The Stupak amendment was not exactly a surprise to anyone, but those who should have defended women’s rights.

It has been submitted – and defeated- in committee back in July – and nobody heard or wrote a thing about it.

Not NARAL, not Planned Parenthood, nor any of the people who asked women to protect their reproductive rights by voting for Obama

And as all so called progressives in Congress were laying down for Stupak for Saturday’s vote – because how could they harm Obama?

the author himself was incredulous how easy it was and amazingly declated:

“It’s more than what we thought we would get.”

Not more that Obama thought they’d get though, as he repeated his statement in the healthcare speech in his interview with Jake Tapper yesterday. Tapper asked the very question:

when you gave your joint address to Congress, that under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions. This amendment passed Saturday night which not only prohibits abortion coverage in the public option, but also prohibits women who receive subsidies from taking out plans that — that provide abortion coverage. Does that meet the promise that you set out or does it over reach, does it go too far?

And Obama, speaking with both sides of his mouth leaves this much:

this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill. (not anymore!) And we’re not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions.

And I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test — that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions

And then, Mr Changey talks about …not changing the status quo.

B0bots and pro-choice organizations, I have a picture for you to look at.

This is more to preserve the link for me,

Some revealing paragraphs:

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think it’s better than what we have now?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: No. Actually, it’s not, because it locks us into a for-profit system that the government subsidizes.

That takes care of the B0bots argument.

On the public option:

Keep something in mind. When Mr. Hacker first came out with his proposal for a public option, it was going to cover 129 million Americans. That really would compete in an exchange with private insurance. But that’s been whittled down to, depending on who you talk to, covering six to 11 million people. So only a fraction of Americans will have access to the public option, which means that there’s not effective competition with the insurance companies to drive down rates.

and a possible solution

AMY GOODMAN: Do you see, Congressman Kucinich, a way to get from where you’re talking about from here?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Yes, if we are able to get back in the bill a provision that says states will be shielded from legal attack by insurance companies if those states go with their own single-payer plan. I mean, states should have the right to do that. You have ten states which are actively involved in single-payer movements.

and why he voted no

I felt that my vote was the only way that I could make a statement about how this is not a state of affairs which is celebrating Democratic principles, Democratic economic philosophy, or the hopes of people to have real healthcare instead of having real health—instead of being forced to pay for insurance.

a bit on Obama

And the administration, obviously, was terrified that anything could be identified as being adverse to the insurance companies, which is why they took privatization, they took single payer off the table immediately, they knocked down the robust public option.

Nothing new on Stupak, which apparently was known since July but nobody cared.

Except for this hopeful piece of news:

at least 41 House Dems are writing directly to Pelosi, telling her that they will not vote for anything “that contains language that restricts women’s right to choose any further than current law.”

I am hoping this is about an upcoming vote – after the reconciliation with the senate bill, rather than a failed attempt at rebellion before Saturday’s vote.

In spite of the efforts to hush the facts up, they were known for those who listened to NPR 2 days ago. Still, I agreed with the call for restraint from Obama untill the facts were in – advice he should have given himself at the time of the cop and the professor incident.

But now the facts are furiously exploding on covers of tabloids

The Daily News keeps it personal

while the NY Post goes all out

as I find myself, for the first time in my life not loathing something Lieberman says

because of this from the NPR piece

ZWERDLING: I want to add something else about Hasan at Walter Reed. The psychiatrist I talked to today said that he was the kind of guy who the staff actually stood around in the hallway, saying: Do you think he’s a terrorist, or is he just weird? And now, apparently, Walter Reed is in a lockdown mode where they’ve been instructed – all the staff has been instructed: Do not talk to anybody about this investigation, except military people. Do not talk to the FBI, because they’re afraid, potentially, what if people decide investigating this that people missed potential warning signs about the guy

Update of November 10

The logical conclusion reached the NYC tabloids:

and NY Post, in the mold of their famous “Bush knew”

Of course, the logical question is: If NY Post extended the FBI knowledge to the most moronic president we had, why wouldn’t the 11 dimensional chess player being granted the same courtesy? Why not

“OBAMA KNEW”?

…

Having adopted Reclusive Leftist’s name for this disaster let’s see how NY tabloids announce it.

Newsday tone is rather somber

while the Daily News remains the cheerleader. But why is Obama in tiny letters?

Someone there is not so sure this is a good thing

NY Post’s sarcasm captures my mood too

..

In the chants of victory over the passing of the so called reform, (as drafted by insurance companies)

very little will be said about the price of the agreement in the House

party leaders broke a weeks-long impasse over abortion by agreeing to hold a vote on an amendment — offered by antiabortion Democrats — that would explicitly bar the public plan from` covering the procedure. The amendment, approved 240 to 194, with 64 Democrats in favor, also would prohibit people who received insurance subsidies from purchasing private plans that covered abortion.

I find it interesting how every time there is an “impasse” it’s the so called progressives who give in.
here’s a better explanation of the law’s implications from Stateofdisbelief at The Confluence

This amendment extends the exclusions of the Hyde amendment restrictions on women’s reproductive needs to any health plan that receives federal subsidies, credits, or has any other financial connection to federal tax dollars.  This will mean virtually every healthcare plan available now, reaching it’s offensive tentacles of deprivation further than ever.  Women who currently have this coverage will have it terminated because of the new law.

Whatever happened to the promise that if you like your coverage you have now, you can keep it? Right, that would be only for menfolk. All present coverage can be maintained. Except the one for reproductive care. Because that one is a “moral issue”

It’s also clearer why we couldn’t have a woman president – remember, Obama promised this way before it happened

in his best heckled speech:

And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up – under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”

so Pelosi is right that this couldn’t have happened without Obama’s “vision”

The House merely followed. Still, I will copy here the list of those who personally shoved our rights, courtesy of Firedoglake

Altmire
Baca
Barrow
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Boccieri
Boren
Bright
Cardoza
Carney
Chandler
Childers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cuellar
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (TN)
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Ellsworth
Etheridge
Gordon (TN)
Griffith
Hill
Holden
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Langevin
Lipinski
Lynch
Marshall
Matheson
McIntyre
Melancon
Michaud
Mollohan
Murtha
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Perriello
Peterson
Pomeroy
Rahall
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Shuler
Skelton
Snyder
Space
Spratt
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Wilson (OH)

I shall of course skip the delusional call to battle from people who help elect a President who engineered this. It’s not like elections are worth squat in this country. Wall Street and other big business will tell the parties whom to have us vote for.

So, women, unless you have the cash, when you’re feeling blue carry that baby (you’re punished with) to term!

Democrats are in charge,! Woo-Hooo!

Remember when Roe was Obama’s “ace in the hole”?

How do the women who played that poker game look now?

The Reclusive Leftist calls this “Healthare reform for men”

Oh, and the Nobel peace prize laureate

Obama leaning toward 34,000 more troops for Afghanistan

Now go back there and celebrate!…

To read the Hill account about the upcoming House vote to block abortion funding you’d think the culprits are the Republicans, or at least Congress:

House Democratic leaders will allow an up-or-down vote on an amendment blocking any money in its healthcare overhaul from funding abortions, risking the votes of members who support abortion rights.

and then

Stupak, flanked by a bipartisan coterie of abortion opponents, argued for consideration of their amendment that explicitiy (sic) prohibits federal funding of abortions under the Democrats’ healthcare bill before the Speaker’s select committee.

Very dramatically convenient – drawing the women ire to the usual suspects.

But it ignores the many signals that we have a misogynistic administration (for those who lived in a cave during the elections).

So let’s remember a few, shall we?

Back in January Obama asked democrats in congress to dump contraceptives pay from the stimulus, much as appeasing the GOP wasn’t a political need.

Back in April, during SOTU (or some other bestest speech) Obama declared that unlike what he promised during the campaign,

FOCA wasn’t his priority and abortion is not a freedom issue but a moral one

I think abortion is a moral issue and an ethical issue. I think that those who are pro-choice make a mistake when they — if they suggest — and I don’t want create straw men here, but I think there are some who suggest that this is simply an issue about women’s freedom and that there’s no other considerations.

And most pertinent, during his bestest hackled speech on healthcare Obama declared

And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up – under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”

It should be noted that neither NARAL nor Planned Parenthood were heard from on all those occasions. Predictable though, Planned Parenthood is piping in now – and quickly, when non-Obama culprits can be found:

The agreement was quickly condemned by Planned Parenthood Federation of America, which called the amendment by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) a “de facto abortion ban.”

Sorry, PP – it comes from the president you foisted on us.

And for comic relief, a comment from a – Democratic-  congressWOMAN from Pa

“This doesn’t change the law at all, it’s not outlawing abortion today; a majority of abortions are paid for with cash,”

Yup. Cuz women are cash cows – everyone knows that.

And speaking of the rich and selfish, another piece of news that I needed mentioned: Obama’s real base, the Wall Street CEOs hogged the swine flu vaccine from hospitals and schools. Reminds me of that disgusting commercial with pigs eating ham.

But the Democrats are on the case! They will hold an investigation! Right after they deal with those cash cows abortion fiends, that is!

Update

Mind you, by showing the source of the anti-choice policies I was in no way trying to defend Congress. How could I – with headlines like this one

House Leaders Meeting Now with Bishops To Discuss Health Care Bill, Abortion

Seems separation of church and state is being ditched along with the women

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer are meeting right now with representatives from the Conference of Catholic Bishops in an attempt to come up with compromise language that would mollify most of the moderate Democrats who are unhappy with what they consider the House health care bill’s permissive stance toward public funding for abortion

It’s all about the mollifying!…

I was going to leave this just an update to my previous post, until I noticed a trend: Bobot defends the producer of “V”, essentially saying – he couldn’t have, he is one of us!

liberal supporter of the President who worked for and donated money to the his campaign

So, that explains the downfall of the quality of his work which was stellar in The 44oos and mediocre here.

On the other side of the aisle we have the ombudsman of PBS having to answer for Oscar the Grouch’s words

The episode, which aired Oct. 29, involves one of Sesame Street’s scores of colorful creations, the Grouch News Network, in which muppet Oscar the Grouch is the host, pursuing GNN’s dedication to “all grouchy, all disgustin’, all yucky” news. But another character feels that the Grouch is not grouchy enough and threatens to switch to “Pox News, now there’s a trashy news show,

I like what the ombudsman concludes

I don’t know what was in the head of the producers, but my guess is that this was one of those parodies that was too good to resist. But it should have been resisted. Broadcasters can tell parents whatever they think of Fox or any other network, but you shouldn’t do it through the kids.

And what do those two pieces of news have in common? Well, the Sesame Street storm, as the Ombudsman said

It’s a parody, a play on words, and has a timely feel to it at this time, especially, because of the battle now going on publicly between Fox and the White House.

I suppose the Sesame Street writer felt it safe to carry the White House agenda into a kids show.

Not as safe as the alleged anti-B0 writer should feel.

The “V” defense was also mounted in response to a similar threat – it may have come from Gawker, but it was so out of character there, it had to have deeper roots :

“keep picking on the president and the only letters that V will get are D.O.A.”

Pretty nifty threat, huh? Reminds me of 2001 and Ashcroft’s speeches about phantoms of lost liberties and the “you’re either with us or against us. What kind a democracy is this where the campaign donor card of the writer has to be waved to prove he didn’t attack the president? (reminds me of certain internet forums)

Will this become a required test for everyone pitching a show on TV? Or is this already in place? And no matter who the show creator donated to, isn’t this the society the Vs are trying to create? This is interesting

Unfortunately for Mr. Peters, this isn’t the first time in his career that fans or critics saw things in his work he didn’t intend. Some fans of “The 4400” saw hidden meaning in those episodes too.

yup. Good writing usually serves like a Rohrshack test. That B0bots saw themselves in “V” is  a riot. Willingly or not, the story seems to have hit a nerve.

Anyway, a Gawker commentator came with the solution yo this

And if we’re going that far, couldn’t Ana (so sorry Morena Baccarin) be Sarah Palin? The pretty lady (reptile in sheep’s clothing) who attempts to convince everyone she means no harm, but underneath there’s really just a heinous (stupid) monster out for self and self only?

See? Cherchez la femme! As long as you channel the hatred to approved targets, everything is A-OK! And no danger of Gawker – or the Secret Service ever coming to your house.

On a totally unrelated topic, I just had to have this headline

Paterson Empowered By Obama’s Election Woes

.Update

The “V” story goes on and on. They actually asked Gibbs about the alleged portrayal of Obama as an alien
I confess I liked his answer

that would “be one of the least worst things he’s been called today.”

and also

If that makes me fairly un-cool, I tend to watch more ‘SpongeBob’ than ‘V.’”

I postponed covering this one because the election got in the way, but it’s a doozie. Remember the 1st Amendment in the Constitution?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Well, now forget it, because when it comes to healthcare, Congress is establishing Christian Science as the go to healer (all you voodoo doctors, medicine women, shamans and other faith healers – go hide in shame – it’s only Jesus that saves)

a little-noticed provision in the healthcare overhaul bill would require insurers to consider covering Christian Science prayer treatments as medical expenses.

Separation of church and what again?

The “dog bites man” part of this story is that the bill was introduced by Orrin Hatch.

But wait, there’s a “man bites dog” newsworthy bit too

The provision was inserted by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) with the support of Democratic Sens. John F. Kerry and the late Edward M. Kennedy, both of Massachusetts, home to the headquarters of the Church of Christ, Scientist.

What is it about Senate that perverts the best?

I guess I just found anoher reason to name the bill after Ted Kennedy. Ya know, like a prayer for him.

Eat your heart out, W, the Democrats are out-doing you and your faith-based puny attempts to establish a theocracy. How can they not, with their own Messiah?

And on the other side of derangement – less dangerous but equally disturbing, The New Republic sees tea parties in a show about aliens

a ham-handed metaphor for President Obama. The visitors are young, charismatic, futuristic, and have a one-worldish vision of peace. They target the young by enticing them to join an idealistic (but, in reality, sinister) youth group.

Oh, noes! Obama is a lizzard – sez so on my teevee! (at least that’s what TNR reads). And if you doubt, here’s more proof:

The lead character is skeptical–what proof do you have she asks, besides some scary thing “you read on the internet.” But the seemingly hysterical message from the internet is true! The charismatic new leader is masking her true identity! The death panels are real!

Gee, I thought Obama liked the internet, hipster that he was…

To be sure, I believe the new “V” dumbed down the original, or at least gave it a heartectomy by adding the FBI agent and terrorist plots. (The original was dedicated to all resistence fighters, past and future)

It now has only a good cast to recommend it. And a New York setting.

But to see Obama in an alien show that frankly – is all over the place and has no theme beyond “our saucers are bigger and shinier”

Me thinks these TV reviewers need some therapy.  I bet they can find a Christian Scientist to pray for them – and then be reimbursed for it.

Update

Reading the Confluence, I find out TNR is hardly alone in finding V to be about Obama

The difference? The Tribune seems to like that

Welcome to ABC’s “V,” the most fascinating and bound to be the most controversial new show of the fall television season.

I also think it’s far more smarter to see the series taking pot shots at Obamania than Obama himself. I guess suddenly the change of the title logo – from the resistance sign of victory to simpering teens admiration has a reason now.

Oh, well, lizzard, schmizzard – at least the aliens got a woman as a leader and she seems to know what she’s doing!

Update

Following up on the coverage I found Gawker’s reaction to the Tribune’s excitement. Like TNR, they are not happy:

We find it hard to believe that thinly-veiIed conservative propaganda will find a strong foothold with the core sci-fi audience, and as for those leaning to the right, they tend to like their entertainment much more straightforward. Why try to figure out what all those lizard people mean when they can just watch Jack Bauer bash people’s heads in on 24? That’s their idea of fun.Our prognosis, keep picking on the president and the only letters that V will get are D.O.A.

Ouch! Someone hit a nerve with B0bots while I was waxing nostalgic over the original. But what do I know? I am only a sci-fi fan. Partial to good sci-fi.

But one of the comments on the show at TWOP stuck me in light of the new POV: if the visitors have been here for years, infiltrating us, couldn’t they secure one friendly reporter?

me thinks the visitors didn’t have enough money for that. references to MSNBC/Fox have been deconstructed by viewers now.

Update

Almost reluctant to add the proof that I was right

The script was not written as a roman a clef or allegory for the Obama administration. The script was written by Mr. Peters during the Bush administration and started before Mr. Obama clinched the nomination. The author, Mr. Peters, is not some evil sleeper right-winger/Obama hater. Mr. Peters, besides being a talented writer and director is a gay man, legally married in California, and a  liberal supporter of the President who worked for and donated money to the his campaign. If he’s a mole for some right-wing conspiracy he may be the most committed spy ever. Mr. Peters, who was born in Canada, recently became an American citizen; a process he tried to expedite so he could vote for Mr. Obama, a deadline he missed by two days. (and then proposition 8 came! – my comment)

Which opens 2 questions:

1. Why did B0bots see themselves in the duped earthlings applauding some gimmick

2. What happened to the awesome writing quality in Peters 4400?

There’s also a sad sign of the times that such a defense needed to be mounted.

It’s very rewarding to me that similar numbers that gave Bloomberg  “landslide” headlines in 2001 are now called “PER UN PELLO” by El Diario,

by AM-NY. The most clever title goes to METRO which references the obscene spending

and the lamest goes to cheerleader Daily News (they were attacking Bloomberg back in 2001 race – than a $miracle$ happened, they saw the light, endorsed him and are fawning over him ever since)

The numbers (Bloomberg’sspending) are not yet in, but it looks like $200 per vote. I saved a screenshot from NY Times returns

of the final numbers

Elsewhere, the one good thing from New Jersey is that they are covering Obama’s efforts to save Corzine.

And the Obama insulation efforts reach pathetic proportions of the W kind (h/t myiq2xu at the Confluence)

Gibbs: Obama ‘not watching returns’

I suppose he was playing the fiddle. Jake Tapper twitted, amidst New jersey returns

NBC’s “The Biggest Loser” is at the White House tonight. This is not a joke.

In Political Punch, more about that fiddle

Whether or not you believe that, White House officials say Republican victories in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races came as no surprise to them.

Kinda like “Bloomberg expected a close race” Monday quarterbaking.

And of course, being bad news, no connection to Obama

Neither race, they say, was a referendum on President Obama;

On the mayoral, Tapper tweets:

who says the WH cared about defeating Bloomberg?

Indeed, who? Blo0mberg owes nobody, everyone owes him.

Update

From SYD’s link in the comments – a very revealing exchange between the White House and Anthony Weiner

“Maybe one of those Corzine trips could have been better spent in New York. Who knows?” remarked New York Rep. Anthony Weiner, who weighed his own run for mayor, referring to the White House’s devout attention to the New Jersey contest.

“Maybe Anthony Weiner should have manned-up and run against Michael Bloomberg,” shot back a White House official, who attributed the night’s results across the board to anti-incumbent fervor

Glad that the anti-gay slur got the attention of the B0bot extraordinaire John Avrosis.

Manned up? So is the White House saying that Weiner is acting like a woman or a gay? And which one does our White House find worse?

It’s not like we didn’t point out the homophobia of this crew way back. But I like the question:

a woman or a gay? And which one does our White House find worse?

Of course Weiner’s retort was priceless

“If the White House is going to criticize me, they should man up and call me fat,”

Also, I agree with Ben Smith analysis

Bloomberg’s meager five-point win left Democrats pondering what might have been if New York’s Democratic donors hadn’t turned their back on Thompson, if its politicians had worked for him, and most of all if President Barack Obama had offered anything more than the lamest words of praise.

According to NYU local, the NY times was in a rush to declare Bloomberg a winner by 9:45 – but as of 10 PM the margin between the 2 is less than 2%

.That’s what NYT based their declaration of victory on…

Love it! (and so does NYU local – NYT is retracting

10:25 p.m.: Ha! The Times changes their headline to “Bloomberg projected to win 3rd term”! Spoke too soon, Grey Lady?

All the news that’s paid to print

The hillarious ending comment on the NYT:

Continuing with the Times change of headlines, the current one begins with “Bloomberg appears to prevail.” At least to those paying attention, this has to have been pretty embarrassing for the Gray Lady — a premature declaration, a quasi-retraction, and a carefully worded conclusion.

Update

With 99% counted, the difference is 4.6%. Assuming Bloomberg spent 100 million, it would come to $200 per vote.

Funny that Paterson chastised Democrats in New Jersey for staying home. From what I saw, the New jersey turnout was double to that of NYC (barely over 1 million people voted) – for just about the same population. Of course, Paterson better be nice to NY voters… But I don’t have to.

Shame on those of you staying home.

Update

Surreal seeing Bloomberg tool Al Sharpton at Thompson’s headquarters. He foisted Bloomberg on us and never ever said a word against him.

Other surreal bits:

“This is the hardest and best run campaign I’ve ever seen,” said Koch, who endorsed Bloomberg

Indeed, Ed – how hard is it to spend 100 million against a candidate abandoned by his party and with no money? (I feel like I am writing about last year’s presidential elections – both primaries and GE – they gushed the same way over Obama too)

A better quote from the same article, from a voter

“I didn’t like the idea that King Mike thinks he can buy anything he wants, including my vote,” said Democrat Kevin Anterline, 56, who voted for Thompson.

Me neither, but  most people like us couldn’t be bothered to show up and vote.

The live blog at the Gothamist is a good read too

Apparently NBC also had to retract their projection of Bloomberg. (see 10:00 PM update)

And since I didn’t bother watching Bloomberg speak, this account is interesting

Overall, Bloomberg emphasizes how voters “chose progress.” He notes Thompson’s “gracious” concession call— Thompson is booed by the crowd