You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (707)

PLAYS: (897)

As Jed noted "What would a health care debate be without some good ol' fashioned race-baiting from the G.O.P.?" Stay classy Alexander. So let me get this straight...the Democrats want to steal from grandma to give to the "ghetto"...or did I miss something here?

Alexander: Every other word we hear coming from the other side is that this vote tonight is historic. And I agree it’s historic, but I think my view of why it’s historic is a little different than their view. And I wonder if my colleagues would not agree with me that this bill is historic in its arrogance—in its arrogance that we in Congress are wise enough to take this entire complex health care system that serves 300 million Americans, that is 16% of our economy, and write a, and think that we could write a 2000 page bill and be wise enough to change it all—all at once.

Or arrogant in the, in its dumping of 15 million low income Americans into a Medical Ghetto called Medicaid that none of us, or any of our families would ever want to be a part of for our health care.

Or arrogant in then sending to the states, who are going broke a big chunk of the bill for what we’ve just done. Or arrogant enough to tell Americans that the bill cost $849 billion and think we’re not smart enough to read the print and figure out that it’s actually $2.5 trillion when it actually is implemented. Or to tell us that paying for reimbursement for physicians is not an important part of a health care bill, and so they run over here in the dead of night—run up the deficit another quarter of a trillion dollars.

I can make a long list of reasons this bill is arrogant—arrogant enough to cut and tax grandma’s Medicare that’s going broke according to the trustees in 2015-2017 and then spend it on somebody else other than grandma.

I mean the bill is arrogant in its telling us that it’s going to reduce premiums for most Americans when in fact it increases premiums for most Americans. So people say “Where is the Republican health care bill?’ and my answer to that Mr. President is don’t expect Sen. McConnell to come rollin’ in here with a wheelbarrow with a 2000 page budget busting, debt ridden, arrogant piece of legislation because that’s not what we believe in.

What we need to do as a Congress is re-earn the trust of the American people by setting a clear goal of reducing health care costs, showing some humility and start moving step by step in that direction and I hope during this hour that we have a chance to talk about the specifics steps to reduce health care costs that we Republicans have offered day after day after day to no avail.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (54)

PLAYS: (186)

November 21, 2009 C-SPAN

Senators Hatch and Brownback preaching the evils of abortion during the Senate health care debate.

Heather: The GOP does always love the fetus until its old enough to be cannon fodder, don't they? When these people finally have the same sense of moral outrage over those they send to die in useless wars rather than wanting to control women and send them back to the 1950's, maybe any of us can take their feigned outrage seriously.

8:09 EST: Dodd, presiding over the Senate, said the motion passed, smattering of applause. Motion is agreed to. Clerk is now reporting the bill and amendment.

And that's it for the night. Debate will begin after Thanksgiving, plus amendments, then moving on to the final cloture motion and a final vote.

8:04 EST: Cloture passes 60-39. Debate will start after Thanksgiving.

7:57 EST: Voting continuing.

7:56 EST: Clerk reading cloture motion.

The question is: Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the motion to proceed shall be brought to a close. Clerk is calling the roll.

Voting now.

7:55 EST: Vote starting 5 minutes early.

7:54 EST: Absence of a quorum noted by Reid, and the roll is being called. Vote coming soon!

7:44 EST: The American people want us to start over. All it would take is just one on the other side of the aisle to not end the debate, but change the debate.

And he's yielded.

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) is up.

My friend, the minority leader, has had since Wednesday to read the bill. Obviously he hasn't done so.

We debate the right to live free of disease and death by giving health care for all. The road has started many times, never been completed. Merged bills have never been done before. We couldn't have got here without the help of many Senators.

As a matter of principle, that I respect, the senior Senator from Arkansas insisted we have time to read the bill. All Senators have now had ample time. That is why we are voting tonight.

I invite Republicans to join the right side of history. Around dining room tables, families are agonizing over what to sacrifice next to afford health care. Employers are wondering whether they can afford to provide health care. Americans need reform.

Debate is constant, but the only place where silence is evened considered is the Senate. Now, finally, we have the opportunity to bring this great deliberation to this body. That and nothing more is what this vote does.

A yes vote says this issue is important and the Senate should at least talk about it.

Some Republicans would like Americans to think voting to debate the bill is voting to pass the bill. Tonight's vote is only the beginning of debate. It's clear Republicans have no problem talking about health care on TV, at town hall meetings, on the radio, yet now that we have the legislation to debate, to amend, to build on, will they refuse to debate?

If we refuse to let the Senate do its job, what are we doing here? What do we fear? And who's voice to you speak for? In who's interest do you vote?

Certainly debating reform can't be more difficult than American deciding to pay their mortgage or medical bills. It can't be more upsetting than having an insurance company take away your coverage when you need it the most.

Kennedy once said let us not be afraid of debate or discussion, let us encourage it.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (85)

PLAYS: (319)

Sen. Al Franken explained why he supports the Senate health care bill.

Franken: From 2000 to 2007 American families saw their premiums almost double. During that same time, we saw more than six million more Americans became uninsured. And during that same time, insurance company profits rose 428 percent--428 percent. That’s all you need to know, that's all you need to know to understand why we have to pass this bill. 482 percent in 8 years. No wonder they’re fighting this bill. Of course they don’t want to be subject to antitrust laws. They’re making outrageous profits by gouging American families. Make no mistake, that’s what this is about.

Franken went on to explain which provisions of the bill would kick in immediately and reform the current system and that he hoped to try to improve the bill through the amendment process. You're going to have a huge uphill battle there Senator.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (68)

PLAYS: (151)

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (31)

PLAYS: (84)

C-SPAN Nov. 21, 2009

Sen. Mary Landrieu announce she will allow debate on the health care bill to move forward

Landrieu: I've decided that there are enough significant reforms and safeguards in this bill to move forward, but much more work needs to be done.

Sadly the work she wants to see done is watering down the public option to make sure it's not robust enough to offer any real reform. I wonder what kind of deal they had to make with her already just to get this vote.

From The Daily Show:

The House of Representatives finally passes health care reform after the exciting pre-game festivities.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1575)

PLAYS: (2776)

Rep. Edward Markey on the Republican's "do nothing substitute" health care bill. Well said Congressman.

Markey: You know the G.O.P. used to stand for Grand Old Party. Now it stands for grandstand, oppose and pretend. They grandstand with phony claims about non-existent death panels. They oppose any real reform and with this substitute they pretend to offer a solution while really doing nothing. G.O.P.--grandstand, oppose and pretend and make no mistake about it the Republican substitute is not real reform. It does nothing to curb skyrocketing healthcare costs. It does nothing to provide real insurance coverage to millions who are now uninsured. It does nothing to stop the unfair practices of insurance companies. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Republican do-nothing substitute.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1575)

PLAYS: (5141)

One of John Boehner's more childish moments on the House floor tonight, asking Charlie Rangel for assurances on what's going to come out of the Conference Committee in the final bill, and cutting him off before he has a chance to answer him.

h/t Jed Lewison at Daily KOS TV.

If Dick Cheney were one-tenth the man that Jesse Ventura is, he’d be at least twice as big a man as he really is.

Fine job with the mash up sir. Can we get Jesse a job on any of the cable news networks and let him interview Cheney face to face? I don't think Cheney would show up if invited.

DOWNLOAD (43)

PLAY (114)

In response to Michael Steele's comments to the Washington Times:

Newly elected Republican National Committee Chairman Michael S. Steele plans an “off the hook” public relations offensive to attract younger voters, especially blacks and Hispanics, by applying the party's principles to “urban-suburban hip-hop settings.”

Stephen lays out this challenge:

So, Michael Steele, I hereby invite, nay challenge you to come on the Report for a frank discussion of core conservative principles in the form of freestyle rap. You and me are going to lay down some dope, yet fiscally responsible rhymes. Ball's in your court Steele.

Anyone think he'll take him up on it?

The UN says Zimbabwe's government is hiding the full scale of its cholera epidemic. Original video from the UK's Sky News.

Nicole Belle sent me a link today about a report by Physicians for Human Rights on the horror story Zimbabwe has become:

PHR found that the Mugabe government has withheld food aid, seed, and fertilizer to rural provinces in order to starve political opponents; that the regime nationalized and then withheld routine support for municipal water and sewer systems from cities that elected political opponents; that the health care infrastructure and the economy itself is nearing utter collapse; corruption is the rule not the exception; and that the regime brutally silences critics to cover its crimes, profound corruption and incompetence (see report here).

“While we were there,” Frank Donaghue, CEO of Physicians for Human Rights told Religion Dispatches, “human rights activists were imprisoned and tortured.”

“People think that the most compelling problem is cholera,” he said (and indeed, the cholera outbreak has been widely reported). But, adds Donaghue, it is also a symptom of more profound underlying problems. “The issue is the collapse of the government, the economy, and the health system” he said. “Human waste is running down the streets. Kids are playing in it. The sewage system is in such bad repair that you get sewage in tap water.”

 and added:

This could so easily be a big foreign policy headache for Obama, too easily reminiscent of the Clinton policy in Rwanda -- with Hillary Clinton at State...

And it wouldn't hurt progressives to get out ahead on this

Nicole's correct. But what to do? I just don't see the US being able to act alone or cobble together another Coalition of the Willing without the UN's blessing. Mugabe is as nutz as the neocons would like us to think Ahmadinejad is and has the military's backing - sanctions and political pressure likely won't do a thing. Zimbabwe has only 30,000 of an army and an almost non-existent airforce so intervention by force would be a "cakewalk"...in the primary (invasion) phase...

But then there's the many short and long term drawbacks of yet another invasion and occupation to consider. South Africa's support and basing agreements would be essential. There would certainly be an insurgency of some kind. Accusations of colonialism and imperialist invasions would echo and probably rightly so. The US and others are still not set up for nation-building. The UK already has military contingency plans in place but has said clearly it won't go it alone for these very reasons.

The best bet, to my mind, would be a UN-mandated relief effort, protected by a UN-mandated force - which would have to include African troops. That's likely inadequate to the problem, but it's what's feasible in both short and long terms and a bit of help is better than no help at all.

The situation is certainly dire enough that PHR is asking for UN intervention.

Control of Zimbabwe's shattered health system should be handed over to the United Nations, an independent doctors group has demanded.

As the official death toll from the country's cholera epidemic yesterday topped 2,000, Physicians for Human Rights said government corruption was killing innocent people. The international doctors' group also called for President Robert Mugabe to be investigated by the International Criminal Court at the launch of a report titled Health in Ruins – A Man-made Disaster in Zimbabwe.

Is Zimbabwe a justified cause for a UN-approved coalition empowered under the Responsibility to Protect principles as ratified at the 2001 ICISS summit and recognized under UN Security Council Resolution 1674 (2006)?  This resolution technically commits Security Council members to intervene in situations like this (if they are deemed to qualify as "genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity").

At that point, the first problem becomes one of getting such a resolution passed. China, which is heavily invested in Zimbabwe and thus the Mugabe government, might well veto any such move and some of Zimbabwe's neighbours including SA wouldn't be too happy at the prospect of refugees streaming across their borders. The second problem, of course, would be affording such a military-supported relief effort in the midst of an economic crisis. The third, stopping Zimbabwe turning into another quagmire.

Until recently, I thought that negotiations between the government and its main rival might provide a solution, but now it's obvious they won't. I'm not entirely opposed to the notion of using force for humanitarian interventions but I am very opposed to the notion that a new Zimbabwe effort would also open the door to more of the same after Iraq slammed it closed good and hard. The neo-whatevers, who have always loved war more than the humanitarian reasons they advance for those wars, would just love that. Since I'm no longer certain as to what to think, so this post is by way of asking for thoughts and debate.

Crossposted from Newshoggers

DOWNLOAD (18)

PLAY (59)

Norah O'Donnell was in Kansas City, Missouri during the debate yesterday with a panel of undecided voters. Their responsiveness to the candidates on the specific issues of McCain's invoking of Bill Ayers and Obama's tying McCain to George Bush was emblematic of the greater take on the debate as a whole.

Look at the red line signifying registered Republicans. As McCain goes on the attack about Ayers, it drops below the horizon into negative territory, side by side with the Independent vote. As the voter O'Donnell interviewed said, the whole Ayers issue has been dealt with and it's just beating a dead horse.

But more telling, look at that same red Republican line when Obama says that the country can't afford another 8 years of Bush policies. Up, up, up! No matter how petulantly McCain tries to distance himself from Bush, it's clear that the voters aren't buying it for a minute.

Clearly, in all his debate prep, no one thought to coach McCain not to go to the third rail of the abortion issue. Boy, was that an oversight. Because not only did McCain go there, he jumped right on to it.

In trying to paint Obama as being for the great Republican bugaboo of late term abortions (because, you know, there are so many women running around and deciding after being pregnant for six or more months that being pregnant is no longer convenient for them), Obama replied that he didn't vote for the late term abortion ban because it had no provision for the health or life of the mother. And that's when McCain proved how heartless and clueless he is:

Again…just again, an example of the eloquence of Senator Obama, health (indicates air quotes) of the mother. You know that’s been stretched by the pro-abortion movement to mean almost anything.

Really? Not a legitimate concern? Tell that to these women.

(h/t Jesse)

Probably a good idea to study your opponent's stance when you plan to attack him on it in front of millions of potential viewers. Otherwise you end up like Grampy McCrankypants with his total deer-in-the-headlight look when Obama set him straight:

Obama: I'm happy to talk to you, Joe, too, if you're out there. Here is your fine: Zero.

McCain interrupts: Zero??

Obama: Zero. You won't pay a fine because as I said in our last debate, and I'll repeat John, I exempt small businesses from the requirement for large businesses that can afford to provide health care to their employees who are not doing it. I exempt small businesses from having to pay into a kitty...

With Henry Paulson on record that he would not continue past the Bush term as Treasury Secretary, debate moderator Tom Brokaw asked who the candidates would choose as a Treasury Secretary. McCain's response:

You know that’s a tough question, and there’s a lot of qualified Americans. But I think the first criteria, Tom, would have to be somebody who immediately Americans identify with. Immediately say we can trust that individual. Supporter of Sen. Obama’s is Warren Buffet. He’s already weighed in and helped stabilize some of the difficulties in the markets and with companies and corporations, institutions today. I like Meg Whitman. She knows what it’s like to be out there in the marketplace. She knows how to create jobs. Whitman was CEO of a company that started with 12 people and now, 1.3 million people in America make their living off eBay. Maybe someone here has done business with them. But the point is, it’s going to have to be somebody who inspires trust and confidence.

Confidence? Hmmmmm....I guess McCain didn't read today's LA Times:

Online retailer EBay Inc., which is trying to reverse years of slowing growth in its auction business amid rising competition and a spreading financial crisis, said Monday that it would cut 10% of its global workforce even as it spends $1.3 billion to buy three Web businesses.

Even after announcing the largest reduction in its 13-year history, which EBay said would save $150 million in annual operating costs, the San Jose company saw its shares tumble by as much as 12% to their lowest level in more than five years. They recovered to close at $17.89, down 5.5%.

Investors are concerned that EBay's bread and butter, online auctions, is showing increasing vulnerability to slowing consumer spending, the slumping U.S. housing market and high fuel prices.[..]

Although EBay said the layoffs (of about 1,000 full time employees) were not a result of the economic downturn, Chief Executive John Donahoe acknowledged that the weakening economy and the strengthening dollar were affecting sales. Donahoe, who took the reins from Meg Whitman in March, has been trying to lead a corporate overhaul.

Yeah, that inspires confidence, doesn't it? But I'm curious, as the Obama debate record site shows, McCain has mentioned his good friend Phil Gramm several times as a likely Treasury Secretary. Wonder why he didn't bring him up last night?