Conservative Dictionary

It's been pretty clear, the last few years, that there are things conservative lawmakers are allowed to do which democratic lawmakers are not allowed to do. Maybe making and adding to a consevative political lexicon would be fun.

Steve Benen at Washington Monthly's "Political Animal" helps gets us started.

"Obstructionism," for example, only refers to Democratic minorities opposing Republican proposals.

"Tyranny" is found when an elected Democratic majority passes legislation that Republicans don't like.

"Reconciliation" describes a Senate process that Republicans are allowed to use to overcome Democratic "obstructionism."

"Terrorism" refers to acts of political violence committed by people who aren't white guys.

"Bipartisanship" is found when Democrats agree to pass Republican legislation.

"Big government" describes a dangerous phenomenon to be avoided, except in cases relating reproductive rights or gays.

"Treason" refers to Democrats criticizing a Republican administration during a war.

"Patriotism" refers to Republicans criticizing a Democratic administration during a war.

"Fiscal responsibility" is a national priority related to keeping our budget in check, which only applies when Republicans are in the minority.

"Parliamentarian" is a seemingly independent official on the Hill who Senate Republicans are allowed to fire when the GOP disapproves of his/her rulings.

Charles Krauthammer - Smart, but a liar

My favorite disingenuous conservative editorial opinion writer is at it again today. I didn't realize, until this morning, that Charles Krauthammer is actually a Harvard Medical school grad and is board certified in psychiatry. So he has the training to lie convincingly to his readers.

In "Onward with Obamacare, regardless", Krauthammer spews his conservative version of the facts on healthcare reform. "...a Blair House "summit" with Republicans, followed five days later with a few concessions tossed the Republicans' way."

A "few" concessions? The current HCR Bill is more Republican than it is progressive. Over 160 Republican amendments were accepted in the Senate version of the HCR Bill. Remember "single-payer health care"? Gone. Remember the "public option"? Gone. Remember "death panels"? Gone. A majority of people dislike the HCR Bill for two reasons. First, many progressives think the Bill doesn't go far enough, so they oppose it. Second, many, many people have bought into the Republican lies about the Bill so, of course, they oppose it.

Krauthammer goes on to write, "Unfortunately for Democrats, that seven-hour televised exercise had the unintended consequence of showing the Republicans to be not only highly informed on the subject, but also, as even Obama was forced to admit, possessed of principled objections..." Highly informed? Did Krauthammer even watch any of the health care summit? President Obama had to correct conservative "misconceptions" and "talking points" (let's face it...lies), time and time again.

For example, conservatives want health insurance to be sold across State lines. A good idea, but it wouldn't work without strong Federal insurance standards. Instead, we would get a race to the bottom in health care benefits. Besides, conservatives are opposed to interference of the Federal goverment with States rights.

Or how about the lie spewed by Rep. Joe Barton that "tort reform" would save us $150 billion a year? The Congressional Budget Office puts the figure closer to $5 billion. I'm sure Joe has a staffer that can find this article.

Krauthammer goes on to talk about ice cream, steaks and roses leading to the next conservative talking point. MEDICARE IS GOING TO BE CUT! This would be laughable if it weren't so sad. A conservative worried about cutting medicare. Sure, the Bill would take away $177 billion of government subsidies to insurance companies that participate in Medicare Advantage. But let's say there are cuts that are going to hurt Medicare. Haven't conservatives been telling us for years that we have to reduce government spending? Aren't conservatives opposed to "entitlements"? Were not conservatives initially opposed to the Medicare Bill?

Here's a good one from Krauthammer. "Well, yes. That has generally been the problem with democratic governance: cost. The disagreeable absence of a free lunch." Yep, you know those Democrats, they love to spend money. Unlike the years from 2000-2008 where we borrowed money to support fighting 2 wars, borrowed money to fund a huge Medicare drug benefit, borrowed money to fund "No child left behind" and borrowed money to fund 2 large tax cuts, mostly for the rich. And, let's not forget squandering a large budget surplus. Yes, you've convinced me that Democrats are the big spenders.

So the bastardized health care reform bill is going to cost $100 billion a year. But it's going to insure an additional 30 million people. It's going to prevent insurance company denying coverage to those with "pre-existing conditions. Insurance companies will not be able to drop you when you get sick. It does away with annual and lifetime limits on coverage. It requires that insurance companies spend at least 80% of every premium dollar on medical care. According to the CBO it would reduce the deficit (but remember, Reagan proved deficits don't matter).

Compare Records on Unemployment

Symphony of Science

Medical Malpractice and Republican Lies

Dick Durban sets Republicans straight on medical malpractice. He then asks those present if Federal health insurance and benefits are good enough for them, why aren't they good enough for the rest of the country?

I can answer that. If everyone was given the health insurance our congressional reps have.....someone, somewhere in the USA would be getting a benefit they don't deserve.

The US Spends Too Much on Foreign Aid

Ask any conservative and they will tell you that the USA spends too much on foreign aid. At 26 billion dollars, the US spends about twice as much as the United Kingdom or Germany. But the USA is a wealthy country, so where do we stand in amount of foreign aid as a percentage of GNP? Actually, not so great.

We Need Serious People

Remember the below quote? Seems pretty relevant to today's political gridlock.

We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it.

Just replace "Bob Rumson" with Mitch McConnell or John Boehner.

Party of Yes now Party of NO

How Republicans vote depends on who is President.

Increase budget deficit: under Bush vote Yes; now....No.
Increase government spending: under Bush vote Yes; now...No.
Pork is good: under Bush Yes; now No.
Increase government spending on Medicare: under Bush vote Yes; now...No.
Increase size of government: under Bush Yes; now...No.
Tax cuts for the average Joe: under Bush Yes (but mostly for the rich); now...No.

Let's Balance Your Sphenobasilar Junction!

I've recently learned about 2 types of "energy medicine". BodyTalk and Polarity Therapy.

Both of these "woo-based" scams involve "healing treatments" by manipulating some undetectible "energy field" in your body. I especially like Body Talk because it uses a gentle tapping on your body to "reestablish lines of communication" within your body. And, it looks like you can treat yourself. See the guy above rebalancing his sphenobasilar junction? And how, exactly, does your sphenobasilar junction get out of balance? How does the tapping rebalance the sphenobasilar junction?

Body Talk was discovered (invented?) by "Dr." John Veltheim, an Australian chiropractor (what a surprise). Dr. John is awarded "10 canards" on the Quackometer.

Body Talk, Polarity Therapy, Reiki, Therapeutic touch...there is not a dime's worth of difference among them. They all involve the practitioner manipulating undetectible body "energy fields" that science cannot measure. But training in just a few short sessions in the above techniques allows you to "see", "measure" or "manipulate" these fields to restore the health of the mark.

What in the world is happening to our country that we have a population of people who actually fall for this crap.

High Speed Rail - USA #2! If Only...

China will open 42 high speed railway lines in 2012. Europe already has a high speed rail system and is building more lines. And the mighty USA....well, we will hopefully open a high speed 84 mile rail line between Orlando and Tampa in 2014. A high speed rail line between Anaheim, CA and San Francisco should break ground shortly.

But guess who is building those rail lines in the US? Guess who will pay for a proposed maglev rail line between Anaheim and Las Vegas?

The USA currently has one high speed railway connecting Boston with NYC. It's average speed is 68 MPH (although it reaches 150 MPH for short stretches). A high speed railway in Germany speeds along at 205 MPH and has reached speeds up to 226 MPH. China has a maglev train that can reach 311 MPH but cruises at 268 MPH.

Yes, high speed rail is expensive to build at 20 million dollars per mile. The Federal interstate highway system was expensive too. But think of the jobs that would be created if the USA built high speed rail using US manufacturers and labor. Think of how much such a system would reduce our need to inport oil and as a side effect, benefit the climate.

Why are we unwilling to make such an investment? Why are we willing to sit around and exclaim how great we are as a nation, yet settle for 2nd place in so many areas? The rest of the world is leaving us in their dust because the average American is unwilling to make sacrifices for their country.

Conservatism and Spelling

John Kenneth Galbraith said "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

Leo C. Rosten said "A conservative is one who admires radicals centuries after they're dead."

Mark Twain said "The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out, the conservative adopts them."

P.J. O'Rouke said "The Democrats are the party of government activism, the party that says government can make you richer, smarter, taller, and get the chickweed out of your lawn. Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then get elected and prove it."

Will Rogers said "The 1928 Republican Convention opened with a prayer. If the Lord can see His way clear to bless the Republican Party the way it's been carrying on, then the rest of us ought to get it without even asking."

Woodrow Wilson said "A conservative is a man who sits and thinks, mostly sits."

John Stuart Mills said Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.

Let's discuss this last quote by John Stuart Mills. Are most stupid people conservative? I prefer the word "uneducated" rather than stupid. Are most uneducated people conservative? Better yet, are conservatives or liberals more likely to be stupid? What is the definition of "stupid"? "Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes" or " marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting" or "lacking in power to absorb ideas or impressions". By those definitions there are certainly stupid liberals and stupid conservatives.

But here is one thing I have noticed is a trend. Conservative people generally cannot spell. Go to the Adirondack Daily Enterprise website and click on any controversial article, letter or other topic. Then read the comments. That's ok, I'm not the greatest speller in the world either. But at least I make an attempt to insure my thoughts are clearly expressed (and that includes spelling). Also, conservative people who post on the ADE website obviously have a computer and access to the internet. They have a world of information at their fingertips. Why can't they use that information to write informed opinions (with correct spelling)?

These conservatives, who can't spell, are the same people posting comments about how our young people are poorly educated and cannot find good jobs.

The Placebo Effect

Can We Talk About Health Care? NO!

President Obama has proposed to Republicans that a bipartisan, televised discussion of healthcare reform take place on Feb. 25th. Guess who is very cool to that proposal? President Obama presented himself to Republicans in a televised question and answer period a couple weeks ago at a Republican retreat in Baltimore. It seems even the Republicans thought President Obama came out on top at that session.

So why can't we hear the conservative criticisms of healthcare reform and the answers the President has for those criticisms? Why don't Republicans want to do this in a public forum? Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) can ask his question publicly: "Did you lie about moving forward on malpractice reform?" I'd like to hear President Obama answer that question. I'd also like to hear about those death panels we've heard so much about or that evil board that will tell physcians what treatments they can and cannot use.

But there are several other topics that Republicans may not want brought into the public eye. Ezra Klein points out that six Republican ideas are already in the health care reform bill. And, there a many things that are not in the health care reform bill thanks to Republicans. Single payer is off the table. Public option is off the table. Medicare for those 55 and over...off the table.

Republicans do not have the stones to stand up the President on National TV and question him with the lies they've told about health care reform to the teabagger population. The fact of the matter is, Republicans do not want health care reform period.

Someone Needs God's Intervention

Sarah's "notes" for the teabagger convention. How many right-wingers need "notes" to remember tax cuts?

Oh Sarah!

"I think, kind of tougher to, um, put our arms around, but allowing America's spirit to rise again by not being afraid to kind of go back to some of our roots as a God fearing nation where we're not afraid to say, especially in times of potential trouble in the future here, where we're not afraid to say, you know, we don't have all the answers as fallible men and women so it would be wise of us to start seeking some divine intervention again in this country, so that we can be safe and secure and prosperous again.

A one hundred word run-on sentence that says....well, I'm not too sure what it says.

Sen. Shelby (R-AL) Want Pork

Actually I have no problem with the opposition party putting "holds" on presidential appointments if they have specific concerns. But to put a hold on every appointment until you get the pork you want for your state seems more like a hostage situation. I can think of an easier way for Shelby to get his pork. In exchange for your airforce tanker contracts, be willing to vote for cloture on any healthcare reform bill that makes it back to the Senate (you can still vote against the Bill itself, a majority already support it).

Winter Fun

Republicans Forced to Vote on Preserving SS

Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI)has the Republican plan for balancing the budget in 50 years, seriously. The plan basically calls for cutting Medicare, you know, that program the Republicans have told us they love so much recently. And, we would also privatize social security. Ok, good enough. Let's vote on whether to privatize SS or cut medicare. See how many Republicans are willing to put their vote where their budget is.

Resolved, That the Congress should stand with the American people to reject severe changes to Social Security, including any and all attempts to privatize Social Security, and instead should commit to work bipartisanly to make common-sense adjustments to Social Security to strengthen it for future generations while preserving its guarantees of secure income and family protection in the event of a worker's death, retirement, or severe disability.


Finally, House Dems are seeing the light, using Republican tactics, and playing hardball. Let's see how Republicans vote on this resolution next week.

Senate Rule 22 and a Majority of 41

Due to Rule 22 and the election and appointment of Sen. Scott Brown (MA) the conservatives now hold a majority of 41 seats in the US Senate. In the US Senate there is no limit on debate. Once you get the floor you can speak to your heart's content. That is, unless 60 senators vote to shut you up by invoking "cloture", which ends debate.

To filibuster once meant gaining the floor and speaking until you dropped. Not anymore. Now, 41 Senators can end debate anytime they want on anything they want except for budget issues just by informing the majority leader that they want a filibuster, although the Majority Leader has the power to require a traditional filibuster. In other words, in the modern US Senate, the minority rules.



Filibusters, improperly used, can bring government to a halt and the use of the filibuster is becoming almost commonplace in the current Congress.

So what can be done to change Senate Rule XXII? Senate Rules are determined by the Committee on Rules and Administration chaired by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY). When Republicans held power, they didn't like filibusters either. They had plans to do away with or modify Rule XXII called the "nuclear option". There are a couple of ways to do this. The easiest and quickest would be to declare the Rule unconstitutional. In fact the Rule was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court back in 1892 in a case called "U.S. v. Ballin". The court found that the "filibuster rule" could be changed by a simple majority vote of the Senate. Current Senate rules call for 67 votes to change the filibuster rule.

Another method would be to change Rule XXII, by majority vote, on the first day of a new Congressional session (2011 is the next new Congress). The theory here is that an "old" Congress cannot set the rules for a "new" Congress.

I am all for protecting the rights of the minority members in Congress. But it doesn't seem logical that Senators from very small states, representing about 10% of the US population can, for all purposes, prevent the duly elected party in power from governing. Moreover, the filibuster rule in the Senate is also preventing the House of Representatives from governing.

Today We Will Learn About

One guess.