Congress

by

Puppies, Cats and Filibusters

Last night Rachel Maddow did this weird segment launching her contest to come up with a word that is less boring that filibuster.  Her theory being that the process won’t change until people understand what it is and they won’t understand it until we come up with a word that doesn’t put everyone to sleep.

Rachel explained this while running unrelated video of a puppy who kept falling asleep in a large pan of water.

So I tried an experiment.  Peter, one of the cats, was asleep on the end of the sofa.  I called his name.  He woke up and looked at me.  I told him I wanted to have a conversation about filibusters.  He promptly closed his eyes and went back to sleep.  Coincidence?  Probably.  I didn’t say the magic word, “food”, for one thing.  But it was kinda cute.

I’ve written about the filibuster several times in the past and despite what Harry Reid seems to want to do (which is nothing) something has to happen.  Did everyone hear President Obama mention many things which have passed the House and not the Senate during his State of the Union Address?  And it is sad that the Senate has to be threatened with recess appointments before they begin to confirm nominees.

Of all the suggestions, I think the best is not changing the 60 vote rule itself, but instituting the old talk until you drop rule.  No more going on to other business.  No more going home.  If you call for a filibuster, be prepared to talk.

Come on, Senate Democrats.  Stop looking like sleepy cats and puppies.

by

Is Massachusetts turning Purple?

Massachusetts, the proud commonwealth that voted for George McGovern, has voted for the first Tea Party senator.  I’ve been too busy (and depressed) to write about it, but I’m slowly becoming philosophical about it all.  As Brian McGrory wrote in the Boston Globe the day after

I’m going to need some Advil and a cold compress, please. I’m the Massachusetts Electorate, and I have what is bar none the absolute worst hangover of my entire voting life.

Seriously, I was so drunk on power, so caught up in the moment, so free of any of my usual inhibitions, I can’t remember what’s gone on these last two weeks. Think, Electorate, think. What did I do?

McGrory goes on to describe the Massachusetts electorate’s seduction by Scott Brown.

And now I’m vaguely recalling that stranger across the room, the one in the barn jacket who kept smiling at me and seemed to know my name. Martha vanished for a while, and – is it bad that I’m saying this? — I didn’t really care.

Suddenly, that tall, handsome man was standing at my side doing something that Martha rarely did – offering to pay for drinks, chatting me up, curious what was on my mind.

Every time I ever tried telling Martha about my day, my hopes, my dreams, she shushed me up and said she was preparing a legal brief or watching Law & Order. And now there’s a stranger telling me he could change my entire world.

I had been hoping that Coakley might pull out the race – even if it were by a few votes – until she spoke at the Martin Luther King Day breakfast.  Speaking before a friendly audience which loves it’s politicians, Martha did not get a standing ovation or a “you go, girl” shouted from the audience.  Martin Luther King, III was more eloquent on her behalf than she was and he lives in Atlanta.  That was when I began the process of resigning myself to the inevitable.

There were lots of reasons she lost.  She ran a very poor campaign and Martha has always seemed uncomfortable campaigning, pressing the flesh.  She always talks like a prosecutor.  I represented the Somerville Women’s Commission on her Violence Against Women Task Force and I know she believes all the right things.  She would have made a good, hard-working Senator but she never made the case.  Maybe she thought until the polls started to turn that she didn’t have to work hard for the seat.  Democrats appeared to have voted for her.  She lost the swing independents.

Where were her Emily’s List supporters that helped her defeat Mike Capuano in the Democratic Primary?  Why didn’t she have the money to advertise more?  (probably too many people like me who wanted to vote for her, but didn’t feel moved to give her money.) She never, that I recall, ran an ad that defined who she was as a person.  One that showed her with her dogs and husband walking on the Charles River or something.  We all learned about Brown’s truck.  Unions and other supporters didn’t seem do much.  Was it because they thought she was a shoe-in or because she didn’t find a role for them in her campaign?  (there are rumors to that effect)  Instead of reaching out to the independents and Republicans, I’m sure we were like every Democratic household  in the Commonwealth:  We got robocalls from everyone about her.  President Obama, Bill Clinton, and Angela Menino, the Mayor’s wife.   (We have to find a better way to get the word out and get people out to vote than all these endless calls.  I stopped answering the phone.)  But with all the calls, she never fired up her base.  She’s running for re-election for Attorney General now and maybe that will go better.  People may feel more comfortable with her as their lawyer and than with her as senator.

Meanwhile we have to face the reality that Scott Brown is our Senator for the next 3 years.  He once pointed out that it was 3 years, like a test drive, and we could vote him out if we didn’t like what he did.

I like Congressman Capuano’s take during an interview with one of the local public radio stations

Political watchers have already begun talk of Capuano mounting a challenge for Brown’s Senate seat in 2012, but Capuano laughed off that idea.

“I have never in my life had the luxury of planning my political career three years in advance. I think we need to let Mr. Brown have an opportunity to prove himself, to prove whether he is the independent he claims to be or whether he’s a lockstep Republican or something in between. I hope he’s a great senator for Massachusetts.”

I don’t know if Mike would have been able to beat Brown, but he would have gone down with a fight, not a whimper.

by

Harry Reid, Race, and the GOP

The new book “Game Change” by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann about the 2008 Presidential is already upsetting a lot of people.  I’m certain that Sarah Palin will not be happy with Steve Schmidt’s comments about her for one.  But right now that is being overshadowed by a remark that Harry Reid made to them during an interview.

Harry Reid stands in the Capitol.

Reid told them that Barack Obama could be elected president because he is “light skinned” and lacks “Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”   According to Politico

Embarrassed by the remarks and already facing a tough climb to reelection in the fall, Reid has reached out to the African American community, apologizing for his comments and highlighting his legislative record of backing civil rights issues important to the black community. He immediately won a showing of support from prominent Democratic black leaders, including the president, who accepted his apology and said he’s seen the “passionate leadership he’s shown on issues of social justice and I know what’s in his heart. As far as I’m concerned, the book is closed.”

Harry Reid might be ignorant and inarticulate but the Republicans are hypocrites. 

I think Ruth Marcus writing in the Washington Post today has it about right.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid acted like an idiot.

Also, he was right.

It’s a measure of the suffocating culture of political correctness that it feels risky to say that. It’s a measure of the insulting how-dumb-do-they-think-we-are culture of incessant partisanship that Republicans leapt on Reid’s remarks as racist.

…

For anyone in public life to use the word “Negro” in 2008 is beyond stupid. What was once polite has become demeaning. (Although, interestingly enough, the U.S. Census chose to retain the word on the 2010 census form because so many respondents wrote it in 10 years ago.)

The lame explanation offered by an aide — that the remarks were not intended for use in the book — is about as convincing as Jesse Jackson’s assertion that he did not consider his “Hymietown” comments to the Washington Post’s Milton Coleman on the record. (“Let’s talk black talk,” Jackson had said to Coleman.)

But there’s a big difference between Reid 2008 and Jackson 1984 — or, more to the point, Lott 2002. When the then-soon-to-be-former Majority Leader Trent Lott said that the United States could have avoided “all these problems” if Strom Thurmond’s 1948 segregationist campaign for president had succeeded, there was an unmistakable — if unintended — whiff of racism. As much as Republican critics would like to use the incident for partisan purposes, Reid’s blundering comments were made in the context of supporting an African American candidate, not praising a segregationist one.

Walter Russell Mead posted this on Politico’s Arena

Majority Leader Reid’s cretinous private remarks are creepy and disturbing. The GOP outrage is as phony as a three dollar bill and the ‘double standard’ charges don’t hold up. The difference is that Lott was praising the political wisdom and importance of Thurmond’s Dixiecrat campaign and that Lott gave a strong appearance of wishing that the segregationists had somehow won. Reid’s remarks reveal a man who is embarassingly and pathetically awkward and out of touch, but there’s nothing there that would give aid and comfort to organized racism in American life. The remarks give credence to the view that the time has come when Senator Reid should think about spending more time with his family; the voters of Nevada look like they are planning to help him achieve this next fall. Until then, the rest of us might do well by thinking about Senator Reid as little as humanly possible.

And Michael Steele of the Republican National Committee who called on Reid to resign said this is if he didn’t it showed a double standard from what happened to Trent Lott.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele called Sunday for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to resign because of racial remarks, but Steele took the opposite view when a Republican Senate leader was facing similar calls.

 The Washington Post reported on Dec. 14, 2002: “Lt. Gov.-elect Michael S. Steele said last night that he was personally upset by U.S. Sen. Trent Lott’s praise for Sen. Strom Thurmond and his segregationist past, but said Lott should not be forced to relinquish his leadership position in the Senate. ‘Trent Lott apologized, but he needs to keep apologizing because this is a very sensitive issue to the black community,’ Steele (R) said at an event celebrating his election as Maryland’s first black lieutenant governor. ‘I know Trent Lott personally, and I know that this is not his intent. But it’s still unfortunate. And I think he needs to apologize a little bit more.’”

Steele was joined in his call for Reid to resign and in saying there was a “double standard” because Lott lost his leadership post by Senators Kyl and McConnell.  But isn’t an apology enough, Mr. Steele?

On the Democratic side, Doug Wilder (former Governor of Virginia) thinks Reid ought to apologize to the country while Eleanor Holmes Norton, Jim Clyburn and Al Sharpton are defending Reid.  I have no idea if Nevada has another Democrat who could run for Reid’s Senate seat this fall and win, but I think maybe they should look for someone quickly.

by

The Massachusetts Senate Election

On the 19th, we get to vote for a new Senator.  And although the Rasmussen poll has Scott Brown, the Republican, within 10 points, I am willing to guess the margin will be more like 12 to 15 for Martha Coakley, the Democrat .  Believe it or not, I wrote that on Saturday before the Boston Globe poll was published today showing Coakley with a 15 point lead.  (There is also a Libertarian, Joseph Kennedy – not one of the Kennedys.  They have endorsed Martha.)

I favored Congressman Michael Capuano in the Democratic primary, but it will be good to elect a woman Senator for the first time.  Besides the fact that Mike was once my boss when he was Mayor of Somerville, I have only partially forgiven Coakley for her intransigence on the Fells Acre child care case she prosecuted as Middlesex County Assistant DA.  As far as federal issues go, there was not a lot of difference between them 

But I became solidly in Martha’s court after Scott Brown said that while he didn’t favor torture, it being against the Geneva Convention and all, he was in favor of waterboarding which, according to him, is not torture.  Coakley disagrees, agreeing with the Obama Administration policy.  Brown’s endorsement of waterboarding became the subject of a great Wasserman cartoon. 

 Brown has been running ads comparing himself with John F. Kennedy which don’t seem to have helped him much.

According to the poll released today

Half of voters surveyed said they would pick Coakley, the attorney general, if the election were held today, compared with 35 percent who would pick Brown. Nine percent were undecided, and a third candidate in the race, independent Joseph L. Kennedy, received 5 percent.

Coakley’s lead grows to 17 points – 53 percent to 36 percent – when undecideds leaning toward a candidate are included in the tally. The results indicate that Brown has a steep hill to climb to pull off an upset in the Jan. 19 election. Indeed, the poll indicated that nearly two-thirds of Brown’s supporters believe Coakley will win.

“She’s simply better known and better liked than Brown,’’ said Andrew E. Smith, director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, which conducted the poll for the Globe.

…

Coakley is seen as strongest on health care, the issue that 31 percent of respondents said was the most important. Fifty-one percent said they trusted Coakley to best handle the issue, with only 29 percent saying Brown.

Brown has trumpeted the prospect that he would be the 41st vote to block the health care proposals before Congress, while Coakley has said she would proudly cast the 60th vote to prevent a filibuster and grant final approval for the legislation.

The war in Afghanistan was the best issue for Brown, with 34 percent saying they trust him, compared with 35 percent for Coakley. Brown, a National Guardsman, supports President Obama’s plan to increase troop levels in Afghanistan; Coakley opposes it.

The turn out will be very light and with the Democrats holding the edge in party registration all Martha has to do is to get more voters out.  The ten day weather projection calls for temps around freezing and partly sunny in Boston. 

by

Looking at November in January

The Republicans are hopeful that they will take over the House and the Senate.  When it is the 5th of January, anything is possible, but there are some signs that it might not be easy – especially in the House.

Writing in today’s Washington Post, Chris Cillizza writes about Republican House retirements.

While the recent political chatter in Washington has focused on Democrats retiring from Congress, Republicans are leaving the House in greater numbers, a trend that could blunt the party’s momentum heading into the November midterm elections.

Rep. Henry E. Brown Jr. (S.C.) on Monday became the 14th Republican to announce that he will not run for reelection this year. Ten Democrats have said the same, including an attention-grabbing four in the past two months from swing and Republican-leaning districts.

A broad look at those seats suggests more parity, in terms of the two parties’ opportunities and vulnerabilities, than conventional wisdom would suggest.

There are also potential money problems for Republicans.  Politico reported the other day

The National Republican Congressional Committee, the key cog in helping to finance GOP campaigns, has banked less than a third as much money as its Democratic counterpart and is ending the year with barely enough money to fully finance a single House race — no less the dozens that will be in play come 2010.

 A big part of the problem, according to Republican strategists, is that GOP members themselves — the ones who stand the most to gain from large-scale House gains — haven’t chipped in accordingly, despite evidence of solid opportunities in at least 40 districts next year and with as many as 80 seats in play, according to the Cook Political Report’s estimates.

…

The fundraising disparity between the two committees is striking: The DCCC outraised the NRCC this year by more than $18 million, according to FEC figures at the end of November. The NRCC has only $4.3 million left in its campaign account — with more than $2 million in debt — leaving it with just a pittance to fund the dozens of races it hopes to aggressively contest.

The DCCC, meanwhile, is sitting on a $15.3 million nest egg (with $2.6 million owed), steadily expanding its cash-on-hand advantage over Republicans throughout the year.

It is always possible that more Democrats will retire (Senator Dorgan – D  N.D. just announced he was not going to seek reelection for example) and change the equation again, right now it does not look as if the Republicans can retake the House.  Lose some seats, yes, but not enough to lose the majority.  It is also possible that the Republicans will start coughing up more money.  January is very early.

But there is a Senatorial election here is Massachusetts in two weeks.  While one poll shows Republican Scott Brown within single digits, it is curious that he is getting no financial support from national Republicans.  Is this a concession to Martha Coakely?  If you think about it the Rasmussen Poll could help Martha by making her supporter nervous enough to work hard to get out the vote. 

I think Massachusetts is safe for the Democrats, but the rest of the Senate is unclear.

by

Christmas and Health Care

This was posted this morning by Mark R., NY as a comment on the New York Times Prescriptions blog.  Thank you to you, Mark.

‘Twas the day before Christmas
And they passed a bill
Despite the considerable
Republican chill.

The Senate was finished
At last for this year
But the right wing continues
Their campaign of fear

So when the time comes
To sit down with the House
I wonder if Boehner
Will still be a louse

The minds of the people
They claim to have known
And they continue to harvest
The seeds they have sown

If at the end of this all
We can get our reform
It will probably be
When again it is warm

Let’s get that public option
Back on the table
With the donkeys together
And graze in their stable

Let’s hope that they can get
This health care bill right
So that everyone’s covered
And can sleep at night

And may the Republicans
Who can only say NO!
In two-thousand-ten
Be voted to go

So we can finally craft it
To be single payer
Like every other industrialized
National player

So despite this bill being
Quite a bit watered-down
There’s still hope for the future
Despite the tea-bagging clowns.

So we say to our Reps
On this Christmas Eve
Just make it affordable
And don’t you deceive

May two thousand and ten
Bring you all lots of cheer
A lot more of together
And a lot less of fear.

Happy Christmas!

by

Doing business in the Senate

I’ve written before about the need to end the filibuster and I called for an end to the process.  But last night I was reading through a very interesting discussion on politico.com’s Arena and I think I have changed my mind.  Instead of ending the process entirely, the Senate should change its rules to make its use very rare.  There are lots of good ideas expressed, so if you are interested, use the link and read through the entries. 

Tom Korologos (billed as a Republican strategist) argued for keeping things as they are pointing out that it takes super-majorities of the Senate to override Presidential vetos and ratify treaties, but I disagree that those are the same thing and those are in the Constitution and are not just Senate rules.  The point being that there should be some situation requiring a super-majority, but not every bill.  There is something wrong when every piece of legislation coming before the Senate requires a 60 vote cloture to even proceed to debate.  So what to do?  Here are some ideas.

Theada Skocpol suggests

Much of this is happening by Senate custom and party rules — interacting with ideological and regional extremism — not because of the Constitution. The Senate and the Democrats should make changes that they will have to realize could work in the other direction at a later time. Filibusters should have declining margins as time passes, reducing the supermajority needed to proceed to a vote from 60 to 57 to 55 — and maybe even down to 53 or 50. Minorities should be able to force delay and protracted debate, but not block government action altogether.

I like Bernard I. Finel’s ideas

The American political system already contains a great number of veto points, so a supermajority requirement in the Senate is neither necessary nor conducive to good public policy. That said, I could see a case for the rare use of a filibuster in extreme circumstance. But I’d like to propose two modifications. (1) A filibuster should actually tie up Senate business completely. The party responsible for the filibuster should have to speak from the floor throughout the process, and should as a result take the blame for shutting down the legislative process and, indeed, in some cases shutting down the federal government. The cost-free filibuster we have now is simply too tempting to use for purely obstructionist purposes. (2) Maybe, like the challenge flag in pro football, each party could have a limited number of filibuster opportunities per legislative session. That would keep it an option for important issues, while not allowing the minority to be obstructionist across the board.

Christine Pelosi also agrees with the make them talk idea.  Let’s make Senator’s who want to filibuster be like Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. 

To these ideas I would add that even if the filibuster is maintained, let’s not allow it for Presidential nominations.  Maybe Supreme Court, but not the lower courts and certainly not for cabinet members.  And there shouldn’t be “holds” allowed for those nominees.

Lanny Davis is all for abolishing the filibuster and wants to file a lawsuit that it is unconstitutional.  I think that might be going a little far but I do agree that

For Democrats: The filibuster is good when they were in the minority and they blocked numerous judicial nominations of President Bush, requiring Republicans to get 60 votes for cloture in order to obtain an “up or down” vote by majority rule. But the filibuster is bad when they are in the majority and the Republicans are insisting on 60 votes before they can have an up-or-down vote on health care. Yes, one was about judicial nominations. The other about health care. But as my law school professor used to say, “that’s a distinction without a difference.” The principle is the same — the constitution requires only majority rule — and so do Democratic principles. The Democrats ignore that principle that an up-or-down vote should be allowed, with majority rule governing, when they are in the minority, but insist on it when they are in the majority.

For Republicans: They sanctimoniously threatened a constitutional challenge and the “nuclear option” — ignoring Senate Rules to force up-or-down votes without 60 votes and cloture — when they were in the majority and insisted on the “up or down” vote for President Bush’s judicial nominees, and accused the Democratic Senators of being “obstructionists” when they were filibustering. (Indeed, that argument in large part defeated then Minority Leader Tom Daschle in his reelection race). But, shamelessly it seems, now that they are in the minority, Republicans have suddenly forgotten about the principle of majority rule and the need for an “up or down vote,” and now they are obstructing a vote on health care and requiring 60 votes to have it.

Can both parties at least admit to their double standard on majority rule vs. the filibuster?

Amen, Lanny.

by

A first look at the Senate Health Care Bill

Lester Feder has a good short summary of the most contentious points in the Senate Bill that will pass tomorrow at 7 am.  I think that the House version is, except for the very restrictive language on abortion, a better bill and the efforts at reconciliation will be very interesting.

1. Affordability. The House generally does a much better job of helping low- and moderate-income Americans afford coverage. For the very poor, it opens the Medicaid program to individuals who earn less than $16,245 per year, whereas the Senate makes the program available only to those earning less than $14,404. The Senate offers more subsidies than the House to help the middle class buy coverage. But the Senate’s subsidized insurance offers weaker coverage than that mandated by the House and leaves these Americans far more exposed to out-of-pocket costs

2. Enforceability. The Senate would have insurers sell policies in state-based exchanges, relying on state officials to police the market. The House, on the other hand, sets up a national exchange, and many believe the federal government can do a much better job of protecting consumers than state regulators. There are also questions about whether the Senate’s legislative language protects consumers’ right to go to court if insurance companies violate the new regulations.

What’s more, there’s a minor provision in the Senate bill that could undermine one of health reform’s most important regulations. On paper the Senate bans underwriting–the practice of charging higher premiums to those with pre-existing conditions. The Senate, however, allows for the creation of “wellness incentives,” which are theoretically designed to encourage people to do things like quit smoking or exercise by reducing premiums for those who engage in healthy behaviors. But the Senate includes virtually no limits on the “wellness” indicators an insurance company can measure and allows for huge variations in premiums. This could mean people who have been pregnant, have high blood pressure or are HIV-positive could be hit with thousands of dollars in extra premiums.

2. Enforceability. The Senate would have insurers sell policies in state-based exchanges, relying on state officials to police the market. The House, on the other hand, sets up a national exchange, and many believe the federal government can do a much better job of protecting consumers than state regulators. There are also questions about whether the Senate’s legislative language protects consumers’ right to go to court if insurance companies violate the new regulations.

What’s more, there’s a minor provision in the Senate bill that could undermine one of health reform’s most important regulations. On paper the Senate bans underwriting–the practice of charging higher premiums to those with pre-existing conditions. The Senate, however, allows for the creation of “wellness incentives,” which are theoretically designed to encourage people to do things like quit smoking or exercise by reducing premiums for those who engage in healthy behaviors. But the Senate includes virtually no limits on the “wellness” indicators an insurance company can measure and allows for huge variations in premiums. This could mean people who have been pregnant, have high blood pressure or are HIV-positive could be hit with thousands of dollars in extra premiums.

3. Financing. The House bill is funded primarily through a progressive income tax on families earning more than $1million; it also requires employers to either cover employees or pay into the system. The Senate, on the other hand, imposes a poorly designed tax on “high cost” plans and an awkward alternative to an employer mandate, both of which could wind up hurting many of the Americans who most need help from this legislation.

As the process moves forward it will be interesting to see where President Obama lands.  Right now, he appears to be simply encouraging everyone to put something in a bill and pass it. 

The New York Times quotes from his interview on PBS

Unlike the House, the Senate measure omits a government-run insurance option, which liberals favored to apply pressure on private insurers but Democratic moderates opposed as an unwarranted federal intrusion into the health care system.

In an interview with PBS, Obama signaled he will sign a bill even if it lacks the provision.

”Would I like one of those options to be the public option? Yes. Do I think that it makes sense, as some have argued, that, without the public option, we dump all these other extraordinary reforms and we say to the 30 million people who don’t have coverage, `You know, sorry. We didn’t get exactly what we wanted?’ I don’t think that makes sense.”

I’m waiting for the conference bill before I decide whether the  bill is a good one or not.

by

Bureaucracy and health care

I have to admit that when I hear people say they are opposed to the public option in health care because they don’t want their medical decisions made by a “government bureaucrat” my blood pressure begins to rise.  Who exactly makes decisions for those with private insurance?  A blue cross, healthsouth, wellpoint, or harvard pilgrim bureaucrat. 

When you call up and ask a question about your coverage does it matter if you get put on hold by someone who is a government employee or an insurance company employee?  Both enforce and interpret regulations.  After all one definition of a bureaucracy (OK it is definition #3 after people who work for the government) is “a system of administration marked by officialism, red tape, and proliferation.” [ Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary]  Isn’t this when companies deny you for a pre-existing condition – like having been pregnant?  I’ve always had private insurance and have been put on hold almost every time I call about a payment or coverage.

So brought to you by Congressman Anthony Weiner, are the names of the Republican Congresspeople who are on medicare, but oppose the public option.

Rep. Ralph M. Hall
Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett
Rep. Sam Johnson
Rep. C.W. Bill Young
Rep. Howard Coble
Sen. Jim Bunning
Sen. Richard G. Lugar
Rep. Don Young
Sen. Charles E. Grassley
Sen. Robert F. Bennett
Rep. Vernon J. Ehlers
Sen. Orrin G. Hatch
Sen. Richard C. Shelby
Rep. Jerry Lewis
Sen. James M. Inhofe
Rep. Ron Paul
Rep. Henry E. Brown
Sen. Pat Roberts
Sen. George V. Voinovich
Sen. John McCain
Rep. Judy Biggert
Sen. Thad Cochran
Rep. Harold Rogers
Rep. Dan Burton
Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon
Rep. Frank R. Wolf
Rep. Michael N. Castle
Rep. Joe Pitts
Rep. Tom Petri
Sen. Lamar Alexander
Rep. Doc Hastings
Rep. Cliff Stearns
Rep. Sue Myrick
Rep. John Carter
Sen. Mitch McConnell
Sen. Jon Kyl
Rep. Phil Gingrey
Rep. Nathan Deal
Rep. John Linder
Rep. Kay Granger
Rep. John L. Mica
Rep. Walter B. Jones
Sen. Jim Risch
Rep. Ed Whitfield
Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner
Rep. Virginia Foxx
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison
Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite
Sen. Saxby Chambliss
Sen. Michael B. Enzi
Rep. Elton Gallegly
Rep. Donald Manzullo
Rep. Peter T. King
Rep. Ander Crenshaw

These are the 54 Republicans who don’t want government bureaucrats making health care decisions.

by

Dr. Bones Explains Health Care

This past Sunday, the back page of the Boston Globe “Ideas” section was a great cartoon by Dan Wasserman.

And I’m still disappointed about the public option, but I’m not quite ready join Howard Dean and dismiss the entire bill.  [An update:  soon after I first published this Howard was on the Rachel Maddow show saying he is now not going to oppose the bill due to some additional changes that had been made.]

For more from Wasserman use the blogroll link for Out of Line.