Al Franken on The Huffington Post

Joanne Doroshow: Top Ten Civil Justice Triumphs Of the Decade!

2009-12-22T17:20:17Z

We look back with pride, and with some amazement really, at these great civil justice wins during the past decade. It hasn't been easy, and there are many to thank. (You know who you are!) Here are Center for Justice & Democracy's Top Ten Civil Justice Triumphs Of the Decade (in no particular order):

1. Utter Failure of President George W. Bush to Extinguish Patients' Rights. Yes, we're still hearing about this in the context of health care, but no president came to office more determined to limit the rights of patients injured by medical malpractice than George W. Bush. With Karl Rove's determined help, this issue, almost unbelievably, became one of W.'s most important domestic policy goals. The Center for Justice & Democracy organized a massive network of patients, who felt especially threatened because the Senate was led at the time by Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN), a doctor whose family hospital and insurance business, HCA/HCI, would have benefited from Bush's agenda. Indeed, Frist brought at least five bills to the Senate floor to severely "cap" compensation for patients, among other things. Each went down to resounding defeat during the earliest stages of debate.

2. Rights Restored for Victims of GM and Chrysler Defects. When GM and Chrysler filed for bankruptcy in 2009, the Obama Administration facilitated both companies' desire to simply wipe out all past - and future - claims by anyone injured by defects in the tens of millions of their cars on the road. Through a great team effort involving victims, lawyers and consumer advocates, including several victim demonstrations and news conferences organized by CJ&D, this position became untenable and both companies reversed themselves. All post-bankruptcy defect claims can now go forward. The only group of defect victims still left in the cold are those with claims at the time the bankruptcies were filed. Hopefully Congress fixes this injustice soon.

3. Repudiation by the U.S. Supreme Court of Bush "Preemption" Policy. We're not saying the U.S. Supreme Court has been all that great for plaintiffs this decade. (See, for example, Stoneridge, Iqbal, and Medtronic.) But in 2008, the court issued an astoundingly good decision, Wyeth vs. Levine, rejecting the argument that companies should be unaccountable for killing or injuring someone just because their product is regulated by the government - in Wyeth's case, by the FDA. The decision doubled as a strong rebuke to the Bush Administration and it was followed by another strong rebuke from the Obama Administration.

4. Washington State Turns the Tide, Twice. It's been a bit painful to see civil justice systems weakened all around the country due to the sheer financial and lobbying force of corporate special interests. But we found at least a partial cure for that pain in Washington State. In 2005, civil justice supporters beat back I-330, a typically cruel initiative pushed by the medical lobbies that would have severely limited the legal rights of patients injured by medical malpractice. The "No" vote was so strong - 57 percent - that doctors in other states backed off plans to try similar campaigns. Then in 2007, Referendum 67, the insurance industry's cynical initiative to force voters to "confirm" that they wanted a insurer "bad faith" law to take effect, passed by a similar percentage.

5. Finally, Arbitration Gets the Bad Name it Deserves. Unfair arbitration agreements- those clauses in credit card agreements, employee contracts, even health insurance policies that prevent consumers who are harmed from gaining access to the courts - took a big hit in 2009. Both the National Arbitration Forum and American Arbitration Association said they would not take part in credit card collection disputes. Then, a class action lawsuit against several huge banks led to a number of them agreeing to drop these clauses altogether, for now at least. And thanks to Sen. Al Franken (D-MN), sexual assault victims working for military contractors cannot be forced into arbitration, either.

6. ThePopTort is Born. There aren't many blogs focusing on support for the civil justice system, and one was surely needed. So in 2008, CJ&D's founded ThePopTort, and by December of that year, the editors of the ABA Journal had selected it as one of the country's top 100 legal blogs, an honor again repeated in December 2009! We are mighty proud of that, and hope you'll add your vote to make ThePopTort the #1 legal blog (Vote through December 31 - you don't have to be an ABA member to vote!)

7. A New Batch of Books Put the Lie to "Tort Reform" Myths. Blogs aren't the only way to communicate these days. Remember books? Well, this decade saw publication of some great books that savagely debunk the so-called "tort reform" movement and its many myths. Our favorites include Blocking the Courthouse Door by Stephanie Mencimer , who first covered the issue for The Washington Monthly; The Medical Malpractice Myth by Tom Baker ; In Defense Of Tort Law by Thomas H. Koenig and Michael L. Rustad; and Distorting the Law; Politics, Media, and the Litigation Crisis by William Haltom and Michael McCann.

8. Insurance Reform Works! Consumer groups, including CJ&D project Americans for Insurance Reform (also founded this decade), have long argued that the reason medical malpractice insurance rates rise periodically is because of market forces and dropping interest rates (not because jury awards or payouts have suddenly increased), and that reforming and regulating the insurance industry is the only way to fix this problem. In case there was ever any question about this theory, the evidence gathered this decade, including admissions from the Illinois Division of Insurance, should remove all doubt.

9. Big Problems at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It's got to be a little embarrassing. The biggest lobby group in the country and vicious advocate for corporate immunity began losing its grip on government in 2008. By 2009, the group starting taking bizarre views on legislation, was personally attacked by the President and began losing significant members over its environmental policy.

10. The Center for Justice & Democracy's Made It! The Center for Justice & Democracy was founded shortly before this decade began, and I'll admit there have been a few shaky times. With offices pretty near the World Trade Center, on 9/11 we evacuated not knowing if or when we'd be returning, what had happened to our friends and neighbors, or how we would survive financially. We were lucky and we made it through. And somehow we are surviving the recession too! Thanks very much to all of our friends and supporters. We wouldn't be here without you. Here's to another decade of civil justice for all!

Anthony Tarricone: Congress Takes Critical Step in Halting Abusive Forced Arbitrations

2009-12-22T09:38:13Z

Early Saturday morning, the Senate passed an amendment that marks the first, critical step toward protecting all Americans from being forced into arbitration rather than seeking justice through the courts.

Attached to the Defense Appropriations Bill and sponsored by Sens. Al Franken (D-Minn.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.), the amendment protects defense contractor employees who have been victims of sexual assault, harassment, or other forms of discrimination and then forced into one-sided arbitration proceedings by their employers.

The amendment was inspired by Jamie Leigh Jones, a story that illustrates how ugly and unjust these agreements can be. Jamie was employed by KBR/Halliburton when she was drugged, raped, beaten and then confined to a shipping container by fellow employees while working in Iraq. Jamie was then denied from seeking justice through the courts due to a clause placed in her KBR employment contract that forced her to submit to a binding, secret, non-appealable arbitration. Unaware that the clause was even part of her 18-page employment contract, Jamie had to fight to get access to the justice system.

The provision is a significant victory for this subset of employees who experience the most egregious conduct. But this legislative action now must serve as the springboard to protect Americans from forced arbitrations in all contexts.

Corporations use forced arbitration against their employees or customers to escape accountability. These mandatory binding arbitration clauses are hidden in the fine print of everything from cell phone, credit card, franchise and employment agreements to nursing home care contracts. Just by taking a job or buying a product or service, consumers and employees are often forced to give up their right to take their case to court if they are harmed by a corporation.

Two bills now face Congress that would broaden the scope of protection from these abusive practices: The bipartisan Arbitration Fairness Act (S. 931 / H.R. 1020), sponsored by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), which would ensure that the decision to enter arbitration is made voluntary, and the bipartisan Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act (S. 512 / H.R. 1237), sponsored by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) and Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), would eliminate forced arbitration clauses in nursing home contracts.

A coalition of groups is fighting to protect Americans from forced arbitration clauses. The Fair Arbitration Now Coalition, of which the American Association for Justice is a member, has stories of people who have seen the horrors of forced arbitration up-close. Visit their website and learn how you can take action.

Obama Signs Franken's Anti-Rape Amendment Into Law

2009-12-21T14:41:44Z

The White House Press Office sent out a statement today announcing that President Obama signed the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010 into law on Saturday:

H.R. 3326, the "Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010," which provides FY 2010 appropriations for Department of Defense (DOD) military programs including funding for Overseas Contingency Operations, and extends various expiring authorities and other non-defense FY 2010 appropriations.

Franken: Dems Unified Behind 'Historic' Health Reform Legislation

2009-12-19T15:46:01Z

The Senate Democratic caucus is unified following a Saturday meeting and poised to pass a much-weakened health care reform proposal before Christmas day.

"The mood was great," said Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) of the party gathering earlier Saturday. "It was a very, very good mood, even [among] those of us who have disappointments about what is and isn't in."

Though it's far from what progressives and, according to surveys, most voters wanted in a final bill, Franken, in an interview with the Huffington Post, said that it's "an enormous step forward."

"I'm convinced this will pass. I believe we have the 60 votes," he said. Franken was encouraged that he and Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) were able to insert into the final bill a provision that would require insurers, for individual and small group plans, to spend 80 percent of the money they take in on health care. Large plans would be required to spend 85 percent.

"This is something that a lot of states have tried unsuccessfully to put on medical loss rations and insurance companies fight them and they fight this for a reason. So I'm very, very happy with this. I think it's a big, big way to keep them in check," said Franken. "I think it's one of the biggest tools."

Insurers refer to spending on health care as a "medical loss." The medical loss ratio currently averages 70 percent across the nation. Minnesota law sets it at 91 percent.

The Congressional Budget Office, however, determined that the 90 percent requirement that Franken and Rockefeller had pushed for amounted to nationalization of the industry. The CBO didn't explain how it came to the seemingly arbitrary figure of 90 percent. Franken said he and Rockefeller met with the CBO chief Doug Elmendorf about his determination and came away uncertain of the reasoning. Elmendorf, who is not an elected official, deemed that 80 percent for small groups and 85 for large didn't amount to nationalization. In the American system of government, what Elmendorf says, goes, so regardless of the rationale, the bill includes the figures he dictated.

Beyond Elmendorf's weakening of the provision, it also includes a potentially gaping loophole.

The Health and Human Services Secretary, according to the bill's language, "may adjust the rates...if the Secretary determines appropriate on account of the volatility of the individual market due to the establishment of State Exchanges."

Franken said that the language was intended to created stability in the market so that if there are major fluctuations, insurers would have flexibility. An HHS secretary sympathetic to the industry, however, would have unilateral authority to effectively repeal the provision.

Overall, Franken said, his colleagues are happy with the bill. "All of us believe that we need to make basic reforms and that this does that," he said of the product. "It's an enormous step forward. It's something we can build on. Social Security passage was just widows and orphans." Social Security gradually expanded over time.

"I think it's a really important, really historic bill, but I'm just worried that we don't over-promise but at the same time we do tell them all the great things the bill has," said Franken.

The bill, as expected, does not include a public health insurance option or allow people aged 55-64 to buy into Medicare.

In order to win the vote of Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson, the bill includes extreme restrictions on which private health insurance plans can cover abortion. It also picks up Nebraska's tab for expanded Medicaid coverage forever.

After moving in a more conservative direction for several days, the bill reverses course, ever so slightly, in some areas.

Reid's original bill had allowed for a cap, in some cases, in annual coverage by insurers. The new bill removes that allowance, meaning that insurers can not place limits on the amount of coverage they provide, either over the course of one year or over a person's lifetime.

The bill raises revenue by taxing indoor tanning salons, which are associated with health risks. It also increases the Medicare payroll tax by 0.9 points for individuals making more than $200,000 per year and married couples earning above $250,000.

A mandate that all Americans without coverage purchase health insurance remained in the bill and the fine for those who don't do so was increased. There is an exemption for folks who can prove they can't afford to buy insurance. As a candidate, Obama attacked his rival Hillary Clinton for proposing such a mandate.

Obama also attacked his general election opponent, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), for proposing a tax on high-cost insurance plans. The Senate bill includes just such a tax, with Obama's endorsement.

According to the CBO, the new version will provide coverage to 94 percent of Americans - though many of them will have it "provided" to them by force of a mandate. It'll also reduce the deficit by $132 billion over 10 years and 1.3 trillion over 20 years.

In place of a public option, people will have access to two national private plans, one of them nonprofit, overseen by the Office of Personnel Management, which is in charge of federal employee plans.

The bill includes strong insurance reforms that prevent companies from denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions or from dropping people simply because they get sick - a practice known as rescission. But serious questions remain as to how enforceable those provisions will be.

California recently dropped an attempt to enforce its anti-rescission law against a major insurer, saying that it was financially outgunned by the insurer's legal team.

The rescission law, according to the legislation, "shall not apply to a covered individual who has performed an act or practice that constitutes fraud or makes an intentional misrepresentation of material fact as prohibited by the terms of the plan or coverage."

Insurers today routinely claim that patients engaged in "fraud" or "intentional misrepresentation" when dropping them from coverage. Much depends on who defines the terms in the bill.

It won't be the federal government. There will be no federal agency tasked with overseeing the enforcement of the bill's rules. Rather, a Senate leadership aide told reporters in a briefing Saturday, individual states will police the new system.

That's a task the California Department of Managed Health Care was unable to perform when battling Anthem Blue Cross, which has rescinded 1,770 policies since 2004.

"In each and every one of those rescissions, [Blue Cross has] the right to contest each, and that could tie us up in court forever," the department's director, Cindy Ehnes, told The Associated Press. A million-dollar fine was announced in March 2007, but has not been enforced.

McCain Denied Senator Extra Time To Finish Speaking In 2002

2009-12-18T14:14:02Z

Yesterday, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN), acting on the orders of the Senate leadership, refused to grant Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) "an additional moment" to continue speaking on the Senate floor after his 10 minutes expired. Franken's objection caused Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) to groan about how Franken's move was unprofessional, unprecedented, and disrespectful:

McCAIN: I've been around here 20-some years. First time I've ever seen a member denied an extra minute or two to finish his remarks. ... I just haven't seen it before myself. And I don't like it. And I think it harms the comity of the Senate not to allow one of our members at least a minute. I'm sure that time is urgent here, but I doubt that it would be that urgent.

WATCH: Wielding Gavel, Franken Shuts Lieberman Up

2009-12-17T17:25:29Z

Joe Lieberman must be wondering if his colleagues' respect for him went out the same window that he tossed the public option and the Medicare buy-in compromise that was to replace it.

He got an answer of sorts Thursday afternoon as he came to the end of a floor speech, and ran out of time.

"I'm sorry. The senator has spoken for ten minutes," Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), as the chamber's presiding officer, told Lieberman. Customarily, when senators ask unanimous consent for a bit more time, consent is always given.

"I wonder if I could ask unanimous consent for just an additional moment," Lieberman said.

"In my capacity as the senator from Minnesota, I object," said Franken, in what appeared to be a dramatic departure from the long and stifling tradition of Senate collegiality.

"Really?" responded a stunned Lieberman. "Okay. Don't take it personally. I will ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my remarks be included in the record as if read."

Franken was okay with that. "Without objection," he said.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) rose to his friend Lieberman's defense.

"I must say that I don't know what's happening here in this body, but I think it's wrong. And so I -- it's fine with me that it be 10 minutes, but I'll tell you, I have never seen a member denied an extra minute or so, as the chair just did," said McCain, whose presidential campaign Lieberman backed in 2008.

Franken spokeswoman Jess McIntosh told HuffPost that nothing personal was meant and that Democratic leadership is asking every presiding officer to enforce the 10-minute rule for both sides.

WATCH:

UPDATE: Lieberman and Franken don't seem to be feuding. HuffPost's Jeff Muskus spotted the two senators laughing together on the floor less than an hour after the exchange, as they huddled looking at the phone of Franken's fellow Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar -- presumably sharing a laugh about media reports of the exchange.

yet McCain can't seem to stop talking about what damage Franken has done to Senate decorum, however. At a press conference Friday, McCain interjected the following after a question about defense appropriations:

"Can I mention one other aspect of this debate that's really unfortunate? I've been around here for more than 20 years. Yesterday, on the floor of the Senate, the senator from Connecticut was finishing up his remarks, and as we always do -- ever since I've been here -- as we always do, he said I'd like an extra minute to finish up my remarks, and was objected to by the newest member of the United States Senate. And in a most brusque way. That's how the comity of this body has deteriorated. We've got to stop, we've got to stop this kind of behavior. I've never seen anything like that, and I hope that I don't see it again," said McCain, even though he's done the same thing himself.

Any further delay would suit the GOP just fine, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said at Friday's press conference. "We don't think this bill ought to pass," McConnell said. "We're not in a hurry to finish."

Franken's Anti-Rape Amendment Survives

2009-12-16T11:35:50Z

An amendment that would prevent the government from working with contractors who deny victims of sexual assault the right to bring their case in court has survived attempts to dull its impact and seems poised to become law.

The Senate Committee on Appropriation passed, on Tuesday, a defense appropriations bill that included the "anti-rape" amendment introduced by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.). The legislation was intended to address and prevent a recurrence of the assault and rape that Jamie Leigh Jones, a defense contractor for the company KBR, alleged was committed by her fellow employees. But the amendment became a subject of debate after the Department of Defense, Republicans in the Senate, and even the committee chairman, Sen. Dan Inouye (D-Hawaii) raised concerns that it would leave contractors over exposed to lawsuits.

The final product, in the end, proved remarkably strong. According to a Franken aide, the substance of the language "is unchanged." Under the amendment the government would not be able to do business with companies that deny court hearings for victims of either assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress or negligent hiring practice. The controversial Title VII provision, which would allow victims of assault to sue the employers of the alleged perpetrator and not just the perpetrator himself or herself, remains in the bill. Meanwhile, the threshold at which companies will be subjected to the legislation is set at those who have contracts totaling $1 million or more.

All told, the legislation would affect all major and many minor contractors, forcing them to choose between allowing litigation for their employees or forfeiting the hundreds of millions in dollars that are doled out annually in contracts by the federal government.

The Franken amendment includes a national security waiver, meaning that the Department of Defense could circumvent the law if it is deemed dangerous to U.S. safety. But, for that to happen, the Secretary of Defense would have to "personally explain why the waiver was used to Congress and at that point make it public," the Franken aide explained.

"I came to Washington to stand up for folks like Jamie Leigh, and stand up to the powerful interests that too often silence their voices," Sen. Franken said in a statement. "I was gratified to see so many of my colleagues in Congress and so many national civil rights leaders join in this effort. The Jamie Leigh Jones amendment is on its way to becoming law thanks to their work, the work of Chairman Inouye, and the work of the White House. I'm pleased that together, we were able to find a solution that allows victims of assault and discrimination their rightful day in court."

The amendment was initially added to the defense appropriations bill on October 21, 2009 by a 68 to 30 vote. Despite wide support for the measure (and ridicule for the 30 Republicans who opposed it) both the Obama administration's Department of Defense and Chairman Inouye raised concerns while the legislation was being considered in conference committee. Attempts to strip it of the Title VII provision were met with public outcry, which a Senate source familiar with the negotiations says was partially responsible for its ultimate passage.

"The public support surprised a lot of senators and not just the chairman," said the source. "The White House was working with Franken's office to find language that would be enforceable... and I think by the time those talks began everyone was on board, including Chairman Inouye."

Al Franken: Spars With GOP Leadership On Senate Floor, Accuses Thune Of Not Reading Health Bill (VIDEO)

2009-12-14T20:37:57Z

Al Franken (D-Minn.) and John Thune (R-S.D.) were off the charts on Monday, at least by the Senate's typical debate standards.

In response to a speech by Thune, fourth in the Republican leadership, the freshman legislator honed in on claims made about benefits in the proposed health reform package.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts," said Franken. "Benefits kick in right away, and if you're going to hold up a chart that says when taxes kick in and when benefits kick in, you say '1,800 days,' you better include the benefits that do kick in right away."

Thune asked Franken to yield for a question, which led to a terse exchange.

"We gave the other side 30 minutes," chimed in Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio). "Senator Thune wants to sort of monopolize our 30 minutes."

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts," Franken repeated after the back-and-forth. "The fact is benefits kick in on day one, and the large majority of benefits kick in on day one. And we shouldn't be standing up here with charts that say the exact opposite."

Later, while riffing with Brown, Franken added, "Senator Thune did say that none of the benefits started next year. He just, I guess, hasn't read the bill."

WATCH:

Dr. Susan Corso: 30 Senators Embarrassed About Their Votes Against Franken Amendment? They Ought To Be

2009-12-11T11:49:52Z

Trish Kinney described the amendment in these august pages (with a painful video):

Senator Al Franken got my attention and the attention of a lot of other people who care about sexual abuse and violence, with the passing of his Senate Amendment 2566. The Amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill provides for the withholding of federal funds from contractors who continue to apply binding arbitration clauses in employment contracts. It was such a clause that prevented Ms. Jamie Leigh Jones from having her day in court after she was allegedly gang raped and locked in a shipping container in Iraq for two days while employed by a subsidiary of Halliburton.

I am very grateful that the amendment passed with strong support, but what about those 30 male, Republican Senators who voted against it? My first thought was: don't they have daughters? Or sisters? Or nieces? Or aunts? Or female friends?

Fortunately, I'm not the only one. Bless, Google. Someone else had already asked the question and compiled the list below under the name LeisureGuy.

Alexander (R-TN) - two daughters
Barrasso (R-WY) - two daughters
Bond (R-MO) - no daughter
Brownback (R-KS) - three daughters
Bunning (R-KY) - five daughters
Burr (R-NC) - no daughter
Chambliss (R-GA) - one daughter
Coburn (R-OK) - three daughters
Cochran (R-MS) - ?
Corker (R-TN) - two daughters
Cornyn (R-TX) - two daughters
Crapo (R-ID) - three daughters
DeMint (R-SC) - ? (four children)
Ensign (R-NV) - one daughter
Enzi (R-WY) - two daughters
Graham (R-SC) - none (adopted his sister)
Gregg (R-NH) - two daughters
Inhofe (R-OK) - 4 children, at least one daughter
Isakson (R-GA) - one daughter
Johanns (R-NE) - one daughter
Kyl (R-AZ) - one daughter
McCain (R-AZ) - two daughters, one adopted
McConnell (R-KY) - three daughters
Risch (R-ID) - no daughters
Roberts (R-KS) - two daughters
Sessions (R-AL) - two daughters
Shelby (R-AL) - one daughter
Thune (R-SD) - two daughters
Vitter (R-LA) - three daughters
Wicker (R-MS) - two daughters

Of the 30, only six have either no daughter or children of unspecified gender. But even if nary a one had a daughter, I can faithfully assure you that they each had or have a mother.

How would those men feel as fathers if their daughters were not offered the fullness of the law to redress a heinous crime like rape?

How would they feel as sons if the woman in question was their own mother?

Or, are Republican Senators so programmed to vote yes on behalf of any and all corporate entities that they didn't even read the bill?

Here's my spiritual take: these men are so blinded by the power of the conditioning that they've received that they can't, or won't see the women for the corporations. Dear ones, the patriarchy, in case you hadn't noticed, is systematically dissolving right before our eyes. Let's bless it, and get on with the healing and growth our planet and our country need.

Embarrassed? Hell yes, they're embarrassed. Thirty Senators, it turns out, can be and are wrong.

Hats off to junior Senator Al Franken for making a big difference as soon as he was seated!

For spiritual nourishment, visit Dr. Susan Corso's website and blog, Seeds for Sanctuary. Follow her on Twitter @PeaceCorso and Friend her on Facebook.

Wendell Potter: The Insurance Industry's Lethal Bottom Line -- and a Solution From Sens. Franken and Rockefeller

2009-12-06T19:33:58Z

There was a time, in the early 1990s, when health insurance companies devoted more than 95
cents out of every premium dollar to paying doctors and hospitals for taking care of their members. No more. Since President Bill Clinton's health reform plan died 15 years ago, the health insurance industry has come to be dominated by a handful of insurance companies that answer to Wall Street investors, and they have changed that basic math. Today, insurers only pay about 81 cents of each premium dollar on actual medical care. The rest is consumed by rising profits, grotesque executive salaries, huge administrative expenses, the cost of weeding out people with pre-existing conditions and claims review designed to wear out patients with denials and disapprovals of the care they need the most.

This equation is known as the medical loss ratio (MLR), an aptly named figure that is widely seen by investors as the most important gauge of an insurance company's current and future profitability. In a private health insurance industry that collected $817 billion this year, a 14 percentage point difference in the MLR represents $112 billion a year! Over 10 years, that would be more than enough to pay for health reform.

Thanks to the efforts of several senators who pushed for a minimum MLR to be included in reform legislation, the current Senate bill requires insurers to provide an annual rebate to each enrollee if non-claims costs exceed 20% in the group market and 25% in the individual market.

Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) is now leading a group including Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) to introduce an amendment that would go further by requiring that 90 percent of the money consumers spend on health insurance premiums go directly to health care costs.

The senators are proposing a reform that strikes at the heart of a health insurance system that puts profits first, and it would have a profound effect. When MLRs increase, that eats into profits, and Wall Street becomes very unhappy. A case in point is Aetna, the nation's third largest publicly-traded health insurance plan. Three years ago, the company reported that its quarterly MLR had inched up from 77.9 percent to 79.4 percent in 12 months. On the day this was disclosed, Aetna's share price plunged 20 percent as investors sold off their shares, reducing the company's market value by billions of dollars.

Wall Street investors expect insurers to pay as little as possible for medical claims. As a result, the nation's health insurance industry has evolved into a cartel of huge for-profit companies that together reap billions of dollars a year at the expense of their policyholders. The seven largest firms -- UnitedHealth Group, WellPoint, Aetna, Humana, CIGNA, Health Net, and Coventry Health Care -- enroll nearly one in three Americans in their health insurance plans. This year the industry will take about $25 billion in profits for getting between American patients and their doctors, according to the industry's trade group.

And they do this by finding every excuse in the book not to pay a claim, even if it means
canceling individual policies when people get sick or ridding their rolls of unprofitable small business group policies if an employee or family member falls seriously ill. They issue confusing benefit statements to members so only highly motivated and persistent challengers of their denials stand a chance of reversing an unfair decision. And in the final analysis, when an insurance company has decided it no longer can make enough profit on a particular person or employer-sponsored group, it drives them away in a process known as "purging." In this unconscionable profit-protection maneuver, an insurer will hike premiums so high that the policyholder has no choice but to pay outlandish rates for what may be a reduced benefit package, find another insurer, or simply go without coverage. The consequences of such decisions can be deadly -- but Wall Street always has the last word when profits are the main consideration.

When Wall Street isn't calling the shots, the outcome is decidedly better for health care consumers. Government-operated plans, such as Medicare, and some organizations that provide coordinated care, consistently maintain higher medical loss ratios. Kaiser had a 90.6 percent MLR in 2007. Between 1993 and 2007, Medicare's MLR hasn't dropped below 97 percent.

The health care reform bill now being debated in the Senate must include a provision, such as that proposed by Sen. Franken, that sets a minimum medical loss ratio to keep insurers from gouging consumers and leaving patients without the care they need. Instead of being a formula to reward investors, a properly regulated medical loss ratio in combination with other cost containment measures in the legislation would be a reliable tool for keeping insurance company profits and administrative waste in check.

Vitter, Coburn Public Option Bluff Called By Democrats (VIDEO)

2009-12-04T18:35:37Z

Democrats took on a pair of Republican senators Friday, signing on to an amendment that would make lawmakers join the public option.

On Thursday, thinking Democratic senators would balk at the idea, Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) introduced the gimmick health-care amendment.

"The idea, broad-brush, is that whatever government option is in the bill, every senator and every representative should be enrolled in it," Vitter told The Hill. "No other possibilities, no other choices."

"It's called leadership," Coburn said. "If it's good enough for everybody else, we ought to be leading by example."

But Democrats called their bluff, and the Republicans wouldn't allow it. When Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) tried to become a co-sponsor of the amendment, he got the cold shoulder.

"They've not said yes to allow me to be a co-sponsor," Brown told The Hill on Thursday. "I've called their office four times. I'm proud of the public option, I think it would be great and we ought to join it and show the country how good it is. I think my interest may be more genuine than theirs, but I'd like to work with them if they'll let me. If they just want to score partisan points, I still want to work with them."

So Brown, joined by Sens. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), and Al Franken (D-Minn.), forced his way onto the amendment with a unanimous consent vote.

Watch Franken:

And Dodd:

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Johann Hari: The Real Reason Obama Isn't Making Much Progress

2009-11-19T19:48:34Z

Almost a year after Barack Obama ascended to the
White House, many of his supporters are bemused. His health care bill is
a hefty improvement but it still won't provide coverage for all
Americans, and may not provide a public alternative to the
over-charging insurance companies - if it passes at all. His
environmental team is vandalizing the vital Copenhagen conference by
saying the US -- the single biggest emitter of warming gases -- will not
sign up to any legally binding restrictions there. He has placed the
deregulation-fanatics who caused the New Depression, like Lawrence
Summers, in charge of the recovery. Despite the real improvements on
Bush -- such as the end of torture, the resumption of stem-cell
research, and opposition to the coup in Honduras -- many people are
asking: why he is delivering so little, so slowly?

A
pair of seemingly small stories about the forces warping American
politics can help us to answer this question. At first glance, they
will seem like preposterous caricatures, but the facts are plain. The
institutions that are blocking progress on all these issues --
Republicans in the Senate, and the mighty corporate lobbying machine
that bankrolls both parties -- have rallied over the past few months to
defend two causes with very little popular support in the United
States: rape and slavery. No, really. If we begin to explain how this
came to pass, then we might see why the American political system is
malfunctioning so badly, even after a landslide victory for change.

Let's
start with rape. This story begins in Iraq in 2003. The private
military contractors sent by the Bush administration to guard the oil
pipelines didn't want to get bogged down in expensive legal cases if
anything went wrong. When it came to Iraqis, the Bush team simply
exempted them from all Iraqi law, in a move so sweeping one Senator
called it "a license to kill." But what about if their employees
attacked each other, or other Americans? The private companies insisted
all their employees sign contracts saying that, whatever happens to
them, they will settle it in in-house, through "arbitration." Why?
While representing the company at a real legal trial costs hundreds of
thousands of dollars, an arbitration panel costs a few thousand. It
saves cash.

This policy came, however, with a different price
tag. According to her later sworn testimony, Jamie Leigh Jones -- a
20-year-old working for the contractor Halliburton/KBR -- was hanging
out with co-workers one night in Iraq when her drink was spiked. When
she woke up, she was haemorraging blood from her vagina and her anus.
Her breast implants were ripped. The damage was so severe she later
needed reconstructive surgery on her genitalia. She surmised she had
been gang-raped by the seven men she had been drinking with. When she
approached Halliburton/KBR, she says they locked her in a metal
container with no food or water for 24 hours. A doctor came to see her
wounds and took DNA evidence, although it was later "lost." A guard
took pity on her and loaned her his cell phone. She called her father,
who called the American embassy -- and only then was she released.

In
an Iraq that was collapsing all around her, there was no chance of the
Iraqi police investigating. Halliburton/KBR insisted that her contract
required the alleged gang-rape to be addressed by the company's private
arbitration process, forbidding any claim in the American courts. (If
this was how they treated blonde English-speaking American girls, what
did they do if Iraqis said they had been abused?) After Leigh Jones
went public, many other American women came forward to say they had
similar experiences working in Iraq. Her legal team argues the refusal
to allow rape to be pursued through the courts created a climate where
it was more likely to happen.

The Democratic
Senator Al Franken, when he heard about this, was horrified, and tabled
a simple amendment to the law. It demanded that no company that
prevents rape victims from having their day in court should receive
taxpayers' money any more. Rape is rape. A majority of Republicans in
the Senate -- including John McCain -- voted against the amendment. Why?
The private contractors are major donors to the Republican Party, but
the Senators claim this didn't affect their judgment. No -- they said
that Franken's proposal was a "vendetta" against Halliburton/KBR with
"political motives." Franken pointed out any company trying to stop
rape victims getting justice would be treated exactly the same by this
law. The Republicans ignored him. They voted to maintain a system where
some rape is not pursuable in a court of law.

At
the same time, a group of Democratic senators have tried to amend the
latest customs bill to ensure that nothing produced by slaves should be
sold in the United States. It sounds uncontroversial -- as
uncontroversial as punishing rapists, in fact. Yet corporate lobbyists
are militating behind the scenes to oppose it. As the private
subscription-only newsletter "Inside US Trade" reported: "Business
groups are worried by the potential effects," and a source tells them
there will be, "a push from lobbyists closer to the Finance Committee
mark-up of the bill ... U.S. industry groups and foreign governments [ie
those that use slave labor] could form ad hoc coalitions to help send
a united message." They will fight for their right to use slave labor.

These
examples are extreme, but they reveal a powerful undertow that is at
work on all political issues (and both main parties) in the United
States. To see how, you have to understand two processes. The first is
the nature of corporate power. Corporations are structured to do one
thing, and one thing only: to maximize profit for their shareholders.
No matter how personally nice or nasty their CEOs are, if they put
anything ahead of profit, they will be sacked, and replaced by somebody
who doesn't. As part of a tightly regulated market, this can be a
useful engine for growth. But if it is not strictly reigned in by the
law and by trade unions, this pressure for profit will extend anywhere
-- from trashing the environment to rape and slavery, as these cases
remind us. The second factor is the nature of the American political
process today. If you want to run for elected office in the US, you
have to raise a fortune from corporations or the super-rich to pay for
TV advertising. So before you can appeal to the voters, you have to
appeal to the corporations. You do this by assuring them you will serve
their interests. Once you are in office, you have to keep pleasing them
at every step, or they won't pay for your re-election campaign. This
two-step overwhelms the positive instincts the individual politicians
may have to do good -- and drags the US government further and further
from the will of the people.

Obama had to climb
through this system, and he is currently imprisoned by it. It explains
his relative failure so far. Health care is proving so hard because the
insurance companies are paying both Republicans and right-wing
Democrats in Senate to thwart any attempt to provide universal
health care coverage. Yes, it would save the 17,000 Americans who die
every year because they lack insurance but it would depress their
profits. Reducing carbon emissions is proving so hard because the oil,
coal and gas companies are paying Senators across the spectrum to crush
any moves to reduce oil, coal and gas use. And on, and on.

So
far, Obama has tried to co-opt the corporations into his agenda by
ensuring they will profit from any changes, but this inevitably waters
down the proposals, often to the point of uselessness. The cap and
trade legislation before Congress, for example, will barely limit
carbon emissions at all because it has been gutted to please the
polluters.

He will only achieve significant
progressive change if he reforms the political system itself -- to make
it accountable to the American people, not the corporations. He needs
to change the rules of the game. Ban big business from making political
donations, and replace it with state funding. Shut down the lobbying
industry. Make a big populist speech announcing you are driving the
money-lenders out of the temple of democracy: it'd be surprisingly
popular in a country where people can see they're being ripped off
every day. The alternative is to become rapidly complicit in a system
where defending rape and slavery is seen as just another day's work in
Washington, D.C.

Johann Hari is a writer for the Independent. To read more of his articles, click here. You can email him at johann -at- johannhari.com

You can watch Johann taking on Hizb ut-Tahrir in a debate on the Islam Channel here.

Johann is also a contributing writer for Slate magazine. To read his latest article for them -- about the loon Ayn Rand -- click here.

You can follow Johann on Twitter at www.twitter.com/johannhari101

You can support the Republican pro-rape campaign over at www.republicansforrape.com

Mark Udall, Michael Bennet Sign Letter Supporting Exemptions In Cap And Trade For Coal

2009-11-17T10:19:54Z

Colorado U.S. Sens Mark Udall and Michael Bennet with 12 other Senate Democrats signed onto a letter urging Senate leaders weighing climate legislation to consider granting valuable credits to utilities that rely most heavily on coal. Udall and Bennet joined other perceived pro-climate legislation lawmakers such as Minnesota's Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar in making the argument. The lawmakers' proposal clearly aims to save money for residents in coal-dependent energy states like Colorado and Minnesota, but it moves against the spirit of the legislation, which is meant to discourage use of coal as an energy source.

Eli Davidson: Is The Battle of The Sexes Over? Your Sexual Harassment And What To Do About It

2009-11-06T14:58:14Z

I got splattered with hate tweets after my last post on sexual harassment. The white hot venom that came my way something I had never seen before. As an executive coach, I was surprised to hear of four cases of sexual harrassment in two weeks which prompted me to write the post. However, readers' comments on the last post show that there is a blazing fire of sexual harassment burning in many workplaces.

Lungfish said:

"At work I was once accused, falsely, of harassment and exonerated but not until the woman had ruined my work life and then she retracted her allegation and killed herself a few months later...

I am very careful never, ever to be in a situation where I am alone around children and try to avoid being near children at all because of the threat of being accused by some unstable parent..."

Summer Reyes-Carullo took protecting herself into her own hands- quite literally:

"It pays to know how to protect yourself (self defense). it comes in handy when confronted with people who physically harass / abuse you. i got to punch someone... knocking the air out of him and he never bothered me ever again and no one ever tried anything nasty with me ever"

I must admit that I scratched my head about the 15.9% of those sexual harassment charges filed by men. Hdaryl01 put this statistic into perspective:

"My business employs 15-20 18-25 year old male tradespeople, and previously employed 1 55 year old female administrator. ALL complaints came from my young macho immature testosterone driven blue collar male employees who drive loud jacked up "Chevy" or "Ford" 4X4's pickups AGAINST the staid "professional" older female. Some were shocked when she inquired over lunch if they shaved or waxed their genitals like she does, or had "hidden" piercings.,,,Others, were really uncomfortable with her unsolicited graphic Monday morning depictions of her sexual exploits on the weekend. Etc."

Javaz stated:
"I learned many lessons throughout my career, especially attending office parties after work when I was nearly raped in my early 30's by a very drunk coworker. I did break the rule and reported that man, and guess who was fired? Me."

There was such heated discussion, that I asked two of the top experts on the topic of sexual harassment, Barry Halote, Ph.D., and Allan Gerson, Ph.D., to weigh in on the issue.

"It has been said that there are at least two sides to every story. This will try to cover both sides of the sexual harassment topic. In this case there is the management side, (M), and the employee side, (E). Let us look at three factors from both sides, communication, respect, and office culture/politics.

Communication:
(M): Make clear the policy for the office regarding sexual harassment, and communicate it in a fashion that is easily understood. When in situations that might allow for a charge of harassment, be clear in what you have to say, not just in the words, but in tone, and in body language, which includes facial expression. Much can be made of the way in which something is said.

(E): If you think someone has said or done something that could be sexually harassing, tell that person straight out that you think what they have said or done is not okay with you. Let them explain. If that does no good, communicate this clearly to the next person up the chain of command from you. If the alleged perpetrator is that person, go to the next step up. Document what has happened, so the memory is fresh, and the information can be passed on without confusion.

Respect:
(M): Carry yourself in a manner which builds respect. Bosses or managers who are martinets, or conversely are everyone's pal do not put themselves in a place to be regarded with respect. On the one hand the tyrant builds resentment, which can be turned into actual or false accusations. The pal may put themselves in a position where they get too chummy and may say or do something, even in jest that could be construed as harassing. Respect others' space, physical and psychological.

(E): Respect yourself and others will treat you with respect. It is too easy to slip into familiarity with co-workers or management that goes beyond office decorum. Sometimes, because of the office culture, it is too easy to try to be "one of the boys", especially for women who have traditionally been left out. This can open you to remarks and behaviors that can rapidly deteriorate into discomfort, and possibly harassment. If this does not prevent harassment, respect yourself enough to take it to someone in the company who can help.

Culture/politics:
(M): Know the culture and the politics of the company. This is not restricted to the formal rules, but to the informal as well. Learn from others what goes on in the office, what is okay with them, and what is not. Learn who is comfortable within the office culture, and who is not. It may be that a close knit group is okay with certain behaviors or verbalizations, while others may not be. Know when it is okay to make a particular statement, and to whom. Know the culture. In one situation a boss became afraid even to say to his secretary that she looked nice, or to compliment a particular garment. This is overkill. Be aware of whom you say it to, and how you say it, but don't let paranoia persevere

(E): Offices are like families. Different people come in and out of each other's realm in a fluid manner over the day. Some can be spoken to in ways that would not be okay with others. Make it clear who you are in the "family" and what is okay and what is not. Harking back to communication let it be known in a frank, but polite, and diplomatic way. Does the office culture/politics suit you? Can you change it? Can it be changed? These can be discussed, as in well functioning families."

How are these issues addressed in your workplace? What advice would you give to someone that is challenged with sexual harassment?

Eli Davidson is a nationally recognized motivational speaker and executive coach. Her book, "Funky to Fabulous: Surefire Success Stories for the Savvy, Sassy and Swamped", (Oak Grove Publishing) has won three national book awards. Eli is a reinvention catalyst, who can transform your professional and personal life from Funky to Fabulous with her ten, trademarked Turnaround Techniques that create rapid and remarkable results. Check out her blog at http://funkytofabulous.blogspot.com/

*Follow HuffPostLiving on Twitter and become a fan of Huffington Post Living on Facebook*

Michael Markarian: Helping Vets, Pets, and Primates

2009-10-22T17:28:11Z

Congress took two steps in recent days on animal issues, as part of its larger bills related to the Department of Defense and military spending.

I wrote back in July about legislation introduced by Senators Al Franken (D-Minn.) and Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) and Representatives Ron Klein (D-Fla.) and Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) with the goal of helping to place service dogs with disabled veterans. I'm pleased tell you that that the final National Defense Authorization Act for 2010 approved by both the House and Senate includes a provision backed by Franken, Isakson, Klein, and Whitfield, which instructs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to partner with nonprofit organizations to conduct "a three-year study to assess the benefits, feasibility, and advisability of using service dogs for the treatment or rehabilitation of veterans with physical or mental injuries or disabilities, including post-traumatic stress disorder."

Pairing vets with pets is good for both the
soldier and canine.

A study doesn't translate into immediate action, but it does provide a pathway for pushing a new issue forward in a military culture that is sometimes resistant to change. We expect a study to confirm what we've long known: that pairing vets with pets is good for both soldier and canine. For wounded warriors and disabled veterans, caring for a pet can help them reenter society and minimize stress and depression. Service dogs can also reduce the suicide rate among veterans, and provide other critical help -- such as letting them know when it's time to take medication, waking them from terrifying nightmares, or detecting changes in their breathing, perspiration, or scent to ward off panic attacks.

We hope that such programs will be designed to help rescued dogs as well as service members, and such inspiration can be found in the work of retired Marine Lieutenant Colonel Jay Kopelman and celebrity dog trainer Tamar Geller. Tamar's program, Operation Heroes and Hounds, for example, is teaching wounded warriors from Iraq and Afghanistan how to train shelter dogs to make the dogs more adoptable. Both canines and humans learn a new set of skills that will make a positive impact on their future.

Secondly, the Department of Defense Appropriations bill for 2010 included a provision by Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) directing the Army to produce a report on the use of live primates in training relating to chemical and biological agents. In one form of chemical casualty management training, anesthetized primates are given a chemical called physostigmine, which simulates exposure to a nerve gas by causing cholinergic intoxication. This intoxication may include symptoms such as salivation, difficulty swallowing, diarrhea, abdominal pain, vomiting, increased heart rate, muscle twitches, weakness, paralysis, seizures and coma.

Byrd's provision -- which was approved unanimously in the Senate version of the bill and still needs to be reconciled with the House version -- seeks to examine the fiscal and animal care issues involved with keeping these long-lived creatures in research, and the costs of phasing out the use of primates and converting to human simulators or other alternatives in such training. Byrd, who is a lifelong champion of animal protection and the recipient last year of The HSUS's Joseph Wood Krutch Medal, said that, "It is right and humane to call attention to our responsibility for the welfare of animals and I look forward to the findings in the DOD report."

We are grateful to Senators Byrd, Franken, and Isakson, and Representatives Klein and Whitfield for advancing these important measures, which reflect the broader celebration of the human-animal bond and the need to confront practices such as invasive research on great apes. Thanks to these leaders, Congress continues to make progress toward improving our care for the men and women who serve our country, and improving our care of animals, too.

Nathan Havey: Republicans for Rape: Lets Get Real

2009-10-21T11:36:33Z

If you've been on the net in the past few days, you have probably seen republicansforrape.org. This tongue-in-cheek site satirizes the positions of the 30 senators who voted against an amendment to alter the law regarding mandatory binding arbitration.

A few friends and I posted the site to our Facebook walls, and a lively discussion has sprung up on whether the site goes offensively too far. Now, I love it when Facebook can be used as a space for the hashing out of weighty things, but it seems to me that there is a major blind spot in much of this discussion that needs to be dealt with head on.

It is wise to point out that, without context, a vote on a given bill can be spun any number of ways. Both parties do this all the time. So here is what some of the Senators said about their own votes:

Senators Corker, Chambliss and Isakson justified their 'no' votes on the grounds that the amendment would prohibit workers from using mandatory binding arbitration even if they wanted it. Senator Thune said he might have voted for it if it had been narrowed to cover rape rather than extended to cover other sexual-related abuses. Still other Senators said since DoD opposed it on the grounds of enforcement challenges, they decided to as well.

The trouble is, in context, some of these rationales are based on falsehoods, and others are out of balance with the issue at hand. In the case of Corker Chambilss and Isakson, their rationale would work, were it not explicitly spelled out in the bill that employees would still be able to elect to use arbitration; they simply wouldn't be forced into it.

Thune seems to think (contrary to civil rights law) that only instances of rape deserve a day in court. Those Senators who sided with DoD's reasoning said that because DoD may not know about these incidents, they can't be expected to enforce this law.

It is this last line of reasoning that is the most important point to hash out.

Consider that rape is only the most extreme incarnation of a host of acts of sexual discrimination against women. From cat-calling, to verbal harassment, to unwanted touching and so on.

Consider that the present moment in our history in which we can even talk about these things has been the result of a long, hard struggle towards women's equality. The origin of rape law is in property law i.e. we only care if women are raped because they are the property of men and rape damages men's property. Also consider attitudes toward sexual harassment and manipulation in our recent past (Mad Men does a decent job with this).

Today, we find ourselves in a situation in which much conversation about rape and society is supported by a fatally flawed assumption - namely that rape, and the broader spectrum of sex discrimination/violence is positive, or intentional. This is not always true. The system as it exists tolerates and reinforces such discrimination. Discrimination is the status quo.

At one extreme, one in six women in the United States will be the victim of sexual violence in her lifetime (RAINN). At the other, controlling for differing industries and employment levels, women earn $0.77 to the dollar that men earn. And this is the best it has ever been.

If you will try that on for a moment, you may begin to see a different perspective. There is a long list of supporting facts that I will forgo here, but it is critically important, particularly for the men reading this, that you take a moment and really consider the idea that we are living in a system that started with women as property and is still a long way from 'equal.'

I assert that it is only through the active disruption of that system, the calling out of its flaws and injustices, that we can move toward a more equitable one. This disruption is not only on an institutional level, but particularly for us men, on a personal one as well.

In that light, nit-picking arguments about the difficulties of implementation, false arguments on employee choice, and distinguishing rape, from other, lesser offenses badly misses the point.

Do these Senators consciously support rape? Of course not. But their actions absolutely support a status quo in which rape and sexual violence flourish.

Pointing that out to people - including the Senators in question as the site in question does - is the path to redress this issue. In part because its controversy sparks discussion like this one.

So as this conversation continues, ask yourself - What is the real cause for outrage: republicansforrape.org, or the fact that Jamie Leigh Jones was beaten, gang raped, locked in a shipping container and abused to the point where her breasts were dislodged - and can't get a day in court?

Tom Sullivan: Projection TV: Real Americans Watch Fox News

2009-10-20T13:13:20Z

A focus-group study by Democracy Corps explains that Republican base voters live in "a world apart from the rest of America."

The Tea Parties of August already made that pretty clear.

Republican base voters believe themselves to be an oppressed minority that possesses "knowledge and insight that the majority of Americans -- whether too lazy or too misguided to find it for themselves -- do not possess." And -- surprise -- they get their special knowledge and insight largely from Fox News.

In 1999, Al Franken wrote the same thing. During the Clinton health care debate, the Annenberg School for Communications found that conservative talk radio listeners judged themselves the most informed on the topic. Testing, however, revealed that they were the least informed.

Franken wondered [my edit],

But why would people so woefully lacking in the basic facts of an issue think they were the best informed? Social scientists call the phenomenon "pseudo-certainty." I call it "being a f*#king moron."

A decade later we have Glenn Beck reinforcing his viewers' paranoid proclivities and helping them project their own darkest impulses onto opponents.

According to Democracy Corps, four core beliefs set the Republican base apart:

1. Deception and a Hidden Agenda -- "Obama is deliberately and ruthlessly advancing a 'secret agenda' to bankrupt our country and dramatically expand government control over all aspects of our daily lives."
2. Speed -- Obama is implementing change rapidly to keep ordinary Americans from knowing what he is doing.
3. Driving Government to the Brink and Total Control -- Obama is deliberately trying to burden America with so much debt that citizens will be unable to resist efforts to implement Obama's ultimate plan ...
4. The Ultimate Goal: Socialism and an End to Liberties -- Government takeover of health care is just the first step towards a complete suppression of liberty by our inefficient, ineffective and corrupt government.

It is a pretty stunning case of projection, as one of Andrew Sullivan's readers suggests:

[Obama] is the out of control spender when they sat on their hands through all of Bush's malfeasance. That is why his talking to schoolchildren is dangerous when our government wiretapping its citizens wasn't. That is why saving the financial system from years of Republican regulation is taking away our future. The more evil revealed about the right's excesses on torture, or wars of choice, or nearly destroying the economy, the more evil Obama will look in their eyes, as they cannot tolerate owning responsibility, because in their own minds they are only good.

Paul Rosenberg explains the viewpoint in a separate discussion at Open Left:

[T]he disconnect is particularly strikingly. That is, until you take a step back, and see the underlying consistency ... in their minds, they alone are America. If they're not running things, then it's not America ... If you are the real America and everyone else is not, well, then, you can do pretty much whatever you want -- and do it all in the name of America.

Conservatives and independents in the Democracy Corps focus group were sensitive to charges that racism is behind their criticism of Obama. So much so, that they came back to it "again and again."

However much it is, their discomfort is not all about race. It's broader. It's tribal.

"Real Americans" are easily threatened, and view those outside their tribe with suspicion, like teenagers in the mall who they are convinced are there to shoplift -- illegitimate, untrustworthy, low-caste Irresponsibles, bad apples who don't deserve America. Those outside their tribe don't deserve to carry the flag, don't deserve to wear the uniform or to enjoy the blessings of liberty. Especially, they don't deserve to vote.

"Real Americans" believe America's bad apples pay no taxes. The "lucky duckies" don't even pay sales tax, property tax, tax on gasoline, on heating oil, cigarette tax, telephone excise tax, unemployment tax, Social Security tax, Medicare and Medicaid.

"Real Americans" would love to repeal the 16th Amendment, but so long as they pay income tax, they'll be the betters of countrymen who they think pay any less. They will rail about how unfairly they're treated and what a drag on the economy and their fortunes are the great unwashed who have turned this once great country into one "where poor people can put billionaires out of business."

These Atlases see themselves stoically carrying America upon their shoulders while being dragged relentlessly down by the grubby, grasping hands of the less well-born; by people not as honest, upstanding and hard-working as they are; by the parasites of capitalism who contribute nothing; by deadbeats and losers who have structured their lives so they can spend them sucking the teat of real America.

No wonder they feel "a world apart." And Fox News is there to remind them, if they ever have doubts.

Defense Department Opposed Franken's Anti-Rape Amendment

2009-10-19T19:14:44Z

When thirty Republicans lined up against an amendment that would have required defense contractors to allow their employees access to U.S. courts in cases of rape or sexual assault, Jon Stewart ripped them to pieces.

"I understand we're a divided country, some disagreements on health care. How is ANYONE against this?" he wondered.

It's a question, it turns out, best addressed to the White House.

The vote against the amendment has sparked outrage at the all-male, all-white bloc of thirty Republican senators. HuffPost readers have been particularly infuriated by the GOP opposition and have regularly posted the names of the offending thirty in the comment section of even unrelated stories. A mock website - www.republicansforrape.org -- has sprung up.

The men had an ally in opposition that has so far gone unreported: the Department of Defense.

"The DoD opposes the proposed amendment," reads a message sent from the administration to the Senate on October 6, the day the amendment passed by a 68-30 vote.

"The Department of Defense, the prime contractor, and higher tier subcontractors may not be in a position to know about such things. Enforcement would be problematic, especially in cases where privity of contract does not exist between parties within the supply chain that supports a contract," reads the DoD note. "It may be more effective to seek a statutory prohibition of all such arrangements in any business transaction entered into within the jurisdiction of the United States, if these arrangements are deemed to pose an unacceptable method of recourse."

The amendment, sponsored by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), is intended to address the type of Kafka-esque treatment Jamie Leigh Jones received from the U.S. justice system after she was gang-raped by fellow KBR workers. The defense contractor argued that her employment contract required that her claim be heard in private arbitration rather than in open court.

A White House spokesman said that the DoD opposition is overstated in the message sent to Congress. "We support the intent of the amendment, and we're working with the conferees to make sure that it is enforceable," said spokesman Tommy Vietor when asked about the DoD statement.

HuffPost also asked the thirty Republicans why they opposed the amendment. Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) was the only one to provide a statement when this story was first posted. We'll update it with further statements when they come in.

"This vote has been grossly misunderstood, oversimplified, and misreported. Senator Corker, the father of two daughters, believes what happened to Jamie Leigh Jones is abhorrent and that the culprits should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law; further, he agrees that rape, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress should not be arbitrated, but the Franken amendment went far beyond the ill it was trying to remedy to encompass most possible employment claims," said Laura Lefler Herzog, communications director for Corker.

Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) and Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) both provided statement to the Sun News in Macon.

"This would be a major, fundamental change in U.S. labor law and I believe it would be very detrimental to employees to eliminate arbitration as an option," Isakson said. The statement inaccurately portrays Franken's amendment: Employees would still be able to elect to use arbitration; they simply wouldn't be forced into it.

Chambliss added, also inaccurately: "If that happens, these employees' only recourse will be to litigate suits in court, which is a very lengthy, expensive and time-consuming process."

Mike Stark, a blogger with The Crooked Dope, filmed hallway interviews with Sens. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) and John Thune (R-S.D.) and asked them about their no votes. Cochran told Stark that rape victims deserve their day in court, but it's not the government's place to dictate the terms of employment contracts. Thune said that he might have supported the amendment if it had been narrowed to cover rape rather than extended to cover other sexual-related abuses.

On the Senate floor, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said that he opposed the amendment because it "would impose the will of Congress on private individuals and companies in a retroactive fashion, invalidating employment contracts without due process of law." However, because the amendment applies to the fiscal year 2010 defense bill, it would not apply retroactively.

Sessions added one more reason for opposing it. "I think we should listen to the Department of Defense and vote no on this amendment," he said.

Watch Franken pitch his amendment:

UPDATE: North Carolina GOP Sen. Richard Burr's spokesman David Ward sends in this statement: "Senator Burr believes violence against women is despicable and intolerable, and those who have committed or abetted such heinous crimes should be subjected to the full weight of the law. Unfortunately, the Franken amendment would not do anything to protect women from violence or to punish criminals. If it had, Senator Burr would certainly have voted for the amendment. Instead, rather than protect women from rape, the Franken amendment prohibits contractors who have employment arbitration agreements with their employees from being paid for the work they have done for the military. In fact, the Obama Defense Department opposed the amendment. As current federal law states and the courts have already upheld in the Jones case, arbitration agreements are non-binding when it comes to criminal acts, like rape. Unfortunately, the Franken amendment was a cynical attempt by the trial lawyers to eliminate arbitration agreements, which limit their fees, behind the guise of protecting women."

Jeff Muskus and Julian Hattem contributed to this report

Jon Stewart Takes On 30 Republicans Who Voted Against Franken Rape Amendment (VIDEO)

2009-10-15T09:06:05Z

In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her Halliburton/KBR co-workers while working in Iraq and locked in a shipping container for over a day to prevent her from reporting her attack. The rape occurred outside of U.S. criminal jurisdiction, but to add serious insult to serious injury she was not allowed to sue KBR because her employment contract said that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration--a process that overwhelmingly favors corporations.

This year, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment that would deny defense contracts to companies that ask employees to sign away the right to sue. It passed, but it wasn't the slam dunk Jon Stewart expected. Instead the amendment received 30 nay votes all from Republicans. "I understand we're a divided country, some disagreements on health care. How is ANYONE against this?" He asked.

He went on to show video of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) arguing that it's not the government's place to decide who the government does business with and juxtaposed that with Republican sentiment on how the government should deal with ACORN. "I guess it's an efficiency thing. You don't want to waste tax-payer money giving it to someone who advises fake prostitutes how to commit imaginary crimes, you want to give it to Halliburton because they're committing real gang rape."

WATCH:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Rape-Nuts

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Ron Paul Interview

Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter!

Michael Kubin: Obama Goes to Oslo: The Quiz

2009-10-13T16:35:59Z

1. President Obama will begin his Nobel Peace Prize lecture by saying
     a. Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses,      Honorable members of the Norwegian Nobel      Committee, Excellencies, Ladies and      Gentlemen
     b. Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses,      Honorable members of the Norwegian Nobel      Committee, Mayor Daley, Excellencies, Ladies      and Gentlemen
     c. 'Sup?

2. Which of this year's Peace Prize runners-up will he acknowledge?
     a. Indian economist Amartya Sen
     b. Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez
     c. Senator Al Franken

3. Which of the following previous American Peace Prize winners will he quote?
     a. Martin Luther King: "In a dark confused world the kingdom of God may yet reign in the hearts      of men."
     b. Jimmy Carter: "The bond of our common humanity is stronger than the divisiveness of our      fears and prejudices."
     c. Theodore Roosevelt: "My critics believe this honor was bestowed upon me simply because I am      not William McKinley."

4. Which of his other honors and achievements will he cite?
     a. I graduated from Columbia College and Harvard Law School
     b. I am the first African-American President
     c. I may already be a winner in this year's Publishing Clearinghouse Sweeptstakes

5. He will mention his directive to close the Guantanamo Bay prison by saying
     a. I'm bringing the prisoners to the United States to stand a fair trial
     b. I'm transferring prisoners to stand judgment in various countries
     c. I'll be sending the inmates to Rio de Janeiro in time for the 2016 Olympics

6. He will discuss changing the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy by announcing
     a. Something better that I can't discuss at the moment
     b. Making war in a kinder, gentler way
     c. A new policy called "Please tell, but not TMI."

7. He will address the question of why the Nobel Peace Prize is being awarded to a wartime president by saying
     a. It is another instance of the mess I inherited from the previous administration.
     b. Only a wartime President can make peace, just as only a peacetime President can make war.
     c. I look forward to receiving the first Nobel War Prize

8. He will address those who differ with his views on diplomacy by saying
     a. Those who differ with my views on policy must be members of the previous administration.
     b. We are all human beings under God and so we must extend the hand of friendship to anyone      willing to speak about peace.
     c. We are all human beings under God and so we must extend the hand of friendship to anyone      willing to speak about peace. Except for the Dalai Lama.

9. He will discuss changing the United States from ideological bully to cooperative partner by saying
     a. In the words of JFK, "Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate."
     b. In the words of the Koran, "We have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know      one another."
     c. We'll be sending another 40,000 troops to Afghanistan.

10. Which issues that hinge on the ability of world leaders to harness the passion and hope of all mankind will he mention?
     a. Managing global climate change
     b. Ridding the world of nuclear weapons
     c. Bringing peace to the Middle East
     d. Installing a college football playoff system

11. His stirring, emotional finish will be
     a. "I have laid out our blueprint for world peace and progress in clear and concise terms."
     b. "Today the world faces unprecedented problems, but we also have unprecedented means for      solving them."
     c. "I hope to win the 2010 Nobel Prize for Literature for this lecture."

Meet The Senators Who Voted Against The Franken Amendment

2009-10-07T15:56:35Z

I think that all homo sapiens can understand how the mere thought of an organization that receives government money through contract mechanisms being tangentially involved in setting up a fake tax shelter for a fake pimp and his fake prostitution ring of fake prostitutes can justifiably lead to lawmakers going absolutely cross-eyed with white-hot, impotent rage. But what happens when a similarly taxpayer-endowed contractor attempts to cover up employee-on-employee gang rape by locking up the victim in a shipping container without food and water and threatening her with reprisals if she report the incident? Somehow, it doesn't engender the same level of anger!

Credit new Senator Al Franken however, for introducing an amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill that would punish contractors if they "restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court." You'd think that this would be a no-brainer, actually, but that didn't stop Jeff Sessions from labeling Franken's effort a "political attack directed at Halliburton." Franken, of course, pointed out that his amendment would apply broadly, to all contractors, because otherwise, 'twould be a bill of attainder, right? Right?

Franken's amendment ended up passing, 68-30. Here's a list of the Senators who showed broad support for Roman Polanski by voting against it:

Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

ADDENDUM: It's been pointed out to me that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce lobbied against the Franken amendment as well:

Republicans point out that the amendment was opposed by a host of business interests, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and applies to a wide range of companies, including IBM and Boeing.

I guess we must cover up crimes like rape in order to save capitalism.

RELATED:
Franken Wins Bipartisan Support For Legislation Reining In KBR's Treatment Of Rape [ThinkProgress]

PREVIOUSLY, on the HUFFINGTON POST:
Franken Gets His First Amendment Passed By Roll Call Vote

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Franken Gets His First Amendment Passed By Roll Call Vote

2009-10-07T10:47:14Z

After operating largely under the radar during his first few months in office, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) is slowly beginning to make political ripples.

On Tuesday night, the Minnesota Democrat got his first piece of legislation passed by the United States Senate via roll call vote. The amendment stopped federal funding for those defense contractors who used mandatory arbitration clauses to deny victims of assault the right to bring their case to court. It passed by a 68-30 margin with nine Republicans joining each voting Democrat. And in the immediate aftermath, Franken was granted the chance to revel, ever so slightly, in his victory.

"The story came to my attention of Jamie Leigh Jones who, when she was 19, went to Iraq to work for [defense contractor] KBR and she was put in the barracks with 400 men and was sexually harassed," Franken told the Huffington Post in a brief interview shortly after the vote. "She complained. But they didn't do anything about it. She was drugged and gang raped and they locked her up in a shipping container. She tried to sue KBR and they said you have a mandatory arbitration clause in your contract. She tried to fight back and said this is ridiculous. She took it to court and they have been fighting her for three years."

"This bill would make it so that anybody in business with the Department of the Defense can't do this," he concluded emphatically. "They can't have mandatory arbitration on issues like assault and battery."

Franken's amendment, which was added to the FY2010 Defense Appropriations Bill, didn't steal the headlines from the other news of the day: the ongoing debate over the war in Afghanistan. But it did add another notch in his belt as he makes the transition from popular comedian to serious politician. The senator has largely avoided the national spotlight in favor of pursuing a behind-the-scenes yeoman-like approach. Indeed, when asked to discuss what role congressional Democrats would play in adding conditions to any potential troop increase in Afghanistan, he demurred, saying there wasn't enough time in the brief interview to address such a weighty topic.

Since winning election, the senator has had several memorable moments and achievements. He was praised for strong questioning -- and a solid Perry Mason joke -- during the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. And, in mid July, a bill he authored to provide more service dog services to wounded veterans was adopted by the Senate through unanimous consent.

That piece of legislation, like the one passed on Tuesday night, was a low-risk but eminently logical effort -- something that could engender bipartisan support by addressing a plain and evident problem. But in his conversation with the Huffington Post, Franken indicated that his eyes were set on a broader topic, one that his amendment only began to address.

"One of the things I campaigned on is the fact that we haven't done oversight on our contractors," he said. "Part of the job of Congress is to do oversight which we really didn't do it, especially from 2001 to 2007. It was actually almost criminal that we didn't do it on our contractors in Iraq because there was all this money that was wasted and lost on fraud and abuse. It was totally incompetent and in contributed to the collapse of the country because the reconstruction was done so wrong."

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Howie Klein: Senate Passes Amendment To Prevent KBR and Halliburton From Getting Away With Raping Employees (Literally)

2009-10-06T20:42:13Z

Today the Senate "debated" the Department of Defense appropriations bill passed by the House (H.R. 3326) for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010. Republicans added frivolous amendments all day, that were defeated one after the other. The amendment du jour, however, came from Al Franken D-MN.

And what a doozy it is! S. Amend. 2588 simply prohibits "the use of funds for any Federal contract with Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc., any of their subsidiaries or affiliates, or any other contracting party if such contractor or a subcontractor at any tier under such contract requires that employees or independent contractors sign mandatory arbitration clauses regarding certain claims." The "certain claims" have to do with sexual assault.

I might have phrased it differently myself -- like "prohibits any member of the executive team and Board of Directors of Halliburton and KBR from ever getting out of prison for any reason whatsoever" or something like that. But my amendment probably wouldn't have gotten many votes, unlike Franken's which passed 68-30, every Democrat being joined by 9 Republicans. (Does anyone know if LeMieux has to call Charlie Crist and get his OK before he votes?)

Franken offered the amendment because a KBR employee, Jamie Leigh Jones, age 19, was raped by a bunch of KBR workers in Iraq and then locked up in a crate when she tried reporting them. After she was rescued and returned to America she was informed that she couldn't take KBR to court because there was some fine print in her -- and everyone else's -- contracts that don't permit any such thing. [See the video below.]

Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, an especially corrupt member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was the key spokesperson for the GOP against the legislation which he called unfair to Halliburton, one of the biggest Republican Party contributors in history.

David Colbert: Political Celebrity and Publishing Tastes

2009-10-06T08:00:00Z

In most cities, a bookstore browser picks up a book and reads the back cover and the jacket flaps. In Washington, D.C., you see browsers who go straight to the index. They're looking for their own names. Biographies and histories are the life eternal for politicians.

But there's nothing eternal about most political books, even the bestsellers.

It's a general rule of publishing that books sell by knocking the sitting president or whoever controls Congress, regardless of party. Before Al Franken took his oath of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and sat quietly at his desk in the Senate chamber, where decorum is enforced like omertà, he published a book about George W. Bush titled Lies (And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them).

Somewhere, Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina is muttering, How did Franken get away with that?

Angry books sell on emotion. That's why they'll always sell better than cooler, thoughtful books. It's also why they're soon forgotten.

Now that President Obama is in the White House, the bestseller list is dominated by the Obama haters like Michelle Malkin, Mark R. Levin and Bill O'Reilly. Senator Franken should be glad he found a day job.

Left or right, the popularity of these books has no relation to the political legacy of their targets. The first volume of Jacob Weisberg's long-running Bushisms series appeared in early 2001. It didn't shame President Bush into taking his intelligence briefings seriously before 9/11. It didn't dissuade Congress from giving the president his Iraq War. Historians will judge President Bush by his actions, not by his opponents' horror at his gaffes.

Emotions fade over time. When an era moves from the Current Affairs aisle to History, publishers become coldhearted about it. They like winners.

That doesn't mean the winner of a single election or two. It means the people who successfully shape our world.

When President Obama won the 2008 election, and news stories referred to a "New New Deal," editors looked back to FDR's administration and its legacy of bestsellers. If "Change" was truly going to come, profits would follow.

It remains to be seen if anyone in the Obama administration, other than President Obama himself, will match the record of FDR's secretary of the interior, Harold L. Ickes, who published three volumes of memoirs and a separate autobiography. But we already know what happened to FDR's opposition -- the dogs that barked as the parade passed by.

It's a cautionary tale for today's angry opposition.

During Roosevelt's presidency the GOP got all the attention it gets now--for the same reasons, too. It fought Roosevelt every step of the way. It became strident and hateful--maybe more hateful than it is today. Some of its senior members even managed to make race an issue. Roosevelt, from a famous Dutch family of Old New York, was privately called "Joosevelt," and the New Deal was the "Jew Deal."

That era's right wing also had its Malkins and Levins and O'Reillys, its Becks and Limbaughs. Father (Charles) Coughlin, whose pulpit was his radio show, made today's screechers sound like Miss Manners. Fulton Lewis Jr., who presented himself as a fair and balanced reporter, was another radio and newspaper alarmist. For the first few years of the FDR presidency, Fulton's column was called "The Washington Sideshow," which suited a man who was not so much a journalist as a carnival barker.

Three GOP politicians in particular became the public face of this righteous but wrongheaded opposition. Joseph W. Martin Jr. was a representative from Massachusetts and for a time was chairman of the Republican National Committee. Bruce Barton was already nationally famous as an advertising executive and author when he became a member from New York of the House of Representatives. Hamilton Fish was a longtime House member from New York.

These three hated Roosevelt. They thought the New Deal was Communism and "un-American." (Fish chaired "the Fish Committee," an early version of the House Committee on Un-American Activities.) They fought Roosevelt to allow Nazi Germany free rein in Europe.

Some people loved them. They made the mistake of listening to those fans. By the 1940 election, a larger portion of the voters had begun to tire of the hateful and isolationist rhetoric.

That's when Roosevelt delivered a well-timed punch that knocked out all three at once.

In two speeches at Madison Square Garden -- the home arena for two of them -- Roosevelt talked about them, in a singsong rhyme, as "Martin, Barton, and Fish." He made it sound as if he were saying the names from the bedtime lullaby, "Wynken, Blynken, and Nod."

It was a jingle that stuck in voters' heads. Bruce Barton, who was running for a U.S. Senate seat that year, lost the race and left politics. Hamilton Fish hung onto his seat a bit longer but was defeated in the 1944 election and also retired from public office. Roosevelt, of course, was reelected to an unprecedented third term in 1940 and a fourth in 1944. Martin survived but was discredited.

We don't read much about Martin, Barton, and Fish today. When a history professor wrote a book about Barton in 2005, his conservative Chicago publisher admitted on the flap copy, "surprisingly few people know of Bruce Barton today: he is the most celebrated twentieth-century American without a biography." We don't listen to recordings of Father Coughlin or Fulton Lewis, either.

The reason is simple: They were on the wrong side of battles that made America better. That's what matters in the long run. Angry politicians and authors may sell books today, but in time most people will forget why anyone paid attention.

Like Martin, Barton, and Fish, the celebrities of this era's angry opposition are unlikely to be in an index unless they squeak into a footnote.

Chris Weigant: Friday Talking Points [95] -- A Call To Action

2009-09-25T20:30:32Z

"Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the party."

Of course, this really should be (in today's inclusive society): "Now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of the party." But what it really should say is something more like: "Now is the time for all good men and women to pick up the phone and give their party representative an earful about what it actually means to be a member of that party, and that we actually expect them to stand up and vote for what the party not only believes in at its core but also what we were promised in the last election, and (by the way) why we gave you such overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress to play around with -- but the time for playing is over, and it's time for you to now either stand tall with the people in your party, or admit you're just a corporate whore at heart." But that's a little hard to type, so maybe not. We'll get to this ranting and raving in the Talking Points part of the program, after a quick trip down Memory Lane.

But before we get to our Memory Lane voyage, we have to take a detour on the Cool Historic Trivia Bypass, just because it's Friday and because I managed to work a segue into that last paragraph on the subject of typing. Because while most everyone knows the phrase "Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the party," few know where it comes from. Many (myself included, until about five minutes ago) assumed it was a quote from some heavy thinker, or (alternatively) some rabble-rousing politician. It's origins, however, are much humbler than that. Or, perhaps, more corporate. The phrase was used to sell typewriters. Or, to be even more accurate, to sell the idea of a particular typewriter. It was reportedly typed out by an early typewriter inventor, to demonstrate his new machine. It then entered a race which took place throughout the 20th century to be the sample sentence of choice for typing teachers (which it eventually lost to the all-alphabetically-inclusive "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog"). Which leads me to remember my favorite typewriter-sales story, which I heard as a rumor and have not even bothered to investigate -- because it's so much more fun to believe the conspiracy-theory nature of it: part of the reason we have such a crazy "QWERTY" keyboard design is the fact that the typewriter salesmen did not know how to type. So, to make things easier for them, they put all the letters in the word "typewriter" in the top row (try typing it!). This made it easier for the salesmen to demonstrate the usefulness of the machine. As I said, I don't even care if this story is true or not, because it's so plausible, and I love a good conspiracy theory.

But we have to yank the steering wheel of this column back from this rambling bypass to our first detour from today's topic (sorry, as I said, it's Friday, y'know?).

For this one, we have to get a little serious.

Because the world is a poorer place this week -- Mary Travers is in it no more. This is a stunning event to anyone of a particular age who grew up in liberal households. Because Peter, Paul and Mary were about as common in such homes as peanut butter and jelly.

I was pretty much was weaned on Peter, Paul and Mary. The first song I knew the words to well enough to teach others was "I'm Leavin' On A Jet Plane" (yes, I know now that John Denver wrote it, but Peter, Paul and Mary made a hit out of it). This was in kindergarten, I should add. It's got a great rhythm to it, if you happen to be on a swingset (Don't believe me? Try it. Go out and swing, and sing it at the top of your voice. At least when the guys in white coats come to take you away after you've terrified your neighbors, you'll know that I'm right). Ahem.

I have a copy of their first eponymously-titled album which has been signed by all three of them, and personally made out to my parents. My father, when he was a college student, wandered by his university's library and saw music equipment being set up. When he realized who was going to appear, he tore down the street to get my mother, and they both wound up watching Peter, Paul and Mary perform for free (assumably they were doing a tour of big universities to promote the album). They rushed down the street to get a copy of their debut album, and waited in line to get it signed.

So, as I said, I was pretty heavily indoctrinated with the group at an astoundingly early age. There were other folk albums in my parents' record collection from other folk artists, but the Peter, Paul and Mary one was the one I swiped when I went off to college myself (I still have it, Dad, sorry about that). Ahem.

I met Mary and Paul inadvertently myself, as well. I was down on the Mall in D.C. for some demonstration or another (probably anti-nuke, this was the late 70s or early 80s), and got my own chance to see the group perform for free. I've since seen them at places like Wolf Trap (the original one, before it burned down), the Kennedy Center, and elsewhere -- but it's always more fun to see music for free, especially in the carnival atmosphere of a political rally. In any case, I was walking around a perimeter fence to rejoin my group at one point, and realized with a start that I was strolling about three feet from Mary and Paul. The little temporary chicken-wire fence I was walking along evidently fenced off the "backstage" area. Anyway, for the first time in my life I felt that "I don't know what to say" feeling we all feel when meeting a celebrity. I think I told them I enjoyed their set, but I could easily have stood there and said "gah... urgh... feh..." (memories are tricky things, I have to admit). After a few seconds, Mary walked away to greet someone else. I do remember that Paul was nice enough to throw away a soda can I had been lugging around (looking for a trash can -- this was before the Era Of Recycling had taken hold). Somehow, it was easier to talk to Paul than Mary. Perhaps being a teenage boy had something to do with it. Anything's possible.

In any case, this story isn't going anywhere, it's just a side excursion down Memory Lane to see all the lemon trees there.

As I said, the world's a poorer place now that it doesn't have Mary Travers in it. That's really my only point.

But enough schmaltz -- let's get back to politics!

It has been a mostly-impressive week for Democrats all around. Which made it hard to single out the most impressive from the pack this week. So before we get the actual Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award (the coveted "Golden Backbone"), we first must tip our column's metaphorical hat to a few who, in a normal week, probably would have won their own MIDOTW, but this week will have to settle for an Honorable Mention.

First up is Senator Paul G. Kirk Jr., who is now the junior senator from Massachusetts by dint of a brand-new law passed because of the tragic death of Senator Ted Kennedy. Kirk comes pre-approved by the Kennedy family, which is not hard to understand because he was a Kennedy staffer. His job is to warm the seat for five months, not run for the special election to really replace Kennedy, and vote a strict party line in the meantime. He is most likely qualified for all three of these requirements. In any case, we welcome the newest Democratic senator to Washington, which incidentally puts the Democrats back up to an effective (OK, sometimes not so effective) 60-vote majority once again.

Next up is a group award for the House Progressives. The caucus is (gasp!) actually holding together in unity for the public option, and the Blue Dogs are reportedly in disarray and confusion -- and fear of being kicked out of office next year. Nancy Pelosi has been adequately standing behind the Progressives, and whip counts seem to indicate that the strength is there to get a public option out of the House. So for holding the line, instead of scattering in the wind (as they have been known to do in the past), we have to honor the House Progressives here. Of course, the true test is the actual votes, but so far the group looks pretty united, which is good news.

And now two surprise Honorable Mentions. The first goes to none other than Majority Leader Harry Reid in the Senate. Reid, earlier this week, sounded pretty resolved to use budget reconciliation to get healthcare reform done with only 50 votes, if Republicans succeed in blocking all other avenues to get it passed. He also strongly indicated that he was going to take a week of vacation away from all senators, unless healthcare reform is actually done. Most people don't even get Columbus Day off, so it's pretty hard to argue that the Senate deserves an entire week off for the holiday, meaning Reid could use this to his advantage in a direct appeal to The People.

Of course, Reid's talked a good game before and then wimped out when it came time to act, so we'll see, we'll see. But at least he's saying the right things, for once.

The second surprise Honorable Mention goes to Senator Max Baucus. While he has been mostly a disappointment (to put it mildly) in the healthcare debate so far, he had a fairly good week. He smacked down the healthcare giant Humana after he discovered they were sending scare-tactic letters out to seniors warning them they were essentially going to be left to die in a forest if the Democrats passed healthcare reform. Baucus gently reminded Humana that they took lots of federal dough and that they weren't allowed to use it for political reasons, which predictably enraged Republicans. Baucus has also been moving the debate along in his committee, while they ponder over 560 amendments. In doing so, he has (once again) enraged Republicans, who know at this point that their only hope of derailing healthcare reform is endless stalling and delaying tactics -- which Baucus has been smacking down repeatedly.

But the first of two MIDOTW awards goes to Representative Alan Grayson of Florida, who has been pointing out that in the extraordinary attempts to de-fund ACORN, Congress is writing laws which will demand that the biggest 10 military contractors are also de-funded. Here he is in an interview with Salon's Glenn Greenwald:

"...it is true that 10 out of the 10 biggest defense contractors have been convicted of fraud at one time or another in the past few years, and ACORN hasn't, it's difficult to frame any bill, whatever one's intent, to punish ACORN and keep ACORN from being funded by fed contracts, without a lot of what the Republicans would consider to be collateral damage, and that's exactly what we saw in this bill. This bill, taken literally, at its words, actually forbids and prohibits fed funding of virtually every large defense contractor in America. And that's a result that comes from the fact that virtually every large defense contractor in America is crooked, and has been found guilty of fraud at one time or another."

Read the whole interview for more. Or read Greenwald's whole column, where he highlights a different quote from the interview with Congressman Grayson:

"The amount of money that ACORN has received in the past 20 years altogether is roughly equal to what the taxpayer paid to Halliburton each day during the war in Iraq."

But if you really want to get in on the fun, go to the page Grayson has set up so you can enter your own fraud and corruption which you think would disqualify a company from getting federal funds. Fun for the whole family!

Our second MIDOTW award goes to Senator Al Franken, who (thanks to Senator Kirk) is now only the 99th Senator on the seniority list! But seriously, Franken made my whole week by beating a hapless Justice Department employee over the head with the Constitution of the United States of America. In specific, the Fourth Amendment.

The Washington Independent had an article this week which pointed out what a swell job Franken is doing in Paul Wellstone's old seat. Franken read the amendment in question in full to the Assistant Attorney General, and then asked how he could square that with the PATRIOT ACT. The guy's response was classic:

[A.A.G. David] Kris looked flustered and mumbled that "this is surreal," apparently referring to having to respond to Franken's question.

Um, no, it should not be "surreal" to square what you are saying with the Constitution, sir. It should be a major part of your job description. It is the entire reason you are employed.

For helpfully exposing this surreal attitude over at the Justice Department, Senator Franken has more than earned his Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award.

[Congratulate Senator Al Franken via his Senate email info@franken.senate.gov, and Representative Alan Grayson on his House contact page, to let them know you appreciate their efforts.]

You have to wonder whether President Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is the true loose cannon in the administration (the media usually focuses on Biden's slips of the tongue, but Rahm's seem more frequent to me). You also have to wonder how much of what Rahm says is his own agenda, as opposed to Obama's, at times. Rahm has been arguing on the side of: "Let's compromise! Let's water the healthcare bill down even further! Let's give the Republicans everything they want, even if they won't vote for it!" -- pretty much since the battle on healthcare reform legislation began. This is disappointing because he was sold (when he was named to his powerful position) as a "kick-Capitol-Hill-ass and take names" type of guy, who would do the heavy arm-twisting required to pass actual legislation up on the Hill. Instead, it seems to be Rahm's arm that always gets twisted, and the only fiery language I've heard from him is how we can't possibly manage to do anything good with legislation.

In other words, he's been a major disappointment in general.

In particular, though, Rahm was echoing the mainstream media's "the public option doesn't stand a chance, it's dead as a doornail" attitude in an interview this week. Way to quit the fight before it's even begun, Rahm! Nothing like announcing to the world that the Democrats are going to fail, right at the crucial moment when the fight is about to commence! Senator Sherrod Brown responded by smacking Rahm's idea down forcefully, and baldly stating that he thinks the public option has at least 50 votes in the Senate.

For his performance this week -- a performance that is becoming way too common, by the way -- our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week is none other than Rahm Emanuel.

[Contact the White House on their official contact page to let them know what you think of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's actions.]

Volume 95 (9/25/09)

I don't usually punt in such a fashion, but today we're going to re-run the talking points from Friday Talking Points [85], which is well worth re-reading in its entirety if you happen to be an Emerson, Lake and Palmer fan. What is it about three-named music groups this week?

Sorry, we don't need any more digressions, as we've already more than used up our quota. Won't happen again, I promise.

The reason for this week's reprint is that now is the time to contact your representatives and senators in Congress. This has been a long, hard slog, and the months and months of dashed expectations and wobbling Democratic Congresscritters have taken their toll among those who support strong healthcare reform (as opposed to some watered-down bill which won't fix the underlying problem). Many have already phoned or written or emailed their congressional Democrats, and may feel that the job's all done.

It is not. Because next week is going to be the start of the real battle, in both the House and the Senate. The real battle is between Democrats. This is when the "Public option or bust!" Progressives and the "We love corporate money!" Blue Dogs are going to have a showdown. And it is going to culminate not in statements to the press (or the lack thereof), not in some whispered whip count, but rather in a very public vote. So now is the time to strengthen their resolve by calling up their office and making your voice heard.

Here's a hint that wasn't in the earlier talking points: mention the word "donations." Democrats, at least on the national party level, are always terrified that donors will at some point simply stop sending in money to the party.

So, be loud and clear -- if the Democratic Party (and in particular, the senator or representative who represents you) does not deliver, then the money flow to them will end. And not only that, but the voters they're expecting next fall will stay home. Because we sent them to Washington for a reason. If they don't deliver, then we will wash our hands of them. Period.

Which leads us right into this week's talking points, provided in a topsy-turvy way as talking points to use when you contact your representative or senator. Now is the time. Look up your own representatives' contact info. Then pick up the phone, and give them a call. Do it today, or at the latest, Monday morning. They are waiting to hear from you.

Now is, indeed, the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of the party -- to strengthen our elected party officials' resolve for the upcoming fray.

This year. No excuses.

"Healthcare reform has got to pass this year, or we know you'll be too busy campaigning next year to tackle it. So, no excuses -- healthcare reform must happen this year. We haven't been electing Democrats to Congress in droves just for the sake of having a lot of Democrats in Congress. The magic number of 60 in the Senate is not a goal unto itself. This is not Sesame Street, with 'The Count' telling us what a wonderful number 60 is. We elected you folks to Congress to get something done, and if that doesn't happen then we are not going to help you keep your jobs the next time around. 'We tried, but couldn't manage to get it done' is no longer good enough. You can either do the job we sent you and Obama to Washington to do, or you will not have that job much longer. This is the year. Get it done. No excuses."

Anything less than a strong public option is not good enough

"You started this process by bringing everyone to the table with one glaring exception -- the single-payer supporters. So you started off by compromising. And all that talk of 'everyone gets a seat at the table' was sheer and unadulterated bunkum. Let's just admit that fact up front, shall we? Since you started with a compromise, further compromise is not acceptable. We don't care if Republicans vote for it. Can you name how many Republicans voted for Medicare? I didn't think so! Because NO ONE CARES today! In forty or fifty years, do you think history will care what the vote count was? No! History will care whether you fixed the problem or not. So let's keep our eyes on the ball, mmm-kay? It's just about time to kick the Republican obstructionists away from the table (just like you kicked the single-payer people to the curb), and get something good actually passed by the majority party. And that something had better include a strong public option, or it will be nothing more than window-dressing. And we, the American public, will know the difference this time around. So get it done right. Stop compromising, stop fantasizing about a bipartisan bill, and pass the public option."

Sorry, Rahm, a "trigger" is not good enough

"You know what the word 'trigger' says to me? It says that you want to kill something. So, for you trigger-happy healthcare reformers, I have to say: 'nice job choosing a metaphor, guys!' We do not need to wait to know that healthcare is broken in this country. The evidence is all around us. Talk to a few million of your constituents, why don't you, and they will tell you all their heath insurance horror stories. Each and every one. The only reason we would need a 'trigger' is if we somehow weren't sure that there was a problem. Here's a news flash: there is a problem! Passing a law that says 'well, if the problem gets a whole lot worse, maybe we'll fix it' is not good enough. Somebody needs to pull the trigger and kill the 'trigger' idea, because, honestly guys, you're not fooling anybody. Sorry, Rahm."

A co-op is not good enough

"Likewise, this idea of tiny little state co-ops is not acceptable. Maybe California could get a big enough pool to buy into it, but what about Vermont? Or Wyoming? I tell you what -- why not keep the co-op idea, and add it to a strong public plan? The more ideas in the marketplace the better! Give people as many choices as possible, but do not limit their choices by trying to substitute co-ops for a strong public option. Because co-ops are simply not good enough."

We're watching you

"Democrats who have not come out in support of the public option should be put on notice -- we know who you are. We know what your position is, we can find out how much money you've taken from the healthcare industry, and we will fund ads that explain this relationship to your constituents. Talk to a few of the Senate Democrats who have already felt this wrath, they'll tell you. And sorry, Mister President, but we're going to go right on funding these ads -- to save you from yourselves. Most of the time, on most of the issues, we let you get away with the stinking, fetid pile of fiction that 'campaign contributions don't influence my vote,' but this time we are not going to. This is fair warning, especially those of you who live in media markets where television ads are cheap. If you attempt to sell out your constituents, we are going to point it out. Again, and again, and again."

What is worth more to you -- healthcare campaign donations, or getting re-elected?

"You may think that those millions of dollars you've taken from the healthcare industry will be enough to get you re-elected. You should think twice about that. Because we are going to make it clear in no uncertain terms if you vote with the Republican obstructionists this time that everyone knows exactly what you've done. We are going to make it our mission to see that you get defeated, hopefully in a Democratic primary. We are quite serious about this, and we think the public will be receptive to the message that you were responsible for denying them choice in healthcare because you were so busy suckling at the healthcare industry lobbyist teat. So, given the choice, would you keep the gravy train from the healthcare industry rolling if you knew it wouldn't help you keep your job? That, indeed, it might cost you your job? Because that is the choice we are presenting."

We will actively support removing you from office if you do not deliver

"We are not going to just be disappointed if you kill true healthcare reform. We are going to actively support just about anyone who runs against you. We will encourage a nasty and expensive primary fight with a candidate of your own (purported) party. And if that leaves you too weak to defeat your Republican opponent next year, so be it! Because having you in your seat with a 'D' next to your name is completely worthless to us if you are going to vote with the Republicans anyway. It is time to make the choice, and do what is right. If you do, we will support your re-election loudly and strongly. If you don't, beware the whirlwind you will reap.

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

NEW! All-time award winners by rank!

Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground