pictures from tonight. The ones of the speakers seem grainy because I was sitting damn near in a different area code from the dais; therefore, I took pictures of the large screen nearest to me. I guess they still came out okay, though ...

Former U.S. Attorney General and Florida gubernatorial candidate Janet Reno speaks with an attendee at a reception before the banquet.


Former Democratic congressman and 2006 gubernatorial candidate Jim Davis.


Obviously, this picture of Rep. Davis didn't come out the way I intended ... but don't you think it's kinda trippy?


31-year-old Dave Aronberg, the youngest member of the Florida Senate.


Florida's highest ranking Democratic state official, Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink.


Rep. Corrine Brown with Sen. Bill Nelson.


Christine Jennings, whose race in Florida's 13th Congressional District still is facing judicial review.


My congressional crush, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz. (Deb! Call me!)


Speaker Pelosi takes center stage.


Madame Speaker.


It was practically a flash mob trying to get a picture with or autograph from Rep. Pelosi following the banquet. (She's in there somewhere, I assure you.)


The divine Ms. P. with an admirer.

Proof positive

I look scared and she looks tired ... but at least your humble host got a picture with the first woman to be Speaker of the House.


I blame the person behind me, who wouldn't move, for my embarrassing double chin.

How I got her attention for the pic: I noted that, like her, I was born in Baltimore. "Go Birds!," she replied. Cool.

Tonight's prepared speech by Rep. Pelosi (slightly edited for clarity)

Thank you, Karen for that kind introduction and for your bold leadership of the Florida Democratic Party. We in Congress know what an effective leader Karen Thurman is. While we miss her there, Florida Democrats are blessed with her vision and experience.

I am pleased to be in Florida tonight to thank Florida Democrats for putting us back in the majority in Congress!

We won because you elected three new voices for a New Direction:

• A talented leader from a family committed to public service – Kathy Castor!
• An experienced businessman and entrepreneur – Tim Mahoney!
• A legislator effective from the start – Ron Klein!

These Members joined a talented Florida Democratic delegation in Washington.

• A powerful voice in foreign affairs … Alcee Hastings!
• A fighter for veterans’ health care … Corrine Brown!
• An expert on defense and agriculture … Allen Boyd!
• A courageous fighter for voting rights and our Constitution … Robert Wexler!
• A voice for a new generation of Democrats … Kendrick Meek!
• A champion of Florida’s families … Debbie Wasserman Schultz!

Over in the U.S. Senate you have a former House member who has spent his life serving Florida – Senator Bill Nelson!

Last year, we all celebrated the election of a talented businesswoman to state office – Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink!

Thank you to all of the state leaders who keep up the fight in Tallahassee!

I want to especially acknowledge former United States Attorney General Janet Reno.

Under Karen Thurman’s leadership Florida Democrats have a new energy, and now you have the momentum that will carry us to victory in 2008!

Florida Is the Future

Florida will continue to be fertile ground for Democrats because, like our great party, Florida is about the future. When we explore the heavens and stars, our journey begins here in Florida – at Cape Canaveral. When Americans look for new opportunity, they look to Florida – to work in an innovative high tech job sector. And next year, when America elects new leadership, we will look to Florida – to grow our Congressional majority and to help elect the next Democratic president of the United States!

As the Democratic Speaker of the House, I take special pride in the actions we’ve taken to keep our promises from the last election for a New Direction.

In the First 100 Hours we signaled change by:

• Raising the minimum wage;
• Making college more affordable;
• Making health care more accessible;
• Promoting energy independence; and,
• Enacting the bipartisan 9/11 Commission recommendations.

Since then, we have passed a budget and other legislation which are a true reflection of American values. We put children first by tripling the funding for health care for America’s children; to keep faith with our veterans we passed the biggest increase for VA health care in its 77-year history; to help America’s workers we passed an Innovation Agenda, our Commitment to Competitiveness to Keep America Number One. Instead of outsourcing, we’re working to create good paying jobs here at home; after years of Republican neglect, a Democratic Congress raised the minimum wage; to support America’s farmers and ranchers recovering from flood and drought, we provided $3 billion in disaster assistance; we kept our promise to the Gulf Coast with $6 billion for hurricane recovery. And wherever disaster strikes, the federal government must act – never again can we allow another tragedy like Katrina; just this week, we passed a bill that I hope the President will sign to give hope to families through stem cell research. And every day, we will stand behind our rock solid commitment to Social Security and Medicare.

To preserve our planet, Democrats are committed to addressing the climate crisis. The science is conclusive: global warming is happening and can be reversed. In this effort, we join people of faith who believe, as I do, that the Earth is God’s creation, and we have a moral responsibility to preserve it.

Democrats are proceeding in a New Direction with the most open and accountable Congress in history. We must have a Congress that serves the American people, not the special interests. And it must be an America where every voter counts and every vote is counted!

That’s the kind of New Direction the American people endorsed in the last election; that’s the kind of leadership Democrats will provide in the days ahead.

Iraq

Nowhere in their call for a New Direction were Americans more clear than on the war in Iraq.

Democrats are committed to a military that is second to none and will always do what it takes to support our troops. Our men and women in uniform have performed their duties excellently. Tonight, let us honor them and their families for their courage, their patriotism, and their service. [Applause]

Whatever they thought about going into Iraq, the American people have lost faith in the President’s conduct of the war. It is not making America safer, the Middle East more stable, or our military stronger. In fact, it is straining our military readiness.

There is special concern that too much has been asked of the National Guard. With troops and equipment in Iraq, our states are less capable of responding to crises. You know that all too well with the arrival of hurricane season.

Democrats are proposing a vision for stability in the Middle East. In the months ahead, we will support a redeployment of our troops to fight terror, train Iraqis, and protect our diplomats and troops. We will vote to repeal the President’s authority to continue the war. The best way to support our troops is to bring the troops home. [Applause]

Weary of War

In my recent travels as Speaker, I have met with presidents, prime ministers, and kings. But what impressed and inspired me the most were my encounters with young people.

The young people I met in my travels are weary of war. They want an end to violence whether in Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or the genocide in Darfur. They want to know if their leaders have the political courage to make the decisions necessary for peace. They want a future and want to know if their leaders can produce economic opportunity, health care, and education for a better future. They want to end global warming and preserve the planet – God’s beautiful creation.

That’s what I heard in the Middle East, and that is what I hear from young people here at home. Because of that unwillingness to accept the world as it now is – the impatience of youth – they will insist on a New Direction and a better future.

Democrats will give that New Direction and build that brighter future. We’re bringing a message of positive change to the American people. In 2008, our optimism will lead us to victory, and Florida will lead the way.

As I look out over this crowd of Florida Democrats I am certain that you are ready for victory …

Ready to move Florida in a New Direction …

Ready to take back the Florida legislature …

Ready to increase our Democratic majorities in the House and Senate …

Ready to win the White House for the American people!

Thank you, Florida Democrats, for leading the way!

God bless you, and God bless America.

More Pelosi

She is taking each topic from her speech and expanding on it. All the legislation passed by the Democratic-led Congress thus far: stem cell research ("we hope and pray the President will sign the bill"), disaster relief, hate crimes legislation, health care for children and veterans, raising the minimum wage.

Now Iraq: Americans have lost faith completely in the president's conduct of the war. (There is still a persistent buzz of conversation in the room. I thought it was only going to happen during the prelims and people would be quiet when Pelosi spoke, but obviously I was wrong.)

Standing O for legislation that will "repeal the president's authority to continue the war! Congressman Wexler said it best: the best way to support our troops is to BRING THEM HOME!"

Young people feel cheated about the future, and they want to know when it will come. Just like young people in the Middle East and in Europe. Democrats will build a brighter future!

2008 gives us the opportunity to make a decision for greatness. This great country must decide to vote Democratic to give the nation a chance to be great again, to resume our rightful place among nations. This is a very important election not only for our country, but for our world.

Last week would have been Pres. Kennedy's 90th birthday. I was at his inauguration, as a college student in D.C. "Ask not ..." is always identified with the USA. But the next sentence: "Ask how we can work together for the freedom of mankind." We must strive to achieve that again, but we must make the decision for greatness.

We can help America by growing the middle class - fundamental to a democracy. Also fundamental is strong public education. And we need to have universal health care for all Americans! [Applause]

"A reporter asked me, why do you think the Democrats can win Florida in 2008? Because it's a state with a great senator and a great future!"

She finished on script ... full script is posted above.

Pelosi! (this time I mean it)

Extended standing ovation. Pelosi begins by speaking extemporaneously in praise of Thurman.

Indeed, Pelosi acknowledges her anniversary and thanks Florida for sending three new Dems to Congress and for helping take back Congress for the American people! (She's off script! Cut her mic! ;) )

Mahoney began working on a disaster insurance fund ... Klein is working on Social Security. Mentions Castor too. Also says she wished Christine Jennings could have joined them (again, not on script - Pelosi is a remarkable speaker ... especially when you consider what happens when Drunky McStagger speaks off script!) ...

Pelosi is recognizing each member of the Fla. Democratic congressional delegation individually. She also recognizes Sink and Davis plus state legislators ... and big applause for Janet Reno.

"What is it like to be the first woman Speaker?," she asks herself. "It's absolutely fabulous!" And now she goes on script. I'll let the speech speak for itself when I post it. I'm trying to take pictures now!

Pelosi!

After the conclusion of tonight's dinner, I'll post the full text of the Speaker's speech. So, in these threads (until my battery dies), I'll give you less speech and more the intangibles ... crowd reaction, descriptive stuff, etc.

Thurman introduces Pelosi. "2 years ago in this very room the press wrote us off. But tonight we celebrate you and your success. This is your party." We made Sen. Harry Reid majority leader and re-elected every member of our congressional delegation plus added two Dems from Repub districts [Mahoney & Klein].

You won the Hispanic vote for the first time in 30 years!

Joining us tonight is a symbol of our success: Pelosi. All I can think of is Boehner's reaction when he gave her the gavel, said Thurman to laughter and applause.

20 years ago today, Pelosi was sworn into Congress, says Thurman. (Really?) And she's spending the anniversary with us!

Preliminary speeches

We're working our way up to Speaker Pelosi ... we've heard from a number of state legislators and other officials. At the moment, the highest ranking Democrat in state government at the moment, CFO Alex Sink, is speaking.

Mostly - sorry to say this, but - these speeches gave me a chance to transcribe Speaker Pelosi's entire speech, so I'll be able to post it almost immediately when this event ends ...

And now we take a break so that folks can eat. Stay tuned for Nancy!