Joe Wilson's non-apology apology

Rep. Joe Wilson, who apparently mistook last night's joint session of congress for a town-hall meeting, has issued a standard Republican non-apology for calling the President of the United States a liar.

Wilson scurried out of the House chamber last night after the president's speech and had his office issue the non apology.

“This evening I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the president’s remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the health care bill. While I disagree with the president’s statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the president for this lack of civility.”

It's fine for Wilson to acknowledge the obvious about his lack of civility toward the president and, frankly, the entire country. But a real apology would also admit that what he said was wrong. A real apology would not seek to justify the outburst by defending what motivated it. That is what Wilson does by including the phrase, "While I disagree with the president's statement..."

The president's statement was that the health reform plan he is supporting will not cover illegal immigrants. That is a fact.

SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

So, on what basis does Wilson disagree with the president's factual statement that the plan will not cover illegal immigrants? There is no basis, other than Wilson's ignorance or dishonesty. He either has no idea what he is talking about or he is lying.

And Wilson's "apology" is nothing of the kind. Saying you're sorry for calling the president a liar only works if you apologize for what you said, not just the tone you used when you said it.

Sellouts

Here's what I wonder about the Democrats who are selling us out on health reform: do they think we don't know they're selling us out?

Do they think we don't remember that we elected them to such overwhelming House and Senate majorities so they could, among other things, enact fundamental, structural change to the healthcare system?

If congressional Democrats believe we, the American people, don't know they are selling us out on core principles, then they are deluded. They are living in a bubble, and the sooner they pop it and start living in the real world, the better for everybody.

We did not put the Democratic Party the majority in the congress in order to sell us out with meaningless half-measures which will, at best, maintain the unacceptable status quo; and which might under some scenarios end up showering the for-profit insurance industry with billions in taxpayer dollars.

We sent them to congress with such overwhelming numbers to change the system for our benefit. I want to stop worrying that if I lose my job, my family will lose access to healthcare. That's what I want the Democrats in congress to attend to. I want my premiums to stop increasing every year faster than my wages are growing. That's what I want them to address.

Instead, blinded by money and paralyzed by fear, they are slow-walking reform, hoping possibly that we will have forgotten the whole thing by September.

Despite the fact that they have complete power to enact their - our - agenda, the weak, timid, fearful Democratic majority is allowing the Republicans and the for-profit health industry to dictate the terms of the debate.

I am disgusted.

The Democrats need to know that if they sell us out on health reform, we will not forget.

UPDATE

Matt Taibbi makes me feel naive and, frankly, kind of stupid for ever having thought that real reform was likely.

The reason a real health-care bill is not going to get passed is simple: because nobody in Washington really wants it. There is insufficient political will to get it done. It doesn’t matter that it’s an urgent national calamity, that it is plainly obvious to anyone with an IQ over 8 that our system could not possibly be worse and needs to be fixed very soon, and that, moreover, the only people opposing a real reform bill are a pitifully small number of executives in the insurance industry who stand to lose the chance for a fifth summer house if this thing passes.

It won’t get done, because that’s not the way our government works. Our government doesn’t exist to protect voters from interests, it exists to protect interests from voters. The situation we have here is an angry and desperate population that at long last has voted in a majority that it believes should be able to pass a health care bill. It expects something to be done. The task of the lawmakers on the Hill, at least as they see things, is to create the appearance of having done something. And that’s what they’re doing. Personally, I think they’re doing a lousy job even of that. I lauded Roddick for playing out the string with heart, and giving a good show. But these Democrats aren’t even pretending to give a shit, not really. I mean, they’re not even willing to give up their vacations.

He goes on to say that this debate was a test of whether we have a functioning government in this country. His conclusion is that we don't. I have a hard time disagreeing with him.

Brought to you by the number 0

The House Republican "budget" is the gift that keeps on giving.

Blue Dogs getting no love from Boehner

It's sad, really.

Evan Bayh and the Blue Dog conservadems, so eager to curry favor with their Republican soulmates, might want to pause for a moment and think about who their real friends are.

Hint: it ain't the GOP.

Boehner slammed the fiscally conservative House Blue Dog coalition in an appearance this morning at a seminar sponsored by Yale Club and Federal Policy Group, just one day after he suggested to reporters that GOP leaders had not reached out to the conservative Democrat coalition.

To chuckles from the assembled lobbyists, Boehner called the Blue Dogs “lap dogs” and said they refuse “to get off people’s laps and actually do something.”

“They’re not the force they used to be in terms of moving the Democrats to do something,” Boehner argued.

Lap dogs.

Well.

That's gotta sting.

There ya go, Evan. How do you like your right-wing buddies now? Still feeling all moderate and stuff?

Or, do you think this might be a good time to remember that you're, you know, a Democrat?

GOP abandons all reason

Thirty-six Republican senators voted for an amendment to strip all spending from the stimulus bill in favor of tax cuts.

This amendment to the economic stimulus bill passed by the House and now being considered by the Senate, submitted by conservative icon-in-the-making Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), was breathtakingly bold. The gist, from Sen. DeMint’s Website:

• Permanently repeal the alternative minimum tax once and for all;
  
• Permanently keep the capital gains and dividends taxes at 15 percent;
  
• Permanently kill the Death Tax for estates under $5 million, and cut the tax rate to 15 percent for those above;
  
• Permanently extend the $1,000-per-child tax credit;
  
• Permanently repeal the marriage tax penalty;
  
• Permanently simplify itemized deductions to include only home mortgage interest and charitable contributions.
  
• Lower top marginal income rates from 35 percent to 25 percent.
  
• Simplify the tax code to include only two other brackets, 15 and 10 percent.
  
• Lower corporate tax rate as well, from 35 percent to 25 percent.

This got the support of all but five Senate Republicans.

It is just pointless to try to negotiate with such unserious people.

The GOP is playing political games as the American economy teeters on the edge of a depression. President Obama and the Democratic majority in congress have the responsibility now to abandon this effort seeking bipartisan compromise with these lunatics.

These crazy Republican ideologues simply have no idea how to repair the economy that they nearly destroyed over the last eight years. All they have to offer are the same ideas that created the problem in the first place. It is as though they are actively mocking the millions of Americans who are suffering in this rotting economy.

Maybe they are too stupid to realize how serious this problem is.

Or worse, maybe they actually no desire to fix it. A successful Obama stimulus package would, once and for all, drive a stake through the undead heart of the Reaganesque belief that government is always the problem and never the solution.

And on a practical level, the failure of Obama's plan represents the GOP's only real chance at regaining political power in this century.

So, congressional Republicans are willing to keep millions of people out of work in order to:

• Defend a failed ideology;
  
• Restore their political prospects;
  
• Or, likely, both

They are deranged.

There is too much at stake to indulge these sociopaths in their nonsense.

The president and his allies in congress must simply ignore them and pass a stimulus bill that they believe will work.

Agreement in Principle

Well, imagine that. The legislative process works.

Key Republicans and Democrats reported agreement in principle Thursday on a $700 billion bailout of the financial industry and said they would present it to the Bush administration in hopes of a vote within days.

Emerging from a two-hour negotiating session, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., the Banking Committee chairman said, “We are very confident that we can act expeditiously.”

“I now expect that we will indeed have a plan that can pass the House, pass the Senate (and) be signed by the president,” said Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah.

And it had nothing to do with John McCain after all. What a surprise.

My so-called congress

In the wake of yet another cave-in on funding for the Iraq occupation, Froomkin takes stock of the governmental entity whose job, supposedly, is to keep the president in check.

Historians looking back on the Bush presidency may well wonder if Congress actually existed.

Time and time again, President Bush has run circles around what is, at least on paper, a co-equal branch of government. Sometimes he doesn't bother to ask Congress for its approval. Sometimes he demands it -- and gets it.

Amazingly enough, that didn't change when the Democrats won control of the House and Senate. They just make a bit more fuss before rolling over.

Mukasey

The Senate Judiciary Committee has approved the nomination of an attorney general designate who refuses to state that waterboarding is torture, and who suggests that the president enjoys the prerogative to operate outside the boundaries of the law.

As with so many other capitulations to Bush, we could have had this result with the Republicans in charge. Will somebody please remind me why we need a Democratic majority in congress?

'Compromise,' huh?

Maybe I'm missing something.

How can the Democrats announce their willingness to "compromise" with the Republicans on an Iraq withdrawal when their position so far has been one of complete surrender?

It's like trying to negotiate how much of your money a robber is going to take after he already has your wallet.

Democratic Achievements

As disgusted as we are over congressional Democrats' unfathomable capitulation to President 28 Percent on warrantless wiretapping, it is worth remembering that they headed into the summer recess with some substantial accomplishments under their belts.

After months of being flogged for accomplishing little, Democrats who control Congress headed into a summer recess having passed several high-profile bills from raising the minimum wage to bolstering U.S. security and expanding children's health care.

Their top priority -- ending the Iraq war -- remains frustratingly unfulfilled. But the Democrats who took over in January were able to go home early on Sunday for a monthlong break having won more support in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives for bringing combat troops home by early next year, marking a significant turnaround from last year.

Democrats also will be able to batter President George W. Bush and congressional Republicans for sticking with a war policy that droves of Americans increasingly oppose.

And it was Bush's fellow conservatives who helped kill his top domestic priority, immigration reform.

I'm not sure what Reuters means by "bolstering U.S. security," but I certainly hope it is not a reference to the Iraq occupation funding bill and the warrantless wiretapping abomination.

It would not do, however, for us to fall into a fatalistic mindset and buy the GOP talking point that this congress isn't accomplishing anything. They have reached some important goals, despite a Republican strategy of obstructionism.

We should communicate with congressional Democrats during the summer break to make sure they understand that one of the reasons we placed them in the majority was to hold the line against Bush's authoritarian inclinations. That means stopping him from grabbing more power, rather than rolling over and giving it to him. When they get back to work after Labor Day, we want them to know that we expect them to build on their early successes and actually hold the president accountable for his high crimes and misdemeanors.

Contempt

What I find most striking about the behavior of Bush administration officials over the past couple of years is the exponentially-increasing brazenness with which they defy the laws and conventions of American government. Yesterday's performance by Gonzales was truly astonishing in the shamelessness with which he demonstrated his total contempt for congress.



The more they get away with, the more they think they can get away with. Don't forget that it was just days ago that a former White House official, Harriet Miers, actually failed to appear in response to a congressional subpoena. She just didn't show! Now we have the Attorney General of the United States literally smirking at U.S. senators as they express their frustration at his refusal to answer their questions. I'm surprised that Fredo didn't pull a Cheney and just tell Chuck Schumer to go f*** himself. It wouldn't have been significantly more disrespectful, frankly.

An accounting for the Bush administration's lawlessness is long overdue. It is time to cite them for contempt. Bush will fight it. He will order his Justice Department to to ignore the law, and to leave his underlings alone. Then, the constitutional crisis we are enduring will come to a head in the courts. This is as it must be.

There is no negotiating with terrorists, and the Bush administration is terrorizing the American people with its flagrant disregard for the rule of law. It is time to choose sides. You are with the terrorists in the Bush administration, or you are with the American people. There is no middle ground.

We must have a confrontation between congress and the Bush administration. The chips must be allowed to fall where they will.

26 Percent

Newsweek wonders about President Bush, "How Low Can He Go?"

In the new poll, conducted Monday and Tuesday nights, President Bush’s approval rating has reached a record low. Only 26 percent of Americans, just over one in four, approve of the job the 43rd president is doing; while, a record 65 percent disapprove, including nearly a third of Republicans.

The new numbers—a 2 point drop from the last NEWSWEEK Poll at the beginning of May—are statistically unchanged, given the poll’s 4 point margin of error. But the 26 percent rating puts Bush lower than Jimmy Carter, who sunk to his nadir of 28 percent in a Gallup poll in June 1979. In fact, the only president in the last 35 years to score lower than Bush is Richard Nixon. Nixon’s approval rating tumbled to 23 percent in January 1974, seven months before his resignation over the botched Watergate break-in.

For all intents and purposes, a Twenty-six percent approval rating with a four percent margin of error breaks through the psychological barrier of 25 percent that the conventional wisdom has always held as impossible. This means that Bush has begun to lose even the hard-core authoritarian followers that have provided him with the protective margin keeping him at or near 30 percent, give or take.

The poll doesn't give a partisan breakdown on this question, but Bush's approval rating on immigration is only 26 percent, with 63 percent disapproval. I think it is reasonable to assume this is where his bedrock support among Republicans (60 percent approval, 31 percent disapproval) has developed its widest cracks.

And I wonder when the Democrats in congress will decide that Bush is actually weak enough for them to challenge on Iraq. As it stands...

A record 73 percent of Americans disapprove of the job Bush has done handling Iraq.

If they can't summon the courage or the will to hold him accountable on the occupation, they could see their own ratings drop below the anemic 25 percent approval they enjoy on their own job performance.

They don't get it

I must confess that until now, I really thought that the Democrats in congress understood why we put them in the majority, and why we are angry that they gave in to Bush on continuing the occupation of Iraq. I realize now that they just do not get it.

The new Democratic-led Congress is drawing the ire of voters upset with its failure to quickly deliver on a promise to end the Iraq war.

This is reflected in polls that show Congress -- plagued by partisan bickering mostly about the war -- at one of its lowest approval ratings in a decade. Surveys find only about one in four Americans approves of it.

"I understand their disappointment," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada. "We raised the bar too high."

I am astonished. Obviously, Beltway-itis is a real disease, and not just a pithy insult. Its main symptom is a chronic inability to perceive things as they really are.

Harry Reid thinks the problem is that they "raised the bar too high" in the 2006 elections? He thinks that we are "disappointed" at their failure to clear that bar? If this is what Reid really believes, he is deluded. Americans are not "disappointed" with the performance of congress. We are disgusted.

Nobody thought ending the occupation of Iraq would be easy. Our disgust doesn't come from Democrats' failure to bring it to an end, it comes from their failure to try. It comes from the spectacle of seeing them talk tough for a few weeks, only to cave in and give Bush exactly what he wanted, which was a blank check for the continued open-ended occupation of Iraq. The outcome was no different than if we had left the Republicans in charge.

We gave the Democrats the majority to fight Bush, not to surrender to him. If Reid and Nancy Pelosi had fought Bush for every penny and insisted on time tables, if they had sent him a bill with mandatory benchmarks over and over and over again, only to have him veto it over and over and over again, their approval ratings would be in the 90s.

Instead, the Democrats made two fundamental errors:

• They accepted and validated the Republicans' framing of the issue as one of "funding for the troops; and



• they listended to Republicans and "Democratic strategists" who told them that the public would not support them if they insisted on benchmarks and timetables for withdrawal.

In each case, the problem is that the Democrats simply did not have the courage to fight, which is what we put them in the majority to do. Dissatisfaction with the GOP congressional majority was not so much about disagreement on individual issues, although that factor was significant in a number of respects, such as political corruption and the occupation of Iraq.

In a larger sense, however, the Republicans lost their majority because Americans came to realize that they were nothing but a rubber stamp for George W. Bush's agenda, which Americans oppose overwhelmingly. On every issue, from Iraq to warrantless wiretapping to the repeal of habeas corpus to name just a few Bush outrages, a handful of GOP lawmakers paid lip service to the notion of checks & balances, only to roll over when it came time to vote. For six years, the congress acted as though its constitutional mandate was to support this president, rather than to hold him accountable on behalf of the American people. Americans understand instinctively how wrong and dangerous that mindset is, and in November, we voted for change.

Yes, we expected the new Democratic majority to work to end the occupation. Yes, we expected them to shed light on Bush's illegal spying programs. Yes, we expected them to work to curtail the influence of corporate lobbyists on the legislative process. But those are just details - significant details, certainly, but details nonetheless. In the larger sense, we placed the Democrats in the majority to hold Bush accountable, to restore the constitutional checks and balances that we used to take for granted, and want to be able to take for granted again. We elected them to fight on our behalf, and instead of fighting on what is arguably the most important issue of the day, the occupation of Iraq, they surrendered. They listened to the Republicans who told them that if they opposed Bush on the occupation, Americans would think they were weak. What they failed to understand, and apparently fail to understand still, is that having Bush call you weak doesn't make you look weak. Surrendering to Bush makes you look weak. Being weak makes you look weak.

The Democrats must understand that a majority of Americans feel the ground shifting beneath our feet. We don't recognize our country anymore. We have come to realize that our president is an outlaw and that his administration is a criminal enterprise. We are concerned that under the stewardship of George W. Bush, control of our government is slipping from our grasp, and that it is ceasing to function as a repository of our will. We suspect that our government has stopped fearing us, as it should, and has become instead something that we must fear. We are looking to congress to restore the proper balance to the relationship between the government and the governed. We knew that the Republicans would never do this. They made it clear that they did not even recognize the need to do so. Democrats won the majority because they convinced us that they did recognize that need. Their failure so far to hold Bush accountable is what makes us doubt that they really understand what we elected them to do.

White House e-mails; RNC

The Bush Administration's concept of Executive Privilege has jumped the shark.

The White House is implying that it enjoys a privilege - not a right, mind you, but a privilege - so broad that it can barely be distinguished from the Divine Right of Kings. Looked at one way, Executive Privilege as defined by George W. Bush means nothing more or less than what he says it means.

But looked at another way, Bush is interpreting the concept so broadly that it actually means nothing. It is clearly just a shameless attempt at shielding himself, his staff, and his political party from any and all accountability. It is as though Bush is saying there is no difference between the Republican National Committee and the federal government. L'etat, c'est GOP. It's a joke.

Anything is possible, certainly, but I suspect that even the most right-wing, Bush-appointed federal judge would blanch at the notion that the Republican Party and Executive Office of the President are one and the same. I think he just threw the game in favor of the Congress.