My Real Politik

Rachel Maddow Calls Out Republicans- Reconciliation is NOT the "Nuclear Option"

Rachel Maddow on MSNBC last night echoed the exact same concerns that I'd mentioned previously, as well as adding in quite a few more interesting points, most notably that reconciliation has been used for medical reform nine times including the passage of the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) or medicaid for children and the ever popular Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) which extends health insurance benefits to the unemployed.

As mentioned before, President Clinton tried passing his version of health reform through reconciliation in 1993, but this was declared a violation of reconciliation rules by Democratic Senator Robert Byrd. 

The salient issue here is the blatant substitution of the term "nuclear option" for reconciliation. It allows Republicans to use Democratic objections against the 2005 Republican threat of the "nuclear option" against them in their proposal to use reconciliation now 5 years later to pass health reform. Democrats were not protesting the use of reconciliation in the videos the have widely circulated the conservative media, they were protesting the altering of Senate rules to eliminate the filibuster entirely.

Finding instances of Democrat hypocrisy is not hard, you need not make up lies to do so, and just to prove a point, I'll leave you with one final video below. In closing, just to be clear- reconciliation IS NOT THE "NUCLEAR OPTION."

The "Nuclear Option" is NOT Reconciliation

Fox News and a Republican media blitz have been calling out Democrats for considering the use of the so-called "nuclear option" to bypass a Republican filibuster on the Health Care Reform bill. Here's a highly trafficked video on the conservative Breibart.tv which gives a detailed account of the Democrat's protest of the use of the "nuclear option" back in 2005.

So how can the Democrats be so hypocritical as to consider using it now that they're in control of Congress? 

Simple. They're not.

Democrats are considering reconciliation as a means of passing their version of Health Reform, but this is not what the "nuclear option" is, and it's frustrating to see these two being confused by conservatives considering the "nuclear option" is a Republican creation. 

Reconciliation is a legislative procedure by which budgetary or tax related legislation can be constructed in committee and passed with a simple majority of 51 votes. The idea is to allow crucial fiscal legislation to be voted on without minority obstruction, and there are strict rules for what kind of legislation can be passed this way.

The "nuclear option" was a theoretical tactic considered by Republicans in 2005 when Democrats were attempting to obstruct a number of President Bush's federal appointees. The idea is that during a filibuster, a senator can invoke a point of order declaring the filibuster unconstitutional and if a simple majority of 51 ratifies it, they could essentially abolish the filibuster entirely (which is why it was deemed the "nuclear option."). This tactic was never used and the legal implications of it are entirely unprecedented and up for debate. This is what Democrats were objecting to in 2005, NOT the use of reconciliation.

You can find plenty of examples of Senators and House members on both sides of the isle cursing the use of reconciliation. Republicans did when the Democrats used reconciliation to pass President Clinton's 1993 Fiscal Budget. (Clinton also tried to use it to pass his version of Health Care reform, but Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd declared it a violation of reconciliation rules) Republicans used reconciliation to pass both of the Bush Tax cuts (for which Dick Cheney had to provide the 51st vote). Democrats were highly critical of Republicans at the time. So there is an innate hypocrisy here, and the merit as to whether Health Care reform should go through reconciliation is a matter of debate.

However, that's not what conservatives are saying here and for that reason the entire notion is a gross distortion and can be considered nothing short of propaganda and a lie.

 

Seriously.

Dear Drudge,

"  New Missile Defense Agency Logo Causes Online Commotion..."

Hmm....

Cats the look like Wilford Brimley cause an "online commotion" too.

 

The Political Merry-Go-Round

Dear Conservatives,

Do not be fooled by the notion that the political tide periodically swings from Left to Right.

In 2008, Democrats were given the largest Congressional majority since the 1960s. Had the country undergone a drastic shift towards Progressive ideology or had people simply lost faith with the Republican party? Were the so-called "undecideds" becoming more progressive or were they simply wanting to punish Republicans?

As the November elections loom on the horizon, the tide seems to be shifting once again in the favor Republicans despite the fact that every major poll conducted in the last year shows anywhere from a 50% to a 73% disapproval rating for Republicans. When the public begins to vote to the right it will not be because the majority of the country is shifting towards conservatism- it will be because people are loosing faith with the Democratic party, which currently boasts an average of 35% to a 60% disapproval. Congressional job approval rating right now is averaging a dismal 73% disapproval.

Dear Liberals,

To those who voted Democrat in 2008, I ask you honesty, where there really any candidates running on a serious Progressive platform?

What we heard was a unanimous platform of populism: "hope," "change," "a new era," "repeal the policies of George Bush," these were not real platforms of ideology- they were nothing more populist ideals and they're beginning to expire.

"We're anti-establishment!...We're better then the other guys!...It's us versus them...Choose us and things will be different-choose us and we will work for you."

Who's ready for the next round in the political merry-go-round?

Circular Ideology and the Confederation of Corporate Government

The myth that there is a dynamic range with left politics and right politics in opposition, both with their own extremes, is the most salient deception of American politics. Rather then left and right, I see clockwise and counterclockwise- the range of ideology is circular. Ever notice how eventually the "extremes" on the left and the right become confused and hard to distinguish? Hasn't every experiment in communism ended up in fascism rather then absolute democracy? The very definition of fascism demands a strong nationalistic government, the elimination of individualism and forced cultural assimilation- this is exactly what we had in Soviet Russia and currently have in China, Cuba, North Korea- all currently communist governments (perhaps this is because the term "communist government" is an oxymoron, but I'll save that for another discussion).

Left and Right have significantly more in common then you think, and this is because the innate basic rights that every citizen demands of their government are not mutually exclusive to political ideology- they are shared by all.

The Other Side of Terrorism: Domestic Hate and Religious Extremism

This is an excerpt from "White Power USA," which aired on Democracy Now last Monday as well as on Al Jezeera English. "White Power USA" is a short documentary produced by Rick Rowley and Jacquie Soohen which gives insight into growing social and political support of white supremacist hate groups across the country.

The US Department of Homeland Security warned last June that right-wing extremism represents "the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States." Many on the right balked at this claim, citing it as a partisan attack.

Yet, as Republicans have been quick to demand the Ft. Hood shootings and the failed Christmas Day Bombing be declared terrorist attacks on the US, the same demand was largely absent after the assassination of abortion doctor George Tiller by a supporter of Christian anti-abortion groups like the Army of God, regarded as a terrorist organization by the United States government. 

On January 22 of last year, Matthew L. Derosia of St. Paul MN rammed an SUV into the front entrance of a planned parenthood clinic, claiming the Jesus had called on him to do so. Had Mr. Derosia been of Islamic decent instead of white and had he a Qur'an in his truck instead of the Bible, this incident might quickly have been exploited as a terrorist attack. Yet, it slipped strangely under the radar.  

The Other Side of Terrorism: It hasn't stopped since 9/11

 

There is a disturbing and growing trend among some conservative commentators to claim that there were no terrorist attacks under President George Bush's term. Last November on Fox News' Hannity former Bush Press Secretary Dana Perino suggested the President Obama was playing politics and demanded that the Fort Hood shootings be considered a terrorist attack. She continued by saying "We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term."

On December 28th, conservative commentator and former White House aid to Dick Cheney Mary Matalin claimed the Bush Administration had "inherited the most tragic attack on our own soil in our nation's history."

On Good Morning America earlier in January, former New York mayor Ruddy Giuliani said "We had no domestic attacks under Bush, we've had one under Obama." 

To make matters significantly worse, not once did it occur to Fox's Sean Hannity, ABC's George Stephanopoulos, or CNN's John King to stop their line of scripted questions to ask these commentators to clarify their remarks.

In the Shadow of King- Intolerance is Alive and Well

"The United States is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today."

Martin Luther King Jr, April 4, 1967

After Martin Luther King Jr gave his "Beyond Vietnam" speech in New York's Riverside Church, Time magazine called it "demagogic slander" and the Washington Post claimed King had "diminished his usefulness to his cause, his country, his people." 

Forty years later, with a black man as president, we may have learned greater tolerance towards racial differences, but we are tragically far from tolerance of differing opinions. 

This parochial addiction infects every possible aspect of American life from our literature to our entertainment, our government and our media. It distorts the electoral process and is consequentially the single largest threat to American democracy. Out inclination to blame notwithstanding, there is no one scapegoat at which we can direct our damning finger- the media and our government are really only reflections of ourselves. They may be distorted, but the origin of their perversion is the same just as our partisan ridicule is largely a reaction to what we see and hear in our news and from our government. 

And so on this celebration of Martin Luther King's legacy, I'm challenging myself to listen to people that I might normally shut my ears to. Listening is the only way we can begin to understand each other, and if we fail to understand each other we defer to our innate urge to fear that which we do not understand. It is this fear that is at the heart of discrimination and this fear that only tolerance and tolerance alone can overcome. Instead of judging people by the creed of their politics, let us instead judge them by the content of their character.

My Conflicting Opinions of Fox News: Haiti Earthquake Coverage

An interesting analysis by the media watch group Media Matters breaks down Fox News' 1/13/2010 Haiti earthquake coverage as compared to its counterbalance MSNBC:

"Fox News' three top-rated programs for 2009, combined to devote a total of 6 minutes, 41 seconds of coverage to the earthquake in Haiti. Among the things they chose to air instead were Beck's interview with Palin -- to which he devoted nearly his entire show -- Hannity's continued advocacy for Brown; and O'Reilly's discussion of Stewart. Countdown, The Rachel Maddow Show, and Hardball, MSNBC's three top-rated shows, devoted 2 hours, 2 minutes and 33 seconds to the earthquake -- more than 18 times the coverage devoted by Fox News' top three shows. Other Fox News shows -- such as Special Report with Bret Baier and The Fox Report with Shepard Smith -- did devote extensive coverage to the earthquake."

The initial reaction might be a balk at Fox's insensitivity, however I welcome the break from the constant barrage of Haiti coverage. While of course my heart goes out to the people of Haiti and I'm supporting their relief, there are actually other things going on in the world.

Since the earthquake, the UN announced 2009 to have been Afghanistan's deadliest year since 2001, the nations top Banking Execs are appearing on Capital Hill, Prop 8 is going on trial, Israel is deporting American journalists, the Defense Department surpassed $700 billion in their budget for the first time in history as Obama requested an additional $33 Billion to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, six of the nation's largest insurance companies have been implicated in launching a $20 million anti-health reform campaign, the Federal government has accused Bank of America of illegally hiding Merrill Lynch losses from investors before acquiring them in 2008, 1 in 8 Americans are now reported to be on food stamps, Google is pulling out of China because of serious censorship and hacking threats, food giant Monsanto's genetic modification of corn has been linked to a "dramatic public health" threat, and the creator of SpagettiOs Donald Goerke passed away.

But you wouldn't know any of this because right now, nothing else is as important as splattering the nation's television screens with graphic horror stories from Haiti so that mainstream media can earn an extra half-a-point in the Neilson ratings.

Fox News may not be any less cannibalistic, but at least there is some variety to their balderdash.

My Resolution is to Drop the Bush Excuse

 

The desire to make excuses for the politicians we support in the face of adversity is so tempting and natural that it has become virtually impossible to be bipartisan. Democrat or Republican, the moment we face uncertainty with the current administration, we invoke the Bush administration to reaffirm our notion that we are still right and the opposition is still wrong.