House Republicans Plan to Redefine Rape Drugged, Raped, and Pregnant? Too bad

House Republicans Plan to Redefine Rape
Drugged, Raped, and Pregnant? Too bad

Drugged, raped, and pregnant? Too bad. Republicans are pushing to limit rape and incest cases eligible for government abortion funding. Rape is only really rape if it involves force. So says the new House Republican majority as it now moves to change abortion law.

For years, federal laws restricting the use of government funds to pay for abortions have included exemptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, with another exemption covering pregnancies that could endanger the life of the mother.

But the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," contains a provision that would rewrite the rules to drastically limit the definition of rape and incest in these cases. The bill, with 173 mostly Republican co-sponsors, has been dubbed a top priority in the new Congress by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).

With this legislation, which was introduced last week by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to "forcible rape." This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible.

For example, if a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion. Rep. Smith's spokesman did not respond to a call and an email requesting comment.

Given that the bill would also forbid the use of tax benefits to pay for abortions, that 13-year-old's parents would also not be allowed to use money from a tax-exempt health savings account (HSA) to pay for the procedure. They also wouldn't be able to deduct the cost of the abortion or the cost of any insurance that paid for it as a medical expense.

There used to be a quasi-truce between the pro and anti-choice forces on the issue of federal funding for abortion. Since 1976, federal law has prohibited the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions except in the cases of rape, incest, and when the pregnancy endangers the life of the woman.

There's your conservative values or tea bagger assclown values at work. They take the side of rapists against children.

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) is Owned by Banking Interests. His Reward? Republicans Put Anti-Investor and Anti-Consumer Toomey On Banking Committee

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) is Owned and Operated by Banking Interests. His Reward? Republicans Put Anti-Investor and Anti-Consumer Toomey On Banking Committee

ThinkProgress’ Ian Milhiser noted yesterday that Senate Republicans put Sen. Mike “noun, verb, unconstitutional” Lee (R-UT) on the Judiciary Committee, despite his radical ignorance regarding constitutional matters. But that wasn’t the only committee assignment for which the GOP decided that fealty to ideology was more important that acknowledging reality.

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) was one of the financial industry’s biggest apologists during November’s campaign, opposing the Dodd-Frank financial reform law while claiming that derivative deals were “non-risky,” even as they cost schools and cities all across the country (including many in Pennsylvania) millions of dollars. And Toomey has been totally unrepentant about his personal role in deregulating the financial industry.

In 2000, former Sen. Phil “mental recession” Gramm (R-TX) attached the Commodity Futures Modernization Act to an unrelated, 11,000 appropriations bill. The CFMA ensured that the growing market in over-the-counter derivatives, including credit default swaps, stayed entirely unregulated. Toomey — then a member of the House of Representatives — voted for that bill, and said that he would do it again, inaccurately claiming that the legislation “did absolutely nothing to cause the financial crisis.”

So, naturally, Republicans have seen fit to name Toomey to the Senate Banking Committee, which has oversight of the nation’s financial regulatory laws. The committee was instrumental in crafting Dodd-Frank.

Here’s what the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission — which released its final report yesterday — had to say about the bill Toomey claims did nothing to bring about the financial crisis:

The CFMA effectively shielded OTC derivatives from virtually all regulation or oversight. Subsequently, other laws enabled the expansion of the market…The OTC derivatives market boomed. At year-end 2000, when the CFMA was passed, the notional amount of OTC derivatives outstanding globally was $95.2 trillion, and the gross market value was $3.2 trillion. In the seven and a half years from then until June 2008, when the market peaked, outstanding OTC derivatives increased more than sevenfold to a notional amount of $672.6 trillion; their gross market value was $20.3 trillion.

Ultimately, the FCIC concluded, derivatives “were at the center of the storm.” And yet, Republicans put someone on the Banking Committee who has said that he would go back and deregulate those instruments all over again if he could.

In the course of his career, Toomey’s collected almost $2.5 million from the finance industry. He was also the the president of the Wall Street front group Club for Growth from 2005-2009.

The only thing the Republican Culture of Corruption learned from the Bush era seems to be to double down on the corruption. They're not even changing the propaganda. They claim bought and paid for criminals such as Toomey are guardians of capitalism. Beware Republican doublespeak.

Suddenly, the GOP loves the economy. The best proof that the jobs market is improving? Republicans want to take credit for it

The Republican argument, as explained by Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, is that the election results combined with the tax cut deal injected a new sense of "certainty" into the economy, which immediately translated into job creation. How you evaluate that thesis depends in part on whether you think companies make their hiring plans according to their future expectation of what taxes will be like or on the much more pressing question of whether they need more workers to satisfy current demand. But a closer look at the numbers also undermines the GOP thesis. In 2010, new jobless claims benefits peaked in August, and then started a more or less steady decline, long before the election or any tax deal. A score of other economic indicators started flashing the green light around the same time. It all came too late to help Democrats in the midterm elections, but the change was there to see nonetheless.

Looking for integrity and honor in the conservative movement, you'll need lots of time and a magnifying glass.

Ari Fleischer Still Rewriting History and Kissing Bush's Ass

The former White House press secretary attempts to praise the economic record of his boss. It's a big mistake

In the middle of a mildly heated post-State of the Union exchange between David Gergen and Ari Fleischer on CNN Wednesday night, the former press secretary for George W. Bush attempted to rule discussion of the Bush economic record out of bounds.

"We are no longer litigating the Bush administration," said Fleischer, who then promptly backtracked with a bold declaration that the Bush economy should be remembered as a time of steady growth.

"He came in with a recession, he left with a recession," said Fleischer, "but there was 52 months of job growth in between."

Gergen looked stunned, and well he should. First of all, Republicans are still litigating the New Deal, so the notion of declaring the Bush economy out of bounds for debate is as hypocritical as it is ridiculous. But it's entirely understandable why Fleischer would rather not go there. By pretty much any standard, the eight years of George W. Bush mark one of the worst periods of U.S. economic growth of any postwar president. And that's even if you subtract the disastrous effects of the financial crisis that closed the Bush presidency with such an enormously destructive exclamation point.

The Washington Post conducted a brutal wrap-up of the Bush legacy in January 2009. Here's the key paragraph.

The number of jobs in the nation increased by about 2 percent during Bush's tenure, the most tepid growth over any eight-year span since data collection began seven decades ago. Gross domestic product, a broad measure of economic output, grew at the slowest pace for a period of that length since the Truman administration. And Americans' incomes grew more slowly than in any presidency since the 1960s, other than that of Bush's father.

Yes, there were 52 months of "growth" in between the two recessions. But as we all know now, the bulk of that growth was generated by a consumer spending binge that itself resulted from an unsustainable and fraudulent housing boom that ultimately ended up completely wrecking the global economy. And even if we don't count 2008, gross domestic product rose at an annual rate of only 2.1 percent for the first seven years of the Bush presidency.

By comparison, annual GDP growth for the entire eight years of Bill Clinton's presidency was 3.5 percent. Here's a juicy little observation picked up from a Forbes magazine appraisal of the Clinton record, published in 2004.

The public's confidence in the economy hit an all-time high in the summer of 2000, near the end of Clinton's second term, according to Gallup. In the summer of 1992, before he was elected, it was at an all-time low.

And where was it at the end of Bush's term in office?

The context for Fleischer and Gergen's dispute came in terms of whether or not to support Obama's call for more investment in education. And here's where the conversation goes irreversibly through the looking glass. Fleischer, smiling as if he's the wise mentor counseling the irresponsible grasshopper, tells Gergen that "we can no longer keep paying for the things we like, that's what got us into this deep hole."

Well, yes, if the president you are referring to is George W. Bush! As Joseph Stiglitz pointed out in a devastating piece in Vanity Fair, "The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush" (published in December 2007, well before the full extent of the financial crisis became clear), Bush set a new standard for fiscal irresponsibility.

A budget surplus of 2.4 percent of gross domestic product, which greeted Bush as he took office, turned into a deficit of 3.6 percent in the space of four years. The United States had not experienced a turnaround of this magnitude since the global crisis of World War II.

Now, of course, the equivalent number is 10.64 percent. And that's not good. But there's a big difference between running up a deficit in an effort to counteract the effects of the worst recession since the Great Depression, bequeathed to you by your predecessor, and the conscious destruction of a surplus via decisions to cut taxes, boost drug benefits, and engage in multiple wars without making any attempt whatsoever to pay for those priorities.

Liberals and conservatives will probably never stop "litigating" the Bush era. But just as the general public for decades afterward remembered FDR as the president who led the United States out of the Great Depression, George W. Bush will be recalled as the president who took the U.S. out of the black and into the red, and left his country completely defenseless when confronted with a major economic disaster.

Ari Fleischer and his conservative comrades are lie and hedge all they like. The years 2000 to 2008 - and counting because we're still paying the price - are proof that conservatism as a governing philosophy is a complete failure on the most massive scale.

Despite Republican Complaints About Socialism, America Has Become the Coporate Plutocracy of Their Dreams

Feingold: ‘We Need To Regenerate Progressivism’ To Battle This ‘Gilded Age On Steroids’

As a part of the Republican victory in Congress following November’s election, a number of long-time Democratic Party lawmakers lost their seats, the victims of a national wave of discontent fed by a struggling economy. One of those who lost was Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), who served four terms in the U.S. Senate before losing to Oshkosh businessman Ron Johnson.

Feingold, who will teaching law at Wisconsin’s Marquette University this Spring, sat down with The Nation’s John Nichols for a wide-ranging interview that covered the former senator’s thoughts on his time in the Senate and what he plans to do in the future. At one point, Feingold told Nichols that, while he lost his recent election, the “broader struggle” for social justice has to continue. Nichols followed up by asking Feingold what he meant by the “broader struggle” and what progressives should do now. The senator replied that progressives must confront the fact that “this entire society is being dominated by corporate power” and that progressive must mobilize against what he calls “the Gilded Age on steroids”:

NICHOLS: What do you mean when you refer to “the broader struggle”? What should progressives do now?

FEINGOLD: I don’t know how it could be more stark or clear: this entire society is being dominated by corporate power in a way that may exceed what happened in the late nineteenth century, early twentieth century. The incredible power these institutions now have over the average person is just overwhelming: the way they can make these trade deals to ship people’s jobs overseas, the way consumers are just brutalized and consumer protection laws are marginalized, the way this town here—Washington—has become a corporate playground. Since I’ve been here, this place has gone from a government town to a giant corporate headquarters. To me, the whole face of the country—whether it be the government, the media, agriculture, what happens on Main Street—has become so corporatized that the progressive movement is as relevant as it was one hundred years ago, maybe more so. It’s the same issues. It’s just that [corporate] power, because of money, international arrangements and communications, is so overwhelming that the average person is nearly helpless unless we develop a movement that can counter that power. I know we’ve all tried over the years, but this is a critical moment. We need to regenerate progressivism and make it relevant to what’s happening right now. But there’s no lack of historical comparison to a hundred years ago. It’s so similar; the only real difference is that corporate power is even more extended. It’s the Gilded Age on steroids.

Feingold is not exaggerating in his comparisons between modern day America and the Gilded Age. The top 0.1 percent of income earners in America were in 2008 earning 8 percent of the country’s total income, “the same share as during the Gilded Era of the 1920s.” A University of California-Berkeley study released in 2009 found that income inequality in 2007 was the highest it had ever been in recorded history, with the “the top 1 percent incomes [capturing] half of the overall economic growth over the period 1993-2007.”

Later in the interview, Nichols asked Feingold if he thinks that Obama understands the level of inequality in the country and the policies that are needed to reverse it. Feingold replied that “he does at some level, yes,” referring to Obama criticizing the Citizens United decision during last year’s State Of The Union address. He continued, “In other areas, I’m concerned. I don’t think he gets it on trade agreements. I really wish he saw the connection between these agreements and what they do to working families and communities. It’s devastating. Voters recognize the connection; we saw that in the election. I’m hoping that [Obama] makes the connection in a more direct way. He hasn’t yet, and that worries me on many levels.”

Yes, hard to believe, but America is not becoming the statist or socialistic empire the wing-nut conservatives would like everyone to believe. In socialist states corporations do not write the legislation that regulates them. No one wants a socialist state, what most Americans want is a fair and humane capitalism.

Republican Admits Stimulus Package ‘Worked,’ It’s ‘Unfair’ For House GOP To Attack It

Republican Admits Stimulus Package ‘Worked,’ It’s ‘Unfair’ For House GOP To Attack It

Yesterday, the House GOP lawmakers quickly manufactured an unwieldy proposal to axe $2.5 trillion from the federal budget. In a tribute to zeal, Rep. Jim Jordan’s (R-OH) new Spending Reduction Act not only scraps 15 percent of federal jobs but also eliminates “all remaining stimulus funding.” Because, as they say, this is what the American people want.

Unfortunately for Republicans, the American people don’t live in their delusion. They live in states and cities — both of which depend on the Recovery Act and will get hosed by this repeal. Bristling under the GOP’s out-of-touch demonization of the Recovery Act, even Republican mayors like Tulsa, OK Mayor Dewey Bartlett are pointing out just how “unfair” a repeal of the Act would be. Speaking at the U.S. Conference of Mayors in DC yesterday, Bartlett”it worked“:

“I would prefer them to at least give us an opportunity to use them for another reasonably supportive project,” Bartlett said.

In Washington for the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Bartlett again made positive comments about the impact of the 2009 stimulus package, which was opposed by every Oklahoma Republican in Congress.

“It worked,” said the mayor, who is also a Republican.[...]

Bartlett conceded he did not know whether any of Tulsa’s funding would be covered by the proposal but made it clear he did not favor a repeal.

“To me, that seems a little unfair,” he said.

Bartlett pointed to specific Recovery projects — “crime, public safety, energy and environment, poverty and infrastructure projects” — and the “Inner Dispersal Loop state project to improve access to downtown Tulsa” that helped Tulsa “come out of the recession.”

While at odds with the conservative anti-stimulus mantra, Bartlett is certainly not alone. Today, more than 230 mayors attending the Conference called for “a second wave of stimulus money.” Forced to “impose layoffs furloughs, service reductions and fee increases to deal with falling municipal revenue,” the mayors, many of whom are Republicans, said “cities are being deprived of the federal aid owed to them.” Burnsville, MN Mayor Elizabeth Kautz, also a Republican, said “We are in the middle of a ‘jobs emergency’ that demands decisive and swift action.” “We need the Senate to pass a Main Street jobs package now,” she insisted.

The 4.5 million people kept out of poverty and the millions employed because of the Recovery Act might be inclined to agree. So would the numerous GOP governors who used these funds to balance their budgets if they weren’t so wedded to hypocrisy. And at least 114 of the GOP lawmakers who wanted to eliminate this “wasteful” stimulus package were only too happy to take credit for its successes. But, it seems the House GOP is hellbent on marching forward in their delusion, even if it means trampling on the economic recovery to do so.

Values, honor, character, ethics and morality are built on a foundation of truth. If the right-wing conservative agenda is built on a foundation of outright falsehoods and distortions they cannot claim they possess the virtuous qualities they pretend to represent.

New Republican Congress Declares War on Seniors and the Poor

New Republican Congress Declares War on Seniors and the Poor

The Republican Study Committee, aka "the caucus of House conservatives," has released a list of proposed spending cuts that it says will add up to $2.5 trillion over the next 10 years. Dave Weigel has a tidy summary here. Although for the most part the line items add up to a list of cherished liberal priorities (no defense spending or homeland security cuts here, no indeed!), I'm guessing that the average person will glance at it and see some things that they don't think the government should be funding. Mohair subsidies?

But it's worth drilling down on the third biggest item on the list -- weighing in at $16.1 billion -- the "Repealing Medicaid FMAP increase," because I can't think of anything that better demonstrates the priorities of the current Republican Party.

Medicaid is the government's primary social insurance program targeted at poor and disabled Americans. Medicaid is responsible, for example, for such things as nursing home care for the indigent. It is jointly funded by the states and the federal government --it is, in fact, one of the biggest items in most state budgets.

When the recession hit, two things happened almost immediately at the state level: tax revenue plummeted, and applications for Medicaid coverage boomed. The two phenomena were intimately related, of course. People who lost their jobs and homes as a result of a cratering economy also lost their healthcare.

Let me repeat that, because it's important -- a major consequence of the recession was a surge in poverty-stricken Americans seeking government-funded healthcare. State budgets got crushed. The Obama administration moved quickly to address the problem, authorizing a big increase in Medicaid funding to the states via the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (the stimulus bill). This is what is referred to by the acronym FMAP -- Federal Medical Assistance Percentage. It's not stimulus in the sense that a big infrastructure project is stimulus, but it undoubtedly saved some jobs by preventing public sector layoffs by state governments that would not otherwise have been able to balance their budgets. And, naturally, the pain and suffering of the American people would have been much worse without the federal help. One of the reasons why the Great Recession was not a Great Depression is precisely because of the existence of programs like Medicaid.

The stimulus FMAP boost was temporary -- designed to run out at the end of 2010. In August 2010, after a big political fight, the Senate and the House passed a $15 billion extension that will run through June 2011. So in one sense, the Republican spending cut pledge is entirely illusory -- the FMAP increase is already scheduled to end this year.

Whether it should end this year is another question. Some people might imagine that such decisions should be related to how well the U.S. economy is performing, and correspondingly, how many people need Medicaid coverage. If unemployment falls and Medicaid rolls stop expanding, or even start declining -- the program is means-tested, so if you find a job and start making money, you are no longer eligible -- the pressure on state budgets and the necessity for federal assistance should ease. If, on the other hand, Medicaid funding gets cut off before the economy fully recovers, and state budgets get hammered again, resulting in more public sector layoffs, there would, tragically, likely be increased applications for Medicaid help. Talk about your widening gyres!

Republicans were happy to dig in their heels to save tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans - swearing they'd filibuster any other plan. Conservatives are happy to protect the people who least need protection at the expense of America's most vulnerable citizens.

Beck's Incendiary Rhetoric Has Motivated Threats, Assassination Attempts

Beck's Incendiary Rhetoric Has Motivated Threats, Assassination Attempts

During an interview on MSNBC's Hardball, Media Matters President and CEO David Brock accused Glenn Beck of being "responsible for three thwarted assassination attempts this year." Indeed, in each of the three examples Brock cited -- Gregory Giusti, Charles Wilson, and Byron Williams -- the incendiary and often violent rhetoric spewed by the Fox News host and elsewhere on the network was said to be a motivating factor, if not the inspiring factor, in the men's actions.
Brock: Beck "Has Been Responsible For Three Thwarted Assassination Attempts"

David Brock: "Glenn Beck Himself Has Been Responsible For Three Thwarted Assassination Attempts This Year." On January 12, Brock appeared on Hardball to discuss whether the violent rhetoric on cable news shows may have led to the shooting in Tucson, Arizona, that injured Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ). During the exchange with host Chris Matthews, Brock alleged that "Glenn Beck himself has been responsible for three thwarted assassination attempts this year":

MATTHEWS: I think we used to say, maybe back in the Churchillian age, your voice was your power, your ability to speak up. That's certainly Norman Rockwell's notion, the man, you know -- the standing up at a meeting, at a public meeting and saying, "Here's what I believe." But, now, it's standing up with your arms, standing up with your ammo, your gun sites, your bull's eye.

Why do you have -- this is a problem I have with the tea party. Why so many guns at these events? Why constantly referring to guns? What is it? Is it a throwback to the revolutionary age? They think they're in an armed revolution?

BROCK: Right. What does the tea party moniker stand for? Armed rebellion, right? This has been a theme of the Republican candidates and of Sarah Palin all year.

MATTHEWS: Excuse me. History lesson: The Boston tea party was a nonviolent economic statement against the Stamp Act, I believe. They threw the tea in the water. No guns.

BROCK: That's right.

MATTHEWS: They dressed up like Indians. It was a demonstration. It was street theater, OK? No guns.

BROCK: But this is not street theater, as you know. I mean, Glenn Beck himself has been responsible for three thwarted assassination attempts this year, and Sarah Palin hasn't condemned that.

MATTHEWS: How is he responsible for them?

BROCK: Well, you want to know what they are?

MATTHEWS: You said it.

BROCK: Yeah, sure. So, he burned Nancy Pelosi in effigy on his set. He tried to poison her with a chalice, OK? Some weeks later, somebody tried to firebomb Nancy Pelosi's house. That guy's mother went on television and said he gets all of his ideas from Fox News. Do you know about Senator Patty Murray and the death threat that she got?

MATTHEWS: No, go ahead.

BROCK: OK. It's recorded -- the guy says after the health care vote. He says you have a target on your back and I can accomplish what I want to accomplish with one bullet. Now he's tried, convicted, and in the sentencing phase, his cousin writes in for leniency, and she describes in a very chilling memo -- it's on our website -- that he was slowly drawn into Glenn Beck's world. And she portrays the guy, the attempted assassin, Charlie Wilson, as a victim of Beck.

And number three, which you probably do know about, this liberal foundation in San Francisco was targeted by a gunman, Byron Williams, in June. The shooter gave jailhouse interviews, and we published them, and he says Glenn Beck is this schoolteacher on television and points to specific episodes of the Glenn Beck show that inspired him do it. [MSNBC, Hardball with Chris Matthews, 1/12/11]

Beck Inspired Byron Williams, Who Planned Mass Murders At Tides, ACLU

On July 18, 2010, Byron Williams was stopped by California Highway Patrol and engaged in a shootout with law enforcement. He later said he was on his way to murder individuals at the Tides Foundation and ACLU.

Williams Wanted To "Start A Revolution" By "Killing People Of Importance At The Tides Foundation." On July 18, 2010, Byron Williams, a convicted felon, engaged in a shootout with police after being pulled over on I-580 in California. Williams was heavily armed, wearing body armor and wielding "a 9mm handgun, a .308-caliber rifle and a shotgun." After being taken into custody, Williams reportedly told investigators that "his intention was to start a revolution by traveling to San Francisco and killing people of importance at the Tides Foundation and the ACLU." [San Francisco Chronicle, 7/21/10]

Williams' Mother: Son "Was Upset" With "The Way Congress Was Railroading Through All These Left-Wing Agenda Items." The San Francisco Chronicle further reported that Williams' mother, Janice Williams, described her son as "angry at left-wing politicians" and at "what's happening to our country." The Chronicle further reported: "Williams watched the news on television and was upset by 'the way Congress was railroading through all these left-wing agenda items,' his mother said." [San Francisco Chronicle, 7/19/10]

Williams: "The Things" Beck Exposed "Blew My Mind." During an interview with reporter John Hamilton after his arrest, Williams said: "I would have never started watching Fox News if it wasn't for the fact that Beck was on there. And it was the things that he did, it was the things he exposed that blew my mind. I said, well, nobody does this." Williams continued: "You need to go back to June -- June of this year, 2010 -- and look at all his programs from June. And you'll see he's been breaking open some of the most hideous corruption. ... A year ago, I was watching him, and it was OK, he was all right, you know? ... But now he's getting it." [Media Matters, 10/11/10]

Williams Was Driven By Belief In Conspiracy Theories That Have Been Pushed By Beck. Hamilton wrote that in one letter to him, Williams "repeatedly cites Beck when discussing the Soros-Obama-Petrobras story and insists I check out Beck's 'June' shows." Hamilton continued:

In his letter to me, Byron writes: "I have been praying for a media advocate; one, to make people aware of why I'm in here (public opinion could help me), and two, to make people realize that corrupt killers are in power, and want re-election! I was also fearful that this issue would be 'burried.' "

Byron writes, "You want to know about Soros and Tides, yes, Glenn Beck is doing very well uncovering his wickedness, check his 'June' programs for 'Petrobraz', also look into 'DiscoverTheNetworks.com.' "

Byron also writes that "very good information regarding 'Petrobraz' can be found in Glenn Beck's 'June' shows, where he accurately covered the Obama-Soros-Petrobraz-Chicago (Crime Inc.) connections for several days. It's all true."

Byron adds that he "found allusions to the Horizon disaster as a 'false-flag' operation in Alex Jones 'Info.Wars.com' and 'PrisonPlanet.com.' "

"Think like a conspiracy theorist," Byron tells me during the interview. "Except don't use the word 'theory.' Because the conspiracies are not theories. The official report is the lie; the conspiracy is the truth."

Byron says he thinks Beck has improved in recent months. "I don't think he's a natural newscaster, you know what I mean?" he says. "I look at it more like a schoolteacher on TV, you know? He's got that big chalkboard and those little stickers, the decals. I like the way he does it." [Media Matters, 10/11/10]

Williams On Beck: He Denies "Violent Approach" and "Conspiracies" To "Protect Himself. ... I Understand What He's Doing." In his interview with Hamilton, Williams also said that "Beck is gonna deny everything about violent approach and deny everything about conspiracies, but he'll give you every reason to believe it. He's protecting himself, and you can't blame him for that. So, I understand what he's doing." Williams continued:

"And I'd say, well, you know, that's the thing. It's that anything you do is going to be considered promoting terror attacks or promoting violence. So now they've got Beck labeled as this guy that is trying to incite violence. And what I say is that if the truth incites violence, it means that we've been living too long in the lies.

"Because it's gonna be too many -- it's gonna be more and more people that are, you know -- when you become unemployed, desperate, you can no longer pay your bills, when your society has come to a standstill, and cannot grow anymore, you're becoming socialized, everything, you know -- companies are moving overseas, what do you think is gonna happen? You know, for crying out loud. It's gonna get worse. And more and more people are gonna get desperate." [Media Matters, 10/11/10]

Beck Linked With Stoking "Fears" That Caused Charles Wilson To Threaten Murray

In October 2010, Charles Murray was sentenced to a year and a day in prison for threatening Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) with "violence" in phone calls to her office.

Wilson Said He "Want[ed] To [Expletive] Kill" Murray Because Of The Passage Of Health Care Legislation. In an April 6 article, Politico reported that Wilson "allegedly called Murray's office on numerous occasions" saying that she " 'had a target on her back,' and 'I want to [expletive] kill you,' according to court documents." Politico also reported that Wilson "allegedly told undercover FBI agents that he carries a concealed firearm with a permit, and said he was 'extremely angry' with the passage of health care legislation." The article continued:

On March 23, the day President Barack Obama signed the health care reform bill into law, the caller said, "I hope somebody kills you, and I hope somebody kills [the president]. Yes, die, dead."

"Not only do I say, 'Kill the Bill' I say: Kill the [expletive] senator," the caller said.

When the FBI reviewed phone records for Murray's office, it found Wilson's number appearing several times, with some calls made as early as 4:34 in the morning, according to court papers.

On April 1, an agent called Wilson's home number posing as a representative of "Patients United Now," a group that was "ostensibly" attempting to have the health care reform law repealed.

In the course of the phone call, Wilson allegedly told the officer that he regularly called Murray and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.).

According to the documents, two other phrases in that conversation convinced the FBI that Wilson was man who had left the stream of threatening voicemails: He called Murray and Cantwell "Pike Street whores" and called Murray "sneaker shoes Murray" -- both phrases captured when he allegedly called the senator's office from a blocked number. The man who made the phone calls also said "they need to be strung up, and I mean put [in] the gallows" adding that "they want to come throw me in jail, they can go ahead and do that. that's fine."

The caller also mentioned that he was registered to carry a concealed weapon.

"I do pack," court documents say Wilson told the FBI agent -- a term that refers to carrying a gun. "And I will not blink...when I'm confronted, and that is a guarantee. It's not a threat, it's a guarantee." [Politico, 4/6/10]

Wilson To Murray: "Kill The Fucking Senator! ... Now That You've Passed Your Health-Care Bill, Let The Violence Begin." In court documents, federal prosecutors pointed to several voicemail messages Wilson left for Murray that raised "serious concerns," including:

"Just remember that as you are politicing for your reelection. It only takes one piece of lead. ... Kill the fucking Senator! Kill the fucking Senator! I'll donate the lead. ... Now that you've passed your health-care bill, let the violence begin. Let the violence begin."

"By your attempts to overtake this country with socialism, somebody's gonna get to you one way or another and blow your fucking brains out, and I hope it does happen. If I have the chance, I would do it."

"Kill the fucking Senator! Hang the fucking Senator! I hope somebody puts a fucking bullet between your fucking eyes. Far left liberal socialist democratic bitch. You mother-fucker. You sold the fucking people of the country out for socialism. I hope somebody fucking erasers your fucking life. Yes, I hope somebody assassinates you, you fucking bitch."

"We are going to fuck you up. We are going to fuck you up as bad as we can. Yes, the independents. The real people of this country, not you spineless fucking socialists. You better watch your fucking back, baby, because there's people gonna come after you with fucking both fucking barrels, bitch." [Media Matters, 10/28/10]

Relative: Wilson's Threats Occurred Because He "Was Under The Spell That Glenn Beck Cast." A relative of Wilson said in publicly available documents filed in federal court that Wilson's "fears were grown and fostered by Mr. Beck's persuasive personality" and that Wilson's actions occurred because he "was under the spell that Glenn Beck cast." In a September 17 letter, Wilson's cousin wrote:

What happened later with Charlie is something I think I can understand. He became basically housebound due to illness and his small world became even smaller. His brother got him a computer and he was able to stay connected with family. And he watched television and found Glenn Beck... I found Glenn Beck about the same time Charlie did. I understand how his fears were grown and fostered by Mr. Beck's persuasive personality. The same thing happened to me but I went in a different direction with what I was seeing. Rather than blame politicians for the current issues, I simply got prepared for what Glenn said was coming. I slowly filled our pantry as Glenn fed fear into me. I did not miss watching his show and could not understand why the rest of the world didn't get it -- Glenn became a pariah to me. But I was finally able to step away and realize the error of my ways. The media lost its grip on me. But it still held very tightly to Charlie.

While his actions were undeniably wrong and his choices were terrible, in part they were the actions of others played out by a very gullible Charlie. He was under the spell that Glenn Beck cast, aided by the turbulent times in our economy. I don't believe that Charlie even had the ability to actually carry out his threats. [Media Matters, 10/28/10]

Fox Allegedly Inspired Gregory Giusti To Repeatedly Threaten To Destroy Pelosi's Home

In December 2010, Gregory Lee Giusti was sentenced to a year and nine months in federal prison for threatening to destroy former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's home if she voted in support of the health care reform law.

Giusti Admitted To Making "More Than 30 Phone Calls" Threatening Pelosi Not To Support Health Care Reform. The Associated Press reported in April 2010 that in one recorded call, "Giusti said, 'if you pass this freaking health care plan don't bother coming back to California cause you ain't gonna have a place to live,' according to a transcript of the message included in an amended complaint." The AP added: "Officials said the caller often recited Pelosi's home address and said if she wanted to see it again, she should not support the health care overhaul bill that since has been enacted. Giusti left at least two recorded messages containing threats involving one of Pelosi's residences in Northern California, according to the complaint." [The Associated Press, 4/8/10]

Beck can use his freedom of speech to keep inspiring the nutjobs or he could take it down a notch, stop lying, stop spinning and start acting like a responsible citizen. Beck will probably opt for the first choice simply because it pays so well.

Psycho Republican Blogger Gateway Pundit Mistakes Closed Caption for Applause Prompt at Tucson Memorial

Psycho Republican Blogger Gateway Pundit Mistakes Closed Caption for Applause Prompt at Tucson Memorial

Just when you think popular right wing blogger Jim “Dim” Hoft (Gateway Pundit) couldn’t possibly post anything more stupid than his last post, he finds a way to take it to the next level of numbskullitude.

Today’s entry in the “Hoft Chronicles of Sheer Stoopit” has him trying to claim that the White House prompted the audience to applaud at the “Together We Thrive” memorial (with his usual taste and class, Hoft calls it a “pep rally”): If White House Was Surprised by Applause at Tucson Pep Rally… Why Did They Ask For It On Jumbotron?

Since Hoft likes to float these smears and then delete them when it finally sinks through his dense cranial matter that they make him look like an idiot, here’s a screenshot:

On Thursday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that they were surprised by the applause at the memorial pep rally on Wednesday for the victims of the Tucson shootings.

I will say that I read the speech several times and thought that there wouldn’t be a lot of applause if any. I think many of us thought that. But I think there was a celebration, again, of the lives of those who had been impacted. Not just at that grocery store but throughout the country. And I think that, if that is part of the healing process, then that’s a good thing.

Oh really?
Then why was it printed on the Jumbotron?

That’s right. Hoft doesn’t understand that he’s looking at the closed captioning for deaf audience members.

Wingnut Blogger Jim Hoft was also recently caught putting up faked web pages to try and associate murderer Jared Loughner with liberals. Its not conclusive since we won't be manufacturing any urban myths, but if we had to speculate, propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels is probably one of Hoft's idols.

A ‘Job-Killing’ Law? House Republicans misrepresent the facts. Experts predict the health care law will have little effect on employment.

* Independent, nonpartisan experts project only a "small" or "minimal" impact on jobs, even before taking likely job gains in the health care and insurance industries into account.
* The House Republican leadership, in a report issued Jan. 6, badly misrepresents what the Congressional Budget Office has said about the law. In fact, CBO is among those saying the effect "will probably be small."
* The GOP also cites a study projecting a 1.6 million job loss — but fails to mention that the study refers to a hypothetical employer mandate that is not part of the new law.
* The same study cited by the GOP also predicts an offsetting gain of 890,000 jobs in hospitals, doctors’ offices and insurance companies — a factor not mentioned by the House leadership.

Is Obama Secretly Planning For Government to Take Over the Internet

Is Obama Secretly Planning For Government to Take Over the Internet

Our guest blogger is Aaron Brauer-Rieke, Plesser Fellow for the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT). CDT is a non-profit public interest organization working to keep the Internet open, innovative, and free.

The Obama administration recently discussed its intent to promote an enhanced Internet identity system. Many major media outlets reacted by casting the plan in an ominous and misleading light.

The plan, the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace (NSTIC), is currently in draft form. It envisions a future with fewer usernames and passwords, stronger security, better privacy, and new online services. Importantly, these new online identities would be optional and maintained by private companies.

Unfortunately, media outlets have taken the easy road and framed NSTIC as a government takeover of Internet ID. A CBS News headline announced “Obama Eyeing Internet ID for Americans.” (No one likes the government “eyeing” things, right?) Fox News reported the government would have the authority “to create an Internet ID for all Americans.” A recent article in The New York Times, under the headline “Obama’s Internet Plan Sounds an Awful Lot Like a National Internet ID,” insists that “[w]e are talking about a government-controlled system. That is exactly what we are talking about.” NSTIC is likened to a plan for an “alternative” Internet like “the Chinese government has been working on.” Yikes.

The real story isn’t nearly as grim. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke made a simple and straightforward assurance: “We are not talking about a national ID card. We are not talking about a government-controlled system.” Even the ACLU offered some very cautious optimism, telling Bloomberg BusinessWeek “If the concept were implemented in a perfect way it would be very good.”

So, if NSTIC isn’t about a national ID card, what is it about?

Today, life on the Internet is supported by a rickety pile of insecure usernames and passwords. If this identity infrastructure can be made more reliable, convenience is increased and innovation is promoted. The Internet is already a fantastic tool—but if it could be made more trustworthy, it would be more useful to us all.

Imagine confidently using your cell phone to bank online, access your healthcare records, check your home’s monthly power consumption, and transfer the title to that car you just sold and doing so without having to enter multiple usernames or passwords. Imagine that federal, state, and local governments could more easily and reliably communicate with constituents online. These sorts of innovations will require a better identity infrastructure.

None of this will happen tomorrow, of course, but it’s important to start the conversation. It’s a collaborative process and the government should have a seat at the table.

All of us, especially the press, should keep a critical eye on this important and complex process. There is potential here, but it has to be done right. It must be the private sector, and not the government, that builds and maintains any new identity infrastructure. We must ensure privacy doesn’t get lost in the mix. (Better identity can be privacy preserving, but this isn’t the default.) We have to protect easy access to anonymous speech. So there are caveats. But if properly implemented, a better online identity system could make our lives easier and unlock new possibilities.

This is the kind of rumor as media reporting that actually does inspire people to have a deranged hated for government. Who to blame. A press that is happy to go along with the Right of center beltway mentality.

Loughner, Violent Rhetoric and Media False Balance

Loughner, Violent Rhetoric and Media False Balance

Yesterday in the New York Times Paul Krugman (1/10/11) suggests that we not pretend that "both sides" are responsible for toxic political rhetoric:

Where's that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let's not make a false pretense of balance: It's coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It's hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be "armed and dangerous" without being ostracized; but Rep. Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the GOP.

...Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and you'll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at Republicans. But you won't hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at the Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly, and you will.

Unfortunately, that false balance is not just coming from the right, but appears all across the media. On Meet the Press (1/9/11), NBC's David Gregory rounded up examples of demonizing rhetoric:

Let's be honest, there is a demonization. It happens amongst all of you, it happens in the public, it happens in the polarized aspects of the press, a demonization of the other side. Whether it's a congressman saying, "You lie," from the House floor, whether it's a Democrat who literally shoots the cap-and-trade bill in a campaign advertisement. Or your former colleague, Alan Grayson from Florida, compared Republicans to the Taliban. I mean, this kind of vitriol on both sides does contribute to that, that demonization.

Dan Balz of the Washington Post (1/10/11):

Politicians in both parties have said this is not a time for one side to try to score political points against the other over who bears responsibility for these conditions, though there is plenty of finger-pointing in the blogosphere and on Twitter. The reality is everyone bears some responsibility, from politicians to political operatives to the media to ordinary Americans.

New York Times (1/10/11):

Not since the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 has an event generated as much attention as to whether extremism, antigovernment sentiment and even simple political passion at both ends of the ideological spectrum have created a climate promoting violence.

New York Times' Matt Bai leads off with examples from "both sides," and in so doing equates one of the most prominent national figures in the Republican Party (and a regular contributor to the GOP house organ Fox News Channel) with some unnamed diarist from Arizona who didn't support a recent Gifford vote:

Within minutes of the first reports Saturday that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, an Arizona Democrat, and a score of people with her had been shot in Tucson, pages began disappearing from the Web. One was Sarah Palin's infamous "cross hairs" map from last year, which showed a series of contested Congressional districts, including Ms. Giffords', with gun targets trained on them. Another was from Daily Kos, the liberal blog, where one of the congresswoman's apparently liberal constituents declared her "dead to me" after Ms. Giffords voted against Nancy Pelosi in House leadership elections last week.

To his credit, Bai spends significant time recounting violent rhetoric from Republican and conservative leaders--likely because there is just a lot more of that to write about. But he offers an excuse for their behavior:

It's not that such leaders are necessarily trying to incite violence or hysteria; in fact, they're not. It's more that they are so caught up in a culture of hyperbole, so amused with their own verbal flourishes and the ensuing applause, that--like the bloggers and TV hosts to which they cater--they seem to lose their hold on the power of words.

Bai adds:

None of this began last year, or even with Mr. Obama or with the Tea Party; there were constant intimations during George W. Bush's presidency that he was a modern Hitler or the devious designer of an attack on the World Trade Center, a man whose very existence threatened the most cherished American ideals.

Yes, there are people who called Bush a "modern Hitler," or believed he had some role in the 9/11 attacks. Those people are generally not given talkshows, and cannot be found in positions of power in the Democratic Party.

Peter Hart is the activism director at FAIR. He writes for FAIR's magazine Extra, and is also a co-host and producer of FAIR's syndicated radio show CounterSpin. He is the author of The Oh Really? Factor: Unspinning Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly" (Seven Stories Press, 2003).

Is there a direct connection between any murderers action and what someone said. Probably not. Lots of people listen to the same garbage and do not commit violence. is is reasonable to ask how much the violent rhetoric on the right-wing conservative side of the spectrum contributes to an atmosphere in which violence becomes a viable option to some people. Yes, it is reasonable to ask question like that.

Republican Uses Public Health Care Plan But Wants to Take Away That Option for People Who Pay His Salary

Aaron Schock (R-IL) Justifies His Government Health Insurance: ‘I’m Actually Lowering’ The Premiums For Older Congressmen

One of the first orders of business in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives is a move to repeal the landmark health care reform law that was passed last March. However, following Rep. Andy Harris’s (R-MD) infamous rant about the delay in his congressional health care coverage, the media is beginning to question whether the GOP is hypocritical for decrying the specter of “government-run health care,” yet accepting government-sponsored health care plans for themselves.

For instance, yesterday, Rep. Michael Grimm (R-NY) justified accepting government-subsidized health care for himself because, “God forbid I get into an accident and I can’t afford the operation…That can happen to anyone.” In an interview with ThinkProgress, Rep. Robert Hurt (R-VA) said that he supported congressmen receiving government-sponsored health coverage because “it’s not unreasonable to offer those benefits.” Seven Republican congressmen, however, are trying to remain consistent by opting out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan.

This week, ThinkProgress caught up with Rep. Aaron Schock (R-IL) to ask whether he would be joining his colleagues in rejecting government-sponsored health care for himself, given his push to repeal health care reform for the nation. Schock told us the “only” reason he would stay on the congressional health care plan because he was “a 27-year-old single male” who was “actually lowering” the premiums of his older colleagues. He also brushed off the notion that this was hypocritical on his part, calling them “completely separate issues,” despite the numerous similarities including taxpayer subsidies and a highly-regulated exchange:

SCHOCK: It is, yeah. I had Blue Cross Blue Shield when I came here as a 27-year-old single male. I paid about $80 a month. And now, because I’m in a risk pool with a bunch of older seniors, my health care costs me $170 a month now for the same Blue Cross Blue Shield coverage. So I think it’s kind of interesting how people make such a big deal out of the health care coverage we have, which is not bad by any means. But I haven’t given it much thought because quite frankly I think I’m helping out the institution by lowering the risk pool for some of my older guys.

TP: I just know there are a lot of people who have made the hypocrisy charge, that there’s an average of $700 per month in taxpayer subsidies on these employee government health care plans, yet saying that the general public is not getting the same types of subsidies and help in buying health insurance for themselves.

SCHOCK: No, I get that argument. The only thing I would submit is because I’m an outlier in the group, I’m actually lowering the…(crosstalk)…When you’re under 30 in a body of…but, so.

TP2: Sir, you receive taxpayer subsidies even though you do have a lower rate. And you’re within a pool that’s highly regulated, as health reform does for the rest of the nation. Don’t you think it’s fair if you’re going to repeal health reform for everyone else, you should at least reject this subsidized, highly-regulated plan that members of Congress and their staff benefit from?

SCHOCK: No, I really actually think they’re completely separate issues.

TP2: Why’s that?

SCHOCK: Because I don’t think what we do with the health care bill has anything to do with what kind of health insurance programs members of Congress pay for.

TP2: No, it’s quite similar. There’s an exchange, there’s subsidies, just like you benefit from an exchange and subsidies, that are paid for by taxpayers.

SCHOCK: Well, I think the bill we voted on is completely different.

Republicans are the entitled elite so sure they think it is "different" for them to have publicly subsidized health care, but wrong for ordinary Americans to have that option. Schock thinks it is different because well its different. He will not be giving further details of what that "difference" is because there is not any difference. It should go without saying that Schock is affiliated with the Tea Nut right-wing conservatives.

Republican Congress Plans Would Increase Deficit

Republican Congress Plans Would Increase Deficit

In their final press conference before handing over control of the House to Republicans, Democrats promised that the soon-to-be majority party would fail at repealing health care reform.

House Republicans announced Monday a plan for a Jan. 12 vote to keep their campaign promise and repeal President Barack Obama's health care reform laws. The resolution introduced by Republicans says it would "repeal the job-killing health care law and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010."

But Democrats have said the attempt amounts to little more than a stunt.

"This repeal of health care reform is political theater," Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) said at Monday's press conference. "It's a kabuki dance... repeal of health care reform is not going to happen."

Even if House Republicans were able to pass the bill, Democrats could simply refuse to bring it up for a vote in the Senate, where they still have control. If the bill were brought up for a vote in the Senate, Republicans would need 12 Democrats to vote with them to break a filibuster.

Assuming that Republicans overcame all of those hurdles, the president could simply veto the bill.

Another potential problem for Republicans is that repealing health care would run up the deficit. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has said that health care reform will reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion.

The CBO has also said (.pdf) that a plan to alter Medicare and Medicaid, proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), would actually increase the deficit.

Under new House rules proposed by Republicans, all new legislation that increases spending would have to be paid for. But Republicans have solved this dilemma by exempting repeal from those rules.

The new rules give Ryan unprecedented power to unilaterally set spending and revenue limits.

"[Republicans] also talk about being -- making deficit reduction a priority," Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) noted. "Yet, the first thing out of the gate they are trying to do is repeal health care reform which explodes the deficit."

"They're going to employ budget gimmicks to try and hide the cost of their actions," Rep Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) said. "What they are going to try to do is engage in Enron-type accounting to say that when they try and move to repeal health care a week from tomorrow, that the hit on the deficit will not matter."

"That kind of flim-flam is exactly what the American people came to expect the last time the Republicans were in charge," he added.

Republican math - they brought us the biggest deficit in history and blame Democrats for not fixing their mix fast enough.


Conservatives Falsely Blame Obama Drilling Policies For Rise In Oil Prices

Republicans Become Unhinged Over Health Care Reform

Republicans Become Unhinged Over Health Care Reform

(By Rep. Earl Blumenauer) - Three or four times a month I will preside over House proceedings. While this can occasionally be repetitious, I find it to be a fascinating window into House operations. There is no better seat to watch the interactions of Members - who is talking to whom; who pays attention when someone else speaks. When there are large numbers of people on the floor you can watch patterns develop. It is a great way to understand House-dynamics.

Occasionally, you get more than you bargained for. Today, my two hour stint in the Chair was made up entirely of one-minute speeches. This is a House procedure where Members from both parties come to the floor, and the two sides take alternating one-minute shots talking about everything from critical issues to commemorating a championship high school softball team, to an announcement of legislation that a Member is introducing.

Sometimes, however, it isn't pretty. Today, I literally watched Republicans become unhinged as they attempted to outdo one another on the "evils" of programs being considered by President Obama and the Democrats in Congress. As the Republicans took advantage of the unlimited opportunities for one-minute speeches, dozens of them headed to the floor with competing tales of horror that are allegedly in the Democratic approach to health reform.

I listened as people, theoretically speaking from the same talking points, variously claimed that 4, 5, 6 and even 7 million jobs would be lost as a result of the health care plan. A colleague from Oregon claimed that 114 million Americans would lose their health insurance; that Democrats want to socialize 20% of the economy. In as much as healthcare currently is only 16% of the economy, this is quite a trick. Another Republican talked about how extending health insurance to more than 40 million Americans who currently don't have coverage was somehow going to put government bureaucrats in charge?!

It increasingly became more and more surreal. The Democratic plan would leave Americans no choice but to go to emergency rooms (?). Don't they remember George Bush suggesting that's why we had universal coverage now?

Rep. Todd Akin suggested that there would be a 50% chance that he would be dead if he lived in Great Britain because of their failure to meaningfully treat cancer patients. McClintock from California questioned how the same government that operates FEMA could possibly be efficient. I'm shocked that any Republican would bring up FEMA and the disaster of the Bush Administration for an agency that, until the Republicans got a hold of it, was doing a great job in the Clinton years.

Rep. Broun from Georgia demanded to see the bill, "Show us the bill", "don't hide the bill," at exactly the same time that his colleagues were waving the bill and misreading what was in it. Rep. Buck McKeon admonished people to read the bill and then specifically cited Section 1233. Actually, I know a little bit about this section because it's a bill that I wrote which was incorporated into the overall legislation. His statement was a complete fabrication (check out my myth vs. fact sheet). At least he didn't get to the point that Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina did when she claimed that the Republican approach would be more pro-life because it, "would not put seniors in the position of being put to death by their government!" (emphasis added).

I think it was Vice President Dan Quayle who once said that a mind was a terrible thing to lose. This was certainly two hours that gave me a sense of just how confused and disjointed the Republicans are. I hope that Americans will not have to see what a Party looks like when it comes unhinged and damages this opportunity for improving health care for the nation.

Year after year on issue after issue Republicans are incapable of winning an hones debate so they lie and then lie on top of lies. That kind of behavior specks volumes about the lack of integrity and honor which is typical of modern conservative Republicans.