Harry Reid to Mitch McConnell, in part (h/t Jack):
There is nothing unusual or extraordinary about the use of reconciliation. As one of the most senior Senators in your caucus, Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, said in explaining the use of this very same option, "Is there something wrong with majority rules? I don't think so."
(A press release, but, ummm... this is huge! - promoted by Dean Barker)
Stephen Skirts Laws to Collects Hundreds of Thousands in Taxpayer Money
In response to $370,000 in questionable payments made to John Stephen and the Lucas Group for so-called volunteer work, Rhode Island's Lt. Governor Elizabeth Roberts is calling on lawmakers to fine public officials who violate bidding laws. The Rhode Island Attorney General has also been investigating the payments.
John Stephen, working for the Lucas Group, consulted with Rhode Island on its Medicaid program. Rhode Island officials - including secretary of the Office of Health and Human Services, Gary Alexander, who campaigned with Stephen and held a fundraiser for him - publicly stated for months that the work was on a volunteer basis.
It was later publicly revealed that John Stephen and the Lucas Group received $370,000 for this so-called "volunteer" work - money that was awarded without any competitive bidding process.
Rhode Island's Lt. Governor Elizabeth Roberts yesterday urged the Rhode Island Assembly to put in place stiff penalties for violating the state's competitive bidding requirements.
"I was shocked to learn that a company that offered services voluntarily to the state, that never went through an open, public-bidding process and never had a contract from the state, was able to turn around and secure payment, and the state had no recourse," Roberts said, according to the Providence Journal.
"John Stephen charged Rhode Island taxpayers $370,000 for volunteer work?" asked Raymond Buckley, chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party. "If that's what John Stephen charges for 'volunteer' work there is no way New Hampshire taxpayers can afford to elect him Governor."
"It is not surprising that the Rhode Island legislature has to consider changing its laws because of John Stephen's behavior. New Hampshire taxpayers can't afford John Stephen's type of no-bid, no-ethics arrangements that benefit him and his political cronies."
"John Stephen worked for state government for years. He should know about competitive bidding. He should also know that volunteers are not supposed to get paid for their volunteer work for the state. John Stephen obviously doesn't think those laws apply if they stand in the way of his personal gain. New Hampshire can't afford someone like John Stephen who thinks ethics and the law doesn't apply to him."
The scandal is reminiscent of those in the Administration of Stephen's mentor, Craig Benson. Benson paid tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars to a so-called volunteer named Linda Pepin.
"John Stephen apparently learned everything he knows about ethics from Craig Benson - something that should scare the people of New Hampshire," Buckley said.
"Don't walk away because you are confused or because it is difficult. We have entered an amazing time, when each of us has an important role to play. That time is now. It is the best time ever to be alive on this earth, because everyone matters. Everyone is needed if we are to survive. Your creativity, your love, your courage--all of it. As the smoke of battle swirls around you, smile. It is a privilege to be alive in such a time."
This article has been defeated in over 1/3 of the towns so far. News reports have been largely ignoring the towns that defeat it by "skipping over" the question. They also are ignoring the more than a dozen towns that defeated it in the deliberative sessions. My own town of Brookline voted about 3-1 to skip over this article last night.
Also, with the notable exception of the Union Leader's recent article, most have not pointed out that an actual constitutional amendment requires a 2/3 super majority. Very few of these towns have passed it by that margin.
What votes they do have are inflated by wording that encourages supporters of marriage equality to vote for the article and the fact that the larger, more liberal, cities are not voting on it, only the smaller, more conservative towns.
Even if you just look at the towns that had warrant articles, had this been an actual constitutional amendment vote, it would be going down in flames.
State Rep. Jim Splaine, D-Portsmouth, said the wording of the resolution was vague, turnout was small, and most town voters had budgets and spending on their minds.
"This was really raw politics by those, mostly conservative Republicans, who want to dictate their agenda on the state," Splaine said.
..."It's not the New Hampshire way to take away rights from people," Splaine said.
Oh, and what about New Hampshire's tradition of freedom and tolerance? Here's a graf from a NH Freedom to Marry release:
Here is a list of towns that rejected the resolution. This list does not include the 88 towns and 13 cities that refused to take the issue up; Alstead, Andover, Barrington, Bethlehem, Boscawen, Bow, Bradford, Brookfield, Chesterfield, Deerfield, Easton, Franconia, Gilsum, Goffstown, Groveton, Hebron, Hudson, Kensington, Lee, Lincoln, Lisbon, Lyman, Monroe, Meredith, Newbury, Nelson, New Hampton, New London, Plymouth, Rindge, Rye, Sugar Hill, Winchester, Wolfeboro, Washington.
Let us know more details from your towns as they come in.
The bottom line is: if this were an actual vote on a binding constitutional amendment, it would have been hugely unsuccessful. But let's be clear on what this really is - the first effort from the state GOP to scare up social issue voters for November. Being bankrupt of ideas, and peddling the same economic policies that brought us to the brink when they were in charge, they've got to GOTV somehow.
Look, obviously Drew plays for the other team, but he is rarely so far off the mark. There is a difference.
That he is so here is, imo, another testament to how tightly wrapped the Thomson and Loeb/UL legacy is.
While it may be tempting for some to push back on Drew's post by comparing the accomplishments and legacies of Gale Thomson and Doris Haddock, I think that's just the kind of pointless rabbit hole the other side would relish. I think I'll stick to my customary M.O. of keeping a respectful distance from the families of politicians on either side of the aisle. And furthermore, nil de mortuis nisi bonum.
Here's what I do know. Granny D had a bigger impact on getting me out of my apolitical comfort zone than anyone save Dr. Dean. As a speaker, writer, walker, and - most of all - thinker, she had no peer in either party.
Today, Beck returned to the subject, insisting that the notion of social justice is "a perversion of the Gospel," and "not what Jesus would say." He wasn't kidding.
He went on to say that Americans should be skeptical of religious leaders who are "basing their religion on social justice," and explained his fear that concern for social justice is a problem "infecting all" faith traditions.
While there's certainly been a deepening of the chasm between basic Christian beliefs and whatever the unholy alliance of the GOP and the Religious Right think Christianity is, the above lunacy represents the furthest break yet.
This is without doubt one of the most offensive, ignorant, and pernicious statements I've ever heard about the followers of Jesus Christ. And I'm an agnostic!
UPDATE: Looks like the pushback from actual Christians has already begun, starting with a call to a boycott of Beck:
Religious bloggers, from the Rev. James Martin, an editor at the liberal Jesuit magazine America, to Joe Carter, at the conservative magazine First Things, took Mr. Beck's decree as possibly an attack on Catholic teaching, and definitely an affront to Christianity.
...Glenn Beck is saying something else: "Leave Christianity." Again and again in the Gospels, Jesus mentions our responsibility to care for the poor, to work on their behalf, to stand with them. In fact, when asked how his followers would be judged he doesn't say that it will be based on where you worship, or how you pray, or how often you go to church, or even what political party you believe in. He says something quite different: It depends on how you treat the poor.
One of the most annoying things in political life is the failure of candidates or committees to follow the most simple legal requirements, especially New Hampshire's legal requirments, because our requirements are so pathetically few. Violating our state's campaign laws should result in stiffer penalties than we have, because you either have to be stupid or just plain don't give a hoot about following them in order to violate the laws. It is especially annoying when candidates who are LAWYERS don't follow the law.
Here is one law, RSA 664:14. "All political advertising shall be signed at the beginning or the end with the names and addresses of the candidate, his fiscal agent, or the name and address of the chairman or the teasurer of a political committee, or the name and address of a natural person, according to whether a candidate, political committee, or natural person is responsible for it."
It does not get much simpler than that: candidate's name, address, fiscal agent. How hard is it to get that right?
Manchester, one day before Senator John F. Kennedy became President-Elect John F. Kennedy:
"I believe there is probably a more irresponsible newspaper than that one right over there somewhere in the United States, but I've been through forty states and I haven't found it yet. I believe there is a publisher who has less regard for the truth, but I can't think of his name."
So the anti-marriage crowd is trying to make hay over the fact that some parts of New Hampshire adopted their stealth attempt to insert discrimination into our constitution, and alarm bells are going off among some in the wider LGBT community.
After more than a year of debating health care reform, it's easy to lose sight of what motivated us to act in the first place. But the recent news about insurance rate hikes for New Hampshire families and small businesses perfectly illustrates the urgent need to reform the insurance system in this country.
According to a recent report by the Center for American Progress Action Fund, WellPoint, under the banner of Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, intends to increase individual insurance rates in New Hampshire by 12 to 13 percent and has already increased premiums in the small group market by 17 percent. Meanwhile, WellPoint's net income in 2009 was up 90.5 percent over 2008.
New Hampshire is not alone. Insurance companies across the country are raising rates on American families, including by a whopping 39 percent in California. And another recent report by Health Care for America Now! shows that the top five largest health insurance companies made $12.2 billion in profits last year, while dropping coverage for 2.7 million people.
It is indefensible for insurance companies to raise rates on families and small business owners while at the same time posting massive profits. I recently sent a letter to WellPoint CEO Angela Braly asking her to justify their rate increases. I have also asked the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee to open an investigation into the matter.
Every single day I hear from people in New Hampshire about the crippling cost of health insurance. These people are desperate for help. As you know, New Hampshire already has some of the highest insurance rates of any state in the nation. Many small businesses are unable to afford insurance for their employees or have to pass more and more of the costs onto them, and more and more families have to make incredibly hard financial decisions about health insurance coverage. These families, small businesses, and our state's economy simply can't afford these drastic rate increases.
One recent letter I received is from Robert Tourigny, the Executive Director of NeighborWorks Greater Manchester. Over the last five years, Robert has seen small group health insurance premiums rise drastically, to the point where health care costs now consume nine percent of his operating budget and have led to an unavoidable reduction in benefits and increased cost to his employees.
He wrote:
Given these difficult economic times, our employees are all grateful to be working and to have health insurance. Every day we see people who come into our office who have neither. These ever increasing costs must end. We need to have a predictable cost that can adequately cover our workers. I urge you and your fellow members of Congress to put an end to this madness as soon as possible so that businesses such as ours can provide health benefit options to our employees that are reasonable, and perhaps most importantly, have predicable costs.
We cannot continue to allow middle class families and small businesses to find themselves in this impossible position. The legislation we are fighting to pass will require insurance companies to spend premium dollars on health care, not CEO salaries or Washington lobbyists. And if they don't spend enough of the premiums they collect on actual care, they will have to send rebate checks to consumers. The legislation will also stop insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions and cutting people off when they get sick.
These reforms are long-overdue, and after a year of health care negotiations, it's time to finish the job.
Now leaving aside FAUX's favorite pollster, it seems likely that the race hasn't moved much since earlier polling. But there ain't no way I'm going to get worked up over Ras' margins.
Yet what has changed since then is that Hodes was out in front on Vermont Yankee and on health care reform. The base is slowly getting fired up. Once HCR passes, we'll be even more fired up.
There can be no true equality in America so long as only the rich are represented at the table of power. That is no democracy. There can be no true justice in America so long as only the privileged make the rules and build the jails for those outside the rooms of power. That is no democracy.
Only when we sit together at the table of power can we do the right things by our communities.
Going through her speeches, it is easy as pie to see why Granny D was a giant inspiration to so many people (me included).
We have been informed that Granny D. has passed away this afternoon. She turned 100 on January 24th, and we had a large party at the State House for her on January 28th, which she so much enjoyed.
With the help of many who read and blog on BlueHampshire.com, the House and Senate approved, and Governor John Lynch signed legislation last year creating a Citizen-Funded Campaign Task Force, which was a continuing cause of Granny D. We have held about a dozen meetings, and Granny D. has attended most of them, including this past January.
Doris "Granny D." Haddock was Democratic U.S. Senate Nominee in 2004, running against incumbent Judd Gregg. She gave him a run for his money, and did a great job at the televised debate. Her story, "Run Granny Run," was an HBO documentary which can be seen free on Comcast and Hulu, and the DVD can be purchased on Amazon.com. It's a fantastic story about New Hampshire politics.
She had been in Arizona for the past few weeks, planning to return soon to continue her work. Her cause will continue. She taught us all determination, dedication, vision. What a wonderful person. And she'll continue to be with us.
New Hampshire state Rep. Nancy Elliott, at a recent state Judiciary Committee meeting on a proposal to repeal the state's same-sex marriage bill, described the issue of gay marriage as follows: "taking the penis of one man and putting it in the rectum of another man and wriggling it around in excrement." Rep. Elliott continued, irrelevantly, "and you have to think, I'm not sure, would I allow that to be done to me?"
...Welcome to Martha Nussbaum's politics of disgust: an America in which national policy can be discussed at the level of Beavis and Butthead, chasing each other around in circles with a stick that once touched poop.
In From Disgust to Humanity, Nussbaum, a prominent professor of law and philosophy at the University of Chicago, explains that much of the political rhetoric around denying equal rights to gay Americans is rooted in the language of disgust. Their activities are depicted as "vile and revolting," threatening to "contaminate and defile" the rest of us. Looked at starkly, she argues, much of the anti-gay argument is bound up in feces and saliva, germs, contagion and blood.
I think that Nussbaum, who, btw, is one of the most prominent minds in the field of Classics, is right on the money here.
What's the best way to demonize a certain group of people (gays, Jews, Arabs, etc...) to keep them down? Make them The Other. And what's one of the easiest ways of making them The Other? Define them with descriptors which will engender disgust. We all know this to be true, because arguments like Nancy Elliott's are rooted in infantile reasoning we, all of us, had to encounter at one point or another in our lives in the schoolyard or somewhere.
Adding: What makes Elliott's infamy worse still, as Jennifer notes, is how she closes the loop on this trick by linking the The Other's disgust descriptor to the exposure of innocent children.
