Archive for the ‘BILL BLOG’ Category
Massa v. Foley
Friday, March 12th, 2010
Just when you thought we didn’t have to talk about Eric Massa anymore….
Not so fast. John Boehner is demanding a full ethics investigation – not of Eric Massa, he’s gone – but of Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer and how they handled the Massa mess.
If Democrats held us responsible for not acting sooner on Mark Foley, they say, then we should hold Democrats responsible for not acting sooner on Eric Massa.
Nonsense! This is pure political posturing.
First, even though he quit Congress, Massa’s not yet been found guilty of anything. Mark Foley admittedly was dating, hitting up on, and sending pornographic emails to House interns.
Second, House Republican leaders had been warned repeatedly and specifically about Foley’s sexually predatory activities, yet did nothing.
Yet, when someone from Massa’s office warned Steny Hoyer that the Congressman may have stepped over the line with male staffers, Hoyer told him immediately: You either report this to the Ethics Committee within 48 hours – or I will do it myself.
Warning received, action taken, problem solved. Just as it should be.
Republicans are wasting their time trying to keep the Eric Massa scandal alive. Democrats did the right thing. He’s dead. He’s gone. Not even Glenn Beck wants to talk about him anymore.
That’s my parting shot for today.
Posted in BILL BLOG | No Comments »
The Battle Between POTUS and SCROTUS
Friday, March 12th, 2010
By Bill Press
Tribune Media Services
Poor John Roberts. His feelings are hurt. And he wants big bully Barack Obama to stop picking on him.
Poor John Roberts. Apparently, he’s been nursing a grudge ever since Jan. 27 when President Obama used his State of the Union address to single out the Supreme Court for criticism over its decision on corporate financing of political campaigns. “Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections,” Obama told assembled members of Congress. “Well, I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.”
At which point, most members of Congress leapt to their feet in applause, while members of the court sat in stunned silence — except for Samuel Alito, who shook his head while muttering the words “Not true.” Well, at least he didn’t shout out: “You lie!”
At the time, Roberts did not say a word. But he seized the opportunity this week to fire back when speaking to the University of Alabama Law School. Responding to a student’s question, Roberts unloaded on Obama. While acknowledging that criticism of the court is fair game, he insisted that the State of the Union was neither the appropriate time nor place. “The image of having the members of one branch of government stand up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according to the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling.”
The chief justice even went so far as to suggest that members of the court might stay home next year and watch the speech on television: “To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I’m not sure why we’re there.”
No sooner had his salvo hit the wires than the Obama White House, knowing a good fight when they see one, fired back. In a statement to reporters, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs ridiculed Roberts’ complaint: “What is troubling is that this decision opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour money into elections — drowning out the voices of average Americans.”
And so the battle was joined between the president of the United States (POTUS) and the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) — or, as some have pointed out, between the president and Republican members of the court, also known as SCROTUS. It’s a battle John Roberts should never have started, because it’s a battle he’s sure to lose.
Even though members of the Supreme Court enjoy a lifetime appointment, they are not divine, nor perfect, and are certainly not immune to criticism. Ever since Thomas Jefferson tangled with John Marshall over the power of the court to rule on the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress, the court and sitting justices have been fair game for complaint. Conservatives never hesitate to condemn the court over Roe v. Wade. Why should liberals hesitate over campaign finance?
As for Roberts’ threat to boycott next year’s speech … who cares? In January 2000, not one member of the court showed up for Bill Clinton’s final State of the Union address — not even Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the two members he had appointed. And their absence was scarcely noted by the media. Only the New York Times made note of the fact, under the headline: “Alas, Justices All Absent and No Truant Officers.”
If Roberts didn’t want any criticism of the court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, he should have thought twice before engineering such a dangerous body blow to American politics. As the case originally came before the court, it dealt only with funding for a long-forgotten 2008 campaign documentary. But Roberts insisted that the court, instead, review the entire sweep of campaign financing law. The result was the court’s absurd ruling that giant corporations, even foreign corporations, have the same free speech rights as average citizens — and are therefore free to donate unlimited funds to political candidates.
Citizens United is not only bad law, it’s a classic case of judicial activism for which John Roberts is singularly responsible — and which Congress is certain to overrule. In the meantime, Roberts should just sit down and shut up.
© 2010 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
Posted in BILL BLOG | No Comments »
Rush to Costa Rica
Friday, March 12th, 2010
Looks like El Rushbo might be getting senile.
On Monday, the #1 hate talker embraced former Congressman Eric Massa as his new best friend. The next day, he denounced him.
Also on Tuesday, Rush vowed that if Congress passed health care reform legislation, he would move to Costa Rica. The next day, he changed his mind again: saying he would only go to Costa Rica “to get major medical health care.”
Now, Rush is right about one thing. Costa Rica does, in fact, have the best health care available in any Latin American country. In fact, its health care system is rated as better than that of the United States, even though they spend far less per capita than we do.
And why is it so good? Because Costa Rica offers universal, government-run health care. The government owns several major public hospitals and operates small clinics in almost every community. Workers contribute 15% of their salaries to health insurance. And the unemployed obtain public funding for all health services, including prescription drugs.
Will miracles never cease? I’ve long been an advocate of a single-payer health care system. But I never thought Rush Limbaugh would endorse it, too.
That’s my parting shot for today.
Posted in BILL BLOG | No Comments »
Eric Massa – From My Hero to My Zero
Wednesday, March 10th, 2010
What can you say about Eric Massa, except – it’s sad, sad, sad.
Overnight, he went from the person I believed about everything – to the person I believe about nothing.
Overnight, he went from the hero of liberals – to the darling of right-wingers.
Overnight, he went from the hope of the Democratic Party – to the man who’s trying to destroy the Democratic Party.
And overnight, he went from someone who was fighting to win – that’s why we loved him – to a man too eager to quit and walk away from a fight.
I just don’t get it. And I’ve never before seen a politician self-destruct so far, so fast.
Why did he quit? Who knows? He’s changed his story so many times, it’s hard to keep up with the latest version.
Was it because of the sexual harassment allegations? Maybe. But, if he’s as innocent as he says he is, that’s no reason to leave Congress.
Was it because of health? Again, maybe. But Dick Cheney had four heart attacks and still served eight years as vice-president.
One thing for sure: Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and Rahm Emanuel didn’t force him out. Massa left on his own.
I’m going to miss the old Eric Massa. I hope the new Eric Massa gets the professional help he needs.
That’s my parting shot for today.
Posted in BILL BLOG | No Comments »
The President’s Mistake on Terrorism Trials
Tuesday, March 9th, 2010
For many reasons, I think the Obama administration is making a big mistake on terrorism trials.
At first, Attorney General Eric Holder announced they were going to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in federal court in lower Manhattan.
Which was absolutely the right thing to do. That’s where the first World Trade Center bombers were tried and convicted. Zacarias Moussaoui was also tried in federal court, in Alexandria. And Richard Reid, in Boston.
In fact, over the last nine years, hundreds of terrorism suspects have been tried in federal criminal court – and 88 percent of them have been convicted and are now in prison.
Over the same period, by contrast, only three suspects have been tried in military tribunals – and only one of them is behind bars.
But, even though he was only following procedures established by George Bush and Dick Cheney, Republicans accused Obama of being soft on terror.
And now, instead of sticking to his guns and doing what’s right, it looks like Obama’s caving in: taking the case out of New York City, out of criminal court, and into some secret military tribunal.
If so, again, he’s making a big mistake. These terrorists are not soldiers in any army. They don’t deserve the honor of a military tribunal.
That’s my parting shot for today.
Posted in BILL BLOG | No Comments »
Corruption is Bipartisan
Monday, March 8th, 2010
As a Democrat, it was a lot of fun taking pot shots at Denny Hastert, Tom Delay, and all their crooked cronies, when they were in power.
Remember? We used to call it the “culture of corruption.” And we made gladly the case for throwing the bums out and putting Democrats in charge, so they could clean up the mess in Washington and give the American people the cleanest government ever.
And now? Once Democrats are in power, we find ourselves having to defend Eliot Spitzer, John Edwards, David Paterson, Charlie Rangel, and Eric Massa.
Oh, my God! Corruption, it seems, is the only thing about politics that is, in fact, truly bipartisan.
Are we surprised? Not really. After all, knowing human nature, we realize that neither Democrats nor Republicans are angels.
But are we disappointed? Of course. Because we expect more of our friends and fellow Democrats. We count on them to adhere to a higher ethical standard than those no-good Republicans. And we’re embarrassed, and angry, when they don’t.
Which is not to condemn anybody. The jury is still out on David Paterson, Charlie Rangel, and Eric Massa.
But if, in fact, they are found guilty of allegations against them, then we have to be as hard on them as we were on Tom Delay.
Maybe even harder, because they were our friends.
That’s my parting shot for today.
Posted in BILL BLOG | 2 Comments »
The Kid Friendly Skies
Friday, March 5th, 2010
OK, so it’s not the most important issue of the week. But it’s the one that bugged me the most.
And that’s the story of the air traffic controller at New York’s JFK airport who took his kids to work – and actually let them take over the microphone to direct traffic on a couple of outgoing flights.
There’s so much about this story I can’t believe.
For starters, how could that employee possibly be so clueless? What if there had been a sudden emergency, like another plane taxiing onto the same runway, where a split second decision had to be made?
And why did the pilots just laugh and go along, as if it was just a funny stunt? Are they that careless about proper safety procedures? Did they really want their flight operations guided by a 7-year old?
But my first concern is: Why should anybody, other than trained personnel, be allowed in an airport tower? Any outsider is an obvious distraction from what we are all told is the most stressful job in the world.
It’s hard to believe the FAA didn’t act sooner, but they’d better crack down quick – before somebody lets a 7-year old take over controls of a 747.
That’s my parting shot for today.
Posted in BILL BLOG | No Comments »
Drawing the Battle Lines on Health Care
Friday, March 5th, 2010
By Bill Press
Tribune Media Services
At long last, the preliminaries are over and we’re entering the final rounds of the health care reform debate.
After making the mistake of staying on the sidelines for too long, President Obama stepped up to the plate on Wednesday, March 3, and took charge. Before a crowd of health professionals packed into the East Room of the White House, he laid forth his best attempt at a compromise solution — and dared Congress to act.
We’ve talked about it long enough, Obama said. While they disagree about what to do about it, both Republicans and Democrats agree that the current system is broken and must be fixed. So, he argued, it’s time to stop debating the issue and get something done. Legislation on health care in some form has already passed both the House and the Senate, so now it deserves a final vote.
It shouldn’t take 60 votes in the Senate, either, Obama noted. Health care, he insisted, “deserves the same kind of up or down vote that was cast on welfare reform, that was cast on the Children’s Health Insurance Program, that was used for COBRA health coverage for the unemployed, and, by the way, for both Bush tax cuts — all of which had to pass Congress with nothing more than a simple majority.”
Finally! If President Obama had only given that speech six months ago, we’d already have health care reform in the bank. But his speech does set the stage for final approval of health care before March 26, when Congress leaves town for a two-week Easter break. At which point the scene will shift dramatically from legislation to election-year politics.
Republicans, of course, have been playing politics with the issue from the beginning. In July 2009, South Carolina’s Jim DeMint let the cat out of the bag when he told conservative supporters “If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.” Ever since then, the goal of Republicans has been, not to push their own version of health care, but to use all available tools, including the filibuster, to kill anything Obama proposed.
That plan having apparently failed, Republicans have already switched tactics: predicting that passage of health care reform legislation will mean political ruin for Democrats in November. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell warned Democrats this week: “If somehow this bill is passed, (in the next election) every Republican candidate will be campaigning to repeal it.”
To which, Democrats, borrowing a phrase from George W. Bush, should respond: “Bring it on!”
The idea that passage of major health care reform legislation will prove to be a political liability for Democrats is one of the biggest canards ever uttered in American politics. Indeed, all evidence is that the exact opposite is true. It wasn’t so long ago that we did have an election focused, in great part, on universal health care. One candidate was for it. One candidate was against it. And the pro-reform candidate now sits in the Oval Office.
Nor has the desire of Americans for health care protection for themselves and their families changed since. Americans still like health care. What they don’t like is the political bickering they’ve seen for the last 14 months. They like the product, in other words, they just don’t like the process. Whatever political unrest may exist today among voters will disappear once Democrats, with a strong health care bill in hand, focus on selling the product and not on defending the process.
And there are many good features to Obama’s bill. It expands coverage to 30 million Americans. It allows young people to stay on their parents’ plan until the age of 26. It prevents insurance companies from denying coverage because of a pre-existing condition. No, it’s not the perfect bill. It should contain a public plan option. But it’s still a lot better than the status quo. The truth is: Democrats will pay a political price, no matter what they do. Politically, it’s far better to do something than to have done nothing.
If, in fact, the choice facing voters in November is between Democrats who delivered on health care reform vs. Republicans who want to repeal it and turn things back to insurance companies, Democrats will have a great day. And Mitch McConnell and John Boehner will be out of a job.
© 2010 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
Posted in BILL BLOG | 2 Comments »
Obama’s Call To Arms
Thursday, March 4th, 2010
Finally!
Finally, President Obama has taken a strong stand – and a final stand – on health care.
Speaking in the East Room of the White House yesterday, the President was direct, convincing, and forceful.
We’ve been talking about this issue long enough, he said. We all agree the status quo is unacceptable. So, no more debate. Now’s the time to act. The American people deserve an up or down vote on health care. So, let’s have it within the next two weeks.
Yes, yes, yes. Unless you are totally in the pocket of the insurance companies, you can’t argue with that logic. Every word of it is true.
The current system is broken. It’s hurting millions of American families and businesses, which now have or provide health insurance. And it’s excluding 30-40 million Americans from coverage.
So, we must fix the system, expand coverage, lower premiums, and prevent unfair practices by insurance companies. And we must do it now.
If some Democrats don’t like it, fine – vote against it. If Republicans don’t like it, vote against it. But we must have a vote – a majority vote – and we must have it now.
On health care, President Obama has issued a call to arms. Now it’s up to the Congress to act.
That’s my parting shot for today.
Posted in BILL BLOG | No Comments »
Republicans Don’t Want Health Reform
Friday, February 26th, 2010
OK, what are we waiting for?
If it wasn’t clear before yesterday, it sure is clear now: Republicans don’t want health care reform and they’re never going to agree to any legislation.
That was evident from the very beginning of yesterday’s health care summit, when the designated Republican speaker, Lamar Alexander, took the floor.
He attacked the House bill, the Senate bill, and President Obama’s proposals, without mentioning one thing in either proposal he agreed with. He demanded that Obama drop all three proposals and start from scratch. And he insisted that, even before the debate begin, Obama promise that Democrats would never use reconciliation to pass a health care bill.
In other words, Alexander said, we didn’t come to play. We came to kill. And that’s pretty much all we heard from Republicans all day long.
Republican after Republican talked about starting all over again. About only taking baby steps. About not being too hard on insurance companies. About letting the private market system work. And all that garbage.
Well, now we know where Republicans stand. And now we know where we go from here.
Forget bipartisanship. Forget the filibuster. Follow the rules of the Senate. Pass health care legislation with 51 Democratic votes. And get the job done.
That’s my parting shot for today.
Posted in BILL BLOG | 2 Comments »
