Gop on The Huffington Post

Battle Between David Broder And Harry Reid Heats Up: Broder Comments 'Mind-Boggling'

2009-11-25T17:19:43Z

David Broder simply doesn't understand the way that today's Senate operates, Jim Manley concluded on Wednesday. Manley, the senior communications adviser for Majority Leader Harry Reid, said that the longtime Washington Post columnist's charge that Reid pales in comparison to former Senate leaders misunderstands the way the contemporary Senate works.

"It's all fine and dandy to pine for the golden days of yesteryear, when politics was practiced differently, but that's not the reality we're dealing with," Manley told HuffPost. "What David fails to understand is that Republican leadership in both the House and the Senate are being pulled along by the so-called birthers, the Tea Party movement and other far right fringe groups that are completely at odds with the views David claims to hold."

Manley said that Broder's failure to see the GOP for what it is today is common among Washington-based pundits.

"David might be one of the worst examples, but he highlights a myopic, inside-the-belt phenomenon that is at odds with the views of many Americans," said Manley. There's even a term for such thinking: Broderism.

The Broder-Reid spat broke into the open on Saturday night when Reid dismissed him as "a man who has been retired for many years and writes a column once in a while." (Broder has taken a buy-out from the Post but continues to write two columns a week on a contract basis.) Reid was peeved at a column Broder had written accusing the Senate bill of not cutting costs adequately.

It may seem petty, but the Reid-Broder battle is a proxy fight between two competing approaches to politics. Reid, by attacking Broder, puts himself on the side of those attacking the Washington politico-media establishment.

"Maybe I have an idealized view of what a Senate leader ought to be," Broder told Politico Wednesday for a story headlined: "David Broder: Harry Reid's no Mike Mansfield." "But I've seen the Senate when a leader could lift it to those heights...I wish it had that kind of leadership now."

That's not possible, said Manley, because Mansfield and Lyndon Johnson, revered Senate leaders, had a Republican Party willing to work across the aisle.

"LBJ had Robert Taft [R-Ohio], William Knowland [R-Calif.] and Everett Dirksen [R-Ill.]. Mike Mansfield had Dirksen and Hugh Scott [R-Pa.]. What David fails to acknowledge is that the current Repub leadership is betting on the president to fail," said Manley.

"Why he can't understand that is mind-boggling."

"That's an interesting argument and certainly there are differences between the people now and the people then and the environment that was there," Broder told HuffPost. "But if that's their effort to explain why Senator Reid has chosen the tactics that he's chosen, that doesn't strike me as an adequate explanation."

Broder disputed Manley's contention that the GOP blocks everything. "It is not a fact that the Republicans have refused everything. At least we don't have much evidence of that so far. If he's talking about a specific reaction to the pieces of the Obama agenda that have come up so far, then he's in effect saying Obama is so frustrated that he's about to abandon everything. I don't suspect it's the case. When the first measure relating to Afghanistan comes to the floor that generalization will collapse."

Broder is probably right that the GOP will back Obama in his effort to expand the war in Afghanistan, but Manley was arguing more on the domestic policy front.

He references the fight to pass an unemployment insurance extension, which the GOP eventually supported but slowed down for several weeks.

"How David can make this kind of comment after UI bill is beyond me. It took more than four weeks to pass a bill in the senate that it took the House an hour to pass on the suspension calendar," said Manley.

Broder acknowledged the unemployment point. "It's a good argument as it implies to the unemployment extension. There have been many occasions where I have been very critical of the Republican stance."

"It is a different Senate now and if I were writing on that topic -- Mansfield, Baker, LBJ and so on -- we might very well agree. But that was not the subject of that column and in my mind, that is not a particularly powerful or relevant rebuttal to the subject I was talking about, which is whether or not the potential savings everybody knows are needed are there in the bill Senator Reid brought to the Senate floor."

Manley had specific gripes about Broder's health care column, in which he cited deficit hawks to make the case that the Democratic Senate bill might not reduce costs.

Manley said that Broder's column was discussed by "puzzled" Democrats in the Senate cloakroom. "No one could understand it," said Manley. "We had the self-described gold standard of analysis - the CBO - highlighting that the bill reduces the deficit. And David utterly failed to acknowledge that was the case."

Broder often refers to the Congressional Budget Office with the highest praise, but relied mostly in his column on "experts" who proclaim themselves "bipartisan" but whose goals are to dismantle Social Security, Medicare and other vestiges of the New Deal.

Broder's argument was dismissed by his colleague at the Post, Ezra Klein. Broder, however, said he didn't have to look far to find people who agreed with him - which is, in fact, one of the biggest problems the blogosphere has with his type of writing and thinking. "It was hardly a unique viewpoint," Broder said accurately.

If Broder thinks that the GOP is genuinely willing to work with Democrats, the only centrist position between he and Reid might be in agreeing to disagree. "We have a Republic leadership betting on the president to fail," said Manley. "David's problem is he thinks this is all on the up and up."

Lyndon Johnson Letter Shows What's Wrong With The Senate Today

2009-11-25T13:14:20Z

One of the challenges in arguing about the use of the filibuster is that the filibuster has changed drastically in recent decades, but it's done so quietly. Quietly enough that people don't really understand that it's changed at all. That leads to an understandable complacency: If we've always had the filibuster, and we've done pretty well thus far, then maybe the filibuster isn't worth mucking with.

But though we've long had the filibuster, we have not long had a Senate that used it to impose a 60-vote requirement on all controversial legislation...

Climategate: GOP Opens Probe Into Climate-Change E-Mails

2009-11-24T19:23:11Z

WASHINGTON — Congressional Republicans are investigating e-mails stolen from a British climate change research center that they say show scientists attempting to suppress data that does not support man-made global warming.

Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, a global warming skeptic, sent letters Tuesday to the inspectors general of several agencies and to scientists asking them to retain records related to the e-mails.

Alec Baldwin: The Republican Way: Keeping Everything The Way It Is

2009-11-24T12:10:50Z

Didn't you know, all along, that the goal of U.S. policy in Iraq was about accessing oil?

Not oil as in those production levels at the onset of the Bush era incursion in March, 2003. But newer, stronger, American-style production levels. American oil companies had been forbidden from exploring and developing new oil fields since the nationalization of Iraq's reserves in 1972 and those American oil companies have long contended that Iraqi estimates of their potential reserves are grossly underestimated, by perhaps as much as a couple of hundred billion barrels.

Likewise, didn't you know all along that Republican opposition to current health care reform is about maintaining the unconscionable monopoly that insurance companies have in the American economy. Why? For the same reason Bush went to war in Iraq, spent money we didn't have, pushed the country into financial ruin and did more to threaten our long term national security than any modern president. The GOP needs contributions. I would never contend that the GOP is alone in this practice. When an administration awards contracts to some supporter, they anticipate more support. But no group, in the history of this country, has ever done this to such an extent. Remember, I am always careful to separate the leadership of any party from its rank and file. So when I level such a charge against "Republicans", I am referring to their leadership on Capitol Hill. But, I think it's safe to say now that the war in Iraq was started to provide U.S. oil companies with the opportunity to develop new oil fields there in return for the massive campaign contributions those oil companies will make to the Republicans in 2010 and, especially, 2012 in their effort to unseat President Obama.

The same is true for the health care industry, and insurance companies in particular. They don't want reform. The current system works quite well for them. If an excess of Americans die due to insufficient health care, so what. Republican leaders argue that health care reform will lead to a big, fat, incompetent bureaucracy that will gobble up billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars and provide little accountability. But wait. Isn't the Pentagon a big, fat, incompetent bureaucracy that gobbles up...? Well, you get it.

The Pentagon wastes more money on more crap that you and I don't need and gets it wrong, on a policy level, more often than not since 1960 (I'll give them a pass on Korea, due to all the Cold War anxiety at the time). Republicans never flinch. Spending on the military, and subsequent sales of those weapons systems around the world, help the U.S. economy, in their mind. Those companies, in turn, contribute to the campaigns of men like George W. Bush. This is especially so now that the Pentagon, in the ultimate sign of their stupidity, abdication of their responsibilities and tacit compliance with GOP fundraising goals, have privatized the U.S. military to the tune of one million dollars per soldier in Afghanistan.

Think about that. Recruitment is down. This Pentagon has a shortage of willing and competent soldiers who can run our military machinery. So what do they do? Do they improve recruitment, training and pay for soldiers? No. They privatize as much of these duties as they can (with no bid contracts for staggering sums of money) and create new businesses that, in turn, will contribute to those that helped them

The health care industry wastes untold billions, then passes those costs on to insurance companies who then exploit your fear and pass them on to you. Fear of Al Qaeda. Fear of getting sick without insurance and, therefore, access to effective medical care. Keep everything the way it is, out of fear. Fear that it could get worse. That's the Republican way. These guys have this country coming and going.

Health care reform means less money for insurance companies. Thus less money for the GOP. We should pass this bill for that reason alone.

GOP Purity Test Would Have Banished Bush And Reagan

2009-11-24T12:08:39Z

The following article was produced by the Raw Story and written by David Edwards and John Byrne.

The latest trend in the Republican Party is an effort to weed out moderates -- witness New York Republicans' successful effort to oust their own candidate in an upstate House race, in preference for an independent conservative.

But a new GOP "purity test" named for Ronald Reagan moves the line even farther to the right, and a liberal website has found that the test -- if used in the past -- would have screened out President Ronald Reagan and President George W. Bush as viable conservatives.

The test was conceived by conservative attorney Jim Bopp, Jr., who recently pushed a resolution to the Republican National Committee which proposed referring to the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Socialist Party." (The proposal was rejected.)

Bopp's litmus test, titled the "Resolution on Reagan's Unity Principle for Support of Candidates," includes the following guidelines:

(1) Smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill

(2) Market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;

(3) Market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

(4) Workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check

(5) Legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

(6) Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

(7) Containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat

(8) Retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

(9) Protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

(10) The right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership

Trouble is, the measure would likely have screened out President Ronald Reagan, under whose watch the US deficit ballooned. The federal deficit mushroomed from 2.7 percent of gross domestic product in 1980, to 6 percent in 1983.

Reagan also agreed to a $165 billion bailout of Social Security, in contradiction of conservative orthodoxy (though he did drastically reduce the top income tax brackets for Americans).

The Gipper also raised the gasoline tax in 1983.

Bush, too, dramatically increased the size of the federal deficit, which was turning surpluses under his predecessor, President Bill Clinton. He also broke with conservatives on the issue of opposing blanket amnesty for undocumented immigrants.

Who else would fail the test?

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Republicans' 2008 presidential nominee, who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in the Senate, which would have enshrined in federal law a prohibition against same sex marriage benefits. McCain, however, hasn't been in far-right conservatives' good graces for some time.

Watch video from MSNBC's Countdown on Nov. 23, 2009, HERE.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Joe Bruno Corruption Case Goes To Jury

2009-11-24T09:14:36Z

ALBANY, N.Y. — The corruption case of former New York Senate Republican leader Joseph Bruno has gone to the jury, which will decide whether he used his power to line his pockets and deprive New Yorkers of honest government.

U.S. District Judge Gary Sharpe instructed jurors late Monday on the eight fraud counts, saying they must determine whether or not Bruno schemed to defraud New Yorkers and misrepresented or concealed his sideline business dealings. Deliberations begin Tuesday.

How Sarah Palin Might Win The White House

2009-11-24T01:13:42Z

President Sarah Palin. To many pundits and late-night comedians, this sounds like a punch line, and to many die-hard Democrats it sounds like a reason to leave the country.

Yet while the conventional wisdom has it that Palin is too badly damaged to make a serious run in 2012 -- and I agree that her success is not probable -- it is definitely a possibility that Palin could be elected president of the United States.

Meg Whitman, Former eBay Pres And GOP Gov Candidate Plans Book For January

2009-11-23T18:34:06Z

Sarah Palin knows the power of a best-seller as a timely vehicle to get the press and public talking, and now former eBay CEO Meg Whitman has quietly laid plans to add "author" to her resume, with her book "The Power of Many" set for release in January -- just as the 2010 California governor's race heats up.

Will Marshall: RIP Compassionate Conservatism

2009-11-23T15:18:01Z

The Republican message on extending health care coverage can be summed up in two words: "Bah, humbug."

In taking a purely obstructionist stance, the GOP has evinced scant empathy for tens of millions of fellow Americans who lack basic protection against illness or injury. So much for compassionate conservatism.

On Saturday, not a single Republican voted to allow the Senate to even consider a bill to expand coverage and reform health insurance markets. When the House passed its version of health reform, just one Republican voted aye. He is Rep. Joseph Cao, a freshman from normally Democratic New Orleans.

Republicans, of course, are under no moral or political compunction to support Democratic proposals for health reform. But since they haven't offered any credible alternatives of their own, it's reasonable to conclude that they don't care all that much about fixing America's broken health care system.

Sure, House Republicans proffered their version of "reform" earlier this month. It would spend just $61 billion over 10 years and leave the percentage of insured Americans in 10 years exactly where it is today -- at 83 percent. Thanks to population growth, there would actually be more uninsured people than today.

In opposing serious efforts to expand coverage, Republicans say they are trying to protect Americans against runaway deficits, not to mention death panels, publicly financed abortions and other confected horrors. They rail against President Obama and the Democrats for proposing to pile a costly new health care entitlement atop others we don't know how we'll pay for.

That's actually a valid concern, one that progressives should take more seriously. But the GOP's newfound fiscal piety would be more convincing if President Bush and party leaders had not muscled through Congress a massive new Medicare drug entitlement just six years ago.

Showing their customary solicitude for America's haves -- Medicare offers all seniors the basic health coverage the uninsured lack -- Republicans insisted on creating a universal entitlement, rather than targeting help on truly needy seniors. At first projected to cost $534 billion over 10 years, revised estimates in 2005 put the bill's price tag at $1.2 trillion. That's several hundred billion dollars more than the bill passed this weekend by Senate Democrats. David Walker, former U.S. Comptroller General, called the 2003 prescription drug bill "probably the most fiscally irresponsible legislation since the 1960s."

In contrast, the Senate Democrats' bill is paid for. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that it would cut the federal deficit by $130 billion in the first decade and by more than $500 billion in the second decade.

But there's a hitch, and it's a big one. Cutting future deficits refers only to the public costs of expanding medical coverage and reforming U.S. health care markets. That's not at all the same thing as "bending the curve" of health care cost growth. Slowing the unsustainable pace at which medical costs in America are growing requires confronting the perverse incentives and inefficiencies that plague health care delivery. It also means rebalancing the big entitlement programs, as retiring baby boomers swell the number of people receiving Medicare benefits.

This is the big piece of unfinished business facing both health care reformers and President Obama. The Senate bill expands coverage and cuts the federal deficit. According to some leading budget analysts, however, it doesn't do enough to slow down the rising health costs that plague the vast majority of U.S. workers and that handicap many U.S. firms in global competition.

They deserve some compassion, too.

Marshall is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute. This item is cross-posted at ProgressiveFix.com.

GOP Considers 'Purity' Resolution For Candidates

2009-11-23T14:54:14Z

Republican leaders are circulating a resolution listing 10 positions Republican candidates should support if they want party backing.

Candidates, the resolution says, need to demonstrate that they are faithful to "conservative principles and public policies and Republican solidarity in opposition to Obama's socialist agenda."

Conservative RNC member James Bopp Jr. began circulating the draft, which calls on the Republican National Committee to end funding and endorsements for any candidate who deviates from three or more of the positions.

"I think we have a very urgent task as Republicans and that is to reclaim our conservative bona fides and supporting liberal Republican party-splitters is very damaging to that task," Bopp said. He has not talked to Republican National Committee chair Michael Steele about the resolution.

Bopp argued that the guidelines would insulate the chairman from intra-party fights by freeing him from the obligation to support every Republican. But obviously, if the resolution comes up at the January RNC meeting it will put pressure on Steele to choose a side between those who would expand the party ideologically and those more concerned with conservative purity.

In March, the RNC passed a resolution condemning the Democrats' "march towards socialism."

The "Proposed RNC Resolution on Reagan's Unity Principle for Support of Candidates" follows:

WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan believed that the Republican Party should support and espouse conservative principles and public policies; and

WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan also believed the Republican Party should welcome those with diverse views; and

WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan believed, as a result, that someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent; and

WHEREAS, Republican faithfulness to its conservative principles and public policies and Republican solidarity in opposition to Obama's socialist agenda is necessary to preserve the security of our country, our economic and political freedoms, and our way of life; and

WHEREAS, Republican faithfulness to its conservative principles and public policies is necessary to restore the trust of the American people in the Republican Party and to lead to Republican electoral victories; and

WHEREAS, the Republican National Committee shares President Ronald Reagan's belief that the Republican Party should espouse conservative principles and public policies and welcome persons of diverse views; and

WHEREAS, the Republican National Committee desires to implement President Reagan's Unity Principle for Support of Candidates; and

WHEREAS, in addition to supporting candidates, the Republican National Committee provides financial support for Republican state and local parties for party building and federal election activities, which benefits all candidates and is not affected by this resolution; and

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee identifies ten (10) key public policy positions for the 2010 election cycle, which the Republican National Committee expects its public officials and candidates to support:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill;

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

(4) We support workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing, denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership; and be further

RESOLVED, that a candidate who disagrees with three or more of the above stated public policy positions of the Republican National Committee, as identified by the voting record, public statements and/or signed questionnaire of the candidate, shall not be eligible for financial support and endorsement by the Republican National Committee; and be further

RESOLVED, that upon the approval of this resolution the Republican National Committee shall deliver a copy of this resolution to each of Republican members of Congress, all Republican candidates for Congress, as they become known, and to each Republican state and territorial party office.

Chief Sponsor:
James Bopp, Jr. NCM IN

Sponsors:
Avie Axdahl NCW MN
Donna Cain NCW OR
Cindy Costa NCW SC
Demetra Demonte NCW IL
Peggy Lambert NCW TN
Carolyn McLarty NCW OK
Pete Rickets NCM NE
Steve Scheffler NCM IA
Helen Van Etten NCW KA
Solomon Yue NCM OR

Jim DeMint Battling Senate GOP Leadership In Next Election

2009-11-23T10:50:16Z

If you're an underdog conservative running for Congress, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) should be on your speed dial these days.

A favorite of the tea party crowd and a longtime scourge for Democrats and some Republicans alike inside the Senate chamber, DeMint has emerged as the leading benefactor for any Republican who wants to challenge the establishment candidates backed by the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Republican Identity Crisis Forces GOP Politicians To The Right

2009-11-23T09:17:38Z

John McCain rails against a bipartisan global warming bill two years after sponsoring one himself? He says he's "dear friends" with Sarah Palin and enjoyed her book? The one that trashes his 2008 presidential campaign? Strange, I thought. Then I saw a poll that showed the sometime maverick-moderate vulnerable to a primary challenge next year from the right.

The Republican primary process has triggered an epidemic of identity crises among prominent and promising Republicans. Between Sarah Palin, tea parties, and the Club For Growth, there are Senate candidates scurrying rightward on everything from taxes and health care to energy, national security, labor issues, and President Obama's stimulus package.

The Fall Of Greg Craig

2009-11-22T17:31:48Z

Nearly 100 days after Barack Obama entered office, his top White House lawyer, Greg Craig, braced the President's senior advisers for a potentially explosive development. The Administration was preparing to release photographs of suspected terrorists being abused in U.S. custody. On April 16, Craig asked chief of staff Rahm Emanuel to focus on the issue. Emanuel pleaded for more time to bury the release behind other news.

Frank Rich: Sarah Palin, The Pit Bull In The China Shop

2009-11-22T01:12:15Z

AT last the American right and left have one issue they unequivocally agree on: You don't actually have to read Sarah Palin's book to have an opinion about it.

Glenn Beck As Political Organizer: Fox News Host Sponsoring 7 Conventions

2009-11-21T22:32:11Z

Glenn Beck, the popular and outspoken Fox News host, says he wants to go beyond broadcasting his opinions and start rallying his political base -- formerly known as his audience -- to take action.

Sealed With A Kiss: Dems Unite To Beat GOP Filibuster

2009-11-21T22:25:42Z

Harry Reid sealed the biggest legislative victory of his career Saturday night with a kiss. And then a hug.

Emotionally reserved doesn't begin to describe the Senate majority leader, a Democrat facing reelection in Nevada. Yet the man was beaming as the members of his caucus left the Senate floor, each one of them having given him their support, leaving him with exactly the 60 votes he needed to overcome a filibuster and move to an official floor debate on landmark health care reform legislation.

Three of those votes had been uncertain up until the last two days. Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) waited until floor speeches on Saturday to announce that they'd back the motion to proceed, which allows the bill to move a major step forward. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) broke what little suspense there was about his vote on Friday.

Reid approached Landrieu after the vote, smiling ear to ear. He locked arms with her, gripping her right elbow as she locked his right arm in return. After the two spoke, he grasped her hand with both of his, leaned over and laid a kiss on it.

From there, he trod up the floor's risers to find Lincoln in the back row where she'd been sitting with Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.). Reid smiled broadly and put his two hands on her shoulders, which is typically what counts as a hug from Harry Reid. Then he went all in, wrapping her in a full embrace.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) followed Reid's lead, smothering Lincoln with both arms. Lincoln blushed as she emerged from his embrace.

Reid left the floor to speak on the phone to Ted Kennedy's widow Vicki in the Democratic cloak room; she was crying and deeply moved, he later said. As Reid returned to the floor and headed for the exit to speak to reporters, he spied Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), who had shepherded the reform bill through the health committee in Kennedy's absence. Reid laid a hug on him, too.

Nelson was not gifted with such affection, though he had only himself to blame: as soon as the vote ended, he headed for the GOP side to chat up arch-conservative Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.).

Reid's effusive display of gratitude followed a unusually somber, silent vote. Normally, senators approach the front desk to cast their vote and chat amongst themselves. This night, each voted from his or her seat as the chamber sat in dead, eerie silence.

"I mean, it was sort of like a European parliamentary summit or something -- but it was worth it," remarked Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), who also suggested it felt like "somebody was getting impeached."

As the roll was called, senators stood and announced either "aye" or "nay." It was too much for John McCain.

"Ooooh, this is soooo tense," the Arizona Republican could be heard stage-whispering.

Nelson was seated as the roll was called and unceremoniously declared his yes vote. Landrieu and Lincoln, however, were absent at the start, as was Sen. Bob Byrd (D-W.Va.), the 92-year-old who this week became the longest-serving senator in the history of the upper chamber.

His presence is never assured at votes,so his absence added an element of real suspense, McCain's mocking notwithstanding. A few minutes into the vote, Byrd was wheeled in and pointed to the sky, signaling an "aye." He pulled in next to Reid. Reid grasped Byrd's hand with both of his.

Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), whose vote would have made the bill bipartisan just a few months ago, rose to his feet and strode over to Byrd to shake the former majority leader's hand.

Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.), whose route to the Senate took him through an Illinois impeachment hearing and a Senate ethics panel, stood to vote aye and, after retaking his seat, backhand slapped Joe Lieberman on his arm and flashed a wide grin. Lieberman, the independent from Connecticut, had voted yes as well, but is still threatening not to join a GOP filibuster on the final bill if it includes a public health insurance option.

Lieberman smiled and the two shook hands heartily. Just moments later, however, he rose from his chair and fled, finding more comfortable ground next to Lincoln. The two holdouts batted each others' arms and exchanged chuckles.

When the vote tally was called in the House exactly two weeks ago, the Democratic caucus erupted in celebration. The Senate is not that sort of place. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), as presiding officer, announced the final 60-39 vote and scattered, muted "yay"s rose from the Democratic side, as the victors seemed unsure what to do. Only Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) could be seen clapping; a few tourists in the gallery booed at the chamber.

(The one absentee senator was Republican George Voinovich of Ohio. Brown told reporters that his fellow state lawmaker had decided to attend a celebration of the thirtieth anniversary of his Cleveland mayoral election instead.)

Outside the chamber, the volume was turned up.

"It's an historic vote, a terrific vote, and one of the better moments since I've been in the Senate," Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) told HuffPost.

"We're rounding third and we're heading home," said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who now chairs the health committee.

"We can see the finish line now, but we're not there," Reid told reporters after the vote.

Just one Democrat could yet derail the effort.

Before the vote, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell begged for such a Democratic defection.

"All it takes is one vote. Just one," said the Kentucky Republican, turning to the left side of the chamber with an outstretched palm. "The simple math is this: If there were one Democrat, just one of our friends on the other side of the aisle, just one, who would say 'no' tonight, the voices of the American people would be heard... And then we could start over with a common-sense, step by step approach."

Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) also begged for a do-over: "I still hope we can start over and get to work on a bipartisan bill."

Lieberman is among several in the caucus who have threatened to doom the effort, and he sounded like Eeyore again Saturday night, calling the public option "an eleventh-hour addition to a debate that's gone on for decades. Nobody's ever talked about a public option before, not even in the presidential campaign last year."

From the liberal end, Burris repeated a threat made earlier: That if the public option is taken out, he's gone. "I won't vote for it," he said.

"You'll lose people on the left," confirmed Brown.

Reid, aware of the fine line he's walking, told reporters that Landrieu, Schumer and Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) are working on a compromise public option, perhaps something that 60 folks could support and save face.

"Now," said Kerry, "we just have to go forward and really legislate."

Arthur Delaney contributed to this report

Democrats Are United -- For Now

2009-11-21T15:31:15Z

The Senate has voted to move forward with the health care bill. The vote was 60-39 in favor of debating the bill put forward by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

-------------------

At least for the moment, Democrats are united behind Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

All 60 members of the party's caucus have publicly pledged to back him in key vote on the Senate floor Saturday night -- this one to allow debate to proceed on Reid's health care reform bill.

But that unity may not last.

"That was the easy part. Now it's only going to get tougher from here on out," Reid spokesman Jim Manley told HuffPost.

Back-to-back announcements on the Senate floor on Saturday from the two remaining holdouts -- Louisiana's Mary Landrieu, followed by Arkansas' Blanche Lincoln -- put Reid over the top, giving him the 60 votes he needs to overcome the expected Republican filibuster.

The official vote will be called at 8:00 Saturday evening. The Senate will then move to several weeks of floor debate and amendments, followed by another crucial vote to end a second expected filibuster and move to a final tally.

A handful of Democrats are still threatening to filibuster the final bill if certain changes aren't made. Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, is insisting on the removal of a public health insurance option that would compete with private insurers, many of which are based in his home state of Connecticut.

Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Landrieu and Lincoln are also withholding their final support, and trying to extract concessions.

"My vote today to move forward," Landrieu said on the floor, "should in no way be construed" as an indication that she'll back the final bill. "Much work needs to be done," she said.

Lincoln, who could face a primary challenge over her health care stand, similarly said she'd work to amend the bill and expressed her concerns with protecting private insurers from being required to compete with a public plan.

"Rather than create an entirely new government-run health care plan to compete with private insurers. I support health insurance reform that focuses on changing the rules of our existing employer-based private health insurance system," Lincoln said. "I believe we should change the current rules that permit insurance companies to bully their customers and cherry pick healthy patients, so we can force them to compete with each other. This initial procedural vote simply allows us to open debate on health care reform, nothing more or less. My decision to support this vote is not my last nor is it my only chance to shape health insurance reform."

If the Senate does pass a bill, House and Senate conferees will then meet to hash out the considerable differences between their packages. Each chamber must then approve the compromise before it heads to the president's desk for his signature.

Steven Weber: Pussies Galore

2009-11-19T18:20:32Z

Republicans are pussies.

From the congressional chicken hawks to the half-baked Alaskan Sarah Palin; from the wild-eyed doughboys and smug bullies who spew bilge from their televised perches to the shivering talk radio gremlins who broadcast out of their parents' basements, they sure talk a good game but have no stomach for real battle, outsourcing their pathetic rage to the gullible multitudes. These yellow-bellies are in fact consumed with and by fear: fear of anything foreign, fear of empowered women, fear of their own mortality. And let's not even mention their disdain for the arts (for which they themselves have no aptitude, unless you count John Ashcroft's "When he Eagle Soars"). Oh, hell, let's.

The Republican party, it seems, is crammed with pussies.

Why not hold Gitmo prisoners in maximum security prisons on US soil? Why not try terrorists in New York? Scared? These guys aren't SMERSH. Give them a dose of the America you profess to be so proud of. if you're big enough to wage war you'd better be able to handle the responsibility. The mechanism of Democracy needs to be exercised, not suppressed.

All the loud mouths, the obstructionists, the Obama-haters, the cowards who have cut and run from the American people and who have thrown in with the corporate carnivores are just wimpering, shivering milksops.

Pussies.

And since we're on the subject, I might as well move onto current events. Please excuse the sloppy segue.

That a mental mite like Sarah Palin is the only real Republican luminary who can draw a crowd says it all. The epitome of unimaginative opportunism, she is in fact even more toxically effective than Limbaugh or Beck: she is the Lara Croft of the Republican's video game platform, all smarm and fury and zero in the way of substance. But damn if she can't get the mob riled!

Disdainful of government because -- as she's so ably proven -- she sucks at it, disdainful of the elites who shun her yet who she longs to be one among, she is at her heart a pretender, a con-artist, a fraud. Her consistent disingenuousness points to the cowardice inherent in all of the Republicans' constant posturing.

Really, at this point, they just need to be ignored.

The fact is they don't matter anymore except as a lesson to all about what can happen when insatiable greed meets fear. Like the hero of Dalton Trumbo's Johnny Got His Gun, the Reps should be paraded from city to city for children to see and feel true repulsion at the effects of blind hubris. Until then, we are forced to endure the heckling and mewling of these obsolete fools, these traitors.

In a word: pussies.

Read more: Gop, Republicans, Politics News

Nathan Daschle: The GOP "Comeback" is Really a Throwback

2009-11-19T13:43:09Z

If the sound of loud cackling wakes you up in the middle of the night, that's the Republicans crowing about their recent wins in the 2009 gubernatorial races while they meet this week in Austin.

The GOP is downright giddy that, after three straight years of electoral losses at the federal and state level, it won the governors races in Virginia and New Jersey. The fact is, Virginia and New Jersey were about two things: Virginia and New Jersey. These states have voted against the party in the White House for decades, and they did it again this November. There's nothing out of the ordinary here. The question of the day, however, is not about 2009. It's about 2010 and whether America will continue down a new path of promise and prosperity, or whether it will cut a screeching U turn and return to the policies that caused the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Republicans insist that these recent elections signal that the American public is yearning for a "GOP Comeback." To the contrary, Americans - and independent voters in particular - want results, not politics. The Republican party is the last place to find them. Unlike the intellectually robust Republican party of 1993, this group of Republicans has narrowed their ambitions to a single word: "no." No to finally lowering our skyrocketing health care costs. No to pulling our nation from the economic crisis they created. No to anything that may further solidify our President's standing when it could come at the cost of their own - even when it's good for the country.

As an alternative, they tout an obtuse agenda they call the "GOP Comeback." While short on specifics, it's clear from their rhetoric that their central organizing idea is a return to the same failed, job-killing ideas Americans overwhelmingly rejected in 2008: tax cuts for the wealthy and big corporations, little to no government oversight, and slashing efforts to help grow the middle class. But the so-called "GOP Comeback" is not just a return to the failed ideas of the past, it's a return to the failed leaders of the past. The roster of candidates starring in the Comeback include lackluster has-beens such as Bill McCollum, Scott McInnis, Sam Brownback, Rick Lazio, and of course John Kasich. This IS your father's GOP.

Not just are the Republicans trying to pawn yesterday's wares, but they remain a house divided. There is a vicious civil war taking place in the Republican party. We saw this struggle engulf the 2009 House and Governors' races, and now it's spreading to states like Colorado, where the moderates pushed out conservative newcomer Josh Penry. This move raised the ire of right-wing stalwart Tom Tancredo, who is now threatening to take Penry's place and carry the torch of the conservatives against the mushy-moderate Scott McInnis. In Iowa, former four-term Governor Terry Branstad is getting pummeled daily by his GOP brethren for promising to raise taxes. A recent poll showed that more than 50 percent of Republicans would rather vote for an ideologically pure candidate than someone who can win. The Republicans will continue to struggle so long as hot-headed purists weigh them down.

What's more, this party has no clear leader. Like Cerberus, the Republican party has many heads, all of them angry. Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michael Steele, Haley Barbour, Sarah Palin, Joe Wilson...all of these politicians have a claim to being the leader of the GOP. And all of them alienate most Americans.

While the GOP fights its civil war and searches for its soul, Democrats will continue with what we have set out to do: bring about much needed change and usher in a new era of hope and prosperity. With the President not even a year into his Administration, Democratic Governors are working with him every day to create jobs and make life better for all Americans. At the same time, Democratic Governors are demonstrating that our brand of management works at the state level as well as it does on the federal level. The nonpartisan Governing Magazine just named Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley the best Governor in the country. Five of the seven states with AAA bond ratings have Democratic Governors. To the chagrin of the pessimists, our Governors are proving that it is possible to cut budgets while preserving investments in education and health care that are the foundation of prosperity for the next generation.

There is a lot of work to be done, and American voters will reward the party that retains its optimism and puts forth a concrete plan to return prosperity. Republicans' anxiety and pessimism about our future will not fare well with the voters. More importantly, while the jury on the new Administration is still out, the case against the Republicans has long been closed. Their failed ideas, and certainly their failed leaders, are unlikely to see a return. Perhaps that rooster crow will be a wake up call to a party whose ideas have long been dormant: stand up and offer real solutions or reconcile yourselves to a lifetime in the minority.

Josh Nelson: Will the GOP Nominate a Climate Change Denier in 2012?

2009-11-18T14:55:33Z

In the early stages of the race for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2012, eight names are mentioned most frequently: Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, Haley Barbour, Bobby Jindal and Dick Cheney.

Of these eight early contenders, five outright deny or question climate science, while the remaining three are opposed to all meaningful action.

If Gingrich, Jindal or Barbour wish to claim they are not opposed to all meaningful action, they'll have to present plans that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the extent scientists say is necessary, which is on the order of an 80+ percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2050. An 'All of the Above' strategy of increased domestic oil and gas development and incentives for nuclear plants that will never be built does not even come close.

Candidate	Position
Mitt Romney	Climate Science Denier
Mike Huckabee	Climate Science Denier
Dick Cheney	Climate Science Denier
Sarah Palin	Climate Science Denier
Tim Pawlenty	Climate Science Denier
Newt Gingrich	Opposed to Meaningful Action
Bobby Jindal	Opposed to Meaningful Action
Haley Barbour	Opposed to Meaningful Action

Mitt Romney, as part of the unveiling of the Massachusetts Climate Action Plan, wrote:

"If climate change is happening, the actions we take will help," Romney wrote. "If climate change is largely caused by human action, this will really help. If we learn decades from now that climate change isn't happening, these actions will still help our economy, our quality of life, and the quality of our environment."

Mike Huckabee, speaking with Katie Couric of CBS News:

Katie Couric: "Do you think the risks of climate change are at all overblown?"

Mike Huckabee: I don't know. I mean, the honest answer for me, scientifically, is I don't know.

Dick Cheney, speaking to ABC news in 2007, said:

"We're going to see a big debate on it going forward," Cheney told ABC News, about "the extent to which it is part of a normal cycle versus the extent to which it's caused by man." What we know today, he added, is "not enough to just sort of run out and try to slap together some policy that's going to 'solve' the problem."

Sarah Palin, talking to GOP boss Rush Limbaugh yesterday:

RUSH: What's our biggest energy challenge as a country? Do you believe at all or some or a lot in the modern-day go-green movement of solar and wind and all of these nefarious things that really don't produce anything yet?

GOV. PALIN: I think there's a lot of snake oil science involved in that and somebody's making a whole lot of money off people's fears that the world is... It's kind of tough to figure out with the shady science right now, what are we supposed to be doing right now with our climate. Are we warming or are we cooling? I don't think Americans are even told anymore if it's global warming or just climate change. And I don't attribute all the changes to man's activities. I think that this is, in a lot of respects, cyclical and the earth does cool and it warms.

Brad Johnson has more on this, including audio, here.

Tim Pawlenty, who was once an advocate of clean energy solutions to the climate crisis, has steadily moved in the wrong direction as his national ambitions have grown. Think Progress recently documented his regression as follows:

Dec. 2006: Pawlenty lays out an ambitious clean energy program for Minnesotans to reduce their use of fossil fuels 15 percent by 2015. Cutting greenhouse gases, Pawlenty said, would "be good for the environment, good for rural economies, good for national security and good for consumers." He also calls for a regional cap and trade program.May 2007: Pawlenty signs the Next Generation Energy Act of 2007, requiring the state to reduce its emissions 15 percent by 2015 and 80 percent in 2050. At the signing ceremony, Pawlenty said Minnesota was "kicking-starting the future" by "tackling greenhouse gas emissions."

Oct. 2007: Pawlenty declares that the climate change issue is "one of the most important of our time." He also brushes off "some flak" from right-wingers who doubt climate change science.

Sept. 2008: During the election, Pawlenty backs away from his own cap and trade program, says such a system would "wreck the economy." He then tells hate radio personality Glenn Beck (a climate change denier) that human activity only contributes "half a percent" to climate change.

Nov. 2009: Pawlenty backs away from acknowledging that any human activity is the cause of climate change.

While Newt Gingrich does not openly deny climate science, he is vehemently opposed to any meaningful legislation or regulation to address it. In testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee in April (PDF), he said:

This is the wrong bill for our national security.

This is the wrong bill for our economy.

This is the wrong bill for government of, by, and for the people.

He went on to cite widely discredited cost estimates and tout the wonders of coal and oil shale, two of the most polluting energy sources on the planet. This is not an all of the above strategy as Gingrich would like to claim. The emphasis is drill here, drill now, more of the same.

Bobby Jindal's press secretary released the following statement in September 2009:

"Governor Jindal has made it clear he believes that the House passed cap and trade bill punishes the American energy industry and that's the last thing we need to do when we are trying to become more energy independent. The legislation will make it harder to create new manufacturing jobs in the US, and the Governor opposes it."

In a March 2001 memo to Vice President Dick Cheney (PDF, page 17), then energy industry lobbyist Haley Barbour urged the Bush administration not to let environmental initiatives trump sound energy policy. Specifically, he wrote:

A moment of truth is arriving in the form of a decision whether this Administration's policy will be to regulate and/or tax CO2 as a pollutant. The question is whether environmental policy still prevails over energy policy with Bush-Cheney, as it did with Clinton-Gore. Demurring on the issue of whether the CO2 idea is eco-extremism, we must ask, do environmental initiatives, which would greatly exacerbate the energy problems, trump good energy policy, which the country has lacked for eight years?Most Americans thought Bush-Cheney would mean more energy and more affordable energy.

Susan J. Demas: The Confidence Gap Between Democrats And Republicans

2009-11-18T12:30:58Z

"We are the champions, my friends," crooned Michigan Senate President Pro-Tem Randy Richardville (R-Monroe) the day after the Nov. 3 election.

Former state Rep. Mike Nofs (R-Battle Creek) had won a landslide victory for an open Senate seat, giving Republicans a firm 22-16 majority. It wasn't unexpected, nor was it necessarily a bellwether, but Richardville practically skipped into the Senate chambers and his fellow Republicans couldn't stop beaming. When Nofs appeared for his victory lap, there were handshakes and backslaps all around.

It was a palpable return to normalcy, not just in Michigan, but in New Jersey and Virginia, as well. The GOP was victorious and all was right with the world.

Hard to believe that just a year ago, Barack Obama crushed John McCain and the Democrats piled up punishing majorities in Congress. In Michigan, the Democratic base hit 56 percent and the party picked up nine more state House seats.

It was like a morgue on the Republican side of the aisle on Nov. 4, 2008. Some were sullen, some were angry, but almost all looked unmistakably like something had been usurped from them.

Democrats were giddy, but it there was an aura of the surreal. The hand-wringing started immediately over strategy on the stimulus, health care and cap and trade. Instead of enjoying the ride, the question shifted to: how are we going to blow this? Will we micromanage like Carter? Capitulate like Clinton?

Golly gee, why do we Democrats suck so bad (even when we win)?

And therein lies the powerful psychological difference between the parties. It's the confidence gap.

Republicans may be livid, but they soon bounce back, even when they've been absolutely electorally pummeled. That's just an inexplicable aberration, like the popularity of plaid pants. All we have to do is return to our conservative roots and we shall reclaim what's rightfully ours.

It is almost mathematically and historically impossible for Republicans to take back Congress next year. They are 0 for 5 in the last five special elections, including the takedown of Know Nothing Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in NY-23. But you'd never know that from the nonstop, right-wing bravado that the glorious second coming of Newt Gingrich's Republican Revolution is at hand (even though Newt is flagellated these days as a card-carrying communist for backing moderates).

Republicans have a well-oiled propaganda machine to facilitate the fantasy of strength and popularity, from Fox News to The Weekly Standard. The message is always the same: Whether the GOP wins or loses, it always wins (and God bless St. Ronald Reagan).

So even though Tea Partiers represent a shockingly low percentage of the electorate (even a minority of the GOP), they're lauded as "real Americans" and net far more coverage and influence than they deserve.

And forget all the problematic reputable polls showing health care reform is popular. We have our own polling that miraculously says the opposite. Besides, House Minority Leader John Boehner, the epically tanned man of the people, says he's never met anyone for the public option, so that's good enough for me.

Meanwhile, check out MSNBC or The Nation. You might find some cheerleading for the president by Keith Olbermann, but most of it is a scowling gripefest. Obama's not a liberal, boo hoo, he's betrayed us.

We should all have single-payer health care by now, peace in the Middle East, zero carbon emissions and a pony. I voted for him and I want my pony, dammit. Woe is me, when will I ever have the progressive superhero president I deserve?

I can see why indecisive independents might gravitate toward Fox News and the Tea Party crowd. At least they seem to be having fun - and they appear to know what they're doing.

Even more than the ailing economy and slightly rising poll numbers, what Republicans have going for them is that good ole Democratic pessimism. It's all doom and gloom for the donkeys (and yes, Michigan Lt. Gov. John Cherry's poll numbers do give them reason) but they'd be kvetching if he were 20 points ahead.

So listen up, Democrats.

Laugh all you want at those misspelled signs at Tea Parties. Titter at Republican National Committee Chair Michael Steele's endless buffoonery on the cable circuit. And snigger as the GOP tries to detonate itself over dogmatic primary challenges instead of rebuilding a national party.

That doesn't mean you're going to win next year.

Which is fine by the unions and liberal activists, to be honest. They'd rather be screeching in the minority, reveling in their powerlessness to change anything as long as they keep control of their little fiefdoms. Besides, think of all the awesome blog posts you can write shredding new Michigan Gov. Mike Cox.

This week, a brilliant progressive friend of mine railed with a straight face that state Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop (R-Rochester) is like Hitler. Sorry, but that's as nutty as comparing the Dems' health care bill to Dachau. A moratorium on Nazi analogies in intelligent political debate would suit me just fine, unless we're talking about actual followers of the Third Reich.

The truth is, Democrats are often terrible at governing, as even liberals complain about Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm. That takes leadership and organization. And it just feels more natural being in the minority. Just ask the state Senate Democrats, who have dwelled there for a quarter-century and show little hope of digging out after Nofs' win last week.

I'm not convinced that Republicans are naturally better managers, but most of them project the self-confidence to do the job.

Kind of makes you wonder what a difference it would make if Democrats were that decisive.

Bruce Wilson: Palin's Prayer Leader Hinted Terrorist Attack Could Make Her President

2009-11-17T19:08:55Z

In the final weeks of the 2008 presidential election, one of the religious leaders closest to Sarah Palin hinted that the Alaska governor might soon get an unexpected career boost... from a terrorist attack.

Independent Charismatic Christianity vexed the McCain campaign throughout the 2008 campaign, first in the debacle that followed John McCain's decision to accept a long-sought political endorsement from Texas megachurch pastor John Hagee, when an anti-Semitic 2005 sermon by Hagee surfaced, then through infighting between Sarah Palin and McCain campaign staff.

Palin's new autobiography Going Rogue, and the numerous Palin media appearances accompanying the book's release, has provoked a fresh outburst of hostility, especially from McCain campaign head Steve Schmidt -- who declared Palin's book to be "all fiction". In June, Schmidt warned that if Palin were nominated as the 2012 GOP presidential candidate the result would be "catastrophic."

Fueling Schmidt's obvious hostility may be an astonishing but little noticed September 2008 "prophecy" from Palin's prayer group leader of almost two decades, Alaska evangelist Mary Glazier, that seemed to envision John McCain winning the 2008 election but then being killed soon thereafter, tragically, in a terrorist attack that would leave Palin to succeed McCain as president.

On September 22, with the 2008 presidential election little more than five weeks away, Glazier sent a prophetic "Warning of Imminent Attack" out through her prayer network [see 1, 2, 3]. Glazier later released a slightly sanitized version but her original "warning" concerned an "imminent" terrorist attack that could leave American in mourning with Sarah Palin "stepping into an office that she was mantled for."

Sarah Palin has been close to Mary Glazier throughout the entire course of Palin's political career. On June 13, 2008 Mary Glazier told Christian leaders at a church conference held near Seattle that Palin had joined Glazier's personal prayer group in 1989, around the time Palin went into politics [to listen to excerpt of Glazier's speech, see video at end of story],

There was a twenty-four year old woman that God began to speak to about entering into politics. She became a part of our prayer group out in Wasilla. Years later, became the mayor of Wasilla. And last year was elected Governor of the state of Alaska. Yes! Hallelujah! At her inauguration she dedicated the state to Jesus Christ. Hallelujah! Hallelujah!"

In the same speech, Glazier described an envisioned campaign of what would appear to be violent "religious cleansing" of unbelievers :

There is a tipping point, at which, at which time, because of the sin of the land, the people then have to be displaced. But while this measure of wickedness is rising, the measure of faith in the church is rising. God is preparing a people to displace the ones whose sin is rising so that then they tip over and the church goes in - one is removed and the church moves in and takes the territory. Now, that does not mean that the people are removed, because God removes them from the Kingdom of Darkness into the Kingdom of Light. They are given an opportunity to change allegiances.

A January 2009 Charisma Magazine article, The Faith Of Sarah Palin confirmed that Palin's relationship with Mary Glazier continued into 2008, when Palin and Glazier prayed together both over the phone and at the Alaska Governor's Prayer Breakfast. As the Charisma article quoted Glazier:

She asked me to pray with her for wisdom and direction," Glazier recalls. "I sensed a real heart of surrender to the will of God in her. God often chooses the least likely people to be at the forefront, and I do believe that God has equipped [Palin] for this hour.

As the article details, Mary Glazier's prayer group has been praying for Palin, whom Glazier feels has been selected by God for political advancement, for the entire length of Palin's political career:

Mary Glazier heads an Alaska-based prayer ministry called Windwalkers International. Charisma caught up with her on her way to a prayer meeting in Anchorage, the purpose of which was to pray specifically for Palin. This is nothing new, according to Glazier. "We actually began to pray for [Palin] before she became mayor of Wasilla," Glazier says. "We felt then that she was the one God had selected.

Mary Glazier is one of two religious leaders (along with Thomas Muthee) associated with Sarah Palin who claim to have successfully fought witches. Glazier has described a campaign of "prayer warfare" which she says her prayer group used to drive a woman, whom Glazier claimed was a witch, out of the state of Alaska. As Glazier told the Christian magazine SpiritLed Woman, for a 2003 article, "As we continued to pray against the spirit of witchcraft, her incense altar caught on fire, her car engine blew up, she went blind in her left eye, and she was diagnosed with cancer."

Glazier is an apostle in C. Peter Wagner's International Coalition of Apostles. Her fellow apostles include retired Col. Jim Ammerman, who controls 6-8 percent of the chaplains in the US military and the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, President of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, who has helped shape the Democratic "Third Way" platform on culture war issues such as abortion. The NHCLC has just formed a strategic alliance with John Hagee's Christians United For Israel. Mary Glazier also serves on the elite Apostolic Council of Prophetic Elders, and is credited with having brought the movement to Alaska. [for more on this religious movement see here]

David Hamilton Survives The Senate As Democrats Crush GOP Filibuster

2009-11-17T17:19:34Z

WASHINGTON — Democrats on Tuesday crushed a Senate filibuster against a controversial appeals court nominee, demonstrating to Republicans they can't stop President Barack Obama from turning the federal judiciary to the left.

The 70-29 vote limited debate over the qualifications of U.S. District Judge David Hamilton of Indiana, and assured his elevation to the Chicago-based appeals court. Sixty votes were needed to end the filibuster, but confirmation only requires a simple majority of the 100-member Senate.

Pelosi Shifts Focus To Unemployment After Push For Health Care Bill

2009-11-16T21:54:49Z

House Democratic leaders, worried they've appeared unresponsive to rising unemployment because they were absorbed by healthcare, are aiming for a legislation solution by Christmas.