House passes health care reform, Obama to sign.

I've been busy with a number of things, but I've been watching the events taking place on the health care debate. After the Senate passed the health care reform bill in December, the bill went into a torturous reconciliation process, where a number of House Democrats did not like the Senate version of the bill. There was a lot of back-and-forth going on between the two chambers, topped with Republican congress-critters tossing threats and temper tantrums at the Democrats for trying to reconcile the two bills. Even President Barack Obama canceled his East Asian trip to perform some last-minute arm twisting on House Democrats to vote for the health reform package.

So today was the big day for the House to debate and approve the Senate version of the health care reform bill.

The House approved the Senate's health care reform bill 219-212. From ABC News:

The House of Representatives passed the sweeping health care bill with a narrow margin, securing a significant victory for President Obama, who lobbied hard this week for the controversial legislation.

The vote was certain after the House Democratic leadership finalized a deal this afternoon with anti-abortion Democrats to vote for the health care bill in exchange for an executive order from Obama affirming no federal funding for abortion.

The House today voted on two separate pieces of legislation. One, the Senate health care bill and second, the amendments to that bill made by House members and Obama.

The bill now goes to the president's desk to sign, after which it will become law. The White House has not yet decided where or when Obama will sign the Senate health care bill, which he needs to do before the "fixes" to that bill begin to be debated in the Senate, though White House officials say it will not be this evening.

As the last speaker before the vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said that by passing the bill, Congress would be taking a historic step.

"We will be joining those who established Social Security, Medicare and now, tonight, health care for all Americans," Pelosi said.

The bill still has to go back to the Senate for approval of reconciliation "fixes" that House Democrats have proposed. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid assured the House, Saturday, that he has the 51 majority vote needed to pass the fixes, with the Senate expected to pick up the bill on Tuesday. Health care reform will be law.

Watching this debate unfold, what really interested me here is a couple of factors. The big factor has been the Republican response to the entire health care debate. The GOP never wanted any such health care reform passed--be it a Democratic health care reform or a Republican health care reform. In fact, I don't think the Republicans had a health care reform package they could sell to the American public. They never bothered taking up the mantle of health care reform, at least since President Richard Nixon looked at reforming a national health insurance plan for Americans. The GOP and the health insurance industry completely shot down President Bill Clinton's health care plan in 1994. Even when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress under George W. Bush, they never bothered looking at health care, with the exception of passing the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act in 2003. But the prescription drug act is not passing a comprehensive health care bill for all Americans, but rather overhauling Medicare to provide prescription drugs to its recipients. But when you get Blue Cross raising health insurance premiums to its customers by 39 percent this month, and around 45 million Americans are uninsured, the Republicans have turned a blind eye to this growing problem. For the past two years, the GOP refused to join the Democrats in a bipartisan attempt to reform health care, using obstructionism, threats, lies, and deceit as a means to kill health care reform--Death panels anyone? The Republicans thought that by playing the obstructionist game, then Americans would suffer so much under a crushing health care system, job losses, a recessionary economy, and all sorts of other problems, that they would vote the Democrats out of Congress, and bring the Republicans back into the majority. Then the Republicans could play even more obstructionism against President Obama until 2012, when Sarah Palin will be elected into the Oval Office? So the Republicans were united in opposing health care reform. The vote even shows such opposition, since not one Republican House member voted for the health reform bill tonight.

That has all changed. Republican obstructionism failed. It brings me to a second factor in that the passage of this health care bill was a victory that President Obama really needed to re-energize his presidential agenda. Health care reform was a major Obama campaign promise during the 2008 presidential election. When President Obama stepped into the Oval Office, he tried to fulfill his promise of health care reform, but made some serious mistakes. The first mistake Obama made was that he never took the bully pulpit and tell Congress, "This is what I want from health care reform. Here are my proposals, now let us work together in creating real reform." I got the impression that Obama administration took a hands off approach to health care reform, instead saying, "Okay Congress, pass some health care legislation so I can sign it." Talk about a near recipe for disaster. Both congressional houses passed their own versions of health care reform bill which neither house liked the other chamber's bill. I am actually amazed at how close the bill passed tonight. The second mistake the Obama administration made in health care was really allowing the Republicans to control the message on health care for the past couple of years. Think about it--what do you remember of the message on health care reform? I remember death panels, Obamacare killing grandma, Obamacare reducing your Medicare benefits, Obamacare raising taxes, and Obamacare. I remember Tea Party protests, town hall disruptions organized by conservative groups, and even health insurance industry urging their employees to attend protest groups against health care reform. Looking back at the debate in 2009, it seemed like the message pounded into the American public was that health care reform was a terrible bill--look at all these Americans who are afraid of the evils of health care reform. Health care reform should be stopped. That was the message, brought to you by the Republican Party. I never heard much from the Obama administration to counter the Republican spin on health care. And yet, I look at the polls on the health care debate, Americans are split on whether they approve or disapprove of health care reform--it actually depends on how the question is phrased to shift Americans' opinions for either approval or disapproval on the issue. So President Obama lost the message on health care reform to the Republicans. That should have been enough to kill the issue, but it didn't.

Health care reform passed. I think in the last three months, President Obama and the Democrats woke up to the possibility that this reform bill will not pass. The turning point may have been when Massachusetts Republican state senator Scott Brown won a huge victory over Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley for the late Ted Kennedy's vacant Senate seat in late January. Republicans thought that this was the American voters' repudiation of President Obama, and the congressional Democrats, agenda. I think it is a voter's anger over incumbents--both Democrat and Republican. Either way, this was a wake-up call for both President Obama and the Democrats. They needed to pass health care soon, and show a major legislative achievement for the Democrats, and a political victory for President Obama. President Obama needed to show the American people that he could deliver a campaign promise--especially during a troubled economic time, where Americans are worried about their jobs, their financial situation, the housing crisis, and the health care crisis.

Not only that, but 2010 is a midterm election year, where the president's party usually loses seats. If the health care reform debate was dragged out into the late summer/early fall, the Republicans would use health care in attack ads against Democrats in conservative-leaning states and districts. Those Democratic lawmakers would be more worried about their jobs, rather than about passing legislation. Health care would never have passed. And if the Republicans did take control of at least one house, we'll say the Senate, then the GOP majority leadership would simply throw the health care reform bill in the trash. Of course, the Republicans will obviously use this passage of health care reform in attack ads against the Democrats, but President Obama can also tell American voters that he fulfilled his campaign promise to deliver health care reform. This is huge. If President Obama failed at passing health care reform, I think it would have emboldened the Republicans, and conservative constituents, into greater attacks against the Democrats, and the president, for control of Congress. Such emboldened conservative constituents may have gone out of their way to vote Republican candidates in. The Democrats failure at passing health care reform would have also angered their liberal constituents. Would liberal Democrats have gone out of their way to vote for Democratic candidates that failed to deliver on health care reform? I'm sure there are plenty of liberal activists that are speculating on whether to replace those Democratic House members that have voted against the health care reform bill.

Finally, there is President Obama. This could have been a huge failure for the President, who was elected into office on a campaign promise of hope and change. Americans wanted change. If President Obama failed to pressure the Democrats into passing health care reform, he would have been seen by Americans as a president who could not deliver on his campaign promise of hope and change. President Obama would certainly have been a lame duck in the final two years of his first term in office--especially if an emboldened GOP gained control of the Senate. But now, the midterm elections have been changed. President Obama can sell his health care campaign promise to the American voters. The Democrats can attack the Republicans as being against providing affordable health care to Americans. The Republicans can still still play obstructionism and use fear attacks against the president and the Democrats on health care, however, I think the fear factor will be greatly diminished against the moderates and independents (the hard-lined conservatives will still believe in Obamacare's death panels).

This midterm election will still be about the issue of health care. But now the focus will shift to what will this new health care law do for the American voter? Instead of fear-mongering, the issue will be on legal specifics of this law. I think that will be more difficult for Republicans to raise with their fear-mongering, which they will still engage in. Finally, this huge hurdle is over for the Democrats and President Obama--they can now concentrate on other issues, such as financial reform, or jobs. President Obama and the congressional Democrats can work on passing more legislation, against Republican obstructionism, that they can also sell to the American voters. With the health care reform bill passed, American voters can now decide if this is the direction that they want to see their country heading towards, and vote accordingly. This is a whole new midterm election.

GOP leaders tell House Republicans to behave

This is just very interesting. From Who Runs Gov, via Americablog:

House GOP leaders are urging fellow Republicans to control their tempers and avoid any repeat performances of Joe Wilson’s “you lie” outburst at tonight’s State of the Union speech.

House Republican leaders warned rank and file Republican members in a private meeting this morning to show the President “respect” during tonight’s speech, two sources familiar with the meeting tell me.

House GOP leader John Boehner, minority whip Eric Cantor, and leading House conservative Mike Pence all stood up and delivered that message to the closed-door House GOP caucus meeting today.

“All of them talked about how the President is a guest,” one senior House GOP aide who was there tells me.

Separately, Cantor did a round of local radio interviews in his home state of Virginia vowing that attendees would treat the President “respectfully.”

For his part, Wilson is promising to behave: “I am a gentleman.”

I wonder how many of these House Republicans will behave during President Obama's SOTU address tonight? Or will the Senate Republicans degenerate into bratty children tonight?

Update: Perhaps the Congressional Republicans will take a page out of this brilliantly funny SNL strip:

31 House Republicans support resolution honoring alleged felon James O'Keefe

Okay, now the James O'Keefe story is entering into the Twilight Zone. Now Media Matters is reporting that Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX) has introduced a resolution praising O'Keefe for his investigation into the ACORN activities. Here is the text of the resolution:

Text of the House Resolution:

Whereas Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe III filmed investigatory videos uncovering the fraudulent and illegal practices of the Association of Community Organization for Reform Now (ACORN);

Whereas the House of Representatives voted to completely defund ACORN on September 17, 2009;

Whereas these videos resulted in the potential annual savings of millions of taxpayer dollars to organizations that contract with ACORN;

Whereas Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe III have displayed exemplary actions as government watchdogs and young journalists uncovering wasteful government spending; and

Whereas Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe III are owed a debt of gratitude by the people of the United States:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives— (1) honors Hannah Giles and James O’ Keefe III for their work as investigative journalists; (2) commends Hannah Giles and James O’ Keefe III for bringing to light the fraudulent behavior of the Association of Community Organization for Reform Now (ACORN) and helping save millions of taxpayer dollars that otherwise would have funded ACORN; and (3) respectfully requests the Clerk of the House to transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution to Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe III.

Even more insane, Olson's resolution has picked up support by 31 House Republicans. Media Matters has the names of these supporters:

Todd Akin [R-MO2]
Roscoe Bartlett [R-MD6]
Joe Barton [R-TX6]
Rob Bishop [R-UT1]
Jo Bonner [R-AL1]
John Boozman [R-AR3]
Paul Broun [R-GA10]
Henry Brown [R-SC1]
John Campbell [R-CA48]
John Carter [R-TX31]
Howard Coble [R-NC6]
Tom Cole [R-OK4]
Michael Conaway [R-TX11]
John Culberson [R-TX7]
Mary Fallin [R-OK5]
Trent Franks [R-AZ2]
Louis Gohmert [R-TX1]
Kay Granger [R-TX12]
Ralph Hall [R-TX4]
Jim Jordan [R-OH4]
Steve King [R-IA5]
John Kline [R-MN2]
Doug Lamborn [R-CO5]
Blaine Luetkemeyer [R-MO9]
Daniel Lungren [R-CA3]
Kenny Marchant [R-TX24]
Joseph Pitts [R-PA16]
Bill Posey [R-FL15]
Phil Roe [R-TN1]
Jean Schmidt [R-OH2]
John Shadegg [R-AZ3]

According to Govtrack.us, the resolution was introduced on October 7, 2009, and is currently sitting in the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. So obviously this resolution was introduced well before O'Keefe got busted today on the wiretapping charges. And I'm certainly guessing that the Democratic leadership are more than happy to toss this resolution into the committee trash can. This makes me wonder--will Olson and his GOP cosponsors continue to support this resolution, now that O'Keefe has been arrested on felony charges? This resolution is certainly making Olson and his 31 Republican cosponsors looking really stupid now.

Talking Points Memo now has the federal affidavit detailing the charges against O'Keefe.

Cantor calls Democrats "overreacting" to U.S. economic crisis

This is from Talking Points Memo:

It's hard to tell if Eric Cantor's testing a new message, or if this is the new Republican line on the Democrats and the state of affairs in the country, but Politico reports that, at the Christian Science Monitor breakfast this morning, the House GOP whip, said Democrats are "overreacting, as they often will, to crisis."

But back to this morning. Cantor told participants that "Doing too much has huge, huge pitfalls," better, in other words, to err on the side of doing too little.

Then, after praising Rush Limbaugh, he added that those pitfalls might propel Republicans back into control of the House in 2010--a feat that would require them, in historic fashion, to take at least 40 seats back from the Democrats.

Here is House GOP Leader Eric Cantor's quote of the Democrats overreacting to the economic crisis:

“As far as Rush, Rush has got ideas. He’s got following. He believes in the conservative principles that many of us believe in –- of lower taxes, of making sure that we turn back towards a focus on entrepreneurialism in this country, to promoting innovation and not stamping that out by over-reacting, if you will, which this town often does, to crisis.”

You can listen to the audio here via Plum Line.

The only thing I can think of is that Cantor is trying to galvanize the conservative base in opposing President Barack Obama's budget, and economic stimulus plan. And Cantor is talking to the base here by equating radio commentator Rush Limbaugh's "ideas" as a...conservative mandate? Rush Limbaugh wants President Obama to fail. I'm guessing that Cantor, since he believes in Rush's ideas, also wants President Obama to fail. Is this the Republican Party stance now? Because the day President Obama took the oath of office, the Republican congressional minority has been obstructing and criticizing everything the Obama White House, and the Democratic congressional leadership, have attempted to do in slowing the serious economic recession this country is currently in.

Of course, there is more. There is this incredibly insane quote from Cantor that the Democrats are "overreacting" to the nation's economic crisis. Overreacting? Excuse me, Mr. Cantor, but it was the Republican leadership in Congress, and the Bush White House that got us into this mess in the first place. That was when the GOP forced these huge tax cuts to the rich, while at the same time sent the U.S. into two disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, paying for everything by the nation's credit card. The Bush administration refused to enforce any type of regulatory oversight in the financial industry--let alone any industry--during the past eight years. Not only have we doubled our own national debt, from $5 trillion to $10 trillion dollars under the Bush administration, but an entire Ponzi scheme of repackaging investment securities based on over-valued home prices and subprime mortgages was also built up--even to the point of making exotic derivative hedges on these investments based on bad subprime debt. This entire house of cards has now crashed down, leading to a collapse of Wall Street investment firms and the billions of American taxpayer dollars that have been spent to bail these investment firms out. American consumers have closed up their wallets, fearful over whether they will still have a job, fearful of whether they can afford their homes--whose values have dropped underwater--and fearful of their retirement funds having been wiped out by this collapse. The U.S. is in a serious economic recession here that will not only take hundreds of billions of dollars of economic stimulus, but a serious reevaluation of how the federal government will regulate the business and financial industry to avoid construction of another house of cards. But Eric Cantor says that the Democrats are overreacting to this serious economic crisis.

I really do not know what to say.

Update: Looks like the Democratic Party has quickly responded to Cantor's rhetoric:

Boehner calls for a government spending freeze

I saw this story on the Rachel Maddow Show, and I'm not sure what to say. Apparently House Minority Leader John Boehner has decided to cope with this nation's 8.1 percent unemployment rate by calling for a government spending freeze:

ABC News’ Rick Klein Reports: House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, reacted to the rise in unemployment today by calling for a federal government spending freeze.

“Washington Democrats seem more determined than ever to continue pursuing tax hikes and pork-barrel spending increases that are only proving to make matters worse,” said Boehner, R-Ohio, in a statement.

“President Obama campaigned against wasteful spending last year and has renewed commitment to fight it now that he is in office. I hope he will follow through on that promise by vetoing this legislation if it passes the Senate and working with House Republicans to enact a spending freeze for the remainder of this fiscal year.”

Boehner is criticizing Senate Democrats as they scramble to find votes to pass a $410 billion spending bill to cover the federal government's expenditures for the rest of the fiscal year. This bill includes "discretionary" spending by around 8 percent, which includes some 8,500 earmarked special projects, worth around $7.7 billion, that have been inserted by both Democratic and Republican lawmakers.

Now here is Rachel talking about Boehner's blunder:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Rachel beautifully sums up the problem with Boehner's spending freeze idea. We have too much supply and not enough demand for goods in this country. The demand side of the economy has come to a halt due to the credit freeze, financial meltdown and the housing crisis. Americans are not buying. And when Americans are not buying, companies cannot keep employees on the payroll, since they can't sell their products. So companies lay off employees--who are also consumers that will cut their own spending on goods, forcing companies to cut payrolls even further of workers, forcing those workers to cut back on their own spending, and the whole mess just continues to snowball into an even bigger pile of crap. There needs to be an interruption in this cycle, and the interruption is the federal government spending. The federal government becomes the demand in hiring American workers for projects, giving American workers the paychecks they need to purchase more stuff--to stimulate the demand side. As Americans purchase more stuff, the supply goes down, causing companies to hire more American workers to produce more supply of goods. However the Republicans want to cut this demand by a spending freeze. "No one but the federal government really has the necessary cash to do a whole lot of buying right now," said Rachel. "In this context, the Republicans are proposing a spending freeze. They are saying the government should stop spending. Also, rather than put your house fire out with water, they are going to switch the liquid in the fire hose to gasoline. Does that seem like a good idea?"

There are days that I wonder if the Republican Party stands for anything, or if they are just opposing the Democrats and President Barack Obama just for spite. This whole idea of a government spending freeze during this severe economic recession is beyond outrageous--almost descending into the realm of incompetent stupidity. The U.S. economy is seriously hurting, and American consumers are broke. So many Americans have lost their jobs, have lost--or are probably losing--their homes, and are struggling to make ends meet. American consumers are not going to pick up spending, and increase demand. Only the federal government has the resources to increase demand and stimulate the economy. And the Republicans want to douse the burning house fire with gasoline.

Of course, this isn't about the U.S. economy here. Again, it is about playing politics. The reason for this Republican spending freeze is to obstruct the $410 billion spending bill because it $31 billion larger than last years bill, and it contains $7.7 billion dollars in earmark spending. Again, the GOP has no policy ideas, except for the same failed tax cut ideas that got us into this mess in the first place under the Bush administration. So the Republicans are latching on to this almost $8 billion in earmark spending, claiming it is too much for the government and are holding up a $410 billion spending bill because of this small earmark spending. It is another example of obstructionism for partisan politics, another example of the GOP's desire to destroy this U.S. economy for their own political gain. It just amazes me.

Republican stupidity continues....

I found this Matt Yglesias posting on how U.S. Rep. Steve Austria blames Franklin Delano Roosevelt for causing the Great Depression by....wait for it....an economic stimulus package:

U.S. Rep. Steve Austria said he supports a scaled-down federal economic-stimulus proposal, but the Beavercreek Republican told The Dispatch editorial board that the huge influx of money into the economy could have a negative effect.

"When (President Franklin) Roosevelt did this, he put our country into a Great Depression," Austria said. "He tried to borrow and spend, he tried to use the Keynesian approach, and our country ended up in a Great Depression. That's just history."

Most historians date the beginning of the Great Depression at or shortly after the stock-market crash of 1929; Roosevelt took office in 1933.

Rep. Austria then backtracked on his claim that Roosevelt started the Great Depression. In an email today, Austria wrote, ""I did not mean to imply in any way that President Roosevelt was responsible for putting us into the Depression, but rather was trying to make the point that Roosevelt's attempt to use significant spending to get us out of the Depression did not have the desired effect. Roosevelt did not put us into the Depression, but rather his policies could not pull the nation out of the recession."

In one sense, Austria is right. It was not FDR's New Deal policies that ended the Great Depression. It was the U.S. entry into the Second World War that ended the Great Depression, bringing the U.S. economy back into full production. And what did the Roosevelt administration do to bring the U.S. economy back into production after the U.S. entered the war? The Roosevelt administration spent billions of dollars building tanks, bombs, aircraft, warships, guns, bullets, while drafting millions of American men into the military. The U.S. government borrowed the money--by selling war bonds--to spend on all the war equipment, and the labor costs in paying for the U.S. soldiers and sailors. It was one, huge, economic stimulus package that brought the U.S. out of the Great Depression! That is some significant spending here! And FDR presided over that economic stimulus package. Then again, maybe Rep. Steve Austria doesn't realize how much of a fool he is.

Stupid is as stupid does.

Huckabee calls economic stimulus bill, "anti-religious"

I saw this story yesterday in the Washington Monthly, and I've been meaning to comment on it. Apparently, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee believes that the economics stimulus package is "anti-religious." What the frack? From the Politico.com:

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee warned supporters Tuesday that the $828 billion stimulus package is “anti-religious.”

In an e-mail that was also posted on his blog ahead of the Senate’s passage, Huckabee wrote: “The dust is settling on the ‘bipartisan’ stimulus bill and one thing is clear: It is anti-religious.”

The former Republican presidential candidate pointed to a provision in both the House and Senate versions banning higher education funds in the bill from being used on a “school or department of divinity.”

“You would think the ACLU drafted this bill,” Huckabee said. “For all of the talk about bipartisanship, this Congress is blatantly liberal.”

“Emily’s List, radical environmental groups, etc. all have a seat at the decision making table in Washington these days,” he continued. “Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are in charge and they are working with an equally ‘progressive’ President Obama (remember his voting record is more liberal than Ted Kennedy!).”

In the e-mail, Huckabee concedes that there is little that conservatives can do in the near term, but advocated mobilization to defeat those “masquerading as ‘conservative Democrats.’”

Steve Benen, at the Washington Monthly, sets the record straight:

Regular readers know the story by now, but if you're just joining us, this myth has been making the rounds in right-wing circles for about a week. Originally, the American Center for Law and Justice, a right-wing legal group formed by TV preacher Pat Robertson, said the stimulus bill includes a provision that would prohibit "religious groups and organizations from using" buildings on college campuses. Soon after, religious right groups and right-wing blogs were up in arms, demanding that lawmakers fix the "anti-Christian" language of the bill. Fox News and the Christian Broadcasting Network helped get the word out to the far-right base about the nefarious measure. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) actually tried to have the provision removed from the bill.

There was, however, one small problem: there was no such measure. The ACLJ doesn't know how to read legislation, and didn't realize that the standard language in the bill simply blocks spending for on-campus buildings that are used primarily for religion (like a chapel, for example). This same language has been part of education spending bills for 46 years. It's just the law, and it's never been controversial.

Huckabee is either deliberately deceiving people, or he's making reckless accusations without knowing the facts. Either way, this is ridiculous.

First, I have to wonder if Mike Huckabee has been eating too many of his popcorn-popper-fried squirrels. The second thing I have to wonder is have the Republicans descended into some form of delusional insanity with these incoherent rantings? Because that is what I'm hearing over the past couple of weeks. We've got House Minority Leader Eric Cantor sending a pro-union spoof of a commercial as a response to a union attack ad against Cantor for his opposition to the economic stimulus bill. Top GOP strategist Alex Castellanos called Republican senators, who were considering supporting the economic stimulus package, wussy Republicans. And then there is the story of the GOP congressmen congratulating themselves in their delusional "victory" in obstructing the Obama administration's economic stimulus plan. Republican Rep. Pete Sessions called for the GOP to engage in a Taliban-like insurgency against President Obama and the congressional Democratic leadership. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell wanted to kill the economic stimulus bill because it contained a disaster insurance program for livestock owners that could include "honeybee insurance." And finally, Mike Huckabee isn't alone in his ranting over the stimulus package being anti-religious. Republican South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint brought this same controversy up about a week ago:

Check out this video of Sen. Jim DeMint flat-out lying on the Senate floor as he discusses the need to pass his amendment to strip this provision from the legislation, as he proclaims that Christians would be locked out of opportunities for higher education and proclaims that it was inserted into the bill by some nefarious cabal of people who are intent on silencing "traditional, freedom-loving Americans" and who are "so hostile to religion that they are willing to stand in the schoolhouse door, like the infamous George Wallace":

It is like the Republican Party is self-destructing into bratty, insolent, little children, who will whine and complain about and how they are not taken seriously in the political process by the mean Democratic congressional leadership--not President Obama, who wants to extend bipartisanship to the Republicans. Never mind the previous eight years the GOP had control of the White House, or the six years they controlled Congress during the Bush administration's term. Never mind the hard-lined conservative agenda of tax cuts to the rich, domestic spying, fear-mongering, torture, crass cronyism, and endless war that the Bush administration, and the GOP, shoved down the American peoples' throats. The Republicans are trying to blame their previous eight years of their own failed leadership on the Democrats, and the Obama administration. So right after President Obama took the oath of office, the Republican obstructionism began in the hope that Obama would fail, and that such a failure could bring the control of Congress back to the Republicans in the next election. But a funny thing happened--President Obama got his economic stimulus package through Congress, and past the Republican obstructionism. President Obama's poll numbers are especially high, while a majority of Americans have disapproved of the congressional Republicans' obstructionism. This is obviously driving the Republicans batshit crazy here. And they are responding in such a crazed, lunatic manner.

Republican discourse on unions--We don't take sh*t from nobody. You got that, a**hole?

I found this Washington Monthly post, and I'm just amazed at the classlessness of the Republican discourse on unions. But first, some background. Yesterday, the pro-labor groups Americans United for Change and the public workers union AFSCME unveiled a national commercial attacking Republican leaders, in both the House and the Senate, for their opposition to the Obama administration's economic stimulus plan. You can see the commercial here via YouTube:



Now whether you agree with these two groups or not, the commercial is pretty standard in attempting to increase voter awareness, and anger, of the Republican opposition to the stimulus plan, and hopefully direct that anger against the Republican leadership by flooding the phone banks. The groups also planned to air radio commercials targeting 18 House members, from both parties, and three Republican Senators while offering them a "second chance" to vote for the stimulus plan. These targets included House Minority Whip Eric Cantor. You could also see in the TV commercial, a photo of Rep. Cantor with the quote, "Just saying no."

So these two unions have aired a commercial attacking the Republican Party over the stimulus plan. How has the GOP responded to this attack? Very badly. House Minority Leader Eric Cantor sent journalists Greg Sargent and Glenn Thrush a profanity-laced, video response. From YouTube:



What is even more amazing is that Cantor press secretary Brad Dayspring told Thrush that "You could post this [video] as my response."

This prompted Washington Monthly's Steve Benen to ask, "I can't help but be curious what the response would be if a member of the Democratic congressional leadership promoted a video attacking, say, Focus on the Family or the National Rifle Association with a profanity-laced video. I assume it would be a fairly big deal." I'll have to agree with Benen on this. If a Democratic congressmen had attacked the NRA, or Focus on the Family, with this type of profanity-laced video as their office response, not only would the conservative groups be outraged, but also conservative congressmen, conservative bloggers, and Faux News would be endlessly showing the commercial until the next election. And yet Cantor thinks that this is a perfectly acceptable response.

Of course, there is even more to this story. In the comments section of the Washington Monthly post, commenter Sean claims that this was a pro-union parody of the AFSCME union:

It's an old pro-union clip, and the voice is the original voiceover guy for the official version, not a new voiceover. The original voiceover guy wrote an alternate script for the original AFSCME ad and recorded it. Apparently, it was an underground union hit for decades before someone uploaded it to youtube.>>

That's exactly right. My uncle worked for AFSCME and used to pull out a VHS tape w/ both versions, clean and parody, and play them in that order. I hadn't seen the "tha $*&)#!(@! yoon-yun" version in more than 20 years until I saw it online a few weeks ago. And yes, it's still awesome.

Maybe Cantor thought he was doing ju-jitsu - useing a clip in which a union spoofs itself to discredit the pro-stimulus union ads? That approach seems not to have worked for him.

So this video has been out for years. It was created by pro-union workers to spoof the AFSCME as we're the workers that do all the "sh*t work you take for granted." Cantor doesn't even realize that this commercial is a spoof. Is Cantor that much of a clueless moron, or is it that Canto cannot respond to the union attacks against him for opposing the economic stimulus package when this country in a deep recession with over 3.6 million American jobs lost?

If Cantor's clueless response is just one example of how low the GOP has gone in descending to this level of insulting discourse and completely opposing everything the Obama administration and the congressional Democrats will propose on legislation, then how will President Obama expect to get any sort of bipartisan leadership for his agenda if the Republicans are acting like bratty little children?

House passes bailout bill

And it only took around $110 billion in Senate tax cut incentives to bribe the House. From MSNBC.com:

The House passed a $700 billion bailout of the financial services industry Friday, reversing itself after members who voted to kill the measure earlier in the week came around to a Senate version that offered more protection for individual investors and small businesses.

Stocks were up sharply in anticipation that the measure could help thaw frozen credit markets.

After a week of reversals and intense lobbying, the measure ended up passing comfortably by a vote of 263-171. After seeing the bill go down to defeat Monday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had said she would not let it come up for a vote Friday unless it was clear that it would pass.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said President Bush would “like to sign it as quickly as possible — as soon as they get it to us.” House staffers said it would be sent to the White House as early as Friday afternoon for Bush’s signature.

Under the plan, the Treasury Department would be authorized to spend as much as $700 billion to buy bad mortgage-related securities, which have slowed and, in some cases, dried up the flow of credit.

The Senate dramatically changed the measure Wednesday, adding an additional $110 billion in additional tax breaks, incentives and other measures, including an expansion of coverage of individual bank deposits by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

Update: President Bush quickly signed the Wall Street bailout bill.

Friday Fun Stuff--GOP congressman McHenry calls U.S. soldier in Iraq a "two-bit security guard"

This is just incredible. I'm not sure if the Republican politicians are that stupid, or full of disdain for American soldiers in Iraq. During a public appearance last Saturday, GOP Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) belittled a U.S. soldier in Iraq, calling him a "two-bit security guard" after the soldier would not allow McHenry to go to a gym without the proper credentials. The soldier was apparently following orders while guarding the gym. And that wasn't good enough for our arrogant Republican congressman. Here is McHenry's quote from Think Progress:

We spent the night in the Green Zone, in the poolhouse of one of Saddam’s palaces. A little weird, I got to be honest with you. But I felt safe. And so in the morning, I got up early — not that I make this a great habit — but I went to the gym because I just couldn’t sleep and everything else. Well, sure enough, the guard wouldn’t let me in. Said I didn’t have the correct credentials.

It’s 5:00 in the morning. I haven’t had sleep. I was not very happy with this two-bit security guard. So you know, I said, “I want to see your supervisor.” Thirty minutes later, the supervisor wasn’t happy with me, they escort me back to my room. It happens. I guess I didn’t need to work out anyway.

You can view the video here through YouTube:



What can I say, but this guy is a frickin' idiot. You are in a war zone. And U.S. soldiers performing guard duty, in Iraq, will follow their orders specifically as to whether to allow someone to enter a place with the proper credentials. If you don't have the proper identification, you are not getting in. And no amount of screaming at the soldier, or demanding to see his commanding officer, is going to help you. And congressman McHenry, you think you had it bad on your little fact-finding trip to Iraq--how many tours has that "two-bit security guard" of a U.S. soldier have had to endure in Iraq, serving his country so that you, the Republican Party, and the war-mongering Bush administration can continue this destructive war in Iraq? And I would suppose that you are a Republican, you will also continue to support this destructive war in Iraq, which is destroying our U.S. military, and forcing this "two-bit security guard" of a U.S. soldier to endure even more endless tours in this lost war, keeping him away from his family.

I sincerely hope that the voters in North Carolina will kick your ass out of Congress this November.

House fails to override Bush's S-CHIP veto

There is not much else to say here, except that the House of Representatives has failed to override President Bush's veto on the S-CHIP bill. From MSNBC News:

WASHINGTON - House Democrats failed Thursday to override President Bush's veto of their pre-election year effort to expand a popular government health insurance program to cover 10 million children.

The bill had bipartisan support but the 273-156 roll call was nine votes of the two-thirds majority supporters needed to enact the bill into law despite Bush's objections. The bill had passed the Senate with a bigger than two-thirds majority.

The proposed $35 billion spending increase over five years for the State Children's Health Insurance Program would expand it from the 6.6 million people -- most of them children -- currently covered. The program now costs about $5 billion a year.

According to the final vote tally, two Democrats opposed the S-CHIP bill, while 154 Republicans opposed the bill. Essentially, the GOP killed this bill. And now it will remain front-and-center in the election-year debate on domestic politics.

Hastert to resign early

This is off The Politico:

Former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) is expected to announce that he plans to leave the House later this year, setting up the widely anticipated prospect of a special election to replace him, Republican sources on Capitol Hill confirmed.

Hastert initially planned to make an announcement Thursday but has since scrapped that decision, according to one GOP aide. The former speaker, who announced his plans to retire over the summer, is still expected to leave the House some time in December, but the date of his departure — as well as his announcement — remains unclear.

Hastert has been expected to announce his early resignation from the House at some point during the fall, but his move, which Roll Call first reported, still has an uncertain effect on the race to replace him.

Republicans are already locked in a hard-fought primary. But Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich could fast-track that intramural contest in order to schedule the special on the same day as the state's Feb. 5 primary — when Illinois Sen. Barack Obama will be on the ballot in his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

That latter scenario would give congressional Democrats — which Blagojevich once was — a major advantage in the special election to pick up a predominantly Republican seat, because Democratic turnout is expected to be heavy in support of Obama.

I can see how the Republicans are going to be very pissed at whether Blagojevich fast-tracks the special election for Hastert's seat of Feb. 5, right when Illinois voters will be turning out to vote for the Democratic presidential primary with Obama's name on the ballot. But that's politics. But what is more interesting here is that we have another big-name Republican congressman retiring from office, bringing this seat to an open election. We've seen Republican senators John Warner, Pete Dominici, and Chuck Hagel announce their retirements. These are all big-name congressional seats that are now open. The GOP is going to have to spend money in an attempt to retain those seats against both strong Democratic challenges, and to convince an American electorate to continue voting Republican, even as that American electorate shows strong disapproval with the Bush administration.

Boehner: A small price

Here is what House Minority Leader John Boehner said to CNN's Wolf Blitzer about the sacrifices of U.S. casualties in Iraq. From YouTube:



And here is the transcript:

BLITZER: How much longer will U.S. taxpayers have to shell out $2 billion a week or $3 billion a week as some now are suggesting the cost is going to endure? The loss in blood, the Americans who are killed every month, how much longer do you think this commitment, this military commitment is going to require?

BOEHNER: I think General Petraeus outlined it pretty clearly. We’re making success. We need to firm up those successes. We need to continue our effort here because, Wolf, long term, the investment that we’re making today will be a small price if we’re able to stop al Qaeda here, if we’re able to stabilize the Middle East, it’s not only going to be a small price for the near future, but think about the future for our kids and their kids.

So I guess Boehner considers 3776 American dead and 27,186 wounded a small price to pay for this disastrous war? What does Boehner consider as a big price to pay for this war--37,760 American dead? 377,600 American dead? When is it time to say enough--the cost is too high! It is time to get out?

When is it Mr. Boehner?

Hat tip to Carpetbagger Report.

Rep. Thelma Drake freaks out over being filmed in public

This is just totally wacked-out! Here is Rep. Thelma Drake (R-VA) freaking out over being filmed by the audience, just before she makes a speech at a public event. I found this through Americablog. Just watch it. From YouTube:



Are you filming me? GOP Congresswoman Thelma Drake is freaking out over the fact that her constituents are armed with cameras, ready to catch her in a "macaca" moment--I don't like taking pictures! What is even more crazy is that since her constituents are filming her, then she is going to film them in order to protect herself from her constituents asking those pesky, "unexpected questions." Can this be any more insane?

The real reason here is that Thelma Drake is scared of her constituents. She knows that the majority of the American public want out of Iraq, and that she has been goose-stepping with the Bush administration's pro-war policy on Iraq. She cannot handle dealing with hard questions regarding her positions on Iraq, or her voting record, from her constituents--questions which she is forced to answer on film. What we are seeing with Drake here is just a microcosm of the entire Republican Party's inability to respond to constituent's questions through the film media--look at how both Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney have refused to participate in the CNN/YouTube debates. The Giuliani, Romney, and even the Drake campaigns can't deal with hard, unexpected questions that can't be answered with PR-talking points or media spin. These GOP candidates are going to end up isolating themselves in their own controlled media events or campaign rallies, where they will only allow their own supporters while everyone else is turned away. Of course, we've seen this type of campaigning by President Bush in 2000 and 2004, but I think that because of this disastrous war in Iraq, we're going to see a lot more GOP candidates turning to this type of isolationist campaigning.

Harriet Miers again rejects subpoena request from House.

This is off Raw Story:

Former White House Counsel Harriet Miers has again rejected calls from the House Judiciary Committee to comply with a subpoena for her testimony on the firing of 9 US Attorneys in 2006 and 2007. The Committee had set a deadline of 5 PM for Miers to explain how she would comply with the subpoena.

"In light of the continuing directives to Ms. Miers and as previously indicated to your Committee, I must respectfully inform you that, directed as she has been to honor the Executive privileges and immunities asserted in this matter, Ms. Miers will not appear before the Committee or otherwise produce documents or provide testimony as set forth in the Committee's subpoena," wrote Miers' attorney, George Manning, in a letter delivered Tuesday to Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

A copy of the letter was sent directly to RAW STORY.

In his letter, Manning suggested that the prohibition on Miers' subpoena compliance was 'unequivocal.'

"The correspondence communicating these unequivocal directives has been previously provided to the Committee," he wrote. "The Subcommittee has demanded that Ms. Miers do precisely what the President has prohibited her from doing."

Conyers had set 5 PM, July 17, as the deadline for Miers to make her intentions known about complying with the committee's subpoena. The Judiciary Committee had warned last week that it would contemplate other actions, including criminal contempt proceedings, if Miers failed to comply with the subpoena.

In a statement released late on Tuesday afternoon, Rep. Conyers said the committee's next move was being planned.

"The subcommittee has overruled Ms. Miers' claims of immunity and privilege," he said. "Her failure to comply with our subpoena is a serious affront to this committee and our constitutional system of checks and balances. We are carefully planning our next steps."

Perhaps it is time for the House Judiciary Committee to issue an Inherent Contempt charge against Harriet Miers:

Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation.)

Concerned with the time-consuming nature of a contempt proceeding and the inability to extend punishment further than the session of the Congress concerned (under Supreme Court rulings), Congress created a statutory process in 1857. While Congress retains its "inherent contempt" authority and may exercise it at any time, this inherent contempt process was last used by the Senate in 1934, against a U.S. Postmaster. After a one-week trial on the Senate floor (presided by the Vice-President of the United States, acting as Senate President), a former Postmaster, William P. MacCracken, was found guilty and sentenced to 10 days imprisonment.

The Postmaster had filed a petition of Habeas Corpus in federal courts to overturn his arrest, but after litigation, the US Supreme Court ruled that Congress had acted constitutionally, and denied the petition in the case Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 (1935).

Keith Olbermann has a great analysis of the Miers' controversy and Inherent Contempt. From YouTube:

Senate voted to approve the war funding bill

This isn't really surprising. From MSNBC News:

WASHINGTON - Bowing to President Bush, the Democratic-controlled House and Senate reluctantly approved fresh billions for the Iraq war on Thursday, minus the troop withdrawal timeline that drew his earlier veto.

The Senate vote to send the legislation to the president was 80-14. Less than two hours earlier, the House had cleared the measure, 280-142, with Republicans supplying the bulk of the support.

Five months in power on Capitol Hill, Democrats in both houses coupled their concession to the president with pledges to challenge his policies anew. “This debate will go on,” vowed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, announcing plans to hold votes by fall on four separate measures seeking a change in course.

From the White House to the Capitol, the day’s events closed out one chapter in an epic struggle pitting Congress against commander in chief over a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,400 U.S. troops.

[....]

The legislation includes nearly $95 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through Sept. 30. In addition to jettisoning their plan for a troop withdrawal timeline, Democrats abandoned attempts to require the Pentagon to adhere to troop training, readiness and rest requirements unless Bush waived them.

And House Minority Leader John Boehner really turns on the waterworks during the House debate on the war funding bill:

House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio choked back tears as he stirred memories of the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. “After 3,000 of our fellow citizens died at the hands of these terrorists, when are we going to take them on? When are we going to defeat them,” he asked.

Crooks and Liars has the video here. I'll be honest here. I don't know if Boehner actually believed what he just said here. After 3,000 Americans died in the September 11th attacks, and another 3434 American casualties in the war in Iraq, we still haven't taken on the terrorists? Even after we've been involved in the Iraq war for four years? When are we going to take them on? When are we going to defeat them? There is a backwards logic with Boehner's statement and his crocodile tears. It is almost like Boehner actually believes that the past four years of the U.S. involvement in the war in Iraq never existed, and that we are at the start of funding this war. Boehner wants the media and the American people to ignore the last four years of this disaster of a war--we were never ready to take them on then, but now we are ready with this latest war funding. We must avenge the deaths on September 11th--never mind that the number of Americans soldiers killed in Iraq exceeds that of the number of Americans killed on September 11th. It is insane.

Of course, the other thought I had is that Boehner is simply playing the crybaby theatrics in order to get the sympathy vote, and to pass this war funding bill so that more young Americans can be killed or maimed in Iraq. So that the neocons can continue their PNAC fantasy of American hegemony, and Big Oil can control Iraq's oil reserves for their big profits. Either way, it show a callous hypocrisy within John Boehner in wasting young American lives for whatever selfish reasons he has to keep this war going.

Update: Here is the YouTube video of Boehner's crybaby speech.

Nancy Pelosi responds to Bush's veto threat on Iraq timetable

This is just priceless! Here is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's response to President Bush's veto threat of the Iraq war funding bill with the withdrawal timetable. From YouTube:



Pelosi: Calm down with the threats! There is a new Congress in town! Pelosi offers Bush a means of compromise on this bill, but it is not the type of GOP rubber-stamp congressional compromise that the Bush White House has been used to. Pelosi tells Bush that there will be accountability for this war. There will be deadlines and benchmarks in order to determine whether U.S. and Iraqi forces are succeeding in stabilizing the country. There will be penalties levied against the Maliki government for failing to keep the country together. The U.S. war in Iraq is no longer an open-ended commitment. The Democrats are not going to back down against the Bush White House. They are not going to play rubber-stamp. What is more, I would say that a Bush veto against the Iraq war funding bill will cause more political damage against the Bush White House and the Republicans, rather than the Democrats. Consider this March 14, 2006 CNN Poll:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Growing dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq has driven President Bush's approval rating to a new low of 36 percent, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday.

Only 38 percent said they believe the nearly 3-year-old war was going well for the United States, down from 46 percent in January, while 60 percent said they believed the war was going poorly.

Nearly half of those polled said they believe Democrats would do a better job of managing the war -- even though only a quarter of them said the opposition party has a clear plan for resolving the situation. (Watch what the poll might mean at election time -- 1:49)

Pollsters quizzed 1,001 adults Friday through Sunday for the poll; most questions had a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Fifty-seven percent said they believe the March 2003 invasion of Iraq was a mistake, near September's record high of 59 percent. That question had a sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 points. (Interactive: Poll results)

Bush's approval rating of 36 percent is the lowest mark of his presidency in a Gallup poll, falling a percentage point below the 37 percent approval he scored in November. The previous CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted February 28-March 1, put his job approval at 38 percent. (View Bush's second term approval ratings)

Sixty percent of those surveyed in the latest poll said they disapproved of his performance in office, the same figure as in the last poll. (Read full results document -- PDF)

[....]

With congressional elections approaching, public discontent with the war appeared to be taking a toll on Bush's fellow Republicans.

Only 32 percent polled over the weekend said they thought Bush had a clear plan for handling the situation in Iraq, while 67 percent said he did not.

Only 25 percent said Democrats had a clear plan -- but 48 percent said Democrats would do a better job managing the issue, while 40 percent favored Republicans.

That is the key here--the American public has concluded that the Bush administration has no plan for resolving this U.S. war in Iraq. While they may also not believe that the Democrats do not have a clear plan for getting out of Iraq, the American public is still giving the benefit of the doubt to the Democrats in coming up with a plan. A withdrawal plan has now passed the Democratic Congress with the war funding bill. This only improves the Democrats standing here. If President Bush vetoes the war funding/withdrawal timetable bill, then Bush is telling the American people that he doesn't want to pull the U.S. out of the Iraq war. In other words, President Bush is forcing the Republican Party to take a pro-war stance on Iraq, when the American public is becoming increasingly anti-Iraq-war. This is the problem that the Bush White House faces here on this veto threat. President Bush is trying to force the Republicans to accept a pro-war stance, just one year before the 2008 elections where Iraq will become the major issue, with an American public that is turning against the war. No amount of White House spin, trying to blame the Democrats, can stop this political and electoral disaster that is facing the Republicans.

President Bush is promising a veto on House withdrawal bill

This isn't too surprising. From MSNBC.Com:

WASHINGTON - A sharply divided House voted Friday to order President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq next year, but the president reiterated his vow to veto the bill, saying the House had “abdicated its responsibility.”

Bush appeared at the White House alongside veterans and family members of troops to accuse Democrats of staging nothing more than "political theater" that delays the delivery of resources to soldiers fighting in Iraq. If the spending bill is not approved and signed into law by April 15, Bush said troops and their families “will face significant disruptions.”

“A narrow majority in the House of Representatives abdicated its responsibility by passing a war spending bill that has no chance of becoming law and brings us no closer to getting the troops the resources they need to do their job,” the president said.

“These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal and their pet spending projects,” he said. “This is not going to happen.”

The victory for Democrats is part of an epic war-powers struggle, and Congress’ boldest challenge yet to the administration’s policy.

Well isn't this just too much fun! President Bush is blaming the Democratic Congress for denying the troops the funds because the Democrats wanted to add a withdrawal timetable. The president is demanding that the Democratic Congress pass a clean war funding bill that he can sign--otherwise he'll veto whatever war funding bill the Democrats pass. In other words, Bush is demanding that the Democrats in Congress play "rubber-stamp." Here is President Bush's response on YouTube:



Gee Mr. President, there is another option here. You could accept the House withdrawal timetable and get the money to support the troops. But then again, that would require you to compromise here--something that you will refuse to do. So Mr. President, you are S.O.L here.

House backs a withdrawal timetable

This is off The New York Times:

WASHINGTON, March 23 — The House of Representatives voted today, by the narrowest possible margin and after an unusually emotional debate, to set a timetable for bringing American troops home from Iraq.

The bill received 218 votes in favor, the minimum needed for passage in the 435-seat chamber. There were 212 votes opposed. The Democratic leadership held the voting open for two additional minutes past the originally scheduled 15 to lock up the majority. Vote-counters had predicted beforehand that the outcome would be very close.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the legislation, which took the form of an emergency spending bill, “a giant step to end the war and responsibly redeploy our troops out of Iraq” and concentrate on Afghanistan, “where the war on terrorism is.”

A few hours before the vote, Ms. Pelosi summoned Democrats to a closed-door meeting in the Capitol basement, hoping to impress them one more time with the importance of the proposed legislation, the Democrats’ boldest step yet to try to end the war.

“It’s historic,” Ms. Pelosi said in a brief interview, “for our party and our country.”

No, Republicans countered on the House floor. Several said the measure would amount to micromanaging the war, to the detriment of military commanders and front-line troops. “Its prevailing tone is one of defeat,” Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the minority whip, said of the legislation.

The debate was highly emotional, with lawmakers applauding loudly at several points. There were occasional outbursts from the House gallery, which was packed with spectators.

[....]

The withdrawal timetable provision, which calls for most American troops to be out of Iraq by Sept. 1, 2008, is part of a bill to provide about $100 billion to finance the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill would also impose a series of performance benchmarks, for Baghdad and for Washington, to show progress in the new Iraq. Withdrawal would be required even sooner if progress on those benchmarks could not be demonstrated.

Passage of the legislation by no means signals that it will emerge from the full Congress, since the Democrats’ majority in the House (there are 233 Democrats, to 201 Republicans) is too small to overcome a veto by President Bush, which the White House says would be certain if it ever reached the President’s desk. Besides, the Senate is about to debate its own Iraq-pullout measure, which differs in substantial ways.

The House has done it--they passed a bill specifying a withdrawal timetable, complete with benchmarks and penalties. Of course, this withdrawal timetable was placed into a $100 billion appropriations bill to finance the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the bill narrowly passed the House. It will certainly never get over President Bush's veto.

The important point about this bill is that it lays even more groundwork in the coming 2008 election debate on Iraq between the Democrats and Republicans. When you look at the polls here, you will find that Americans both oppose the Bush troop surge plan, and they are favoring a Democratic Congress withdrawal timetable. The Republicans, who consistently support the Bush war in Iraq, are going to have to face those American voters in 2008. They are going to have to explain their votes against the non-binding resolutions and withdrawal timetables that have taken place over the past three months. This is where the debate is heading for 2008. And at the moment, the GOP is still goose-stepping to the Bush administration's orders.

Now we'll see what happens to the Senate debate and vote on the withdrawal timetable.

Your Thursday Evening Smackdown--James Inhofe verses Nancy Pelosi

What a week of congressional smackdowns. I found this little smackdown between Rep. James Inhofe (R-OK) verses House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) during former Vice President Al Gore's testimony in Congress on global warming. From YouTube:



Pelosi smacks down Inhofe--Elections have consequences!

One final note--the smile on Gore's face as Pelosi smacks down Inhofe is priceless.