You are currently browsing the daily archive for March 5, 2010.
I had just discovered this show – a feature of Infomania is also running as a weekly collection. One of the tag lines
Target Women is a recurring segment on Current TV’s weekly television show, infoMania. In each episode of Target Women, Sarah Haskins takes a look at the often-ridiculous way the media reaches out to women.
The one that made me look for the show is the one on birth control which brings us the puzzle: why birth control is always advertised as period control?
If you have Current, you can watch/tape the half an hour compilations at these times, if not, just watch them on line – first link I posted.
When Obama finally came out with ‘his own bill”, they were careful to not touch any of the Nelson anti-choice provisions in the Senate bill – in spite of those having been the price for getting 60 votes – unneeded now. As per NOW statement
The worst feature of the president’s proposal — a real poison pill as far as NOW is concerned — is retention of the Senate bill’s Reid-Nelson anti-abortion language.
Since about one-third of women in this country have abortions, and nearly 90 percent of private health plans currently cover abortion procedures, the President’s plan, like the Senate’s, would deprive millions of women of insurance coverage they currently have.
That didn’t stop Stupak to posture for his language.
And her comes Obama Times’s editorial – advocating not for women, but for Obama’s bill
The issue of abortion coverage can’t be addressed in a reconciliation bill that must deal only with budgetary matters. The Senate bill already has onerous provisions that would likely discourage insurers on new exchanges from offering policies that cover abortions. The House bill is even more restrictive. Both are outrageous intrusions on a woman’s right to make health care decisions.
blah, blah choice rights but now Obama Times asks nicely :
House Democrats who say they cannot accept the Senate’s abortion provisions must ask themselves a fundamental question: Are they willing to scuttle their party’s signature domestic issue and a reform that this country desperately needs, rather than accept the almost-as-tough language of the Senate bill?
Come on, guys! It’s pretty anti-choice! Buy it, please!
And it’s in this context and from koolaid guzzlers in B0botland that I find out that there exists a pro-choice caucus in the House. Where were these people until now? Now they come out gloating that Stupak doesn’t have enough votes to kill the bill
Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), the co-chairwoman of the abortion-rights-supporting caucus, predicted that abortion would not prove to be a sticking point among Democrats that brings down health reform efforts.
“I don’t think Congressman Stupak has the votes to kill healthcare legislation over his language not being in there,” DeGette told The Hill.
But just to make sure, Stupak is finally subjected to some scrutiny in the media – Obama station Rachel Maddow looks into his corruption.
Considering he had his amendment since last July, WTF took you so long? yeah, I know, it wasn’t serving Obama so far.
Almost forgot: happy Women History months ladies! (somehow I can’t think of it without Penn Gillete’s vile remark from 2008 anymore)
DC Express has a good cover on Iraqi elections
but it’s Washington Times that observes that this may mean we never leave Iraq
And do does Wall Street Journal
Washington Post brings another page from W’s playbook: it’s now military tribunals for the terrorists
.LA Times tells us Jerry Brown underwent a baggage check
and that takes us to dreary NY – where Obama Times and the followers are literally shoving a letter of resignation in Paterson’s face – Chicago style politics has never been so much in our face
Obama was nervous enough about getting the 216 votes for the healthcare bill, that after courting the blue dogs as usual, he even met with the progressive caucus. In fact, he was so nervous, he even pretended to care about public option
Woolsey told Obama that she’d be introducing legislation to create a public option and Obama said he encouraged the effort, according to Schakowsky.
(in other words: “good luck with that!”). For added gratuity
Obama pointed Kucinich toward single-payer language that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was able to get into the bill. Kucinich fought for an amendment that would allow states to adopt single-payer systems without getting sued by insurance companies. Obama told Kucinich that Sanders’s measure was similar but doesn’t kick in for several years. “He definitely wrote it down,” said one member of Kucinich, suggesting that he’d look into it.
I am sure he will, along with the Hospitals industry that he sold it to last summer – and have a good laugh.
According to another account, Obama basically said “do it for me”
Obama to Progressives: 31 Million People–And My Presidency–Are On The Line If Health Care Fails
the direct quote being
“To maintain a strong presidency we need to pass this bill,”
All that was missing was “You love me. You really, really love me!
And of course gave them cover by gratuitous pledges
Obama also apparently pledged to revisit the public option in the future.
Yet another source heaps irony sky high
Woolsey, the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, who was present with around seven or eight other liberals, says Obama compared the health reform fight to the passage of Social Security and Medicare.
But it is Politico that tells us what delegates were too embarrassed to broadcast themselves
Two senior administration officials said the White House is telling Democrats reconsidering their support for health care reform that they will pay the price for their original vote no matter what happens, so they should reap the political benefits of actually passing a law.
Translation: you’re compromised with your base anyway, your ass belongs to me. (oppose me and I’ll Paterson you).
Of course, to get the full extent of the hypocrisy of what was told, you’d have to see what he told the other guys the day before