Further north and a little east, think “early major Democrat in the Senate (besides Durbin) to publicly endorse Obama’s candidacy”. Also featured in Michael Moore’s “Farenheit 911” film.
Ding! He and his lovely wife are regulars (they live up the street) and he’s a really neat guy. Very down-to-earth, very, very pleasant.
JeffL
3065
So which Democrats in the Senate voted No in the most recent vote? Other than Reid (who changed his vote when he realized his mistake?) I noticed the count was only 56 yes votes.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00105
Lincoln (D-AR)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Now imagine what legislation would be the result if the Senate was a majority body as intended and they could have afforded to lose five more votes…
Menzo
3067
Uh…they COULD have afforded to lose five more votes. They apparently just decided not to do it. Wisely, I believe.
Can someone please explain to me WHY some Republicans really in their hearts believe that this new law provides government funding for abortion? Doesn’t it have a provision whereby the health plan exchange policies have to charge separately for abortion coverage (which is optional) and keep the accounting separate?
For the reconciliation case, I agree. But I meant in the wrangling before the vote on the original Senate Bill, when they needed 60. A 51-vote requirement would have made those negotiations so much easier, had probably gotten a better bill, and still had a comfortable 55 votes.
Because it fires up their base.
I know that motivates most of the screaming by Bachmann et al., but I don’t think that would sway the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Said conference is pro-life, and absolutely nothing you can do will convince pro-lifers anything isn’t a secret plot to abort everyone.
On the other hand, Jason, you can’t prove that their unending vigilance hasn’t prevented the introduction of the “abort everyone” bill.
I’ll take the liberty of re-posting this just once, thanks to my standing on these boards as one of the most respected posters.*
I’d like to read an essay that argues, from a conservative standpoint, that the HCR bill is unlikely to lead to the overall betterment of US citizens. But I would like the person to be reasonable and compassionate; perhaps the essayist will say something like, “One of my cousins recently was kicked off of her health plan when she developed cancer; nevertheless, I believe that…”
I guess I’m tired of reading the thoughts of people who are like, analogously, screeching about homosexuality without having a single friend or family member who is homosexual.
bago
3075
Because most christians, the kind that don’t actually read the bible, in particular Psalm 137:
“O Babylon, you devastator, Happy shall they be who pay
you back what you have done to us!
Happy shall be they who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!”
are easily manipulated once they have faith.
bago
3076
As a personal anecdote, the evangelical community does not ecnourage a direct reading of the cannonical biblical texts, but instead uses their mandatory “bible study” groups to focus on whatever is politically expedient at the time. Depending on footnotes and fontsize, the bible is 1-2 thousand pages. It shouldn’t take you more than a few weeks to read and digest it. The fact that these churches can go for years while missing passages such as these proves that they are not focused on education and study of the text, but rather a backwards backwards formula of having conclusions and working backwards through texts to find selective justifications for the pre-ordained conclusions.
It’s the american conservative (as opposed to the Sullivan/Burkean interpretation) viewpoint, where you start with your conclusion, and then work backwards to find evidence supporting it, rather than the scientific tradition of gathering evidence and using that to derive conclusions.
I mean, shit. David Frum, the “axis of evil” guy got booted out of the AEI simply for noting that the “call everything commie” strategy wasn’t working. Not that it had no intellectual pedigree or was even remotely untrue, but just for stating that the ideology first approach was unpersuasive.
American evangelicalism != The totality of Christianity. Neither the Catholics or Orthodox apply a literal interpretation to Psalm 137, and they are about as emphatically anti-abortion as you can get.
WarrenM
3078
From a friend of mine:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/25/AR2010032501722.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2010032402500
Crazy Tea Party activist who encouraged people to throw bricks through the windows of Dem offices… is on government disability. “Damn this socialist health care… but don’t you dare touch my government disability check that I get for the fallout from my unhealthy lifestyle.”
“Vanderboegh said he once worked as a warehouse manager but now lives on government disability checks. He said he receives $1,300 a month because of his congestive heart failure, diabetes and hypertension. He has private health insurance through his wife, who works for a company that sells forklift products.”
Do we start the slow clap now or later?
bago
3079
Nah, the catholics just wait a few years so they can fuck the little boys properly. As far as I can tell, the Orthodox are addicted to parochial pomp and circumstance, but peculiarly suited to their region. A bit of a tautological fail if you ask me.
I wonder if he gets razzed by his libertarian buddies at the gun show or VFW hall or does the irony just pass by unnoticed?
