And:
Both opposed civil rights initially. Both converted to support civil rights. One was an outspoken member of the Ku Klux Klan. One was not. Wanna guess which was which?
Oh, and one died a Democrat, the other not.
Both obits were written by Adam Clymer for The New York Times. Guess we know where his priorities are. Objective news not being too high on his list apparently.
Hat tip to Doug Powers at MichelleMalkin.com.
I have never seen such a muddled mess as what has become of the Tea Party/Libertarian/Republican discussion. Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake.com, and Huffington Post, takes that confusion to new levels. She’s just all beside herself that Tea Partiers aren’t totally enamored with an avowed Libertarian, mainly in her mind because a Neo-Con supported the Libertarian Tea Partier’s son who’s running “strong” as a Republican in a Democrat state. You can read her stuff at FireDog, or the slightly different version at Huffington. Now, without spending one second trying to figure out what Ms. Hamsher’s politics are, she’s making the exact same mistake the Democrats have made for 20 years, the liberals have always made, and the media has tried desperately to convince everyone. She’s assuming that all Republicans are exactly alike and therefore should be one or the other. She’s assuming there is some sort of ethical right or wrong and one will win out because of that. She’s also assuming that they all believe in the same philosophical end-game. That seems to be a common theme on Huffington, and DailyKos, MSNBC, and The White House as well.
The simple answer to how wrong that thinking is, is, well, rather simple. If they were all seeking the same result, and therefore pursuing the same people, then there never would have been the separations in the first place. Muslims, Christians, and Jews believe in the same God, but they don’t believe at all in the same way to be with him. Same here.
Neo-Cons are the ethical branch of the conservatives. They’re the ones concerned with abortion, and enforcing laws that punish people who do bad things. Tea Partiers think the federal government has gone too far in controlling our lives. See an inherent conflict there Jane? Libertarians basically believe in stripping the entire country down to the very basic concept of the Constitution, and limiting the Constitution in the process. They used to be called Anarchists back when the Republican party stood for something other than it does now. OK, so some believe in using government to dictate social norms, some believe in a limited government, and some believe in basically no government. Somehow, Jane Hamsher and a lot of others don’t see a conflict with those three philosophies. So, what they do is look at their overt words and ignore the over-all picture. Sarah Palin is not a Tea Partier, and she is not a Libertarian. She is a Neo-Con to the core. Ron Paul is not a Neo-Con, and he is not a Tea Partier, he’s Libertarian to the core. Now, where it gets real confusing to the Jane Hamshers and Kospeeps is the concept that there is no 100% Tea-Partier at this time. So, what is happening is actual candidates are vying for the support of the Tea Partiers by offering the concepts they believe in that more closely mimic the philosophy of the Tea Partiers. If a Tea Partier wants less government, then it’s going to get completely out of the abortion issue entirely. That bothers Libertarians because it doesn’t say abortions are legal, and it bothers Neo-Cons by not saying abortions are illegal. And to this point in time, not one politician has had the balls to simply state abortion is not an issue the federal government should be dealing with. That’s what the Tea Partiers are looking for right now. That’s what confounds Jane Hamsher, that’s what confounds Ron Paul, that’s what confounds Sarah Palin, it confounds Obama, and it most certainly is confounding the media.
And, the reason we’re discussing this now is it most definitely is confounding the Republican Party at this time as well. And, the reason the Republican Party is in the position it is right now is that WAS the philosophy of the Party when it was conceived. By losing site of that philosophy, it has allowed the Neo-Cons, the Libertarians, and the Tea Partiers, to split the party repeatedly and try to make it what they want it to be. Neither Ron Paul or Sarah Palin represent the philosophy of the Tea Partiers. From what I can tell, their values right now are basically what the Republican Party intended to be in 1840. The very nature of both of these people is that they can never be true Republicans, or Tea Partiers, so long as they expect their party to have some ethical judgments regarding society. It’s just real damn hard to be a politician and say its none of my business. And, until both of these people are willing to put states’ rights above their own ethical judgments, they won’t represent the Tea Partiers. Or me.
When Obama won in 2008, he brought a lot of Democrats in with him. That was just the icing for what had been a slow erosion of the Republican pinnacle of the early 21st century. Republicans have rarely wielded a whole lot of power in the Senate and Congress, so being outnumbered probably meant a lot more to Democrats than it did Republicans. So much so, a lot of them proclaimed the Republican party was no longer a force to be dealt with. They were just a handful of trouble makers who did nothing but oppose what was good for themselves, and everyone else.
Then a funny thing happened on the way to the very next election. One of those Democrats swept in with the Obama craze of 2009 switched parties. Then another rather unforeseen and totally unexpected thing happened, the Rothenberg Political Report moved the Massachusetts Senate election to toss-up. This is the state that gave us all the Kennedys. Now, before anyone gets all tore up, Republicans have won in Massachusetts occasionally. They did give us Mitt Romney. He was their governor from 2003-2007. So, it can happen. It just doesn’t happen that often in the Senate. It just hadn’t happened since 1979. And with the most excellent shining examples of the best Massachusetts had to offer in Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, who could blame them for not voting for anyone else? Finally being forced to choose someone other than Ted Kennedy for the first time since 1962, Martha Coakley assumed the throne of the Democrat designee to the Senate. Assuming nothing less than a major landslide, she coasted. But, the problem is, she’s not impressing people much. One poll very recently came up with these numbers:
| ALL | DEM | REP | IND | |
| Martha Coakley | 49% | 82% | 7% | 36% |
| Scott Brown | 41% | 12% | 85% | 49% |
| Joseph Kennedy | 5% | 1% | 2% | 11% |
| Undecided | 5% | 5% | 6% | 4% |
Now, this wouldn’t mean much to me, since I’m not really a polls kind of guy, but it came from the Blue Mass Group. Blue Mass, as in Democrat. Other polls have the race even tighter, but this is a Democrat sponsored poll. The assumption being of course that it’s about as optimistic as it can get. That being said, a Democrat female, running on the heels of the wildly popular Democrat African-American male for president, for the seat occupied formerly by a beloved Democrat for forty years, should be a complete blow-out. This shouldn’t even be discussed four days before the election. But it is. It is primarily because Coakley is getting creamed by the independent voters. That’s the swing vote folks. That’s what killed Kerry and Gore, and swept Obama into office. 2 in 5 Democrats aren’t even in her camp solidly. Unless she wins big Tuesday, a LOT of people are going to be questioning the policies of Obama. The Tea Party peeps will no longer be considered the radical fringe Republican troublemakers. They’ll represent the swing vote that will scare the begeebers out of the national candidates.
As unlikely as I thought it would be one week ago, I’ll be watching the Massachusetts returns Tuesday.
Harry’s right. There were people who supported these efforts, and those who didn’t.
Slavery’s a given. It was a Republican who freed the slaves in 1862. But, it goes deeper than that. The Whigs supported slavery ( sorry peeps, it wasn’t the Republicans ). The Democrats of the time opposed slavery. However, in 1850, a “compromise” was reached that was hammered down the Whigs throats that split Kansas into two separate states. The premise one being a “Northern” state and the other a “Southern” state. However, laws dictating their annexation pretty well made being a “Southern” state moot. As such, riots, raids, murders, and general lawlessness overwhelmed the new territories. The ensuing debate pretty well signaled the death of the Whig party. People who were anti-slavery BUT anti-federal imposition formed a new party. They called themselves Republicans. So it’s not just enough to say Republicans freed the slaves, they were formed for that very reason. Ending slavery, sorta, in 1862, didn’t make things any easier for Republicans:
The example here? Those who did not support ending slavery resorted to violence, intimidation, harassment, and using the weight of the federal government to compel others. The difference today is Harry Reid is using the weight of the federal government to harass, intimidate, and coerce people to get what they want. And yeah, you can toss in a little violence as well. There definitely are parallels, but I don’t think that’s what Harry had in mind.
Basically, what Harry’s saying here is they didn’t debate, discuss, or even read the Amendments. They did what he wants done now and just passed them because they sounded like good ideas. Let’s look a little closer at the reality:
| Amendment | Proposed | Ratified | Days | Years |
| 1st | 9/25/1789 | 12/15/1791 | 811 | 2.22 |
| 2nd | 9/25/1789 | 12/15/1791 | 811 | 2.22 |
| 3rd | 9/25/1789 | 12/15/1791 | 811 | 2.22 |
| 4th | 9/25/1789 | 12/15/1791 | 811 | 2.22 |
| 5th | 9/25/1789 | 12/15/1791 | 811 | 2.22 |
| 6th | 9/25/1789 | 12/15/1791 | 811 | 2.22 |
| 7th | 9/25/1789 | 12/15/1791 | 811 | 2.22 |
| 8th | 9/25/1789 | 12/15/1791 | 811 | 2.22 |
| 9th | 9/25/1789 | 12/15/1791 | 811 | 2.22 |
| 10th | 9/25/1789 | 12/15/1791 | 811 | 2.22 |
| 11th | 3/4/1794 | 2/7/1795 | 340 | 0.93 |
| 12th | 12/9/1803 | 6/15/1804 | 189 | 0.52 |
| 13th | 1/31/1865 | 12/06/1865 | 309 | 0.85 |
| 14th | 6/13/1866 | 7/9/1868 | 757 | 2.07 |
| 15th | 2/26/1869 | 2/3/1870 | 342 | 0.94 |
| 16th | 7/12/1909 | 2/3/1913 | 1,302 | 3.57 |
| 17th | 5/13/1912 | 4/8/1913 | 330 | 0.90 |
| 18th | 12/18/1917 | 1/16/1919 | 394 | 1.08 |
| 19th | 6/4/1919 | 8/18/1920 | 441 | 1.21 |
| 21st | 2/20/1933 | 12/5/1933 | 288 | 0.79 |
| 22nd | 3/24/1947 | 2/27/1951 | 1,436 | 3.93 |
| 23rd | 6/16/1960 | 3/29/1961 | 286 | 0.78 |
| 24th | 9/14/1962 | 1/23/1964 | 496 | 1.36 |
| 25th | 7/6/1965 | 2/10/1967 | 584 | 1.60 |
| 26th | 3/23/1971 | 7/1/1971 | 100 | 0.27 |
| 27th | 9/25/1789 | 5/7/1992 | 74,003 | 202.75 |
| Failed ( so far ) | ||||
| CAC | 9/25/1789 | 12/9/2009 | 80,336 | 220.10 |
| Titles of Nobility | 5/1/1810 | 12/9/2009 | 109,338 | 299.56 |
| Corwin | 3/2/1861 | 12/9/2009 | 54,246 | 148.62 |
| Child Labor | 3/2/1924 | 12/9/2009 | 31,237 | 85.58 |
| Equal Rights | 3/22/1972 | 3/22/1987 | 5,478 | 15.01 |
| DC Voting Rights | 8/22/1972 | 8/22/1987 | 5,478 | 15.01 |
Fact of the matter is, Harry’s dicking around with history. Only one amendment ever was agreed upon in 100 days or less. One of the quickest to pass (18th) was even more quickly repealed (21st). Women’s suffrage (19th) would never have been an issue if the 14th hadn’t been so sloppy. Maybe if they had slowed down on those two, things would have been a lot better a lot sooner.
Now, there are two differences between then and now:
- The issues Harry compared the health bill to were Constitutional amendments. He’s trying to pass a law. If he truly thinks this issue is on the same par as ending slavery or women suffrage, make it an amendment. Let the people all across the United States decide whether health care is a right. And, if it is, how much it has to cost.
- And to me this is the biggie, there is no health care bill to even debate. As of last night they’re still changing it. If you thought the public option was the cure, well, think again, it’s toast. So, what exactly is it Harry thinks we should rush through the Senate without discussing?
Michael Duvall was busted for sleeping with a lobbyist. No big deal. In fact, at least one of his conquests was pretty smoking hot. That would have bought him a pass most likely. However, he didn’t do it in the normal fashion. According to him, he made a mistake. However, I think most people saw a whole laundry list of mistakes, namely:
- You don’t talk about sex at work. Period.
- You don’t discuss personal details of sex. That’s more than anyone ever needs, and usually wants, to know.
- You never, never, never, discuss the hygene of sex. Ever. Talk about a mood-buster.
- You never discuss anything personal in front of a microphone.
- If you sit in front of a microphone, make sure it’s off. Might seem paranoid at the time, but…..
- You never, never, never, compare babes you cheating on your wife with. That word gets out, one or most likely both will make your life a living hell and have one incredibly simple way to do it. In this case, they had several to choose from.
- If you have an easy angle to score smokin hot babes, don’t tell anyone what it is.
- If you’re fat, pasty, and aging fast, worship what you’re getting now.
- If you politic on family values, keep it in your pants. If you can’t do that, don’t politic on family values. It’s enough to simply pass laws that enforce family values without getting preachy about it. People don’t like being lied to.
- And, my personal peave, if you’re gonna run around like a horn-dog bagging whatever bends over, get divorced first or some kind of arrangement with your wife. People just kinda get the willies when fat, pasty, married, fathers run around behaving like sex freaks. It puts the family in a very uncomfortable position as well. The family either has to swallow their pride and respect, or kick the bastard to the curb. It’s kinda hard to kick family to the curb tho. The wife can get a divorce easy enough, but the kids are kinda screwed.
- And, the main mistake, if you’re gonna ask people who vote to pay your salary, then take a vacation if you feel the urge to have a second childhood or just wanna get nasty for a while. Get it out of your system while no one cares. Have a complete blow-out and let it all hang out. THEN run on family values and keep it in your pants fora while. If that urge returns, take another vacation. If that urge never leaves, don’t get into politics.
- And bottom line, if you’re a Republican, expect headline news. If you’re going to behave that way in office, run as a Democrat and no one will ever say a word. “Until the Orange County Republican’s racy comments about his sexual conquests were caught on an open microphone in a Capitol hearing room and reported by CBS 2 and KCAL 9 Tuesday. “
This one’s for Nancy:
A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him, “Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don’t know where I am.”
The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, “You’re in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2,346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude.”
“She rolled her eyes and said, “You must be a Republican.”
“I am,” replied the man. “How did you know?”
“Well,” answered the balloonist, “everything you told me is technically correct. But I have no idea what to do with your information, and I’m still lost. Frankly, you’ve not been much help to me.”
The man smiled and responded, “You must be an Obama Democrat.”
“I am,” replied the balloonist. “How did you know?”
“Well,” said the man, “you don’t know where you are or where you are going. You’ve risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You’re in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but somehow, now it’s my fault.”
15
May
I have bemoaned over the last few years that Nancy Pelosi had one trick, and one trick only. “Bush lied”. Insert anything else you want, it just had to be preceded with “Bush lied”. A tsunami occurs, it’s because Bush lied. Pick anything you want. Eventually it morphed into the “Republican Culture of Corruption“. It wasn’t enough that Bush lied, now ALL Republicans lied. Time went by and the Democrats, fueled by “Bush lied”, “Republican culture of corruption”, and “change we can believe in“, swept the three branches of our government. Shortly before the last national elections, I pondered what the Democrats would do once they were in complete control and could no longer blame Republicans. Well, things have been kinda quiet other than Obama blaming Republicans for the financial meltdown. However, this week, Nancy Pelosi has gotten in some deep doo-doo. She decided she wanted to prosecute anyone who had anything to do in the decision making process regarding waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques. Only come to find out, she was part of the decision making process, having been briefed as early as 2002. Now, in 2002, Democrats were being cast as weak on national security. So, I guess she felt it was to her advantage to keep her mouth shut. However, once we started get close to election time 2008, she turned up the heat. It became a platform of Obama’s. He singled out waterboarding as something he would outlaw once he was president, regardless of the fact it already was. So, what does Nancy do when confronted with her obvious deception?
You guessed it.
Pelosi Accuses CIA, Bush Officials of ‘Misleading Congress’ About Waterboarding
Asked if she was “accusing the CIA of lying to you in September of 2002,” Pelosi replied: “Yes, misleading the Congress of the United States, misleading the Congress of the United States. I am.”
Of the Republicans, Pelosi said: “They misrepresent every step of the way. They don’t want the focus on them. They want it on us.
Now, what this all boils down to, according to Nancy, is the CIA said they “could” use harsh techniques, not that they “would”. That folks, is her idea of someone misrepresenting themself.
What boggles me is that right on cue, the liberal masses jump right in line and provide her a smokescreen:
Poliblog’s not the only one, it’s all over the ‘net now. This is simply a GOP thing to distract from the harsh interrogations debate.
So, any attempt to attack Nancy Pelosi for lieing for years on this topic is simply point-scoring. That we can not discuss her, for that would be avoiding the actual policy issues. They are very certain of that.
That’s pretty remarkable to me since there is no interrogation policy issue at stake here. Waterboarding and the other harsh techniques were banned in 2008. They were done away about when Obama became a nominee. The policy issue at stake here is whether or not a new administration should go after a previous administration over policy issues. Nancy Pelosi is wanting to prosecute anyone who had anything to do with waterboarding all the way up to, and I imagine the ultimate target, Dick Cheney. That’s all that’s going on here folks. The waterboarding issue itself was settled a long time ago by a different administration.
So, now that we’ve got that clear, the issue of whether or not Nancy Pelosi should politically go after a previous administration using congressional powers to do so is what is being discussed here. It becomes cut and dry when the fact Nancy Pelosi was part of the previous administration she is now attacking. She was aware of harsh interrogation techniques and did nothing tangible about it. So, the issue now becomes whether or not she can target specific people she wants, since she’ll have to disqualify the committee she was on, the one that approved them in the first place.
Basically, it looks like her entire effort to exact political retribution against her political nemesis has fallen very visibly on its face.
And, you know what’s even more amazing? A lot of people don’t care. They are STILL arguing this is a debate over whether or not to justify using torture. And, ( follow the comments on Poliblog ) any effort to argue otherwise will be met with the harshest of retributions.
A lot was made of Arlen Specter’s jumping ship and declaring he was a Democrat. His logic was the Republican Party left him. A lot of people, including myself, figured a deal had been struck between Specter and the Democrat leadership, which at this time would be Obama and Reid. Sure enough, both came out declaring their support for Specter:
Obama went even further:
Specter immediately returned the favor by voting against Obama’s budget, and more curiously, endorsed Norm Coleman over Al Franken. This led to a rather goofy explanation from Harry Reid:
Paybacks were immediate. The Democrats, over the promises of both Harry Reid and Obama to allow Specter to retain is seniority, stripped him of 29 years of seniority and ranking positions on several committees, particularly the Senate Judicial Committee, of which he’ll now be the least senior, and have the last questions for the new Supreme Court Justice nominee.
More importantly, in the long run, all this gave the original Democrat favored primary candidate reason to reconsider his position. He immediately became a lot more active, and enthusiastic, about being a candidate next year. If he’s reading the rather overt signs coming out of DC, he’d probably get the idea that Obama and Reid’s, ergo the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, would be lukewarm at best, if at all. Which is kinda fun since the DSCC still touts Specter on their front page:
According to Specter, the Republicans left him. Now, it seems, the Democrats have as well. I’ll be interested to see how much Obama stumps for the man he praised last week come primary time in Pennsylvania.
28
Apr
Arlen Specter switched loyalties today. A move that surprised me only in the fact it proves he’s not completely daft. Some people are reading a lot into this:
OK, I’ll say it, the Republican party is better off without Specter. My logic is a little pretzeled, but here goes. With the numbers what they were before his switch, the Republicans had no power, no authority, and realistically no real chance of a successful filibuster with the Republican in name only Specter. But, that option mathematically was there. So, a lot of people could easily argue things that the Republicans had absolutely no ability to control was their fault. Take for instance the swine flu situation. People are actually saying Karl Rove had the ability to kill something Nancy Pelosi and David Obey wanted. Not so now. This is 100% Obama, Pelosi, and Reid’s game. There can be no filibuster in the Senate and realistically little chance of one in the House. The only way it will happen is Democrats for some bizarre reason see fit to filibuster their own legislation. Won’t happen.
Now, the logic for Specter jumping sides is very obvious. During the 2008 election, a lot of Republicans switched parties to vote in the Democrat primary. Most I’m sure never switched back. So, I’m guessing Specter’s thinking is those people who voted for him five times in the past as a Republican in name only and then switched parties would only vote for him if he did likewise. If they switched registrations again in 2010, I’m sure Specter would too.
That filibuster-proof Senate of course is still contingent upon Al Franken getting more Republican votes thrown out of his election than the Republican can toss Democrats. And of course, the ability to maintain that filibuster-proof Senate is contingent upon Roland Burris fighting off his ethics charges and actually winning an election. We also can’t forget Jack Murtha dodging his own ethics issues.
With absolute power comes corruption. Maybe not as obvious as Murtha’s, but corruption nonetheless in that the ruling party feels no obligation to what it was that got them there. The Democrats had absolute power in the late 70′s, it crumbled immediately. The Republicans had absolute power at the onset of the 21st century. It crumbled just as quickly. So, whether it’s 58 or 60 votes, Democrats have absolute power now. Let’s see how long it takes to crumble as well. My guess, pretty dang quick.
I kid you not. John Nichols at The Nation actually is blaming this “pandemic” on Republicans. He’s serious too. Here’s some meat:
When House Appropriations Committee chairman David Obey, the Wisconsin Democrat who has long championed investment in pandemic preparation, included roughly $900 million for that purpose in this year’s emergency stimulus bill, he was ridiculed by conservative operatives and congressional Republicans.
Obey and other advocates for the spending argued, correctly, that a pandemic hitting in the midst of an economic downturn could turn a recession into something far worse — with workers ordered to remain in their homes, workplaces shuttered to avoid the spread of disease, transportation systems grinding to a halt and demand for emergency services and public health interventions skyrocketing. Indeed, they suggested, pandemic preparation was essential to any responsible plan for renewing the U.S. economy.
But former White House political czar Karl Rove and key congressional Republicans — led by Maine Senator Susan Collins — aggressively attacked the notion that there was a connection between pandemic preparation and economic recovery.
Now, as the World Health Organization says a deadly swine flu outbreak that apparently began in Mexico but has spread to the United States has the potential to develop into a pandemic, Obey’s attempt to secure the money seems eerily prescient.
And his partisan attacks on his efforts seem not just creepy, but dangerous.
The current swine flu outbreak is not a pandemic, and there is reason to hope that it can be contained.
But it has already believed to have killed more than 100 people in a neighboring country and sickened dozens of Americans — causing the closing of schools and other public facilities in U.S. cities.
Scared yet?
Dr. Anne Schuchat, the U.S Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Interim Deputy Director for Science and Public Health Program, explained to reporters on Saturday that, because the cases that have been discovered so far are so widely spread (in California, Kansas, New York, Ohio and Texas), the outbreak is already “beyond containment.”
On Sunday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that a national “public health emergency” had been declatred. Notably, the second question at the White House press conference on the emergency had to do with the potential impact on the economic recovery.
On Monday, the question began to be answered, as Associated Press reported — under the headline: “World Markets Struck By Swine Flu Fears” — that: “World stock markets fell Monday as investors worried that a deadly outbreak of swine flu in Mexico could go global and derail any global economic recovery.”
Before U.S. markets opened, the Wall Street Journal reported: “U.S. stock futures fell sharply Monday as the outbreak of deadly swine flu stoked fears that a possible recovery in the global economy could be derailed.”
That’s unsettling.
To many Americans, genuinely scary.
He’s got a point, there have been all kinds of headlines of swine flu disturbing the market. Noatably, here’s one from Yahoo:
Wall Street Seesaws Amid Swine Flu Fears- Reuters
Wall Street is fluctuating amid investor worry over the possibility of a major swine flu outbreak. Investors were nervous that the flu could spread and thwart economic recovery; in later trade, they are scooping up shares of drug makers and pharmacies.
If you click on that headline, you get this:
Wall Street up as GM, techs outweigh flu anxiety
That’s right. Within the time it took them to create the headline, other things became more important. Nichols goes on and on and on about how Karl Rove did all this and he is the reason we are experiencing this catastrophe. He sums it up with:
The bottom line is that there were no heroes in either party on the Senate side of the ugly process that ridiculed and then eliminated pandemic preparedness funding.
There is, however, a hero on the House side. Throughout the process, David Obey battled to get Congress to recognize that a pandemic would threaten not just public health but a fragile economic recovery.
OK, let’s get real for a second, shall we?
This “pandemic” in the United States has now involved twenty cases from California to New York. That’s 20. So far, deaths in the United States are zero. All of the twenty are recovering. This “pandemic” so far has had zero economic impact as far as workers having to stay home, etc..
Second, the Dow is down 16 points. That’s about as flat as you can get. This also includes the headlines that GM is shutting down plants and laying off 21,000 people. The evidence so far is, regardless of the headlines, this “pandemic” has had zero impact on the US markets.
Obey was requesting a total of $1.3 BILLION according to this article. Here’s what the CDC, who Nichols says would have gotten the money, says has to be done to safeguard individuals as much as possible from H1N1:
- Cover your nose and mouth with a tissue when you cough or sneeze. Throw the tissue in the trash after you use it.
- Wash your hands often with soap and water, especially after you cough or sneeze. Alcohol-based hand cleaners are also effective.
- Avoid touching your eyes, nose or mouth. Germs spread this way.
- Try to avoid close contact with sick people.
- If you get sick with influenza, CDC recommends that you stay home from work or school and limit contact with others to keep from infecting them.
What is the best way to keep from spreading the virus through coughing or sneezing?
OK, Nichols and Obey, what part of those instructions requires $1.3 BILLION? There is no vaccine. There can’t be a vaccine until they know exactly how this has mutated. They will know that once a few people have gotten it and survived. That’s happening now, that process has been in place for decades. They need no funding for that. The instructions for avoiding swine flu are no different than avoiding ANY FLU. So, what exactly do we need $1.3 BILLION for? Soap?
So, even IF David Obey had gotten his $1.3 BILLION for pandemic control, what would they have done any different? How would they have guessed that the first cases of swine flu in North America would have been in Mexico? And, what would the United States Centers for Disease Control have done IN MEXICO?
The answer to all the above is nothing. There is nothing that would have, or could have, been done differently. Mexico, in case Nichols forgot, is outside the domain of the CDC. What happened was a bunch of US citizens were explosed before anyone had a clue what was going on. Once they realized they were exposed, they got medical attention and all will recover. This is not a pandemic. In this country, I doubt it ever will be. Scientists have seen this coming for years. I wrote about Avian and Swine spam four years ago.
Now, where this becomes absolutely inane is when you look at the most damning fact of them all:
The Democrats control the Senate, the House, and the White House. The Republicans control NOTHING. If Nancy Pelosi wanted this $1.3 BILLION to go to CDC, $1.3 BILLION would have gone to CDC. It’s that simple Nichols. Karl Rove, regardless of what John Nichols might think, HAS NO legislative powers at all. Zero. None. Nada. What Karl Rove thinks is irrelevant. It’s what Nancy Pelosi does that counts. And what Nancy Pelosi did was shoot down David Obey’s request. She’s in charge of the appropriations process, not Karl Rove, and certainly not any elected Republican. The only reason that funding was not put in place is because of floor leadership. That is Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi controlled every single penny that went into that emergency stimulus bill. In case Nichols needs to be reminded, Nancy Pelosi is a D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T.
To me, David Obey is pandering to public using the hysteria of swine flu as his audience, and John Nichols is practicing the absolute worst form of biased partisan reporting imaginable.
Quickie Update:
Quickie update 2: Pandemic funding was put in place in 2007. In that vote, Nancy Pelosi, along with most Democrats, opposed the funding. Included in that vote total that opposed pandemic flu preparedness, David Obey.
That’s all I have to say about that.
