republicans

Right after health care reform passed, we started hearing teabaggers and Republicans shouting for repeal. Now it looks like that might not be happening so much:

Anxious backers of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law are starting to see a flicker of hope.

While polls show Americans remain sharply divided over the Democrats' landmark legislation, they aren't clamoring for its repeal.

Instead, the public seems willing to listen to candidates who would give the overhaul a chance and fix or improve it as needed. That's the signal from some surveys and a congressional race in a bellwether Pennsylvania district.

It's a pragmatic, somewhat counterintuitive outlook.

That could be a break for Democrats in the fall elections, since Republicans are campaigning hard for repeal of the health care law.

"Though most Americans still do not favor the law, they tend to be leaning toward candidates who would give it a chance and make some changes, rather than those who would repeal it and start over again," said Robert Blendon, a Harvard public health school professor who follows opinion trends on health care.

I believe the big problem is that Americans realize our current system is really fubared. The only hope they have right now is with the current bill, flawed as it may be. Republicans aren't putting forth any plans to deal with soaring costs. They are playing right into the old "party of no" meme, and that is going to hurt them.

There has been non-stop talk this week about Joe Sestak's job offer by the Obama administration if he wouldn't run against Arlen Specter. Now we have some answers:

Senior White House advisers asked former President Bill Clinton to talk to Joe Sestak about whether he was serious about running for Senate, and to feel out whether he'd be open to other alternatives, according to sources familiar with the situation.

But the White House maintains that the Clinton-Sestak discussions were informal, according to the sources. The White House, under pressure to divulge the specifics of its interactions with Sestak, will release a formal statement later today outlining their version of events, including Clinton's involvement.

As Gregg points out, the fact that Clinton was actually involved in this shows how much the White House didn't want Specter to have to face Sestak in the primary. Regardless, I still don't see anything illegal, or even unethical in this. These are the type of games that happen in Washington all the time. Sure the people are tired of it, but Democratic and Republican administrations have both engaged in the same practices for decades. The Republicans calling for a special prosecutor is nothing more than a grand stand, but given that Clinton is involved now, I'm sure they will push it even more.

UPDATE:

Per a breaking news alert from AP, Clinton suggested an "unpaid, advisory role" to Sestak. So it wasn't even an actual "job", but rather letting Sestak stay in the House and also act as an advisor. Nothing wrong with that.

Welcome to my newest acronym – Angry Men With Guns. I came up with it while reading this article from Politico talking about the rise in threats against lawmakers. The key passage:

Though each threat case is different, the FBI documents reveal some common characteristics. The suspects are mostly men who own guns, and several had been treated for mental illness. Most of the suspects had just undergone some kind of major life stress, such as illness or the loss of a job.

So they not only have guns, but also mental illness? Now that’s some 2nd amendment yumminess right there. Kind of like this guy:

I voted for you,” the caller said in a voice mail to Democratic Rep. Heath Shuler’s district office. “If you vote for that stimulus package, I’m gonna kill you. Simple as that.”

The FBI says the caller was a 70-year-old resident of Shuler’s North Carolina district with a history of mental illness and a cache of guns. In the weeks before calling Shuler’s office, the FBI says, the caller beat and choked his wife. She told the FBI that she’d tried to clear her home of guns — and that she went to bed at night with a can of mace tucked under her pillow.

But we sure don’t need more gun control! The founding fathers intentions were that crazy people can get mad and threaten to blow away our democratically elected leaders, wasn’t it?

And you can be sure that if Congress took up more background checks for people buying guns and possibly denying people with mental issues, the Republicans would start screaming. That alone shows exemplifies the mental illness of the GOP.

This is one comparison I am really getting tired of:

The Obama Administration needs to recall that George W. Bush’s first nominee, Harriet Miers, was withdrawn after twenty-three days under not dissimilar circumstances: insufficient evidence in the nominee’s record to encourage his political base to become enthused about the nominee.

First off, John Roberts was actually Bush’s first nominee, but I just want to get the nitpicking out of the way.

Miers was not known at all when she was nominated. I remember that morning so well. There was a bipartisan reaction of “who is that” once Bush named her. Compare that to Kagan, who has been on the short list for over a year now. Even Republicans know her and have shown support for her. Miers had support from no one, not on the left or right.

And to even begin to compare the resumes of these two ladies is laughable. Kagan has a very distinguished career in academia, while Miers resume looks like that of someone who could never be happy at a job for longer than a couple of years.

But again, this all boils down to anti-Obama rhetoric. Obama could have appointed Robert Kennedy, jr. to the Supreme Court and the people at FDL would be upset and bashing Obama for it.

Adding…Would we much rather have John McCain as President and picking this justice? Look at his vetting process. It can all be summed up in two words – Sarah Palin. Enough said.

Here’s what Lindsey Graham said about attempted car bombing suspect Faisal Shahzad being read his rights:

Miranda warnings are counterproductive in my view,” Graham said at a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing Wednesday.

“The homeland is part of the battlefield. So this idea that you get to America, the rules dramatically change, to the benefit of the suspect – the terrorist – makes no sense,” he said.

So Lindsey doesn’t like the 5th amendment, but what about when it comes to suspected terrorists being able to buy guns?

Graham described the bill as an instrument of those who would ban guns altogether. "We're talking about a constitutional right here," he said, explaining that he could not support a bill that would force "innocent Americans" to "pay the cost of going to court to get their gun rights back."

I thought Graham was a lawyer? Doesn’t he understand that being read your rights is also a constitutional right?

Like I said yesterday, Democrats need to run on this big time. They need to point out that Republicans want to insure that suspected terrorists can still buy guns. Something like this: “Republicans want terrorists to be able to legal access the tools to kill you, your family and your neighbors. Why do the Republicans support terrorism?” If the tables were turned that is the exact kind of play the Republicans would be pulling right now.

With an ethics probe and calls for resignation mounting against John Ensign, the embattled Senator has one friend willing to lie for him – Joe Scarborough. This morning while discussing the ongoing trouble for Ensign, Scarborough asked if anyone called for John Edwards to resign when his affair came out.

Wait! Edwards resign?

Joe apparently forgot, or hoped his viewers did that John Edwards had nothing to resign from. When his affair broke Edwards presidential run was already over and he held no public office. What does Joe expect Edwards to resign from?

And let’s talk about reactions from scandal embroiled politicians on the left and right. On the left you have Eliot Spitzer, John Edwards and Eric Massa. Where are all of them in politics today? That’s right – they are out. Edwards was already out and Spitzer and Massa resigned.

On the right we have John Ensign, Mark Sanford and David Vitter. What are they up to now? Yup – still holding office. As matter of fact when someone talks about how these people should resign, then you end up with the Joe Scarboroughs out there defending them.

I’m not one who thinks politicians should have to resign from office when they have affairs. It really should be a private matter, but it was the Republicans who chose to make the sex life of our elected leaders a public issue. And it was Republicans who constantly tried to act like they held the morale high ground in American politics. Now that the Republicans have this taint called FoleyCraigVitterSanfordEnsignGingrich, they try and say that the sex lives of politicians should be a private matter. Sorry guys – you opened up this Pandora’s Box in the 90’s and you don’t get to chose when it will be closed.

If Charlie Crist ends up running as an Independent in the Florida Senate race and wins, the big question is who will he caucus with? I asked this question in a post a couple of weeks ago and now Crist has been asked about it in an interview (via TPM):

Q If you win as an independent, which party would you caucus with in Washington - the Republicans or Democrats?
A You're way ahead of me. One day at a time.

Here he has played the typical role of politician when it comes to evading questions, but it is interesting that he doesn’t seem so dedicated to the Republicans to answer that he will caucus with them. Even Joe Lieberman said he would caucus with the Democrats when he was facing losing the primary. The answer really leaves me wondering if Crist isn’t considering jumping ship if he wins as an independent. Now that would be very interesting.

From Another Black Conservative:

This story, like so many we have all heard before, is just more proof that the big government socialist model is ineffective. Just think, horny incompetents like the ones at the SEC will soon be involved with your health care.

First I really don’t see how this has anything to do with socialism. It sounds like someone needs to meet Mr. Dictionary. But even more interesting is how they are ignoring the elephant in the room. That elephant is named Chris Cox. These incidents happened when he was the head of the SEC, before President Obama took the oath of office. Cox, a former Republican congressman, was appointed by Bush and during his tenure as the chairman of the SEC we saw porn-gate erupt.

So what proof does this story really offer? If I had to pick something, I would say it proves that Republicans can not lead. They let the people under their command do whatever they want, like surf the internet for porn while the economy, which they are supposed to protect, goes over the cliff.