Opt-out: still a bad idea for Florida

Normally I don't re-run blog posts, but in light of the announcement today by Sen. Harry Reid (D-Noballs) that the Senate would move forward with the "public option with opt-out" on health care reform, I think it's important to reiterate what I said on October 8: Florida will opt out of any federal health care scheme if it is allowed to do so via legislation. I believed it then and I see no reason to change my position now.

Below is my explanation, as it appeared on this blog 18 days ago. You also may wish to listen to today's edition of Blast Off! Radio, now archived for your convenience, in which I go into further detail on why opt-out is bad for Florida.

---

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), after consulting with Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), one of the five Democratic senators who voted against Sen. Jay Rockefeller's (D-W. Va.) public option proposal in the Senate Finance Committee last week (another was Florida's own Bill Nelson)*, is circulating a compromise health care reform proposal that purportedly is gaining some traction among moderate Democrats and Republicans alike. Under the Schumer/Carper plan, a vigorous public option would be included in the final bill, but individual states themselves would have an "option:" to "opt out" of the federal scheme. But, in a situation when the "public option" already is a compromise -- we've already backed down from single-payer to get to the "public option" level -- this is a further compromise that is both unwise and unnecessary.

Some observers, like Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com, insist that the "opt-out" is probably the best compromise we're going to be able to get. Silver contends that anyone on the Left who is opposed to it is afflicted with "public option purism" and that this is "leaps and bounds better than most of the others that have been floated," for several reasons:

1) If the public option is indeed popular -- and the preponderance of public polling suggests that it is -- we should expect the solid majority of states to elect to retain it. Perhaps some Republican governors or legislatures would seek to override the popular will in their states -- but they would do so at their own peril (and at Democrats' gain).

2) Behavioral economics further suggests that default preferences are extremely powerful. Making the public option the default would probably lead to much greater adaptation than requiring states to "opt in".

3) If the public option indeed reduces the costs of insurance -- and most of the evidence suggests that it will -- than the states that opt out of it will have a pretty compelling reason to opt back in. Say that Kansas opts out of the public option and Missouri keeps it. If a Kansan realizes that his friend across the border is buying the same quality health insurance for $300 less per month, he's going to vote restore the public plan in a referendum or demand that his legislator does the same in Topeka.

4) Even in states that do opt out of the public option, the fact that voters could presumably elect later to restore it creates an extremely credible threat to the private insurance industry that will itself help to create price competition.

[...]

I wish I shared Silver's optimism, but I can't really see a scenario where Florida doesn't opt out. We already have two wingnut members of the legislature who are proposing a bill (which almost undoubtedly would be unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause) that would prohibit Florida from complying with any federal health care plan, and with a legislature that is pretty overwhelmingly Republican -- and wingnut Republican at that -- I am certain that there would be a bill introduced to "opt out" of this compromise faster than you can say "Terri Schiavo."

But then this bill, assuming it passes, would go to Gov. Crist's desk. Crist, you'll recall, refused to join with many of his fellow Republican governors in the South in attempting to reject federal stimulus funds; he openly accepted them -- and he's taken a load of crap from the Right for having done that. And, of course, Crist is facing a primary challenge in next year's U.S. Senate race from the right, by Marco Rubio. Although there is a lot of skepticism about Rubio's chances, I'm not going to pooh-pooh his straw poll success; it shows a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction among GOP grassroots (such as they are), which basically means the extremists who control the party in Florida as elsewhere.

So, does Crist veto this hypothetical bill to have Florida opt out of the federal scheme, knowing that's the best decision for Floridians, or does he burnish his conservative credentials and sign it in order to improve his electoral chances in 2010? Well, in recent decisions when it's come down to what's best for Florida versus what's best for Charlie Crist, he's tended to go with the latter -- his appointment of his crony George LeMieux to the vacant U.S. Senate is evidence enough of that. I suspect it would be extremely hard for Crist to stand in the way of any opt-out effort from the legislature.

I've been challenged on my position several times on Twitter today. Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, the "Kos" of Daily Kos, has "bet" me that Florida won't opt out. Another insists that the large elderly population in Florida wouldn't stand for opting out ... but, of course, they already have government health care in Medicare, so they're unlikely to be major players in the opt-out debate in Florida. And one contends that any Republican move to opt out would "be the death of the [Florida] GOP ... [Florida will] opt back in in 2-3 [years with Democratic] majorities."

Elsewhere, mcjoan on Daily Kos also predicts that few if any states will opt out, since no state opted out of Medicaid in the '60s (although it took Arizona until 1982 to join):

[L]eaving any people out of the system should be of vital concern to lawmakers. There's a relatively simple fix to that--make uninsured citizens of those states who choose to opt out eligible to enroll in Medicare. Of course, that might create huge citizen lobbies in every state to get their state to opt out so that everyone could join Medicare, but it would be critical fix for covering more of the uninsured.

Well, exactly. There has to be some kind of safeguard so that every American has a chance to exercise the option; otherwise, there might as well not even be a public option for those people whose states opt out. Moreover, I don't think the Medicaid experience is a good means of predicting how things will go now, with rabid wingnuttery having taken a hugely disproportionate role in state government in Florida and elsewhere. Needless to say, it's hardly 1965 out there anymore.

So much for "unwise" ... as for the opt-out proposal being "unnecessary," it's just another in a long series of attempts to earn 60 votes in the Senate ... which the bill doesn't need. I guess it's because Democrats want to make sure they can prevent a GOP filibuster and 60 votes would be needed for cloture ... but Rachel Maddow reported last night that plans were in the works to revoke chairmanships from any Democratic senators who supported oppose cloture ... pretty powerful political pressure, if true, and further evidence (maybe?) that Harry Reid may have grown a pair. But that just shows that all real health care reform needs -- with a meaningful public option -- is 51 votes, not 60 ... so I really don't know why folks like Max Baucus keep pushing for the "magical" 60, except that they really want to dilute the public option beyond recognition.

So, sure, you may support the opt-out, and your state may well reap the benefits of it ... but I'm not so sanguine about our chances here in Florida.

(cross-posted at Daily Kos)

---

* Carper and Nelson subsequently voted for Sen. Chuck Schumer's (D-N.Y.) public option proposal, but that, too, failed.

Can't blog ... tweeting

Seriously, it seems like Twitter almost is taking over blogging. It's easy to do, it's often funny and informative (whether you're looking for links or one-liners), and it's a hell of a lot easier to do from a Blackberry than a blog post! The biggest challenge is fitting thoughts into 140 characters. It's definitely made me more concise, which is good since I usually give Glenn Greenwald a run for his money* on wordy blog posts!

If you're not on Twitter, it's easy to sign up. Once you do, I hope you'll follow me. You can also follow Blast Off! for prompt updates on every post and every comment. Especially on weekends like this one, when I'm hangin' with my kids, I tend to be tweeting more than blogging these days.

But there's plenty more to come here ... so stay tuned!

---

* I consider myself Glenn's peer on blog post length ... I'm nowhere near his vicinity in quality. :)

Blame Canada

Turns out those crazy Canuckistanis, with their poutine and their curling and their evil socialist health care which they don't seem to want to give up despite its evil socialist nature, are fond of a certain DFH blog and blogger from America's Wang™.

Well, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that there's one Canadian who just doesn't know any better:

Lo, last week, when news of the Conservative Bible Project broke on Twitter, the Tweeple rang out with sarcasm.

Progressives fired off fake verses one might find rewritten by the "family values" fundamentalists behind Conservapedia, the so-called "trustworthy" online information source for all things right-wing.

Verily I say unto thee, these U.S. conservatives, led by Andy Schlafly, begat by Phyllis Schlafly, best known for stopping the equal rights for women amendment, consider modern translations of the Bible to contain too much "liberal bias."

[...]

"Let my people GOP!''

"I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence I can see Russia."*

"Physician, heal thyself. And your patients without insurance should heal themselves, too."

"Suffer the little `preborn' children to come unto me, and forbid them not dominion of women's bodies."

[...]

Nothing more to add really except that the response [to this column in the newspaper] has been awesome, and that the tweet about seeing Russia marked with an *asterisk* is not, like the others reprinted here, one I wrote but came from @sinfonian who blogs here.

Yes, that's from the venerable Toronto Star, bringing news to Torontonians since 1892, the newspaper with Canada's highest circulation. Specifically, the party responsible is Star columnist Antonia Zerbisias, who included my tweet in her column yesterday and credited it in the web version excerpted above.

That's cool. Thanks, Antonia. But substantively, can you even comprehend the hubris and arrogance of a group that would deign to "re-translate" (read: propagandize) the Bible, the very book they always tout as the inerrant word of God? The one that no one is supposed to add to or take away from? I mean, the Right is full of stupid, asinine, offensive, ideologically-driven rhetoric, but this one tops them all.

What did Jesus do when he learned about the "Conservative Bible?" Jesus wept.

Blast Off! Radio today at 4:00 pm EDT: Florida Democrats, health care, equality, and more

It's been a big week both in Florida and nationally for Democrats and especially the progressive (or liberal, if like me you're still okay with that label) side of the party. Today on Blast Off! Radio, we'll take a look back at The Week (And Weekend) That Was with a veritable plethora of interesting and illuminating topics.

For starters, right here in America's Wang™, the state Democratic Party held its convention this past weekend in Orlando, and I attended along with hundreds of my closest friends. A lot happened at the convention, and we'll recap some of the highlights on the show -- including the emergence of the Netroots Coalition as an important and well-regarded "force" in the party structure; the debate between Florida's Democratic candidates for Attorney General, Dave Aronberg and Dan Gelber; and of course the 2009 Florida Netroots Awards (and the understandable but needless controversy that seems to have sprung up around them).

But it wasn't just about Florida this past week. We'll discuss the latest "compromises" in the battle for meaningful health care reform and why Florida is likely to be screwed if either "opt-out" or "opt-in" passes. We'll also talk about the weekend's National Equality March in Washington (and in cities around the country) and why it's all about love ... and what, if anything, is the impact of the president's "announcement" Saturday that he will end Don't Ask, Don't Tell? And we'll mention the craze that's sweeping the nation (or at least Twitter) -- the "twammogram," and why it's making a difference in women's lives during National Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

As always, you make the show work, with your calls, chats, emails, tweets, etc. How do you listen and become involved, you ask? It's oh, so easy to do:

TIME: 4:00 pm Eastern TODAY

Click here to listen

Call in number: (646) 716-7543

E-mail: blastoffradio-at-gmail-dot-com

So please make plans to join me this afternoon for a Blast Off! Radio chock full of facts and fun. You'll be glad you did!

UPDATE (1:01 pm 10/12/09): Trying something a little new today: a new Blast Off! Radio theme song! I hope it works ... technical challenges are not my strong suit ... so tune in and find out!

(cross-posted at FPC Blog)

See you in Orlando!

I'm on the way to Orlando for this weekend's Florida Democratic Party convention. I'll be involved, of course, with the Florida Netroots Coalition activities throughout the day tomorrow, including my appearance along with Steve Schale, political strategist presently involved with the Dan Gelber for Attorney General campaign, and Beth Reinhard of the Miami Herald on a panel discussing "Bloggers, Journalism, and their Role in Campaigns."

Also tomorrow, the winners of the 2009 Florida Netroots Awards will be announced, and I'll be livetweeting (and possibly liveblogging at times) the festivities throughout the day (as will, I'm sure, several others in attendance). Last spring at the Jefferson-Jackson Day events, we broke a couple of stories on Twitter, including Gelber's withdrawal from the U.S. Senate race. So, follow me on Twitter, along with the hashtag #fdp09, for all the info!

Hope to see you there!

"Opt-out" compromise: a bad idea for Florida

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), after consulting with Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), one of the five Democratic senators who voted against Sen. Jay Rockefeller's (D-W. Va.) public option proposal in the Senate Finance Committee last week (another was Florida's own Bill Nelson)*, is circulating a compromise health care reform proposal that purportedly is gaining some traction among moderate Democrats and Republicans alike. Under the Schumer/Carper plan, a vigorous public option would be included in the final bill, but individual states themselves would have an "option:" to "opt out" of the federal scheme. But, in a situation when the "public option" already is a compromise -- we've already backed down from single-payer to get to the "public option" level -- this is a further compromise that is both unwise and unnecessary.

Some observers, like Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com, insist that the "opt-out" is probably the best compromise we're going to be able to get. Silver contends that anyone on the Left who is opposed to it is afflicted with "public option purism" and that this is "leaps and bounds better than most of the others that have been floated," for several reasons:

1) If the public option is indeed popular -- and the preponderance of public polling suggests that it is -- we should expect the solid majority of states to elect to retain it. Perhaps some Republican governors or legislatures would seek to override the popular will in their states -- but they would do so at their own peril (and at Democrats' gain).

2) Behavioral economics further suggests that default preferences are extremely powerful. Making the public option the default would probably lead to much greater adaptation than requiring states to "opt in".

3) If the public option indeed reduces the costs of insurance -- and most of the evidence suggests that it will -- than the states that opt out of it will have a pretty compelling reason to opt back in. Say that Kansas opts out of the public option and Missouri keeps it. If a Kansan realizes that his friend across the border is buying the same quality health insurance for $300 less per month, he's going to vote restore the public plan in a referendum or demand that his legislator does the same in Topeka.

4) Even in states that do opt out of the public option, the fact that voters could presumably elect later to restore it creates an extremely credible threat to the private insurance industry that will itself help to create price competition.

[...]

I wish I shared Silver's optimism, but I can't really see a scenario where Florida doesn't opt out. We already have two wingnut members of the legislature who are proposing a bill (which almost undoubtedly would be unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause) that would prohibit Florida from complying with any federal health care plan, and with a legislature that is pretty overwhelmingly Republican -- and wingnut Republican at that -- I am certain that there would be a bill introduced to "opt out" of this compromise faster than you can say "Terri Schiavo."

But then this bill, assuming it passes, would go to Gov. Crist's desk. Crist, you'll recall, refused to join with many of his fellow Republican governors in the South in attempting to reject federal stimulus funds; he openly accepted them -- and he's taken a load of crap from the Right for having done that. And, of course, Crist is facing a primary challenge in next year's U.S. Senate race from the right, by Marco Rubio. Although there is a lot of skepticism about Rubio's chances, I'm not going to pooh-pooh his straw poll success; it shows a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction among GOP grassroots (such as they are), which basically means the extremists who control the party in Florida as elsewhere.

So, does Crist veto this hypothetical bill to have Florida opt out of the federal scheme, knowing that's the best decision for Floridians, or does he burnish his conservative credentials and sign it in order to improve his electoral chances in 2010? Well, in recent decisions when it's come down to what's best for Florida versus what's best for Charlie Crist, he's tended to go with the latter -- his appointment of his crony George LeMieux to the vacant U.S. Senate is evidence enough of that. I suspect it would be extremely hard for Crist to stand in the way of any opt-out effort from the legislature.

I've been challenged on my position several times on Twitter today. Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, the "Kos" of Daily Kos, has "bet" me that Florida won't opt out. Another insists that the large elderly population in Florida wouldn't stand for opting out ... but, of course, they already have government health care in Medicare, so they're unlikely to be major players in the opt-out debate in Florida. And one contends that any Republican move to opt out would "be the death of the [Florida] GOP ... [Florida will] opt back in in 2-3 [years with Democratic] majorities."

Elsewhere, mcjoan on Daily Kos also predicts that few if any states will opt out, since no state opted out of Medicaid in the '60s (although it took Arizona until 1982 to join):

[L]eaving any people out of the system should be of vital concern to lawmakers. There's a relatively simple fix to that--make uninsured citizens of those states who choose to opt out eligible to enroll in Medicare. Of course, that might create huge citizen lobbies in every state to get their state to opt out so that everyone could join Medicare, but it would be critical fix for covering more of the uninsured.

Well, exactly. There has to be some kind of safeguard so that every American has a chance to exercise the option; otherwise, there might as well not even be a public option for those people whose states opt out. Moreover, I don't think the Medicaid experience is a good means of predicting how things will go now, with rabid wingnuttery having taken a hugely disproportionate role in state government in Florida and elsewhere. Needless to say, it's hardly 1965 out there anymore.

So much for "unwise" ... as for the opt-out proposal being "unnecessary," it's just another in a long series of attempts to earn 60 votes in the Senate ... which the bill doesn't need. I guess it's because Democrats want to make sure they can prevent a GOP filibuster and 60 votes would be needed for cloture ... but Rachel Maddow reported last night that plans were in the works to revoke chairmanships from any Democratic senators who supported oppose cloture ... pretty powerful political pressure, if true, and further evidence (maybe?) that Harry Reid may have grown a pair. But that just shows that all real health care reform needs -- with a meaningful public option -- is 51 votes, not 60 ... so I really don't know why folks like Max Baucus keep pushing for the "magical" 60, except that they really want to dilute the public option beyond recognition.

So, sure, you may support the opt-out, and your state may well reap the benefits of it ... but I'm not so sanguine about our chances here in Florida.

(cross-posted at Daily Kos)

---

* Carper and Nelson subsequently voted for Sen. Chuck Schumer's (D-N.Y.) public option proposal, but that, too, failed.

Good for Grayson

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), one of the very, very few true liberals (or progressives, if you prefer that term) in Congress, pissed off a whole slew of Republicans last night when he declared on the floor of the House that "Republicans want you to die." Here's the video:

As usual, Republicans in Congress can't handle the truth. The bottom line is that Republicans have no plan for health care reform; their only tactic is to delay and obfuscate and demonize ... pretty much everything they've done for the last decade or two, at least.

And Rep. Grayson was exactly right. Since the GOP (and their sycophantic boot-licking colleagues from the other side of the aisle -- I'm looking at you, Max Baucus and Bill Nelson, among others) essentially feels that the status quo, with insurance companies making health care decisions and condemning people to die, is just fine and dandy with them, it follows that they would want sick people to die more quickly, thereby saving their insurance company supporters a lot of money ... which they then can contribute to the campaigns of those legislators whose selfish and irresponsible actions saved them the money in the first place. Talk about a vicious circle ...

Of course, the GOP is outraged!!!one!11!!! at Rep. Grayson's statement, and they're pulling out all the stops to vilify him. Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-Va.), about whose ties to an apparent gay Republican murder-suicide in Florida it would be irresponsible not to speculate, tweeted his consternation this morning using the customary strawman/false equivalency "logic" of the Right: "Will Pelosi hold vote to reprimand #Grayson? http://bit.ly/4pGUWN Or was JWilson reprimand just partisan politics after all?" Yeah, Pat, way to compare a member of Congress calling the president a liar in a joint session of Congress (when, by the way, the president wasn't lying) with the kind of political speechifying that happens every single day in Congress, on both sides of the aisle (and which is also truthful, at least in this case). McHenry is a tool, though, so at least we don't have to pay him much attention.

No, there won't be any reprimand for Grayson. If anything, he should be celebrated. At a time when too many Democrats think it's chic to roll over meekly and let the Republican minority have its way with them (no, McHenry, I don't mean that way), it's good to see that one congresscritter is willing to tell it like it is.

Vern Buchanan needs remedial reading comprehension

I've been puzzled by the strangely detached, surprisingly uninformed tweets lately by U.S. Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Sarasota) regarding health care reform. On the one hand, I recognize that Florida hardly lacks for ignorant GOP members of Congress who seem to be unaware of the U.S. Constitution ... but Buchanan seems not to understand the English language -- an especially bizarre concept, considering Buchanan's own xenophobic, pandering call to make English the official language of the United States.

The word in question here -- the one that the erstwhile car dealer who originally won his congressional seat under highly questionable circumstances apparently doesn't comprehend -- is "option." As in "choice" or "selection." OPTION.

Yesterday, Rep. Buchanan tweeted, "If the public plan is so great, why shouldn't members of Congress be required to enroll in the same plan?" The obvious answer -- obvious to anyone with the ability to reason coherently, that is -- would be that no one would be required to enroll in the "public plan," because it would be an option. A choice, which one may make or not make as desired. That's the fundamental idea of an option, and I made that point (in abbreviated form) in my response to the congressman.

But I cut Vern some slack since he didn't use the word "option." That all changed today, though, when ol' Vern cut loose with this nugget of numbskullery:

click image for larger version

Vern ... poor, deluded Vern ... how many times do I have to tell you? A "public option" means you don't have to enroll. Even members of Congress don't have to enroll. And don't give me that crap about Max Baucus' massive FAIL of a bill. That's not a public option in any way, shape, or form.

What this country really needs is single-payer health care, like every other civilized nation on the planet and like the U.S. military and Medicare. Barring that, though, it appears we'll have to settle for a public option. And "option," Vern, means "choice." Everyone can keep their employer-provided coverage, Vern, if they so choose (or opt). But there would be an option (there's that word again!) to elect coverage under the federal health care plan for those who don't have the privilege of employer-provided coverage -- as members of Congress do, I know, and yes, even as I do through COBRA.

It's really not that hard to understand, Vern. It's just a matter of comprehending our country's would-be official language ... a skill you -- and your fellow signatories on that absurd, meaningless resolution -- suddenly seem to be lacking.

Blast Off! garners seven nominations for Florida Netroots Awards

I honestly don't do this blog for recognition -- except perhaps for the kind of recognition that comes with pissing off wingnuts for revealing their fallacies and shortcomings, like being Asshat of the Month or providing someone with their Quote of the Day ...

But I'm truly humbled to report that Blast Off! and its author, yours truly, have picked up seven nominations in the 2009 Florida Netroots Awards. These awards recognize the very best in blogging in America's Wang™, and it's truly an honor to be nominated alongside such great blogs and bloggers, who themselves are even better people and citizens of the state.

The seven nominations for the blog and for this blogger include:

• Best National Blog (an award Blast Off! won in 2007)
• Best State Blog
• Best Writer
• Netroots Activist of the Year
• Best Use of Twitter
• Best Online Radio Show (for Blast Off! Radio)
• Florida Progressive Coalition Progressive Hall of Fame

I'm very grateful to anyone and everyone who submitted nominations on behalf of Blast Off! and me, but please understand that I'm not the least bit qualified for at least two of those awards: Netroots Activist of the Year and the FPC Progressive Hall of Fame. Pretty much all I do is snark on the right-wing nutjobs and say "fuck" now and then, which hardly constitutes evidence of having done anything truly significant to effect change in a progressive way in Florida, an achievement I believe is the biggest criterion for those two awards. Please consider voting for someone actually worthy in those two categories, okay? Thanks ...

In any event, I encourage you to go over to the voting site and cast your ballot now. It'll only take a few minutes. Voting is open until September 29, but why wait?

Thank you again for your support, and if you deem this blog worthy of a vote or two, well, thank you for that as well.

Momentarily famous ... again

Cool. I got quoted in GottaLaff's weekly "Tweet Spot" segment, which she does for Jim Alger's show on Fridays. GottaLaff, of The Political Carnival, sorts through the noise and selects the top tweets of the week -- usually funny, sometimes poignant, always topical.

Here's the video she put together for this week, on a Prop 8 theme:

So what if it's not Olbermann? It's still fun. Thanks, GL!

On Twitter, you never know

Miss July just told me that she tweeted something last night asking me to drive by one of our old haunts in south Florida while I'm down here. Problem is, she used the words "drive by," so naturally she ended up being followed by some firearms and ammunition store.

Just goes to show you: be careful what you say, lest you arouse the wingnuts. Perhaps I should have learned that sooner ...

Wingnut logic

Here's an actual tweet I received on Twitter this morning, in response to a debate I'm having there with some (other) wingnut who claims that Fox's "Top 10 Lines" from Dick "Dick" Cheney's speech yesterday includes verifiable facts:


I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried.

UPDATE (11:16 am 5/22/09): It keeps getting better, folks. From the same tweeter as above:


"It's your opinion they're not true." Well, no -- as I replied, "I said they're NOT FACTS. Therefore, they're neither true nor false. Simple, really." Is it that hard to understand?

And facts can be refuted. Got it.

Never try to argue logic with a wingnut, unless you want to get a headache out of sheer frustration.

Mocking the teabaggers, part deux

So before all the video hubbub happened, I was having some fun on Twitter with all those crazed teabaggers. I've edited out the Twitterese and compiled some of the entries in the series for you here. Maybe it's worth a chuckle or two ...

---

Tea Party Etiquette, by Sinfonian

• If you teabaggers happen to see a nonwhite person nearby, it's not polite to point and gawk.


• Help your fellow teabaggers at a long rally by bringing a lotion or salve for scrotal chafing.


• Beware of teabaggers with tubes of Ben Gay. A silly prank? Sure, unless you're the victim.


• Two words: breath mints.


• It's OK to lie to fellow teabaggers about your name and profession. (Thanks to Joe the Plumber for the tip)


• Considerate teabaggers don't neglect the taint.


• Three words: Bring Extra Kneepads. (Or is that four words?) Fellow teabaggers will go nuts thanking you.


• Smart teabaggers are prepared teabaggers. Have a good supply of toothpicks handy. (Thanks to Dick Armey for that tip!)


• Armey adds another tip: Good teabaggers always go shaft deep. This isn't the time to be conservative.


• Polite teabaggers always cuddle afterwards.


• Smart teabaggers will keep a towel handy for "premature Beckgasms." Hey, it can happen to anyone.

---

Again, you can read 'em all -- if you can stomach it -- here.

Reminder: livetweeting of Pensacola teabaggery begins at 3:00 pm CDT today

It's about time for me to head downtown, but I just wanted to remind you to stay tuned for livetweeting (not liveblogging -- too unwieldy this time -- although I'll have pics and coverage posted here this evening) of the Teabagging Fiesta (or whatever they're calling it) here in Pensacola, Fla., capital of America's Taint™.

Just follow me on Twitter, if you're not already doing so, for all the wacky action.

And remember, folks: You can't get closer to teabagging than The Taint™.

I'm not Vern Buchanan's friend anymore

Well, that relationship lasted about as long as Bristol and Levi ...

Remember yesterday how I told you that Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Sarasota) was following me on Twitter after I started following him? And how Blast Off! was following him through that account, after which he reciprocated on that account as well?

No longer. Vern stopped following me both personally and through the blog account sometime Sunday night, and he apparently blocked the Blast Off! account from following him, too (although I'm still following him on my personal Twitter account). The best part (and by "best," I mean funniest) is what you see if you are blocked, as shown here in this screen grab when accessing Vern's Twitter page from my (blocked) Blast Off! account:


It goes on like that for days' worth of updates. Maybe you need to take a loyalty oath or something ...

Now, granted, I'm not Vern's constituent ... but let's say for a moment that I was. I can only assume that he still would have blocked me even if I lived in his district, which hardly counts as good service to his constituents, does it? And even though I'm not his constituent, what does it say about him as a man, let alone as a member of what presumably is the country's most representative governmental body, if he can't even share what he's doing with a concerned citizen in his own state?

I mean, unless he has something to hide ...

Buchanan loves his tweeps ... as long as they're wingnuts

Not long ago, I saw on Twitter that the Florida Democratic Party's communications director, Eric Jotkoff, had been following xenophobic Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Sarasota) there, but that the congressman had blocked him.

So, naturally, I started following Vern. Then, somewhat surprisingly, he followed me back with the following unnecessarily truncated direct message:

Thank you for the follow!Want to keep up w/other info from my office?Please add me on Facebook: Tinyurl.com/VernFacebook

How long until I get blocked, too? This ought to be interesting ... (Oooh -- plus maybe if Blast Off! follows him, he'll follow this sucky blog, too! Hilarity undoubtedly will ensue ...)

UPDATE (5:30 pm 4/5/09): Yep, now Vern is following me and Blast Off!, as I anticipated. There's really only one way to describe my glee at this development:

UPDATE (7:48 am 4/6/09): Okay, well, that was quick.

---

REMINDER: You too can follow Blast Off! on Twitter ... just click here and get updates on every post and comment instantly. Or, for you gluttons for punishment, follow me personally ... it's fun and it's free!

Patience is a virtue

Blast Off! is just taking a couple of days off. You know, "light posting" and all that. I'm spending the weekend with my kids and have limited 'net access.

I'm Twittering quite a bit, though, so if you want to follow me, please feel free. (You can follow Blast Off!, too, and get notifications anytime a new post or comment appears.)

Thanks for your patience. Enjoy your weekend!

OMG! Meghan McCain can't get a decent date? WTF? LOL!

Apparently I've been living in a cave lately, because I didn't realize the 24-year-old daughter of Huggy Bear, Meghan McCain (right, with her dad), has been continuing to blog after the election. (I knew that she had a blog during the campaign, but I didn't realize it was still active.) Not only is she maintaining her own blog, though, she's also writing for The Daily Beast. But let's just say her output there is, um, not exactly F. Scott Fitzgerald.

According to her latest post, poor little Meghan is facing some obstacles in her dating life:

Here's the biggest surprise: I am not only turned off by people who voted for Barack Obama, but I am also turned off by people that voted for my dad—or more so, obsessive supporters of my dad. Recently, over dinner, a guy started explaining his reasons for supporting President Obama during the election (I didn’t ask, I think the poor guy felt guilty) and I immediately found any attraction I had previously had dissipate. But same thing happens if a guy starts talking about all the reasons why my father should be president. I have the ultimate Catch-22 in post-election dating. So where does that leave me, and who exactly am I attracted to? Let’s just say I’m spending a lot of time writing and even more time with my girlfriends.

[...]

But the real problem with men who voted for my dad is that I never know to what degree of a fan they are of his. Are they so extreme that they would date me no matter how much they may or may not like me just to meet my dad? Once I went out with a guy who said the food I had ordered was a “maverick choice” and proceeded to tell me, “Wow, straight talking must run in the family.” It’s like someone taking Lisa Marie Presley out on a date and singing “Hound Dog” in the middle of dinner.

I don't know about you, but I'm just breathless with anticipation for the next installment of Meghan's riveting series, "Why I Can't Get Laid."

(h/t RedWhiteandNews -- if you're not following it, you should)

Twitterrific!

Hey, kids! Just a friendly reminder: if you're the Twitter type, you can follow me on Twitter with just two clicks of your mouse!

Plus, you can get instant updates from Blast Off! as soon as a new post goes up or whenever a new comment is made, just by following the blog!

Isn't technology wonderful?!

Follow along with voting in Florida on Twitter this Tuesday

The Palm Beach Post has announced a unique statewide project to following voting issues, problems, and activities this Tuesday utilizing Twitter.

The Post is joining with a number of other newspapers across the state to produce a live, interactive Twitter map of events relating to voting throughout Election Day. You'll be able to see a map of each tweet, giving you the location and nature of each report from all over the state. If there's a machine problem, you'll know about it. If there's a counting issue, you'll know about it. If someone faints in line, quite likely you'll know about it.

My Twitter-friends at the Post tell me that the interactive map will be available at the Post's website, "often as the main art on the home page, at least until polls close, maybe longer." In addition, you'll be able to keep track moment-by-moment on Twitter by following PBP_votes and FloridaVotes.

And, hey, while you're at it, go ahead and follow me, too. You just might learn something. (You can follow Blast Off! as well and get instant updates on every post and comment. It's fun and it's free!)