Remember, They're Evil

One Yankee fan, busy salivating over Joe Mauer, claims that Mauer "deserves" the big stage of New York.  Another Yankee fan takes the time to point out that this is why people hate Yankee fans...

“Deserves”. This one word gets Yankee fans in so much trouble. It implies a God-given right. We tend to think that we, the Yankees, deserve the best players because we’re New York, because we have the most money to spend, because we’ve won 27 World Series titles, etc… We don’t deserve anything more than what we go out and earn. Wins, respect, whatever. Joe Mauer doesn’t “deserve” New York anymore than New York “deserves” Joe Mauer. This is exactly the sort of sentiment that gives Yankee fans the reputation they have.


...You know who deserves Joe Mauer? The fine people of Minnesota.

He'll probably end up in New York, but that won't make the Yankees any less evil.

The Healthcare Follies Continue

The House has now endorsed the Slaughter solution, also known as DemonPass (if nothing else, the healthcare debate has been fantastic for revealing the creativity of conservatives in coming up with shorthand ways to refer to dumb Democratic ideas, such as the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase). Glad to see that hopenchange meant "congressman who seek to hide from their voting records".

I don't think Democrats get what they are doing -- they think this debate over process is just some hypocritical blather from the GOP. It may well be hypocritical -- but the way this debate is playing out is that the Democrats will pull every dirty trick possible to get legislation passed that the public does not want.  Forget the fact that the bill will be tied up by lawsuits related to constituionality and process now -- the Landmark Legal Fund already has the complaint drafted -- in addition to the lawsuits related to the individual mandate and other substantive provisions.  No, the political value in this thing is now gone -- saying you voted for a rule and not the Senate bill means nothing when it reiterates how fundamentally screwed up the process is.

I'm not even going to bother linking to whip counts now.  The CBO numbers are out, but already in dispute. Dan Foster does a nice job breaking down some issues...

Consider that $53 billion of the $118 billion in supposed savings over the first ten years of the latest bill (which is still a moving target) comes from increases in Social Security payroll tax revenues resulting from expected increases in wages (the idea being that employers will pay better in an Obamacare world). But even if it materializes, pegging that money to deficit reduction instead of to the continued solvency of Social Security is either naive, disingenuous or both. Likewise, the report counts as savings the estimated $70 billion in premiums to be colllected as part of a new government-run, long-term care program for the elderly. But just like premiums in the private sector, these funds will be used to pay out future benefits, not reduce the deficit.


Oh, and did we mention that the new bill borrows $19.1 billion in savings from the socialization of the student loan industry?


...Of course, most of this is small fry compared to the biggest con of all: the front-loaded taxes that push most of the bill's costs outside the CBO's ten-year budget window. Consider: the bill spends $17 billion in its first four years, and $923 billion in its next six.

You have to love the multi-tasking inclusion of student loans just to make the fake budget numbers work. It's even given us a new dirty provision: The Bismarck Bribe....

The legislation contains provisions apparently designed to ensure votes from wavering Democrats. As outlined in the House version, the compromise plan would give nonprofit loan providers in several states the right to participate, along with for-profit loan companies selected through a competitive process, in helping the Education Department distribute loan money to students.


A new element, included in the plan issued on Thursday, would give a specific right to the Bank of North Dakota to issue federally subsidized student loans, meaning that it would be the only lender remaining outside of the Education Department's direct-lending system.


The Bank of North Dakota is a state-owned lender that Democratic aides described as representing the type of nonprofit entity they want to encourage. Critics of the loan bill suggested the provision was designed to win the support of a key Democrat, Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee.

Seriously, I think the Democrats think they operate in a world of shadows or something, that the public won't see. There's also rumors about Dem Congressmen getting promises of federal jobs if they retire or are defeated. Tom Coburn, who's fast becoming one of my favorite politicians ever, is already firing a warning shot on this one. I think he's trying to tell the President and his supporters that they will toxify D.C. to the point where we very well may see cats and dogs living together.  This has more practical meaning than one can imagine -- the Dems can try to run against GOP obnstructionism all they want, but being a pain in the ass on executive appointments next spring is not exactly something that will rally voters.

As to the votes, there's so many counts out now that it's worthless.  Put it simply, there are probably 25-30 votes in play, almost certainly all Democrats.  It's close, so I think it will pass, because I can't see the Dems losing by a vote or two (in fact, I can see Pelosi delaying the vote even longer to get the last vote or two). But there's no way to know for sure until the vote is scheduled (probably for Sunday).  After that, expect hell to break loose.  Althoug I am a longstanding proponent of chaos, even I'm a little apprehensive about what voters might do if the Democrats do this.

Bababooey!

The Democrats are Communists.  Hey, I didn't say it.



(hat tip: Instapundit).

Now It's Getting Personal

Nationalize health care if you must, but jinxing my Wildcats is the last straw.  Have you no sense of decency left, Mr. President?

Surprise, Surprise

Jim Geraghty highlights one more broken promise from the President, this time on border security.  Leaving aside the merits of the issue, I'm wondering whether this announcement gets made now when the press is busy covering other things.  In the meantime, I'm really hoping he keeps his track record going by breaking the promise to pass health care reform.

The Health Care Follies Continue

The Democrats are apparently still waiting on a CBO score, which means the score they have isn't to thier liking.  Phillip Klein reports that all the gaming of the rules regarding reconciliation has left the Democrats with a problem in trying to formulate an actual reconciliation bill...

There are several things that Democrats are up against when it comes to the CBO score. The most important is that, based on reconciliation instructions, the “fix” bill must be shown to reduce the deficit. The challenge is, that’s after assuming that the Senate bill is law. In other words, the reconciliation bill can’t claim any of the deficit reduction from the Senate bill, but rather it must reduce the deficit relative to the Senate bill. Yet the changes that are being talked about will cost a lot of money. This includes eliminating the “Cornhusker kickback” and offering enhanced Medicaid subsidies to all states, increasing subsidies for the purchase of insurance, eliminating the so-called "donut hole" on Medicare prescription drug benefits, and whatever else they put in the bill. At the same time, delaying until 2018 the enactment of the “Cadillac tax” would be scored as a reduction in revenue, and thus add further to the deficit. They’d have to make up the gap through tax increases as well as try to siphon “savings” away from the student loan bill. (More on that here.) But evidently it seems like they’re running into trouble on this front.

The benefit of the Slaughter rule is that it's making people look at reconciliation as less unseemly.  I rarely see eye to eye with Jack Caffrey, but he's right when he says the Slaughter solution "reeks." (hat tip: Instapundit) He's also been joined by a Democratic Senator, who unlike Pelosi can't be assured of hanging onto her seat in Congress. The best argument Democrats seem to be able to muster in favor of this idiotic idea is that the GOP has done it in the past (although not for anything as big as reforming 16% of the American economy), a form of argument that wouldn't pass muster on an elemetary school playground. You cannot assert the propriety of the measure by invoking precedent -- that may be persuasive in the court of law, but pointing out the hypocricy of the other side (if I grant the argument that it's hypocritical) does not make this right.

Meanwhile, my Congressman's staff is calling the Capitol Police on his constituents.



I don't doubt that there's a rule against filming in Congressional offices, but perhaps Congressman Connolly's constituents can deem the rule no longer exists. And hey, I happened to glance at Congressman Connolly's webpage on how a bill becomes a law. I thought these passages were enlightening...

The consideration of a measure may be governed by a "rule." A rule is itself a simple resolution, which must be passed by the House, that sets out the particulars of debate for a specific bill—how much time will allowed for debate, whether amendments can be offered, and other matters.


...After a measure passes in the House, it goes to the Senate for consideration. A bill must pass both bodies in the same form before it can be presented to the President for signature into law.

Remember, a rule is a simple resolution. I'm assuming that "other matters" includes "doing an end-run around the Constitution so our weak-kneed members can avoid taking a tough vote."

Meanwhile, I'm not sure why Nancy Pelosi has called a woman's-only meeting of Democrats on Capitol Hill, other than to provide some intrigue to the process as it drags on and on. Yes, CNN is reporting that opponents of reform are close to killing the bill, but both sides are close... although it says a lot about the Democratic state of play that they are desperate to get Dennis Kucinich's vote-flip.

The Hill's health care whip count is here, FDL's is here, and Cost is here.  No matter what the count is, it won't matter until it's over, when either the President will be screwed (bill fails), or we'll all be screwed (bill passes).  Either way, it should be entertaining.

Album Cover Nostalgia

A new recurring series inspired by the Lord of Truth. We all remember certain album covers fondly -- here's one more.

Yes, this is inspired by American Idol, which I watch in order to keep peace in my home and allow for the corresponding willingness of the wife to watch Lost and FlashForward. But Idol had the Top 12 performing Stones songs this week, and I thought I should track down their first album cover.  I'm not a huge Stones fan, but they are definitely iconic, and this image of simpler days is kinda cool.

Help Me, Obi-Wan Kenobi -- I Need A Job

I'm wondering if the apology read, "We're sorry that you're a friggin' idiot."

2 Kewl 4 Skuul

I find this guy's story inspirational at a certain level -- I'm glad to know that he hasn't let his lack of certain skills (or what may be a handicap) hold him back.  That is fundamentally a good thing.  But... I have trouble with this idea: the President of the school board in Detroit struggles with "composing a coherent English sentence." 

Then again... how many people are left in Detroit anyway?

Government + Math = BS

It's a little long, but worth it.

The Health Care Follies Continue

I think today's the big day for the health care reform bill.  I haven't seen the CBO estimate yet, but it's got be coming soon in order to enable a House vote before the end of the week.  The President has made his last public pitch.  And if Pelosi doesn't schedule a vote by tomorrow, then doubt starts to kick in as to whether she can actually get the votes.

Speaking of the President's last health care pitch, this is too funny...

Natoma Canfield, the cancer-stricken woman who has become a centerpiece of President Obama's push for health care reform, will not lose her home over her medical bills and will probably qualify for financial aid, a top official at the Cleveland medical center treating her told FoxNews.com.

Though Canfield's sister Connie Anderson said her sibling is afraid she'll lose her house and Obama warned at an Ohio rally Monday that the patient is "racked with worry" about the cost of tests and treatment, she is already being screened for financial help.

Lyman Sornberger, executive director of patient financial services at the Cleveland Clinic, said "all indications" at the outset are that she will be considered for assistance.

"She may be eligible for state Medicaid ... and/or she will be eligible for charity (care) of some form or type. ... In my personal opinion, she will be eligible for something," he said, adding that Canfield should not be worried about losing her home.

"Cleveland Clinic will not put a lien on her home," he said.

Cleveland Clinic offers personal guides to patients like Canfield who are concerned about payment to try to match them up with programs that can provide full or partial assistance. One option is state Medicaid coverage, which Canfield did not have when she was admitted. Another is charity care that is routinely provided by the hospital, which is a nonprofit. Cleveland Clinic reported providing $99 million in charity care in 2008.

...Anderson said her sister expects to spend at least 28 days in the hospital. She said Canfield has her own cleaning business but does not have any kind of health coverage, adding that for now nobody is paying for her stay at the Cleveland Clinic.

But Sornberger said that even if Canfield doesn't qualify for charity care or Medicaid, "there's probably eight to 10 options that a patient has" to find payment.

What I'm reading here is that Natoma Canfield seems to be a good argument for keeping the current system. Or that while she has problems, they're probably not worth blowing up the current system. And keep in mind, someone at the ever-competent White House thought this would be a good way to make the final sales pitch on health care. If the government runs health care the way the Obama campaign team has run the White House, I'm going to start investing the funeral home business. Heck, Obama even got some opposition among his pre-selected crowd.  Robert Samuelson also did a nice job of tearing down some of the substantive arguments in favor of the bill in his column, which is well worth a read.

Meanwhile, back in the alternate world of Capitol Hill, where Pelosi continues to try and pull in votes, Ramesh Ponnoru makes a good point about the Slaughter Solution, which makes less sense by the day (in addition to being sleazy and borderline unconstitutional)...

Any House Democrat who votes for the rule that allows the Senate bill to be deemed passed will be voting for the Senate bill. A foreseeable consequence of that vote is that the Senate bill may become law while some of the fixes the House votes for do not. It is entirely fair for Republican opponents of any House Democrat who votes for the Slaughter rule to tie him to the Senate bill. Republicans will be able to say, fairly, that such a House Democrat has voted for the Senate bill — kickbacks and all — and tried to hide the fact. Republicans may as well point out now that that's exactly what they're going to do.

That's about right -- and as much as I think former Judge Michael McConnell is right about the issue, I doubt the Supreme Court would invalidate healthcare reform because of Pelosi's gambit (although the awesomeness of such a moment in creating spectacular constitutional chaos almost makes me wish for it).  The real problem for the Democrats is that this looks awful politically -- they're racing to pass the bill, and using every technique possible to justify it.  Even Ezra Klein, who's the left wing blogger version of the Energizer Bunny on healthcare reform, thinks the Slaughter Solution is politically idiotic.  Other liberals are coming up with really bad analogies, like this one from Tim Noah...

As Slate's John Dickerson explained March 10, this would be achieved by a "self-executing rule" that would allow the House to "deem" the Senate bill already passed as it considers the clean-up reconciliation bill containing various corrections demanded by the House and the Obama White House. A sort of virgin birth, if you will, with the Senate cast as Mary, the House cast as Joseph, and health care reform cast as the baby Jesus.

...If this is what it takes to pass health care reform, maybe it's best to avert your gaze as you might do while attending certain rituals of far-flung premodern civilizations. Even better: Do as the Three Wise Men did. Skip labor and delivery and arrive two weeks later to appraise the newborn babe.

Since I'm not Christian, I can avoid being offended at the comparison of healthcare reform to that religion's savior (and even many Democrats should find this formulation problemaic, based on the deification of the President during his campaign... although maybe the bill is now the Son of Obama, which makes the President... my head hurts). As Jim Geraghty notes, the headline to the left isn't exactly what a supporter of the health care reform bill would like to read.  The GOP figured out how bad this looks and is trying to force the Democrats to vote on the gambit, as reported by Michelle Malkin, who also points out that Democrats have another problem -- they're losing support from normally reliable newspaper editorial boards.  That means Obamacare may be losing votes in the moderate-left of center, which is where they need support to pass the bill.

I'd rehash whip counts, but The Hill's running tab is fine for that. FireDogLake is here, and Jay Cost is here. Of course, whip counts don't matter when Dems seemingly flip for no reason at all, like Dan Maffei, although I'm guessing the "pro-village burning" line will find a way into a campaign ad this fall.  As to what's going on now with Pelosi's persuasion, Yuval Levin has a good point...

In their Politico piece noting that Pelosi has declared the reconciliation bill closed, Patrick O’Connor and Jonathan Allen suggest that Pelosi’s announcement means the wheeling and dealing for votes is over, and all that remains is an ideological appeal for votes. But members who were open to such appeals would have been on board with this bill long ago. In fact, what remains are deals outside of the health-care bill. What Pelosi is doing now is offering wavering members a variety of gifts and goodies that will be included in other bills (or in administration actions) between now and the November elections — and especially in this year’s appropriations bills. These deals will be much harder to discern than the crude buy-offs that Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, and others obtained for their states in the Senate health-care negotiations. They will no-doubt involve money and other favors for members’ districts or powerful constituents in unrelated bills — from transportation funds to Medicare payment decisions to an assortment of pet projects. And they will need to be delivered regardless of whether Pelosi gets enough members to switch their votes this way to actually pass the bill.

These special dispensations will present themselves in the course of the coming months, but we will probably never have a full picture of what they involve, and what it really took to get “no” votes from last time to switch (assuming any actually do so, of course.) We won’t know, that is, unless political reporters stop covering this week as though it involves a wonky substantive debate among House Democrats and started asking the Speaker and any members who change their votes about just what the “persuasion” process has involved.

I think the process for this bill will end up exposing a lot of those deals, whether the Speaker intended that or not. And the public will be even more offended by Congress' conduct, which should serve everyone well heading into the fall elections.  I'll give the last word to Megan McArdle...

So now I'm thinking about another political problem. Assume this passes; what happens afterward? I don't think that many people believe that the answer is "Nothing: the bill becomes law, and we sing happy smurf songs all the way to the longest life expectancy in the Western world!" Even the bill's proponents expect it will need some follow-up work. But what will that follow-up work look like?

Worst case scenario for Democrats: a wave of public outrage like the one that followed Cat Care, aka The Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 (and its step-child, the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Repeal Act of 1989). This strikes me as quite likely, actually. If this passes, yes, you will have AARP support and a wave of positive coverage from 90% liberal media. These things did not save Cat Care from a wave of angry public protest. I mean, really angry.

...My nightmare is that they repeal everything except the really popular thing, which is to say the ban on rescission and exclusions for pre-existing conditions. These are basically free, and they're by far the most popular part of the legislation, as far as I can tell.

I'm not exactly a fan of rescission, and to the extent that it is being abused by insurance companies, they deserve whatever regulatory penalties they get. But without rescission, the natural thing to do is to wait until you get sick, and then lie on your insurance application. Like bans on pre-existing conditions, this leads to the classic "insurance death spiral" where the only people who want to buy the insurance are the people who expect to need more care than the cost of the premiums, causing the pool to shrink and the prices to rise.

...Would Obama dare veto it? When there's no longer an unpopular Democratic Congress to hide behind? One hopes, for the good of the country. But while so far the president has been enthusiastically urging members to lean into the strike zone and take one for the team, I've seen little indication that he's willing to risk his own job.

So what she's saying is... we're all screwed. Woo-hoo!

No Media Bias To See Here

Apparently, the L.A. Times is interested in the fact that Justice Clarence Thomas' wife is involved in the Tea Party movement.  But they seemed relatively uninterested in the fact that both Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor -- the Justices themselves, not their spouses -- were intimately involved in political causes prior to taking the bench.  And Eugene Volokh notes that several circuit court judges have spouses with political jobs, including one whose spouse is the current Governor of Pennsylvania (and the former head of the Democratic National Committee).  But hey, that would require reporting, rather than agenda-driven writing.

Questions No One in Power Will Probably Answer

I'm not going to take a position on this question, except to say that the data is probably fodder for the next version of Freakonomics.

Hello, Everybody!

Craig Calcaterra says the Phillies use this picture on the scoreboard when describing the location of their spring training stadium's first aid facility.  I love this team.

The HealthCare Follies Continue

If I could make sense of the health care mess.... well, maybe I can, but let's start with the storyline.

First, over the weekend, the Democrats announced that they were pretty much giving up on getting everyone in Bart Stupak's coalition to come back into the fold...

Stupak notes that his negotiations with House Democratic leaders in recent days have been revealing. “I really believe that the Democratic leadership is simply unwilling to change its stance,” he says. “Their position says that women, especially those without means available, should have their abortions covered.” The arguments they have made to him in recent deliberations, he adds, “are a pretty sad commentary on the state of the Democratic party.”

They may get some of stupak's coalition, but not all.  Stupak's more electrifying charge (that Democrats actually argued that the amendment created more costs due to more babies being born) is apparently an argument he's heard from individual Democrats, but not the House leadership. It's still pretty appalling, and sure as hell sounds like a death panel, as Allahpundit noted. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, who previously backed the House bill, have now jumped ship. Perhaps they don't believe the Senate simply made a typo in another provision that could lead to publicly-funded abortions...

Liberals wanted to expand the reach of community health centers, which have provided low-cost health care to people in underserved areas since the 1960s. And they wanted the health care bill to commit $7 billion for these health centers. The moderates agreed, and new language was hurriedly added to the Senate bill.


"This is all stuff that was inserted late at night and they were trying to reach a final agreement" on the bill, says Timothy Jost, a professor and health law expert at the Washington and Lee University School of Law. Unfortunately, no one remembered to write in an explicit provision explaining that this $7 billion in spending for the health care centers would be subject to all the usual restrictions on how federal money is spent. One of those restrictions, the so-called Hyde Amendment, prohibits most federal funding for abortions.


..."It seems that this is something that slipped by," Jost says, "because elsewhere in the bill they made [funding] subject to [the Hyde amendment]."


And that's how a silly slip-up allowed the anti-abortion forces to issue the dubious claim that this bill will unleash a flood of federally-funded abortions. But though the Democrats' omission makes it easier for anti-abortion rights groups to claim the community health care ceneters funding could pay for abortions, it doesn't make it true.


Community health centers don't perform abortions. They never have—not even in the 1960s and 1970s before the Hyde Amendment was introduced. And they don't plan to in the future. In a statement issued last week, the clinics' umbrella organization, the National Association of Community Health Centers (NACHC), said that "health centers do not plan to, nor are they seeking to, become providers of abortion." And Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius has pledged that none of the money from the health care bill will be used to fund abortions at community health centers.

The problem is that leaving a loophole like that is an invitation for someone to abuse in the future.  None of the points mentioned above prevent someone from using the loophole to fund abortions in the future. Even if you agree that it's a typo, then it brings to mind the question of why we should trust Congress enough to believe there aren't additional "typos" that will come to light later, when they're rushing to try and pass a bill before the President heads overseas (and before their members go home for an Easter recess that might not be so restful). Maybe they can use Nancy Pelosi's latest stupid argument in favor of the bill -- unemployed artists will no longer have to find jobs to finance their health care, since the government will subsidize it, allowing them to not work and pursue their life's dream!  Hey, I can finally puruse my dream of being an "artist" who watches TV all day!  But that's all backdrop for the real remaining issue -- the vote count.

The White House is confident it will have passage of the week -- so confident that two major advisors essentially guaranteed it on the Sunday talk shows.  Of course, the House Majority Whip (you know, the guy who actually has to count the votes for the Democrats) says they don't have the votes yet.  Which means the White House is still looking for votes, which might be why they're suddenly backtracking on the President's pledge not to have any more special deals in the legislation...

Still seeking votes for his proposed health care overhaul, President Barack Obama appears ready to reverse his position and allow unpopular deal-sweetening measures in the hopes of finding Democratic support for legislation whose future will be decided in coming days.


...Clinching support, though, might require Obama to back away from his insistence that senators purge the legislation of a number of lawmakers' special deals.


Taking a new position, Axelrod said the White House only objects to state-specific arrangements, such as an increase in Medicaid funding for Nebraska, ridiculed as the "Cornhusker Kickback." That's being cut, but provisions that could affect more than one state are OK, Axelrod said.


That means deals sought by senators from Montana and Connecticut would be fine — even though Gibbs last week singled them out as items Obama wanted removed. There was resistance, however, from two committee chairman, Democratic Sens. Max Baucus of Montana and Chris Dodd of Connecticut, and the White House has apparently backed down.


Axelrod said the principles the White House wants to apply include "Are these applicable to all states? Even if they do not qualify now, would they qualify under certain sets of circumstances?"

Somewhere, Jim Geraghty is updating his line that all of Barack Obama's promises have an expiration date. However, the real issue is why Gibbs and Axelrod would issue such blanket guarantees.  I think there's a combination of two things going on here.  First, they have some degree of confidence (hopeful confidence? desperate confidence?) that Nancy Pelosi will get the votes somehow, despite the loss of at least a few Stupak bloc voters.  The second issue is that they're trying to create a sense of inevitability and momentum for the bill -- it can't be stopped, so people (or at least, wavering House Democrats) should get on board.  I think it's a mix of both, really, but the question House Democrats have to be asking is whether they can really trust this Administration to get the pulse of America right.

Axelrod seems to saying that he wants the GOP to make the fall elections about the health care bill.  I think what House members realize is that the GOP does not have to do it -- the Tea Parties, the independants, and the core GOP base are already making it about the bill, without much in the way of urging from the GOP leadership.  The rebellion against the health care reform bills and process wasn't coordinated from above, much as the Obama Administration fervently wishes it were.  The fact that it comes from the grass roots means that the arguments Axelrod is making will be arguments that Democratic candidates will be having with constituents as much as with opponents.  And when you're arguing with people, it's tough to get their vote.

And this is before we get to the optics of the situation -- and here's new Senator Scott Brown,who is the walking, talking symbol of what this debate has cost Democrats, delivering Saturday's GOP response to the President's weekly radio address...

Maybe you remember what President Obama promised in his State of the Union address. He said he was going to finally focus on jobs and the economy for the remainder of this year. I applauded him for that. Well, here it is, it’s almost spring. And what is he out there talking about again? That same 2,700-page, multi-trillion dollar healthcare legislation.


So, an entire year has gone to waste. Millions of Americans have lost their jobs, and many more jobs are in danger. Even now, the president still hasn’t gotten the message.


Somehow, the greater the public opposition to the healthcare bill, the more determined they seem to force it on us anyway. Their attitude shows Washington at its very worst – the presumption that they know best, and they’re going to get their way whether the American people like it or not.


And, when politicians start thinking like that, they don’t let anything get in their way – not public opinion, not the rules of fair play, not even their own promises.


They pledged transparency. Instead, we have a healthcare bill tainted by secrecy, concealed cost, and full of backroom deals – and that’s just not right. They should do better. The American people expect more.

Let the vote-counting continue. Firedoglake's estimate is here. Jay Cost is here. The Hill is here. I have no count, but a prediction that the bill with either pass by a small majority, or go down in flames as moderate Dems bail and are followed by liberals seeking to make a statement on the bill not going far enough.

At the end of the day, I doubt the bill dies, even if it doesn't pass this week. The Obama Administration needs a win, no matter how many votes this costs them in the fall. I think the longer this carries on, the worse things get for them, and I don't just mean this fall. The chicanery being used to push this bill through... well, let's just say a declaration of Shenanigans is coming.



Get your brooms.

What Annoying Song Is Stuck In My Head Today?

If I need to suffer with a song stuck in my head, why shouldn't you have to do the same? Sometimes they're good, most times they're bad... but no matter what, they make you suffer. So I like to share the suffering whenever it happens.

I used to find this song much more annoying, back when I was in college and heard it approximately 742 times per week. And it's actually a really good song, overplay aside. And if someone had told folks my junior year of high school that Guns N' Roses would be a musical afterthought by the time we graduated college... well, Axl was pretty much insane.



You're welcome.

Ozzie Rocks

Chalk one up for Ozzie Guillen, for having the brains to call Sean Penn a "clown."  I'd go with douchebag, but even that seems too kind.

One more thing, Sean: Hugo Chavez is a dictator, even if you're too dumb to realize it.