Looking at the New York Times this morning, it appears those awful Democrats are getting ready to destroy the comity that has long prevailed in the Senate:
Here’s a little taste of that story:
While Democrats filibustered their share of judicial nominees when they were in the minority under President George W. Bush, including people named to the powerful District of Columbia appeals court, what Republicans say they intend to accomplish goes beyond simply blocking a vote. Their goal is to reshape the nation’s most powerful appeals court by shrinking it to just eight full-time judges. By law it has 11 judges who regularly hear cases.
If you aren’t concerned about doing double twisting backflips to get a “both sides do it” narrative, you might do a quick Google search to find that the percentage of nominees confirmed to federal courts at this point in the Obama administration is far lower than the percentage at the same point in the Bush administration. But the Times can’t be bothered to do that, because bipartisanship, so instead they narrow the focus to whether the Democrats filibustered “their share” of appointees, whatever that means.
Of course, the headline and slug of the top story of the day skips the editorializing and just presents the bare facts of Republican obstructionism. Apparently the multi-year attempt to nullify Obamacare is bipartisan enough for the Times:
This is why I don’t subscribe to the Times.
Cervantes
This is why no one should.
PsiFighter37
I wish there was someone who would ask the GOP why they are fixated on milking political gain from a law that is 4 years old instead of, you know, trying to make existing legislation work.
Fuck those turdbags. If we weren’t in polite society they’d be called traitors, on par with the Confederacy.
Nora
And the New York Times is right in there, helping the Republicans with their strategy to undermine Obamacare, by giving this non-story pride of place on the front page above the fold. Way to go, New York Times!
Chyron HR
Tea Partiers and True Progressives both agree that Obamacare must be repealed. How much more bipartisan can you get?
cleek
did you read the rest of the article? it does a pretty good job of laying the blame exactly where it belongs.
greennotGreen
Does the Times have editors? “While Democrats did this, the Republicans say they did that.” If you’re not up on the story already, couldn’t you read that as “While Democrats did this, the Republicans say Democrats…intend to reshape the nation’s most powerful appeals court…” That puts ALL the bad stuff on the Democratic side.
Where’s our liberal media we keep hearing about?
Suffern ACE
@Nora: well I guess it’s news. holding joint military exercises with South Korea makes North Korea threaten to blow up the world each year. And designers will present models in outrageous clothing during fashion week that no one will ever buy. These revelations will be reported each year as developments and trends that are newsworthy.
greennotGreen
@cleek: Yeah, but a lot of people will just read the headline and the first few sentences. Reminds me of a headline I read during the cold war that said, “Soviets massing forces on their western border,” which I thought was pretty alarming, then I read the article that said they were massing forces in the east to deal with some internal problem. Luckily, that article wasn’t on the first page.
Cervantes
@cleek:
If you look at Times stories regularly, you see a pattern: important truths, if ever reported, come in the 23rd column-inch on page A7. (Even then they are usually hinted at, not stated explicitly.) Why are they not stated in a headline or in the lead paragraph? The question answers itself.
(Granted, “important truths” is subjective. What is important to the editors is clear to see.)
c u n d gulag
I’ve stopped buying the NY Times.
When I lived with my parents, either my father or I used to buy and read it every day.
I used to buy it everyday, wherever else I lived – and it was available.
And we both used to look forward to the Sunday Times.
Not anymore.
I kept getting at least the Sunday times – until my father died, and then, I stopped.
The Editorials are still fine – but, outside of Krugman, the Op-ed page is a vast wasteland.
The Sunday Book Review – once, one of my favorite things to read – sucks, thanks to Sam Tanenhaus, the shitty Editor.
Ditto, The Week in Review – once, my ABSOLUTE, MUST READ section!
Sadly for them, I don’t miss the NY Times.
This is the result of decades of “even the Liberal NY Times,” becoming less and less Liberal.
dpm (dread pirate mistermix)
@cleek:Yeah, it wasn’t awful, after wading through “threat to bipartisanship” rhetoric and the narrow comparison between Democratic filibusters under Bush and Republican ones under Obama (one that was narrowly drawn to make their point but ignored the larger context).
How many mulligans should I give them? Do they get, say, 2 beltway-style “both sides do it”, “where has bipartisanship gone” statements per story that should be ignored? And what’s the justification for those mulligans?
And, as others are pointing out, the inverted pyramid is a cliche because it is true.
Cervantes
@c u n d gulag: I’ve stopped buying the NY Times.
Thank you. (I mean it!)
But I hope you did let them know why you stopped.
Baud
“Block Nominee Filibuster”
Who writes like this unless you’re going out of your way to avoid assigning responsibility to Republicans?
TooManyJens
I actually read it as an attempt to debunk both-sides-do-it-ism. “Sure, the Democrats have filibustered too, but that’s not even comparable to what the Republicans are trying here.”
dmsilev
The last count I saw had only a tiny handful of Democratic Senators opposed to pushing the button (Levin, Baucus, Manchin, and I think maybe one more that I’m forgetting). Some of the old “tradition of the world’s finest deliberative body” folks, Leahy for instance, have run out of patience and are publicly in favor of the rule changes. Maybe Reid is running a bluff, but this is the closest we’ve come yet and it looks like the votes may finally be there.
Villago Delenda Est
My nym.
Again and again and again.
Wipe them out. All of them.
c u n d gulag
@Cervantes:
Oh yeah.
I wrote the Editors a scathing e-mail.
Maybe a scathing snail-mail letter would have been better.
I’m starting to see a lot of similarity in the Times decline – especially ever since the run-up to the Iraq War, and Judy Miller – to CNN’s long decline.
It’s what I call “The FOXification” of news.
Matt McIrvin
@PsiFighter37:
Because it’s working, for the time being.
Baud
@dpm (dread pirate mistermix):
I think this is a thing with the media. Appease totebaggers and conservatives early on, but provide real information towards the end.
Ash Can
@greennotGreen:
This is the problem in a nutshell. Journalistic writing is designed to convey all the basic facts of a story in the first sentence or two (or maybe three) of the story. The reader, if s/he has the time and/or the inclination, can read further into the story to learn the details surrounding those basic facts. Loading those crucial first few sentences so that they misinterpret what the article goes on to say undermines the entire purpose of journalism in more ways than one.
(Edited to fix the problem of blockquoting before coffee)
p
god, bullshit is depressing.
TooManyJens
@PsiFighter37:
Oh, they have an answer to that. They say it can’t be made to work, because all the soshulism makes it inherently corrupt.
Cervantes
@p: You never spoke a truer word.
Here’s hoping the rest of the day goes better!
Suffern ACE
@Matt McIrvin: our healthcare system has many features that are crappy when you think about them. Republicans can just describe our current system and generate outrage for years to come. Why wouldn’t they?
raven
@Ash Can: Headlines are not written by the authors are they?
rikyrah
KAY:
This a good clip keeping up on the Voter Suppression Efforts in Ohio. Would love to see it posted.
http://on.msnbc.com/HXY7ih
Shalimar
We did this dance not too many years ago and I swear the focus then was more like “Democratic Filibusters May Force Nuclear Option”.
raven
Gail Collins is good today.
Matt McIrvin
@Suffern ACE:
That’s exactly what they are doing: they just put “Thanks Obama!” at the end.
rikyrah
I can’t find The Maddow Show on MSNBC.
Is it just me or are others having difficulty finding it too?
Matt McIrvin
@Shalimar: Yeah, and the Democrats were actually stupid to make a deal to avoid it. They gave up a lot and got nothing in return except more grief the next time they were in the majority. They should have let the Republicans go nuclear.
Villago Delenda Est
@Matt McIrvin:
The sooner the Dems realize that they are not dealing with reasonable people, but with outright traitors, the better.
cleek
@dpm (dread pirate mistermix):
people who only read the Times’ headline will be misinformed.
people who only read your summary of the Times article will be misinformed in a different way.
which is better?
the Times, like all mass media, has countless problems. but don’t they deserve credit for at least eventually getting to the heart of this matter?
EconWatcher
They should have cut the filibuster several years ago. My fear is that they’ll eliminate it now just in time to give a big helping hand to a new Republican majority in the Senate at the beginning of 2015.
(That’s my fear, not yet my expectation. Who knows which way the wind will be blowing. It’s looking like we might have some shot at taking down McConnell. But I have lived a wayward and sinful life, and I’m afraid FSM will conclude that’s more than I deserve.)
raven
@rikyrah: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show
Belafon
@Baud: Wouldn’t that be a double negative in proper English?
Matt McIrvin
It sounds as if they’re only going to lift it for the case of some types of appointments, and continue to keep it for general legislation, which to my mind is where the really scandalous change happened (the way the threshold for passing legislation in the Senate somehow rose to 60 votes and everyone acted like this had always been the rule).
Villago Delenda Est
@cleek:
The point here is that Mistermix accurately describes what Pravda on the Hudson is trying to communicate. The rest of the article is irrelevant, despite the fact that it contradicts the first few paragraphs.
The scum of the NYT know exactly what they’re doing. They’ve got a narrative to follow, and the facts, no matter what they actually are, are secondary to the narrative, which they have duly regurgitated in the lede and the first few paragraphs.
It’s journamalism at its most deceptive and excreable. In the fine tradition of Jeff Gerth and Judith Miller.
Absolutely not. Damage was done at the start with the obvious pro-Rethug/anti-Dem slant of it.
Line these motherfuckers up against a wall.
rikyrah
There’s a poster here at Balloon Juice that lives in Southern Illinois. They speak of all the improvements their community has made that have been positive and how their community has grown.
Would they please leave the name of their town?
I have a niece thinking about a job in Saint Louis, and I believe this poster wrote that they are right over the border from Saint Louis in Illinois.
Matt McIrvin
@EconWatcher:
That could happen. It might even be probable.
But this has to happen sometime. In 2015 there will still be a Democratic President in office to veto things (and a Congress that can override a veto would have no problem managing cloture anyway). If they manage to get a Republican in with a Republican Congress in 2017, it’ll be because they won a major national election, maybe two in a row. If you do that, you should have some ability to pass stuff and appoint people; that’s how the system is supposed to work.
Belafon
@EconWatcher: And, in 2015, we’ll still have a Democratic president. So he gets a lot of shit bills that he has to veto. Then the voters see that Republicans can’t run a government.
But Democrats had better fucking vote and GOTV next year.
Or, what @Matt McIrvin said.
cleek
@Villago Delenda Est:
yeah … ok.
Joseph Nobles
If it is to be done, then twere best it were done quickly. But not today. I can just hear it now. “Oswald killed Kennedy and 50 years later Harry Reid killed the Senate.” It can wait until December.
Cervantes
@raven: Gail Collins is good today.
Sort of. But look at this:
That “Yes” (second paragraph) does a lot of work very quickly. It’s highly efficient.
It’s too bad Collins appears to take Grassley’s framing seriously, i.e., that Democrats are criticizing Republicans for opposing some nominees because of their very (gender or “race”) identities.
And are there in fact Democrats who criticize Republican obstruction in this very literal way? If so that’s also too bad because, as Collins shows, it’s an argument easily disparaged (“Let’s be fair”) by pointing to the likes of Janice Rogers Brown and Clarence Thomas.
Granted, Collins’ writing is somewhat tongue-in-cheek. But it might have been helpful if she had actually distinguished token appointments from people who take progressive values seriously (maybe even regardless of their own gender or “race” identities).
Villago Delenda Est
@cleek:
Because most readers will never see the rest of it.
This is by DESIGN. It’s in support of the holy narrative.
handsmile
Well, when you live in New York City, there’s really no other acceptable choice of newspaper. And the on-line edition does not fully replicate each day’s issue. No Ken-Ken puzzles, for instance.
I continue to buy it (though for the past several years not every day) for local features, events listings, and reviews. The Times’ coverage of local news, however, is among the paper’s most derelict. (Fluffing Bloomberg so ardently for the past twelve years would make any lady grey).
The reasons for my habitual purchase are not dissimilar to those of Beltway-area friends who buy/subscribe to the far more abominable Amazon Prime Daily.
@c u n d gulag:
For the most part, I agree with your appraisal of the calamitous decline of the Sunday NYT. Some points of exception:
Editorial: In my estimation, Gail Collins has developed into a most trenchant and often hilarious writer, and I look forward to her columns.
Book Review: Yeah, mostly dreadful and the blame lies squarely with Tanenhaus. Glancing to see whether an author whose work I value has a new work under review, I’ll look to see who’s been assigned to it before reading on. Nevertheless, I always check out the “Paperback Row” (for newly published paperback editions) and the “Letters” page which can be quite deliciously nasty.
Week in Review: Middle-brow, mainstream thumb-sucking predominates, but occasionally there’s a worthwhile op-ed contributor, e.g, Joseph Stiglitz on US food policy last weekend.
If the handsmiles ever get out of the urban hellhole (a desire and active process), I expect we’ll no longer read the Times.
Matt McIrvin
…Remember, when Bush had a compliant Republican Congress, they consistently governed in a “50%+1” manner, voting in lockstep to pass the most conservative legislation they could and treating any Democratic support whatsoever as wasted leverage. The filibuster was no obstacle whatsoever; Democrats weren’t sufficiently united or bullheaded to filibuster much.
Now, partly that was because 9/11 had them afraid to obstruct anything, and partly because nobody had thought of the filibuster-everything approach yet. It’s possible that a future Democratic minority would be better at obstruction. But, really, is this a way to run a country? If everyone just obstructs everything in the hopes that they can run out the clock, nothing happens at all, and the real winners are drown-the-government-in-the-bathtub types who just want nothing to happen.
Belafon
@Joseph Nobles: So, the fictional “Reid killed the Senate” is far worse than a conservative Appeals court?
TooManyJens
@rikyrah: That’s Tommy. I don’t know what town he’s in though.
Elizabelle
@rikyrah:
I think you want to put out the bat signal for Tommy.
raven
@rikyrah: Tommy
Villago Delenda Est
@Matt McIrvin:
This is a huge problem.
One party is not interested in governing.
It’s interested in ruling, and if they cannot rule, they will obstruct.
Unless some attitudes change (and it’s unlikely that they will) we are on the road to this being resolved as the question of slavery was resolved in the 19th century.
Cacti
@EconWatcher:
I think that’s what they’re hoping for too. Nate Silver’s preliminary projections are for the GOPers to finish with 50-51 senate seats, but a lot will depend on the type of candidates that the GOP puts up as challengers.
In the meantime, any Judicial nominees that get voted through get a lifetime appointment to the federal bench, regardless of the next election’s results. Four decades of a GOP-dominated judiciary is enough.
Patrick
@PsiFighter37:
I also wish there was at least one brave soul in the media who would ask the GOP why they are so concerned about people being dropped from crappy insurance plans, when they literally could less about people being dropped from better insurance plans prior to the ACA due to the pre-existing conditions.
azrev
@Cervantes: Amen.
Cervantes
@Joseph Nobles: But are you absolutely sure that Harry Reid was not the man behind the grassy knoll?
raven
@handsmile:
Yea, but she needs to cut that hilarious shit out.
Villago Delenda Est
@Patrick:
That would contradict The Narrative.
Can’t have that.
comrade scott's agenda of rage
@Cervantes:
We need a “like” button for comments like this one.
MomSense
@rikyrah:
Seems like MSNBC has had some trouble with the roll out of their new website.
Cacti
@Cervantes:
It could probably be changed to, Republicans are blocking nominees whose thinking is in line with the majority of women, and the overwhelming majority of African Americans.
Matt McIrvin
@EconWatcher: The other thing is, as I said above, it sounds as if this is just going to eliminate the filibuster for Presidential appointments below the Supreme Court level, not for general legislation. So it will have no good effect at all for the Republicans unless they can get a Republican President elected.
If they do get a Republican President in with a Republican-dominated Senate, and if Democrats try turnabout, at this point I have little doubt that the Republicans will immediately eliminate the filibuster, and fill all those empty judge seats that Obama hasn’t been able to fill, with conservatives, for the next 30 or 40 years.
So all an elimination of appointment filibusters now would do is prevent them from running out the clock on the Obama administration before they can do that.
dpm (dread pirate mistermix)
@cleek:
Perhaps, but I hope you’ll grant that part of what I was doing was quoting the Times’ own summary of their article by cutting and pasting an image from the front page of their site. That “bipartisanship” sentence is their summary, not mine — it, and the headline, were the only parts of the story to appear on the front page. They deserve some criticism for that, don’t they?
As others have pointed out, good newspapers put the important stuff first because many busy readers stop reading before the end of the story. They get some credit for eventually getting it right, but that credit is far less than the blame they get for putting the wrong stuff first.
You’re really bending over backwards for the Times’ Washington bureau, which is by far the worst part of that paper.
Villago Delenda Est
@Matt McIrvin:
I agree. The Rethugs will not let “tradition” get in the way of appointing more reactionary Federalist Society assholes to the bench. They’ll terminate the filibuster in a heartbeat to allow President Cruz or Christie to pack the bench with drooling neanderthal types.
Cacti
@Villago Delenda Est:
This.
The GOP is the revanchist party, out to preserve the white male power structure at all costs. They’ve seen the first real cracks in its foundation with the election of President blackity black. Their political power is no longer self perpetuating, and their fighting tooth and claw to hang onto it by any means necessary.
If they’re willing to engage in mass vote suppression, does anyone think they’d hesitate for a moment to shit can the filibuster if they regained the Senate?
jayjaybear
Sometimes I’m convinced that, given one wish, I would ask for the resurrection of H.L. Mencken as a cosmic bete noir for the current “media”. The entertainment it would generate ALONE would make the wish worthwhile.
handsmile
@raven:
It’s her writing style, honed most famously for the “Romney dog-on-roof” references made in every single column she wrote for months. As her comic sensibility has become less lofty, less above-all-the-fray, I find it to be more cunning and more effective. Varying mileages it seems.
(but as for what is truly important: good and hopeful thoughts to and for the ravens on your recent health issues)
Matt McIrvin
The MO of Republican Congresspeople ever since 1994 or so has been to repeatedly do novel things that are Not Done, but are not actually forbidden by the law as written, to maximize their power. They keep having to think of new ones to retain the element of surprise.
So the first thing they did after ’94 was an extended government shutdown. Then their reaction to Clinton getting reelected was to impeach him, which hadn’t been managed since Andrew Johnson. Then they went to the maximally-conservative “50%+1” legislative strategy under Bush, explicitly making no effort to get votes from the other party if they could get by without them. Then they threatened ending the filibuster and got some concessions for that.
Then under Obama, there was a new burst of creativity: the filibuster-everything rule denied Obama’s ability to pass anything or appoint anyone, even with a Democratic majority without extraordinary effort.
My best guess for their post-2010 Not Done wrinkle was that they were going to preemptively declare war on Iran, without Presidential endorsement. I guessed wrong: instead they went for denying a raise in the debt ceiling and threatening default, and that actually worked out pretty well for them. Two years later, they tried doing it again and combining it with Gingrich Shutdown redux. That didn’t work so well, maybe because it lacked originality; they were just pasting two Greatest Hits together, and Obama saw it coming.
Actually ending the filibuster would be a good Not Done thing to do next, though admittedly they threatened it before. Might as well preempt them.
raven
@handsmile: I was being snarky.
Thanks.
Matt McIrvin
…Oh, yeah, and I completely forgot the whole “refuse to actually pass a budget and just let the government limp along forever on continuing resolutions” trick. Maybe because it’s just become the new normal, like most of these other bits of nonsense.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
What? A branch of government controlled wholly by the minority by imposing a supermajority requirement for all business in direct contravention to the Constitution is somehow bad?
Alex S.
Oh no!! The Dems block the blocks! They are so blocky, just like republicans, both sides do it!
Joseph Nobles
@Belafon: I just don’t want to listen to it. It’s bad enough that I thought of it. By all means, take the filibuster out. But not today. I figure that would put the deed on the first day back from Thanksgiving, which will sort out the courts in plenty of time. Just as long as I don’t have to wade though TV and radio personalities finding ways to talk about Kennedy’s assassination and filibuster reform in the same breath.
Paul in KY
@rikyrah: Maybe O’Fallon or Belleville?
Joseph Nobles
@Cervantes: Which direction did the Senate fall? Back and to the left.
See what I mean? This is going to be a bad day.
Alex S.
@Baud:
Hmm…conservatives read headlines, liberals read articles?
aimai
@Joseph Nobles: No it can’t. Why wait because they are going to bitch and scream? They will anyway.
aimai
@Cacti: I think they’ve been fairly upfront–they are blocking all three appointments because they are seen as competent, liberal, and once they are on the DC circuit in line for the Supreme Court. This goes way beyond mere racism or misogyny and they would be doing the same to white men.
Elizabelle
Harry Reid speaking now on filibuster, C-Span 2
“So I say to my Republican colleagues, you don’t have to like the laws of the land, but you do have to respect them …”
He’s laying out a summary of Republican misuse of the filibuster.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@Elizabelle: And here I sit masturbating.
Poopyman
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader: Yeah….
Thanks for that.
Elizabelle
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader:
Well, I hadn’t actually poured my coffee yet.
Elizabelle
Mitch McConnell out of the gate.
His first comment: a sneer at Obamacare.
JPL
@Elizabelle: Hopefully the guy whose dog qualified for insurance pays the amount owed. Good luck finding a dr. on the list who will treat him. I hate McConnell.
Elizabelle
“And a dog — a dog — has qualified for insurance under Obamacare.”
He says Senate Democrats are talking about changing the rules to get the focus off Obamacare.
I guess Obamacare is going to be the refuting point for everything?
McConnell says that Democrats are willing to do or say just about anything to get their way.
They’re threatening to break the rules of the Senate in order to change the rules of the Senate.
The projection runs deep in Mitch Obamacare McConnell.
He’s calling this a “fake fight over judges who aren’t even needed.”
And now: back to the dog on Obamacare…
Elizabelle
I can’t stand McConnell either.
Now he’s talking about the raw power play here.
Projection ….
Elizabelle
I caught most of “Judgment at Nuremberg” on TCM overnight.
I’d like to see McConnell in the dock. He’s a professional liar.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
This is like one of those movies that has the penultimate confrontation with the demonic entity at the end. Republicans will start to morph into hellacious creatures as they are destroyed, writhing and screaming, briefly switching back into human form to beg for mercy in a childlike voice before morphing back into the purest form of evil until they are finally put down for good.
Elizabelle
Someone will count out the mentions of “Obamacare” in McConnell’s speech once we have a transcript.
Poopyman
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader: Wow! Hope that gets put on CSPAN 1.
TooManyJens
Watching McConnell. Not sure whether to be relieved or disappointed that I can’t set things on fire with my brain.
TooManyJens
@Elizabelle: “Dogs are getting insurance” is the “ACORN registered Mickey Mouse to vote” of 2013.
Elizabelle
McConnell is playing to planet wingnut.
You could annotate the transcript with corrections. He is lying, baldly.
He’s livid that anyone would think Republicans are trying to obstruct President Obama.
ETA: Now he’s talking about a gun to the Senate’s head.
rikyrah
thanks for the tip about the poster’s name.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@TooManyJens: When Santorum endorsed “man on dog” sex, I knew it wouldn’t be long before dogs started looking for comprehensive health coverage that included birth control.
Elizabelle
McConnell sounds kind of tired.
I wonder if Reid does have the votes, and McConnell knows it.
Cervantes
Having Pat Leahy up there is a nice touch.
Elizabelle
Incidentally, the Senate Banking Committee approved Janet Yellen’s nomination, mostly along party lines, but not entirely:
from NYTimes news alert
Poopyman
@Elizabelle: Any reference to sniping from the grassy knoll yet?
TooManyJens
@Elizabelle: God damn it, Joe Manchin.
Elizabelle
@Poopyman:
Not yet. Vote proceeding now.
This has been most interesting.
Mr. Manchin. Couldn’t hear his response.
Poopyman
@Elizabelle: Manchin to the right of Coburn.
UnsurprisingOnly mildly surprising.Jay C
@handsmile:
One of the worst “innovations” at the NYT (outside of their dropping their TV section many moons ago) IMO was the transformation of the Sunday “Week in Review” section to the new “Sunday Review”. The old format was something I used to look to forward to every week: basically an expanded Op-Ed with a few more “analysis” pieces, and the occasional “investigation”, but now it has been padded with a lot of (often trivial) “feature” stuff that really belongs elsewhere. Yes, nothing but politicized opinionating can get boring: but then, what else is a “Paper Of Record” for…?
And PS: despite its flaws, I still think the New York Times is still one of the best (??last??) “real” newspapers around: y’know, with reporters and foreign correspondents and all…..
Cervantes
It will be interesting in the short term to see (1) how (or rather, if) Senate Democrats are ready to actually take advantage of the change in rules; and (2) how Pelosi will adapt.
Elizabelle
TPM item, explaining what we are watching (C-Span says it’s Procedural Vote now on Millett Judicial Nomination:
Elizabelle
Vote sounds party line on the Millett nomination.
Manchin supported the Dems.
Elizabelle
@TooManyJens:
“dog on Obamacare” may not play that well (ETA as a joke) in homes with a relative who needed healthcare on Obamacare. Although the people who would scoff at the dog story probably scoff at their relatives and associates too.
There are a lot of un- and underinsured citizens.
Matt McIrvin
Newsmax is now saying “100 million more may lose health insurance.” I wonder what particular pile of crap that leads to, but not enough to click on it.
Suffern ACE
@Matt McIrvin: Yes, they are basically saying that everyone who has employer sponsored insurance might lose their current insurance. Left unsaid is that they will be recieving new policies through their employers and that their employers could change their insurance on them and probably have been for years. But what they want to get out there is that Obamacare is going to create more uninsured people.
Suffern ACE
@TooManyJens: Honestly, if they guy is willing to pay the premium, more power to him. The more dogs we sign up, the better the risk pool looks. Since vets aren’t going to be accepting HMO policies for people, that’s money being spent by “people” who won’t use healthcare services no matter what their pre-existing conditions are.
Villago Delenda Est
@TooManyJens:
I wish I could do to McConnell what Michael Ironside did to that guy in Scanners.
Villago Delenda Est
@Elizabelle:
McConnell is being primaried by teatard scum.
He has to play to planet wingnut, if he wants to retain his cushy phony baloney job.
piratedan
@Elizabelle: I can understand McConnell’s outrage, after all, the dog has probably done just as much for Americans as McConnell has and I’m sure that the pooch is on a much more restricted income than the Senator is… ////
Jamey
@Ash Can: And thanks to our SEO-driven media, this is only going to get worse. Believe me, I’ve spent countless hours creating presentations to show clients that merely hitting all the prime data points is actually causing grievous harm to their brands. I’ve succeeded with some, but others continue to put out tone-deaf and “inauthentic” (Gawd, I hate that word…) messages that cause users to tune out and turn off.
The Times’s desire to “hook” readers with provocative headlines and decks is what will destroy what’s left of their once greatest asset: credibility. (The rest got eated by the likes of Judy Miller, “but is it good for the zillionaires” real-estate porn, and the “Styles” section.)