West Virginia Blue
The Best Blogging Community in West Virginia Democratic politics, progressive policies, the good life and free living in Wild, Wonderful West Virginia.
It is the economy stupid. It was true when James Carville popularized the phrased for Bill Clinton in the '92 campaign against HW Bush and it is especially true today as the country continues to claw out of the economic catastrophe left us by GW Bush.
West Virginia Governor Earl Ray Tomblin has made the economy the absolute focus of his campaign. From the Democratic perspective, improving the economy is about improving the lives of hard working people. It is about getting West Virginians into well paying jobs that provide security and a better future for our children.
Tomblin understands this and has worked his entire life to reverse the poor economic prospects in the Mountain State. It is now starting to pay off. We are one of only four states with a budget surplus. We have an unemployment rate below the national average and one of the lowest unemployment rates in the Southeast. This year we have seen our credit rating upgraded, marking a 30 year high. We are in the process of lowering taxes, yes lowering, while other states are increasing taxes and cutting services. West Virginia is changing before our eyes and it is something for which we should have great pride.
Tomblin has been one of the driving forces behind the State's improving fiscal health and his even handed committment to continuing this upward trajectory is exactly what the State needs.
There is still much to improve but let's stay with what is working and get West Virginia working. Support Governor Tomblin in the October Special Election.
Under Governor Tomblin's leadership, West Virginia has benefited from lower taxes AND a $320 million dollar budget surplus. Impressive. The State generated 8 percent higher revenues this year than last year. The growth in West Virginia's economy puts the State in the top ten nationally in GDP growth. West Virginia's GDP rose by 4 percent compared to the national average of 2.6 percent.
Half of the surplus must be placed in the State's Rainy Day Fund, which with this surplus infusion will take the State to $800 million. This surplus will also allow the State to further reduce the corporate income tax put in place while Tomblin was leading the WV Senate during Governor Manchin's Administration.
West Virginia is one of only a very few States with budget surpluses of this size. In fact, most states are facing historic budget deficits as West Virginia continues to put money in reserve.
With Tomblin, Senate President Kessler and Speaker Thompson also deserve a lot of credit. There are certainly a number of future expenditures that the State will need to consider before making decisions on how to use this surplus but I would much rather the State be in this position than that of most other states. Let's continue with this strong leadership and vote for Tomblin in the October election.
As a parting question, how do others think the State should approach using the approximately $120 million that will be available from this surplus?
A recent study by the GAO found that billions could be saved through more efficient bureaucracy in the Federal government. People want and deserve smart, efficient government. This goes beyond partisan politics but since many from the GOP have taken the position that our government and government employees are the enemy, the Democratic Party can win on a mantra of better government.
As auditors have pointed out, there is wasteful duplication throughout government. Beyond that, our tax system allows for loopholes and shelters to exist that cost the country billions. There are finite resources available regardless of how wealthy our great country is and we would be better served if these resources were managed in the most efficient and effective manner possible. Our government leaders must commit not only to eliminating waste now but also to a state of perpetual reassessment so that today's worthwhile program does not become tomorrow's boondoggle.
For decades the GOP has taken the approach that government is the problem. We, the people, are the government. Those in Congress preaching anti government rhetoric are, in essence, degrading you and I. They are speaking ill against the fabric of American democracy. Frankly, it pisses me off.
Reasonable citizens recognize the great benefits to society from government services- ranging from the military to firefighters to school teachers. Democrats need to remind the country of this and we need to show that through Democratic policies not only can we benefit from the public services that keep the American engine running but that those services can be operated as a well oiled and finely tuned machine.
According to the Charleston Gazette the Senate Finance Committee has killed a key component to the the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in West Virginia. The article says the bill lost on a voice vote lead by Republicans but since there are only three Republicans on the committee according to the legislative website there had to be Democrats that voted it down as well.
I attended a public hearing in Fairmont on the health insurance exchange and it was stated if the State does not operate the exchange we will miss out on tens of millions of federal grant dollars and defer to the federal government the decisions on how to operate an exchange in West Virginia. The speaker said hundreds of thousands of West Virginians would be covered by the exchange. The exchange makes coverage available to individuals and small businesses and provides tax subsidies for expensive private insurance. WV health advocacy groups like the AARP, WVAHC, and labor unions have made the exchange a priority on their legislative agendas.
How can Democrats turn their backs on implementing legislation that expands coverage to so many West Virginians? Not sure if something like this can be amended into another bill or revived somehow but something needs to be done about this.
In its most pure form, the nature of the debate between the Right and the Left is over what functions, or services, are necessary for government to carry out. This post is not meant to rehash that ageless tug of war, especially since the nature of that discussion is often driven by a philosophical bent over the role of government. Instead, this post is meant to get folks thinking about the operations of those functions that are performed by government.
In framing this issue, I would ask folks on the Right to take a hiatus from their tiresome declarations of all Democrats being socialists. And for my friends on the Left, I would ask that we discard with the idea that all spending is good spending, or the foolhardy approach that there are limitless resources from which to draw funding for worthwhile social programs. In essence, I'd like people to focus on how government can do what it does- just better.
WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT
I prescribe to the idea that government is of and for the people. It does not exist beyond us, it is us. When there is inefficiency in government or a public program that hemorrhages money to little social good, it is basically like having a door open in the middle of winter while your heater blasts away to regulate the temperature. Not only does it not make any sense, it drains resources that could be spent on other necessary expenses.
We all have an interest in closing that door but we often stumble at whether or not there should be a door or not. One side will say that the door should not exist in the first place. The other side will say the door is absolutely necessary and must remain. These often partisan debates, which I am not innocent in furthering and even enjoy, take our eyes off of the common sense first step. We all live in this house. It is, in fact, our house. So, just close the damn door.
STEWARDS OF RESOURCES
There are limitations to our resources. Obviously everyone knows this but it sometimes gets lost in the pursuit of the ideal. I think what happens is that advocates of a certain issue get so wrapped up in the cause that they forget the larger picture. Again, I am not innocent here and in the heat of the battle I have often had to check myself to make sure I am not hurting other causes I care about by pursuing the ideal on a single issue.
Thinking of it another way, I am a proud environmentalist. I believe that one needs to live reasonably with nature. We are the stewards of our natural resources and must ensure that we pass down a healthy and viable ecosystem to subsequent generations. Many progressives will completely agree with that statement yet when it comes to being a steward of our tax dollars, that dedication to conserve sometimes falls prey to the desire to push for more services and programs. I think the full progressive agenda would benefit from the philosophy behind that stewardship approach. Let's live with our fiscal realities in order to preserve services and programs.
SMARTER GOVERNMENT BENEFITS ALL
Government must be better. The stereotype of government bureaucrats with mounds of unnecessary paperwork is unfortunately a reality in many ways. Government should be operated with the efficiency of a business and where the profit motive of business can be appropriately controlled, government probably should cede program operations to business. I don't say that because I am anti government, but because I want the public to receive maximum services with the resources available to us.
I am not against certain levels of privatization as long as that privatization is well regulated, the public constantly surveyed of their opinions on the effectiveness of services, and vendors kept to task of well developed contracts. To me, it is the provision, efficacy, and effectiveness of services that are important, not the mechanism by which those services are delivered.
It is a no brainer that fraud, waste, and ineffective spending should be addressed. Yet, this low hanging fruit is often more difficult to pick than you would think. We need better management of public programs; policymakers that are driven by a desire to have more effective government, not necessarily more government; and a public willing to hold public officials accountable for inappropriate expenditures or waste.
CONCLUSION
We the people are the government. We must better manage our resources and realize that there are limitations to our resources. Finally, we must maximize the resources that we do have available by demanding more efficient operations, using existing private sector resources where possible, and holding one another accountable for waste, fraud and ineffective spending.
I guess some hypocrisy knows no bounds. You often see Republicans screaming about the ills of government involved in health care but what people seldom hear about is that those same outraged politicians have GOVERNMENT sponsored HEALTH CARE through the Office of Personnel Management's FEHB.
Republican Congressman and physician, Andy Harris, has spouted off about not getting his government sponsored health insurance until 28 days after he is sworn into office. He is outraged. Well, good sir, with all due respect, there will be tens of millions of Americans that go without health care for the entire next year and tens of millions more that will have lapses in coverage or are under insured.
As Robert Gibbs said, the rhetoric doesn't match the reality when it is YOUR health care that is in question, government or not. Let no American go without health insurance!
So funny it's painful. From satirical newspaper, The Onion:
WASHINGTON-Conceding almost certain Republican gains in next month's crucial midterm elections, Democratic lawmakers vowed Tuesday not to give up without making one final push to ensure their party runs away from every major legislative victory of the past two years.
Party leaders told reporters that regardless of the ultimate outcome, they would do everything in their power from now until the polls closed to distance themselves from their hard-won passage of a historic health care overhaul, the toughest financial regulations since the 1930s, and a stimulus package most economists now credit with preventing a second Great Depression.
snip
According to party leaders, the Democrats are putting their sweeping new health care law at the top of the list of accomplishments to back away from, mainly by allowing its most popular provisions-federal subsidies to make health care more affordable; allowing children to stay on their parents' insurance until age 26; and rules that prevent sick people from being denied coverage-to be summarily dismissed as "Obamacare."
I am not a Manchin apologist. That being said and despite several core policy disagreements, I was an early advocate of the Governor in this campaign. Unfortunately, the selfish and short sighted positions he took to defend himself against the onslaught of propaganda by Florida resident and silver spoon goon John Raese were radically out of step with sound public policy and core Democratic principles- forcing folks like myself to pull our support.
Manchin has disheartened a great number of Democrats with his disastrous campaign but he can win some of us back and beat John Raese in convincing fashion if, in my opinion, he does the following:
Joe Manchin is running against people like me. I am a West Virginia Democrat. I am a libertarian on social issues, range moderate to conservative on fiscal issues, and strongly believe there is no better fight than one defending the working person. I am just an average, hard working West Virginian. I am not unique. I am not special. I am one of you. Hell, I welcome the idea that everything I am about to write could be wrong, but I think if you, the reader, weigh the logic, you will find yourself reluctantly agreeing with me.
"Looks like John "rich man" Raese bought his way into the special election. I guess growing up with a silver spoon in your mouth does have its perks. Thankfully I get a chance to vote against the Floridian. Raese will make this election with Manchin a referendum on Obama and I say bring it on. Once you get passed the empty talk radio talking points and get to substance then you realize that Obama has did a hell of a job given all the problems he was left by the GOP. There is a lot more the Dems need to accomplish and we truly cannot afford to reverse course like the radical right wing wants us to do."
How I wish this were just about John Raese and his policies. Manchin has taken that away from us by trying to be John Raese. It did not have to be this way.
The Election Strategy from Hell
Manchin was up by double digits in the polls. The Tea Party storm could have been managed. Most progressives and moderates, including myself, would have regretfully looked the other way on environmental issues and social issues to keep Raese out of office. Then Raese started using his fortune to link Manchin to Obama. Everyone knew it was coming but the Manchin campaign was overwhelmed and slow to respond. You have to give the GOP credit- they have the discipline to push a bumper sticker campaign completely devoid of facts and not even blink. If we could all be such liars then politics would be easy- future be damned.
Who knows why it took so long for the Manchin campaign to get the gears moving because we all know MoJo had been planning this moment for years. Once they did, it was mistake after mistake. The inherent flaw in the campaign was the lack of foresight over the past two years. Manchin was so popular and his head so big that he refused to use any of his political capital defending President Obama in the Mountain State. In West Virginia the Governor has a bully pulpit like most other state governors would only dream of having. Manchin wasted his. I am not saying Manchin should have been out their touting Cap and Trade or calling for an end to mountaintop removal in defense of the Obama Administration- we all know Manchin is a coal-crat above all else. However, Manchin could have defended the roads, bridges and other projects being built with needed stimulus money. He could have touted the influx of Medicaid funding that kept the state budget in the black. He could have defended tooth and nail the provisions of health reform that everyone supports. Hell, Manchin could have stood up for Obama on a whole host of populist issues that would have appealed to any West Virginia Democrat or independent moderate. No, the same self serving politician that backed the Democrats for Underwood campaign did nothing. The irony is that by allowing Obama to become so toxic, Manchin may have sealed his own fate. It would be sweet if it weren't so damn sour.
That fundamental failure aside, Manchin still could have pulled this race off in an easy fashion. Unfortunately, instead of jabbing attack after attack at the gaffe prone and very easy to hate John Raese, Manchin has spent more time distancing himself from Obama and undercutting the Democratic Party's core economic values. In this anti incumbent climate of Tea Party fervor, Manchin's tactic has not carved into those backing Raese. This counterproductive, and in my opinion cowardly, strategy has deflated progressive to moderate Democrats even more than they had already been.
Manchin has not only run away from Obama, but he has run against Obama. Manchin sued the Administration in defense of mountaintop removal. He has an ad where he literally shoots the cap and trade legislation, which looks more like a SNL parody than anything else. He has said in various interviews, including one with the Wheeling Intelligencer that he would vote to repeal "Obamacare" if not everyone could agree on it. To top it all off, Manchin has defended extending the disastrous Bush tax break for the rich- an issue that should have been a populist windfall for Democrats. We are not leaving Manchin, Manchin is leaving us.
Ultra Conservative Joe
It has gotten so bad that Manchin is often front page material on Politico and other political news sites for his anti Obama stances. The country's best pollster, Nate Silver, has written a hell of an article questioning how good Manchin actually is for the Democratic Party. Silver questions whether national Democrats should spend money for someone that will likely continue to cause them grief, especially since he will have to run again in 2012 and be in full campaign mode for two years. Mr. Silver, they should not. Manchin is in it for Manchin and I wouldn't be surprised if he actually switched parties in the next decade. Check out Silver's chart on Senate candidates and where they rank along the ideology scale. Manchin aligns more closely with his opponent than any other competitive race measured and is far right of center, even further than a few campaigning Republican Senators. This is why I say Manchin is running against me.
I am not going to vote for Joe Manchin unless he makes an obvious effort to come back from the right wing fringe and defend core Democratic principles. Our vote is our only real leverage against self serving politicians and unless we take a stand here then I fear the template will be set in the West Virginia Democratic Party for years to come. Undercut the weak kneed base and go for the propagandized right wing vote- there are no repercussions.
Agree to Disagree
I have had some very heated discussions with Democratic friends and allies over this. If someone ultimately supports Manchin to keep Raese at bay then I understand. However, it does make me question the viability of progressive success in West Virginia if we are not willing to take a stand at some point. Frankly, I do not think there is anything that Manchin could do that would cause many die hard Democrats to take a stand against him, even if he is destroying the foundation on which their values stand. While I can understand the rationale, I cannot understand the unwavering dedication to it. There are a number of factors that drive folks to vote, keeping someone out of office being one, but should we overlook every other component in the equation? At what point do we quit standing for what we believe in and actually become the agents not of change but of the status quo? In late August I wrote,
"I will likely vote for Manchin in the special election as long as he does not go off the deep end distancing himself from Obama. I disagree with Manchin on social issues, the environment, and am ashamed of his perpetual bow to the coal bosses. I know I will never agree with Manchin's radical support of Corporate Coal but there are other issues out there that must be considered. Beyond that, Manchin will be the best candidate on the ballot and the balance of power in the Senate must remain in Democratic hands."
Well, Manchin has gone off the deep end. Those other issues that must be considered? Manchin has thrown them under the bus. Not only that, I contend that we are allowing Manchin to do irreversible damage to the Democratic brand in West Virginia. Come 2012 when Obama is getting creamed in WV despite the Democratic surge nationwide then remember this election. In ten years or so when the GOP has taken the WV Legislature and controls our Congressional seats because the Democratic brand was so thoroughly disparaged by our popular "Democratic" Governor then remember this election. Folks think I have my politics and policies confused. Fair enough. I am also confused why the WV Democratic Party has no back bone. I am confused as to why there are not more WV Democratic leaders stepping forward to defend CORE aspects of the Democratic platform. People have to remember that the Democratic Party, at least for me, is only a vehicle by which to achieve better public policies. Winning an election is not an end- it is a means by which we reach an end. I think too many folks have forgotten that.
Use whatever analogy you want, but I view politics like war. You do not hurt your chances of winning the long term victory so that you can win a single battle. If we try to win at all cost now then we will ruin our chances later.
Post Campaign Narrative
So what is the narrative of this campaign? Win or lose, my bet is that the voter turnout will be poor with WV Democrats. If Manchin wins then some Dems will contend it was his radical right turn that saved him. If he loses then those same elements will say that the liberal tag caused it. These folks are wrong. Manchin has disenfranchised the base. Disheartened Democrats are not going to go vote for a no chance candidate like Jesse Johnson so don't let people give those small numbers for the Mountain Party as an indication of the progressive/moderate Democrats standing. Democrats will either stay home or write in their cousin's name, Donald Duck, or go with sweet irony and write-in Charlotte Pritt. More likely than any of that though, and this will be proven whether Manchin wins or not, most Democrats will stay home because they simply cannot stomach Manchin's selfish war against the Democratic Party.
The lesson here is that the policies the Democratic Party stands for mean something. We have to get out there and educate the public about the positions that make us Democrats. We have to face down the GOP and not capitulate to their propaganda like a bunch of cowards. We have to hold our leaders accountable when they do not represent us or fight for the policies that we feel are best for the country. We have to take back the narrative and quit giving up so much ground to nonsense. We have to put sound long term public policymaking ahead of short term political calculations. If we want better, we have to be better, and we must demand better.
Governor Manchin's ego and this two year Senate term are not worth destroying the future of the West Virginia Democratic Party and more importantly, not worth us sacrificing what we as citizens believe to be the best course for the state and country. It is time to take a stand.
Ledbetter's Case Led to Equal Pay for Equal Work Legislation
Flatwoods, W.Va. - Women's rights pioneer Lilly Ledbetter will be the keynote speaker at the West Virginia Federation of Democratic Women's Annual Meeting. Ledbetter became famous when she sued her employer, the Goodyear Tire Company in Alabama in 1998, for sexual discrimination after learning that her male counterparts earned greater wages for many years for the same work that she did. Her case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled against her on a technicality because too much time had lapsed between her hiring in 1979 and her filing suit in 1998 when she learned of the discrimination. Ledbetter's cause became a political one and the fight for equal-pay-for-equal ensued. Congress later adopted the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in 2009.
In addition to Ledbetter, the Federation of Democratic Women will have a full weekend of activities. Several statewide Democratic elected officials are expected to attend as well.
WHAT: WV Federation of Democratic Women's Annual Meeting
WHEN: September 17-19
Dinner with Lilly Ledbetter as the keynote speaker is 6:30 pm Saturday, Sept. 18.
New York Times editorial points out the efforts by Democrats to pass mining safety improvements are being met with resistance by Congressional Republicans:
As investigations proceed into the biggest mine disaster in 40 years, Congress is its usual study in partisan obstruction, with Republicans in no hurry to rectify lethal workplace risks laid bare by the disaster. The majority Democrats' reform measure, endorsed by the Obama administration, would crack down on reckless mining companies with stronger monitoring and criminal penalties, subpoena-empowered investigations, and protections against the dismissal of miners who dare to complain about risks to life down below.
Congressional Republicans, echoing the message of Big Coal, complain that there's a rush to make new law. One of their authoritative colleagues, Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, finds the need for action now obvious. The proposal he co-sponsors aims at repeat offenders of mining regulations, like Massey Energy, that game the penalty system with extended legal appeals. It also would require better tracking of methane and coal dust and crack down on the practice of advance warnings when federal investigators approach.
If the Big Branch disaster were a terrorist deed, Republicans would be jamming the hopper with legislative antidotes. But dead miners? No rush, although it's clear that existing regulations are porous, underenforced and in crying need of repair by a responsible Congress.
As is often the case, the "mainstream" media nowadays is pushing a "conventional wisdom" line that has only one major problem – it’s largely or completely wrong. In this case, the "wisdom" is that voting for limits on carbon pollution is bad politics. The polling indicates it’s far more complicated than that.
For instance, the latest CBS/NY Times poll indicates that nearly 90% of Americans believe U.S. energy policy needs either "fundamental changes’ or "to be completely rebuilt," while 97% of Americans are "angry" or "bothered" by the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Those percentages hardly appear to indicate a status quo, "conventional wisdom" electorate on this issue, or an automatic political downside to making fundamental changes in U.S. energy policy.
Perhaps that is why, when you actually look at the 17 Democrats up for reelection this year (Bayh, Bennet, Boxer, Burris, Dodd, Dorgan, Feingold, Gillibrand, Inouye, Leahy, Lincoln, Mikulski, Murray, Reid, Schumer, Specter, Wyden) and subtract out those retiring (Bayh, Burris, Dodd, Dorgan) or defeated in a primary (Specter), you find that the vast majority – all except for Blanche Lincoln - are in favor of climate and energy legislation. Let’s take a look.
Michael Bennet- What could be clearer than this recent quote, "The best way to limit carbon pollution is for Congress to pass a comprehensive climate and energy bill." Barbara Boxer- A climate champion by any measure Russ Feingold- Issued a statement declaring, "Climate change is real and we need to address it. By blocking action on climate change, the Murkowski resolution would have stalled our march toward energy independence through more efficient vehicles, alternative fuels and renewable energy, all of which can spur new American jobs." Kirsten Gillibrand - Listed as a definite "yes" on a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill by E&E News Daniel Inouye- Also listed as a definite yes by E&ENews Patrick Leahy- He recently stated, "Let us not be known as the Congress that continued to punt, pass and kick on some of the crucial issues like these, on which the American people are looking for solutions, not procrastination." Barbara Mikulski - Listed as a definite yes on a comprehensive, clean energy and climate bill by E&ENews Patty Murray- Also listed as a definite yes by E&ENews Harry Reid – Has called for "bring[ing] comprehensive clean energy legislation before the full Senate later this summer." Chuck Schumer- Also listed as a definite yes by E&ENews Ron Wyden- Also listed as a definite yes by E&ENews
And let’s not forget these two letters – one on March 19 to Harry Reid and the other on January 26 to President Obama - showing 33 Senators (not even counting John Kerry and Joe Lieberman, who didn’t sign either letter but obviously are champions on this issue, plus most likely others as) clearly calling for climate legislation.
So, why is it that we keep seeing the perception in the "mainstream media" that a vote for comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation is bad politics? Perhaps because of the unfortunate tendency of the "mainstream media" to keep recycling quotes from a few loud Senators -- like Byron Dorgan and Evan Bayh -- who just happen to be exiting the scene altogether for potentially "greener" (and not in the environmental sense!) pastures. For the "mainstream media," recycling their preferred narrative may make a good story (or the story they want to tell, for whatever reason). In politics, however, perception is nine tenths of reality, and in this case the reality is that there is far too much at stake for this country to rely on "conventional" wisdom, especially when the facts – those troublesome things - tell a very different story.
In this context, this past Friday, Greg Sargent of The Plum Line asked an important question regarding clean energy and climate legislation in the U.S. Senate: "Can A bold new crop of Senators save carbon limits?" Sargent’s intriguing thesis was that[,] "[i]f carbon limits have any prayer of surviving in the Senate's energy reform bill, it may turn on the efforts of one group: The energetic freshman and sophomore Senators that are pushing hard to keep carbon limits alive." Sargent pointed to an interview with one of those freshmen, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, in which he argued that "There's a lot of new energy in those two classes, and they recognize that this is the moment."
In short, what Merkley’s saying is that it’s time for Democrats to stop listening so much to the "old guard" of Senators who are retiring. Instead, Merkley makes the case for paying more attention to the Senate freshman (and sophomores), who by definition were elected relatively recently and, therefore – at least theoretically - might have their fingers closer to the pulse of the public than the old timers. In part, the question is whether there could be a "generational" difference going on here. Not "generational" in the chronological sense, in which "younger" Senators are more pro-environment than "older" Senators. But, perhaps, "generational" in the sense of "political age," as in "how long have they been in Washington, DC?"
Given the analysis above, we might want to add "members in cycle" to Merkley’s admonition about listening more to freshmen then to old timers. Because the fact is, the majority of Democrats actually facing the polls this November are in favor of taking action on energy independence, clean energy, and holding corporate polluters accountable. Perhaps this is because they are listening to what the public is clearly demanding, which is fundamental change in U.S. energy policy? And perhaps they are not listening to a "conventional media" narrative which is completely wrong? Regardless of the reason, it appears at the moment – and certainly on this issue - that Democrats would be better served by listening more to the folks facing public opinion, as well as those elected more recently, and less to the ones preparing to depart for "greener" pastures.
As I thought about Florida Rep. Ted Deutch's quote in my previous post this morning, I also recalled a discussion I head either on Olbermann or Rachel Maddow last night ( I really wasn't looking at who was talking, but was lying flat on my back after taking a pain killer for my cracked ribs) in which a Republican said he was really in agreement on the nuclear decisions that the President had come to, but in terms of voting for the treaty with the Russians he would probably have to vote NO. The reason? Because the Party Leaders are insistent on not supporting anything the President does prior to the November elections.
The goal is, still, to make the current Administration a failure.
OK... while many are watching the NCAA Basketball games, I'll be watching the big sports action of the weekend: The Health Care bill in the House of Representatives.
CSPAN is showing BOTH the debates in the House and the Reconciliation Bill debate in the House Rules Committee (on CSPAN 2). The major players will all be out there, making the points or stalling to try and get the bill bogged down. Whatever happens today will determine what gets voted on tomorrow.
Copyright 2011 West Virginia Blue
Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
This site exists thanks to financial support from BlogPAC, dedicated volunteers and participation by members of this community. The views expressed at West Virginia Blue belong solely to their respective authors.
