You are currently browsing the daily archive for January 26, 2009.


A good comment on Huffpo on this:

odds are Obama didn’t need to strip out the money in order to get the bill passed. However, it has been indicated that Obama wants to do more than barely pass the bill, he wants to pass it with substantial Republican support. Which means, in effect, that having “bipartisan” support is more important to Obama than funding family planning.


Today we have learned something about the administration’s priorities. And appeasing Republicans ranks appears to be a higher priority than family planning.

When the voting for the Lilly leadbetter Act came about, Harry Reid decided to let the GOP propose amendments for bipartisanship sake – after all, it was just women.

Now in negotiating the stimulus in the House – what gets conceded to the GOP? Contraceptives pay, of course

WASHINGTON – Democratic officials say House leaders are seriously considering deleting family planning funds for the low-income from an economic stimulus bill headed for a vote later in the week

I am not a Pelosi fan, but in all fairness, she did fight for this provision. But now, the Ms magazine feminist demanded

These Democrats say the Obama administration made the request for the change. Republicans have been critical of the provision, which is included in the $825 billion bill.

So, poor women – out of luck.


From the more detailed source

Several Democrats said Monday night that Obama had spoken personally with Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., about removing the provision. Waxman is chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over Medicaid and a close ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

That being the “bipartisan” attempt to compromise with a GOP which

Whether it also succeeds in gaining votes is unclear, particularly in the House, where the GOP leadership has advanced an alternative that consists almost exclusively of tax cuts.

And why not? The poker game is over, the ace in the hole can be dumped now

But for some mysterious reason, neither Newseum, nor Daily News for that matter, carries that cover – I couldn’t get it on line so I photographed it at the newsstand

Here’s the photo at the Daily News website

which goes with the article.

Apparently, after deciding the page one, someone told the paper to hype up the anti-Paterson news instead.


Irony alert! William white-women-are-the problem Kristol is posing the question:

Will Obama Save Liberalism?

To be sure, the column is filled with every demeaning quote he could find on liberalism. But he is trying to show his bona fides by using the ReaganΒ  simile yet again.

Which makes the question so heavy in irony as Obama was writing in his book about the failed liberalism and how Reagan changed all that…From his book:

“The conservative revolution Reagan helped usher in gained traction because Reagan’s central insight--that the liberal welfare state had grown complacent and overly bureaucratic, with Democratic policy makers more obsessed with slicing the economic pie than with growing the pie–contained a good deal of truth.” page 156

and on page 32

“That Reagan’s message found such a receptive audience spoke not only to his skills as a communicator; it also spoke to the failures of liberal government, during a period of economic stagnation, to give middle-class voters any sense that it was fighting for them. For the fact was government at every level had become too cavalier about spending taxpayer money. Too often bureaucracies were oblivious to the cost of their mandates. A lot of liberal rhetoric did seem to value rights and entitlements over duties and responsibilities. Reagan may have exaggerated the sins of the welfare state, and certainly liberals were right to complain that his domestic policies tilted heavily toward elites, with corporate raiders making tidy profits throughout the eighties while unions were busted and the income for the average working stiff flatlined.

Nevertheless, by promising to side with those who worked hard, obeyed the law, cared for their families, loved their country, Reagan offered Americans a sense of common purpose that liberals seemed no longer able to muster.”

It was also the post-partisan candidate, who claims to represent a base without ideology

But Bill Kristol is on to something.

I noticed that the media is less ashamed to be called “liberal” these days.

To be sure, this would be the exact same media that has been called “liberal” for the past 30 years, even while fawning over Reagan, demanding the impeachment of Bill Clinton, gunning down Gore and Kerry and fawning over W. Somewhere, during the cheering for the war in Iraq, the irony was too heavy and suddenly “liberal” became “main stream”. With that title safely secured, the new shooting down of the Clintons and the fawning over Obama – the same media doesn’t consider “liberal” such an insult anymore.

As someone who clung to the self-definition of liberal since the offensive on it started by Reagan, I want no part of this meaning of the word.

Like Earth Day which was started by environmental activists and was adopted by corporations as money making logo, liberalism shall be purged of ideology and substance.

Yes, Bill Kristol, Obama will save “liberalism”. But by the time that happens, it will maybe synonimous with “hipster” or “male”

At best, it’ll be Phil Oaks’ liberal

I vote for the democratic party
They want the U.N. to be strong
I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
I’ll send all the money you ask for
But don’t ask me to come on along
So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal

I remember resenting him taking down the word I had decided to save. But, soon, that would be the most endearing definition out there.

I definitely need another name for myself.

Not Your Sweetie