Monday Open Thread [11.14.11]

Filed in National by on November 14, 2011

Earth | Time Lapse View from Space, Fly Over | NASA, ISS from Michael König on Vimeo.

The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows Romney leading the race with 32%, followed by Cain at 27%, Gingrich at 22%, Paul at 9%, Perry at 4%, Bachmann at 2%, Santorum at 2% and Hunstman at 1%.

“Debates are good, but we’re reaching overload.” — Political consultant Ed Rollins, in an interview with The Hill, noting that “there are going to be 20-plus debates in this primary process.”

Five reasons why Rick Perry will survive … for now.

The County by County breakdown in Ohio from last week, with blue counties voting for collective bargaining and red voting against.

About the Author ()

Comments (63)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. anon says:

    Gingrich is now ahead, so the operative mythology is the story of the Great Pumpkin as told by Charles Schultz, a Methodist.

  2. cassandra_m says:

    Popcorn alert! Gloria Allred is having another press conference at 2PM to showcase the ex-boyfriend of Ms. Bialik who will apparently say that he knows Cain and that Ms. Bialik did tell him of Cain’s alleged assault.

  3. anonone says:

    Michael Vick’s 2011 QB Rating: 79.8
    Donovan McNubbies 2011 QB Rating: 82.9

  4. puck says:

    Safety net cuts were the old third rail. Now it’s tax increases:

    With a little over a week left to reach a deal, members of the Congressional deficit reduction panel are looking for an escape hatch that would let them strike an accord on revenue levels but delay until next year tough decisions about exactly how to raise taxes.

    Under this approach, the panel would decide on the amount of new revenue to be raised but would leave it to the tax-writing committees of Congress to fill in details next year, well beyond the Nov. 23 deadline for the panel itself to reach an agreement. That would put off painful political decisions but ensure that the debate over deficit reduction stretched into the election year.

  5. Jason330 says:

    Did anyone go to the Jeff/Jax dinner? Apparently Carper tried to out Jesus the DE Gop:

    “Some of my friends on the other side, they talk a good game when they talk about their faith. I tell you, I think some of them read a different Bible than I do,” Carper said.

    “Because the Bible that I read says in Matthew 25, if people are hungry, we have a responsibility to feed them. The Bible that I read says if people are thirsty, we have a responsibility to give them a drink. The Bible that I read says if people are naked, we have a responsibility to clothe them, and if folks are sick or in prison, we have a responsibility to visit them.

    “The highest priorities are orphans and widows. That’s where we ought to be putting our time and our energy and our treasure. Somehow my grandfather’s party has gotten away from those values.”

    As recorded by the Delawaregrapevine blog.

  6. Jason330 says:

    I’m loving that Ohio map. The Lesson: Democrats win when they act like Democrats

  7. MJ says:

    Jason – a bunch of us were there, but I don’t think any of us were paying attention to Carper.

  8. cassandra_m says:

    Some of us were paying attention. For instance, I noticed in the stemwider about Republicans that Chris Coons got into, he couldn’t bring himself to mention protecting Social Security and Medicare until close to the end of his speech and then in passing. I don’t remember any of the others mentioning it. John Carney actually talked about creating jobs first in his litany of hard stuff that needs to be done, with budget control at about #3. Carper was all over the place, but he didn’t use his time to make a commitment to not gutting Social Security or Medicare, either.

  9. Jason330 says:

    That’s a dreary rundown. So much political power in one room and so little willingness to use it for something meaningful.

  10. puck says:

    “Creating jobs” now means anything you want it to mean.

    “Revenue” used to be a Democratic euphemism for tax increases. Now it means increasing revenue while cutting taxes, powered by the Loophole Unicorn. So when our Democrats say revenue is on the table, they are NOT talking about raising taxes on anyone.

    And then there’s “broadening the base…”

  11. cassandra_m says:

    I think that the theme of the speeches was meant to fire up the crowd to get working for 2012. Lots of notice for unions, not so much for Social Security and Medicare. UI and I actually talked about that some, so maybe she’ll chime in. But I wonder if that is a signal that these guys are going to let “everything on the table, except for the GOP” run the day.

    ALSO — Carper talked about how hard it is in DC to get anything done and he went on at some length about President Obama trying to compromise with Republicans and how that didn’t work. Carper said that it was time the President got the fact that the Republicans wouldn’t compromise and thought it took him too long to get to that realization. This from a guy who has one of the more conservative voting records in the Democratic Caucus.

  12. cassandra_m says:

    You should click on John Young’s link right now and look at that video. Herman Cain trying to perfect the Sarah Palin schtick.

  13. pandora says:

    That video should be shown in a How not to be slick or How not to pretend you know what you’re talking about class.

  14. cassandra_m says:

    Vote for Time Magazine’s Person of the Year — the 99% is a good choice.

  15. puck says:

    A truly righteous rant from Hunter at Daily Kos. It keeps getting better toward the end.

    If you’ve been reading the news about our great and all-powerful Super Congress, you know that we’re now at the stage where Democrats are apparently looking for the best possible way to acquiesce to all Republican demands in exchange for some promises of maybe getting something in return later, maybe, if the Republicans feel like it.

    and

    There seems only one thing that needs to happen here. The goddamn, cynically budget-busting, evil-as-all-hell Bush freaking tax freaking cuts need to expire, already.

  16. anonone says:

    Did you folks really close the comments in the “Funny, He Doesn’t Look Jewish” thread?

  17. JustSomeGuy says:

    Probably a good idea to close it. One can only stare at a horse trotting away for so long:)

  18. If you didn’t watch the ABC special on Gabrielle Giffords, I highly recommend you catch a rerun. Amazing & inspirational

  19. Aoine says:

    yes – I did actually listen to Carper’s speech

    but my question is this – does that mean Carper and Carney will be joining their collegues here, for this event?:

    http://blog.al.com/sweethome/2011/11/ten_members_of_congress_plan_i.html

    because it IS all about Matthew 25

  20. MJ says:

    Good morning. Should be a decent day today.

  21. puck says:

    Sandusky denies all charges, and says that at least one boy will testify the molestation never happened.

    I think a lot of us already burned Sandusky at the stake, forgetting that he is innocent until found guilty and still gets his day in court. Remember the Duke lacrosse rape case.

    The case against Sandusky is built on eyewitness testimony, which can be unreliable. So far we don’t have a confession, and (I think) we don’t have any victim testimony or physical evidence.

  22. skippertee says:

    Yeah, the janitor DIDN’T see the SANDMAN with a little boys’ penis in his mouth and the coach DIDN’T see the SANDMAN’S DICK up another little boys ass! We shouldn’t believe their lying eyes.Just two charges.
    Give me a break.
    Stick a fork in him.

  23. puck says:

    Thank you, Nancy Grace.

  24. skippertee says:

    You’re welcome, Alan Douchewitz!

  25. MJ says:

    Puck, go read the indictment.

  26. puck says:

    Go tell me it has physical evidence or victim testimony.

    No, I didn’t read it. I gather from the news it is all eyewitness.

    This case is going to end up one of three ways: like OJ, like Duke lacrosse, or clearly guilty.

  27. puck says:

    Fourth way – found guilty but not really sure.

  28. puck says:

    So you didn’t read it either. Otherwise you would know the answer to my questions.

  29. puck says:

    OK, I didn’t really have time to read it, but I did. It is emotionally effective for its intended audience (us). It is written in the third person though, in a steamy novelistic style rather than a literal legal style, so it is never clear what exactly the victim said – is the narrator speaking, or is it the victim? Can’t tell. I guess the lawyers will have to figure it out in court.

  30. MJ says:

    Puck, actually I did read it, last week (see the thread on the scandal from last week). And usually grand jury reports are written like this, at least the several score I have read over the past 30 years.

  31. Just Some Guy says:

    Nov 15, 2011 posted by: Kelli Steele – WGMD News
    BREAKING: Bodenweiser Voted Out as 37th District Chairman

  32. MJ says:

    St. Bodie Girl is going to fall out of those high heels.
    http://www.wgmd.com/?p=40206

  33. puck says:

    OH GOOD LORD!

    Democrats on Capitol Hill are worried that the Supreme Court will rule against President Obama’s healthcare reform law.

    Over the last couple weeks, congressional Democrats have told The Hill that the law faces danger in the hands of the Supreme Court, which The New York Times editorial page recently labeled the most conservative high court since the 1950s.

    While the lawmakers are not second-guessing the administration’s legal strategy, some are clearly bracing for defeat.

    And then the murderer of the public option spoke:

    Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) said he has no problem with the White House wanting a decision as soon as possible.

    “We need certainty,” Carper said.

  34. cassandra m says:

    It’s a bunch of tax credits — bet *they’re* not paid for — that won’t do much to genuinely tackle the extent of the problem. But it is the kind of thing that let’s them tout their bipartisanship and make some of their business constituents happy while not accomplishing all that much. Especially if these credits aren’t paid for. Hoping that any of the local media reading this Ask.This.Question.

  35. cassandra m says:

    I think that Democrats aren’t being irrational in being worried about the Supreme Court. This court has been extremely activist in the service of conservative causes, starting with putting their collective thumbs on the scale to hand the 2000 election to BushCo.

  36. puck says:

    There is nothing liberal or progressive about the individual mandate.

    I would LOVE to see the individual mandate clipped neatly out of the law, with everything else intact. It would throw the insurance industry into a tizzy. Of course, my fantasy depends on Obama vetoing the emergency fix Congress would pass to soothe the insurance industry.

  37. cassandra m says:

    The mandate has good reasons to exist, which is why the Swiss and the Germans do it. Everyone needs to be in the pool at least as a cost control measure. Removing the individual mandate effectively guts the program, vastly increases its costs and makes sure that there is still a big pool of people without insurance.

    And yeah, spare me the single-payer fantasy. Because making sure that lots of people don’t have access to insurance until you get your fantasy is so worth it, right?

  38. puck says:

    It is a conundrum. Kinda makes you wish we’d done it right the first time, doesn’t it? We always thought we’d “fix it later,” but nobody foresaw we’d make it worse later.

  39. Geezer says:

    “Because making sure that lots of people don’t have access to insurance until you get your fantasy is so worth it, right?”

    Having access to health care is far more important than access to insurance. An insurer can still refuse to pay for your health care. Your argument therefore makes no sense.

    Single-payer is not a fantasy, by the way. It exists in most countries, and within a few years will exist in at least a handful of states.

  40. puck says:

    “Removing the individual mandate effectively guts the program, vastly increases its costs and makes sure that there is still a big pool of people without insurance.”

    But you’d still have the exchanges, and the loss-ratio requirements. Not much, but it’s something.

    Sheldon Whitehouse:

    the individual mandate might very well fall, but that the law’s defenders have gotten “overexcited” about it.

    The rest of the law will most likely survive, he said, preserving popular provisions that should help Democrats in the 2012 elections.

    “So the mandate falls? Big deal,” Whitehouse said. “I think a family able to keep their sick kids on insurance even though they have pre-existing conditions, kids out of college able to stay on their parents’ policies while they look for that first job with healthcare — things like that are what will stick. Irrespective of what the Supreme Court says, that’s the things people really care about and are counting on.”

  41. Geezer says:

    Except that without the mandate, the cost for everyone who has insurance will rise that much more. For anyone who already has insurance, it would be worse than nothing, and will therefore set those with insurance through the workplace against the law.

    So, all things considered, I favor repeal.

  42. anonone says:

    Both Germany and Switzerland offer not-for-profit insurance plans with their mandates. Both countries control healthcare costs. The Obama mandate guarantees a profit for the insurance companies and does little to control skyrocketing costs. Furthermore, after forcing families to pay approximately 1 month’s before-tax income to the insurance companies or be fined, there is no promise that they will actually be able to afford healthcare services and pay high deductibles that come with the cheapest strpped-down plans.

    The insurance mandate is just another way to siphon money from the 99% to the 1% and continue to push more families into poverty.

  43. cassandra m says:

    I don’t object to single-payer, except that it is further way than getting insurance for everybody.

    And Whitehouse is wrong. If the mandate goes away, the industry works overtime to get rid of the rest. It won’t stand once they turn loose all of their lobbying strength to get rid of it.

    The costs of medical care rise alot every year, which would be a factor in why insurance costs go up. And having people paying part of the overhead of a system that is treating people who need it for no cost is another reason. The only claim for cost control for the ACA is that is slows the rate of cost increase.

    So, all things considered, I favor repeal.

    Easily said for someone with insurance.

  44. anonone says:

    Favoring the mandate is easily said by someone who can afford to pay it.

  45. Jason330 says:

    As I think back, I think team Obama was stung by the “socialism” criticism. That’s why stratospheric Insurance Co profits are guaranteed. (Notice how it headed off the socialism charge? Ha!)

    Either that or team Obama went into the debate thinking that stratospheric Insurance Co profits needed protecting.

  46. cassandra m says:

    And, as usual, A1 shows off his Stupid As All Get Out badge.

    Too bad you’ll never wear *that* out.

    edit: and Jason 330 shows up to show his off too.

    I’ll leave you boys to compare whatever it is you think you are comparing.

  47. puck says:

    “If the mandate goes away, the industry works overtime to get rid of the rest. It won’t stand once they turn loose all of their lobbying strength to get rid of it.”

    You are probably right. Which means if the mandate is that valuable to the insurance companies, it was a bad deal for the 99% in the first place. I guess we’ll have to think of something else.

  48. Geezer says:

    The point isn’t that I can afford to pay for insurance. I can only do that because my employer offers it. The point: Lots of people already have employer-paid insurance that they pay into. What kind of fools would they be to favor enriching insurance companies at their own expense, when the easier, cheaper and more fair way would be to cut the insurance companies out of the deal altogether?

    Only someone without insurance would think that America’s health care problems will be cured by giving everyone insurance. Perhaps you were overly influenced by “Sicko,” in which Michael Moore focuses on people without insurance. But his most compelling story at the start of the film — the guy who cut off two fingers with a power saw but could only have one reattached — had insurance.

    As long as companies profit from denying treatment to people, they will find all legal ways to do so. I prefer a system that removes all temptation by removing the tempted. I don’t believe a rational argument exists to prefer Obamacare, mandate or not.

  49. anonone says:

    Once again, cassandra_m makes a personal attack when she knows the facts are against her.

    Are you going to close the comments to this thread now?

  50. anon says:

    Don’t effing tell me about employer insurance. My employer let me know if I didn’t waive my insurance, I likely wouldn’t be working there. But I am still eligible to sign up any time I want – just try it and see what happens!

    Fortunately my spouse has better insurance anyway. But we have to pay an additional amount each month on her plan – because I am eligible for another plan that I waived.

    So yeah, I’m a little incensed about any plan that puts employers and insurance companies in the center of it. Fuck them all, and the politicians they rode in on.

  51. Jason330 says:

    Pony!

  52. MJ says:

    Wahhhhhhh. Wahhhhhhh. Wahhhhhh. Someone send the wahmbulance to A-None’s house, he bellyaching again.

  53. Geezer says:

    Quite a compelling argument you have there.

    @Cass: “I don’t object to single-payer, except that it is further way than getting insurance for everybody.”

    I don’t think you understand single payer if that’s what you think. It can be all-inclusive. It’s Romneycare that by design leaves people out, and Obamacare will do the same.

    Without a mandate but with the other changes — no pre-existing condition loopholes, portability — insurance companies will see their costs increase substantially. Perhaps you fail to understand this because of insurance envy, but insurance companies offer their policies at these relative “bargain” rates because they reject lots of claims. Once they can’t reject them anymore, those costs will have to be built into rates.

  54. Delaware Dem says:

    Yes, the only way the PPACA could impose the new requirements on the insurance companies (i.e. no preexisting denials, no yearly or lifetime caps, cover children until 26) without yearly premiums increasing 2,000% each year was to impose the mandate, thereby increasing the pool of insureds. Without the mandate, the PPACA is a crap bill. Yeah, we love the new requirements, but the new premiums we have to pay bankrupts us.

    Remember, health insurance reform is about two things: 1) getting as many people covered as possible (aiming for universal); and 2) controlling and reducing costs (whether they be costs borne by hospitals or the insurance premiums we pay).

    Therefore, it is either mandate or complate and total single payer. The only two options.

  55. Jason330 says:

    It isn’t as if other countries haven’t figured this out.

  56. anonone says:

    Unfortunately, in this country, health insurance reform was NOT about getting affordable health care for everybody. It was about making sure that health insurance companies remain wildly profitable and crossing health care reform off the list of to-do’s.

  57. cassandra_m says:

    I don’t think you understand single payer if that’s what you think. It can be all-inclusive. It’s Romneycare that by design leaves people out, and Obamacare will do the same.

    This is a little rich coming from the unicorn brigade. I do know what single payer is — and I do know that is not on offer except possibly in a few small states. And there is certainly no one here working for single payer here with the same energy that they bring to bitching about Obamacare on line. Sheesh.

    Neither Obamacare or Romneycare claim to cover everybody. But they come a heck of alot closer to covering alot more people than what is currently on offer.

    So when you boys get it together to start lobbying the GA or anybody else for single payer, holla at your girl, because I’ll join you. But in the meantime, all it looks like to me is that you will be pretty delighted the day that people who could have had some insurance get denied that possibility.

    Kevin Drum ponders what happens if the mandate goes away.

  58. puck says:

    Cassandra was the one who brought up single payer. Myself, I am just looking forward to the prospect of throwing the health-care chess board up in the air. We Democrats screwed up in 2010, both in terms of health care policy and in electoral politics. It would be good to take another shot at it in an election year, let the chips fall where they may.