You're Doing a Heck of a Job, Janet

Although she may not be the best person to run DHS, I disrespectfully disagree.



Grenell's post is typical terror-groupie scr33d - offering inane, fat-headed analysis, borne of ignorance and misinformation, all typed under abject fear of boogiemen everywhere.



The wannabe terrorist boarded a plane in Niger, transferring in Amsterdam. It is the African and Netherlands's security failure to catch the guy boarding the plane - unless we have staffed TSA agents in every airport in the world where passengers can possibly transit to get to the country. But that's a minor point.



Does her quote make sense? Well, it makes no sense if your expectation is that some agency (even a big gub-mint one... remember, all gub-mint is bad and totally incompetent... right Richard?!) can prevent every possible act perpetrated by any individual or group. The expectation is as ridiculous as thinking that police presence will prevent all crime. Lock your doors at night anyway, d00fus.



It's incumbent on everyone to be alert - just like the passengers on the Detroit flight were - to help each other out. Perfect security will never exist. You will never be 100% safe. Never, ever, ever. Anyone telling you otherwise is a liar. Anyone expecting it is delusional. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you can maybe get rid of the adult depends.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Republicans' Disdain for the American People Should Be the Story of 2009

For the sake of civility, I concede the point about who's being more indignant.



However, the bottom line is that the President needs to do something other than play the game as it's been played for 20 or so years. As many folks have argued, he can't govern or get much done because of the absurd cloture rules and the existence of deliberate, solutionless obstructionism by the repugs.



The repugs use little if any "reason" in their discourse. It is full-tilt fear-mongering and hyperbole. Obama can NOT let them be the only ones in the spotlight. He has ceded the repugs all the air time to pitch their "side." Ignoring them - like how Kerry ignored (he 'didn't dignify their allegations') the swiftboater slanders - has been proved to deliver election losses. Kerry was ahead until the swiftboaters came - don't forget that.



So how is Obama going to get ANYTHING done AT ALL if we lose seats in the Senate (at least the seats not being taken up by the useless 'blue dogs')? How can he govern if he doesn't invest the time and energy needed to blunt the baseless dribble from the Rs?



I submit that he CAN'T govern if he doesn't fight this fight. Maybe this is chicken or the egg, but really, if he has good sr. officers to run daytoday, he can't afford to cower from the gauntlet laid down by the pugs.
About Health Care
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Republicans' Disdain for the American People Should Be the Story of 2009

Yup, it should be the job of the press. But they won't do it. So you can be as indignant as you want about it - but it won't change the fact that the repug transgressions and extrem1.sm will remain unnoticed.



Taking on fox news gave Obama's base some desperately needed reassurance that he's able to stand up to the propagandists.



Overall, sometimes the kids fail at their chores and the adults have to step in and take care of the mess. That's just the way it is. Obama needs to step it up and your consternation in and of itself does nothing to deal with the mess - NOTHING.
About Health Care
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Republicans' Disdain for the American People Should Be the Story of 2009

I have no quarrel with Mr. Bard's assertion of media malpractice.



However, the violin solo for the oh! so unfairly maligned Obama is totally out of place and offbase. You write like Obama was frozen in a block of ice for 2008, thawed in January 2009, and thrown into a dizzying mess. Please! Obama knew what he was getting into and had been preparing for months. Let's stop all this pity party silliness because it crushes credibility.



Further, Obama knows what the media is about just as clearly as we do. While I see him doing sensible things like shunning fox news, he hasn't done nearly enough to call out the republicans for the list of grievances that you laid out. Why? What is there to gain by idly (and thereby, implicitly) condoning the very practices the republicans have refined to performance art and the practices that the media have leveraged into an amalgam of corporatist propaganda and professional-wrestling caliber good v. evil sensationalism?



When Obama dissed fox news, it made huge news. The president PROVED he has the power to make all these issues cited in the article "news." He has the power to cut the repugs off at the knees - and at the same time lay the foundation upon which Dems can campaign in 2010.



Or he can just play the game.



He has the power. He needs to use it.



Until he does, it's dishonest to defend him by saying there's nothing he can do.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Democrats Do Not Need to Become More "Moderate" to Win in 2010 - Four Rules for Victory in November

Wrong. This is how you guys enable people like Obama to capitulate on principle. "Economic centrism" is a meaningless term.



One of the basic issues here is purpose. The purpose of the ultras on the right is to preserve the wealth of the insanely rich. They believe that they are the only people who can and should be entrusted to it. If you give a peasant a dollar, they will waste it. Liberals/progressives believe that the playing field should be level and everyone should have a fair shot at making a decent living - and that massive concentration of wealth is anathema to true capitalism.



There are extreme left-side folks... I'm not talking about them. The progressives that I know are not in financial trouble. Unless serious illnesses occur, they don't spend beyond their means. This is due to a common underlying trait of progressives: basic common sense.



It has NOTHING to do with "economic centrism" and EVERYTHING to do with simple law of reason. What used to belong to the Dems is problem-solving logic and pragmatism. Now what they have mostly is political expediency and fear of reaction.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Democrats Do Not Need to Become More "Moderate" to Win in 2010 - Four Rules for Victory in November

When you consider that Richard Nixon championed and signed into law policies that are radically more liberal than any of those laid out here, the inanity of your comment starts to become more clear.



People were getting doses of Love Canal and other environmental nightmare stories and demanded action. Didn't matter that the President was D or R - action was needed and he presided over a massive strengthening of environmental laws.



The majority of the people want problems to be solved in ways that are pragmatic, realistic, and cost effective. They aren't as shallow as you appear to be - pigeonholing policy into silly philosophical boxes and then screaming about them.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama, the Fallen Messiah

I think the thing that disappoints me the most about Obama isn't the failure to adequately deal with the staggering problems of our day (you noted a few of those) - but it's the laissez faire approach he has taken to the solutions.



Decorum is really nice - especially after having to watch a ment@.lly repressed frat-boy for 8 years. But there's a time and place for taking folks out to the wood shed to settle scores. Though I know some folks abhor that sort of imagery and cringe at conflict, sometimes you've gotta go to the mat for what you believe in. And maybe I'm wrong for seeing it this way, but if there is no fighting, then there's probably no one leading.



In the meantime what we get from Mr. Reid and some members of the administration is whining and defeatism and surrender. Like you said about FDR, he found ways to get things done. Maybe not the best ways, but he fought hard for progress. With Obama we get, "well, we don't have the 60."



We also have no one on offense here... at all.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama, the Fallen Messiah

LOG, I think your assessment of progressives is spot on. But I think your conclusion is off base.



I had not been convinced that Obama was even a little liberal. In fact, he struck me as frequently spineless during the prez campaign. But I still knew that he'd be better than a mccain administration, so the choice was easy. And I tried very hard to give the man time to strut his stuff.



I think a year is plenty of time to start making judgments. And I think that the moment you stop critiquing politicians you have failed in your duty as a citizen. Maybe your definition is different than mine, but the right is vilifying, not critiquing. Many progressives are critiquing Obama.... analyzing his body of work - and that is healthy, if not necessary. The blindly loyal can't seem to tolerate any "disparaging word," but apologizing for someone isn't strength or commitment.



As far as "pushing" him goes, I'm not buying it. With all the DLC Clinton mafia firmly entrenched in the administration, diversion from their pro-corporation (how much for goldman? how much to help working families- even if just to stave foreclosure for a year?) positions is just not going to change by us "pushing." And I think that is where folks like me are frustrated. Just being better than dubya doesn't help me - nor does it motivate me to stop looking for someone who's MUCH better than dubya in 2012.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Take the First Step and Support the President

Your comment has little to do with what I wrote.



This president had a voter mandate, popular support (just look at all the posts from the blind loyal crew to this comment page!), and the polls all suggested tremendous support for a public option - especially if a mandate is involved. Obama had the wind at his back on this issue. And he's chosen to give away single payer immediately and start compromising the solution into a poor one.



In short, he sold us out.



Whether or not this or another takes it up again is a pointless prediction. I'm sure someone with heart and integrity would have pushed for the right regulations and rules (strip anti-trust exemption) to be in the bill - and they would have put it all on the line to get it done.



And although I (and probably everyone else) agree that the antitrust exemption must be lifted (why any industry would ever get one is beyond comprehension... but whatever), what sort of confidence can anyone have that any insurance company would be pursued? What makes you think that the DOJ would actually lift a finger?



That said, I understand anti-trust is a big deal right now. I'd love to eat crow over that, but I doubt I will have to.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Take the First Step and Support the President

Mr. Simmons, with all due respect, your comparison to the path taken toward sentencing reform and a parasitic industry that literally (!) condemns tens-of-thousands of people to early or outright death is a bit weak.



It's not that your reform agenda wasn't appropriate, but the two just aren't on the same level. Folks in prison have access to some sort of medical treatment - which is more than those without insurance can look forward to when this thing gets enacted.



You blithely wave away lives in the process of cheerleading ineffectual regulations. That's shameful. My experience from working in the health insurance industry says that they will find loopholes and exploit them. Republicans, if in charge of either house in Congress, will cite the legislation as the problem, and work to strike it down. So if we don't get the thing fixed in conference or next year before the next elections, the loophole exploitation will overrun the bill's effectiveness.



In addition, the helpful industry folks who Obama dined with will also work to have the legislation overturned. And while the challenge to the constitutionality of mandating every man, woman, and child to pay a tax to private companies, how much money will the President spend to vigorously defend this new tax? How much effort will he put into killing that challenge by instituting a public option?



Maybe in the end, Obama will come through. But how many more people will needlessly die while he tiptoes down the road?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Mark Schmitt: Victory At What Cost?

So much nonsense in there among a few Mr. Obvious moments. I'll just comment on this:



"A fierce, aggressive liberalism, the counterpart to the high point of conservative exercise of institutional power in the middle of this decade, was not going to succeed. Recall, that such an approach ultimately failed conservatism."



This is utterly devoid of honesty. A fierce aggressive conservatism didn't fail conservatism - there are virtually no conservatives in Congress! What failed conservatism is the fact that radical extremists with horribly bad policy ideas and obsc3.ne egos took over and accelerated the country's decline to the point of implosion.



In other words, "aggression" had little to do with any failures. Horrifically poor decisions and legislation had EVERYTHING to do with the failures.



So in effect, the statement equates the completely success-proof policies of the bush years with liberal policy initiatives. And although you could debate what specific policies are part of "liberalism," most aren't anywhere near the caliber of fail-certain effectiveness as the bush "conservatives."
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Leadership, Obama Style, and the Looming Losses in 2010: Pretty Speeches, Compromised Values, and the Quest for the Lowest Common Denominator

The repugs are a mess - no doubt.



But whether we like it or not, the easiest way to get ahead in the corporate and political world is to officially be against everything proactive that anyone else does. Law of averages says that the nay-sayers will frequently be correct. People ruminate over the mistakes/disasters far more energetically than the successes. So what they want (and are getting) from Obama is failure to enact effective legislation.



So when campaign season is upon us and the repugs say that the stimulus didn't work (partly true because Obama caved to them on the poison pill of tax breaks instead of more infrastructure projects), that health care is still out of control, etc., there will be traction for the message. I don't agree with it personally, but it will be enough to swing the pendulum back to the repug candidates trying to unseat Dems in conservative-leaning districts.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Leadership, Obama Style, and the Looming Losses in 2010: Pretty Speeches, Compromised Values, and the Quest for the Lowest Common Denominator

Go back a few months and read about the discussions surrounding the use of the "nuclear option" (budget reconciliation) whereby the public option could have 'legally' been put up for a filibuster-proof majority vote. Why not go that path?



Accepting your description of the unprecedented repuglican position, Obama would have a mountain of evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that their party's goal is failure and that all means necessary MUST be employed against the filibuster to address the nation's problems. It's a "can't miss" position for the president - even if the public option legislation ended up losing too many Dems to get 51 votes, at least voters would know who's got their backs for the next set of elections and Obama can honestly say that he tried.



Or you can surrender and pass something lame and follow that up with a PR barrage to make it look like you've just performed a miracle.



The only miracle will be Dems keeping control of Congress in 2010 after this continuous string of let-downs and eye-pokes.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Are Progressives Just Whiners? Saving Lives Is What Matters

Sell out to the insurance companies in order to get 60 votes for cloture to pass a bill that 60% of the population opposes - or adopt a bill with 51votes (that number would have probably been closer to 55, but I'm just guessing) that 60% supports. And somehow you conclude that the adoption of a bill with a public option that has far greater support from the voters will put the republican party back in control of Congress.



To put it as mildly as I can, your argument pushes logic beyond the point of collapse.
About Health Care
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Leadership, Obama Style, and the Looming Losses in 2010: Pretty Speeches, Compromised Values, and the Quest for the Lowest Common Denominator

You're going to pick on one tactic that I listed which is open to the President to strong-arm votes. You've got to do better than that if you want to show that Obama is powerless.



Besides, if the "Democratic" Senator from Nebraska is asked to kowtow to the ill-informed opinions from the reddest of red state populations, then what's the difference between having a Republican from Nebraska?



And who's to say that threats are the only option? Obama could promise a position in his administration if Nelson were to be voted out (don't know when his term is up - don't care either) in return for supporting a more effective plan.



Last, going the path of Budget Reconciliation would bypass lieberman and Nelson entirely. So we could have gotten a better bill without ever having to deal with those two.



In short, if your position is that Obama is doing all he can, your position has no support in facts. And my goal isn't to elect tightrope walkers in Nebraska - it will be to get replacements for the corporate sellouts in my state and work for a new president who is both progressive AND equipped with a pair.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Leadership, Obama Style, and the Looming Losses in 2010: Pretty Speeches, Compromised Values, and the Quest for the Lowest Common Denominator

The only thing missing in this otherwise outstanding post, is the neat-o tactic from the Obama administration that sends out vigilantes to attack the credibility and content of respected experts and journalists when they differ from Obama's talking points. The attacks on Krugman a little while ago and the recent ones on Dr. Dean come to mind...



Although unwilling to do battle with anyone in public, the President is very comfortable with guerrilla warfare against his enemies.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Leadership, Obama Style, and the Looming Losses in 2010: Pretty Speeches, Compromised Values, and the Quest for the Lowest Common Denominator

Uh, all these "compromises" were done in order to get past cloture. There are many things Obama could have done to make deals. He could have been an active advocate of "reform" instead of "tuning." He could have threatened to have their seats challenged if they hung up what was supposed to be the President's signature piece of legislation. He could have openly pushed for the Dems to get most of the job done by bypassing the "traditional" path where cloture isn't an option and only requires 51 votes.



In short, he could have played hardball and used his position to justify why it was necessary (the fact that we're up to around 40-60% of all senate business is being filibustered would be more than ample justification). How many Executive branch appointments are still being actively hung up by Repugs? He could have re-ignited the passions of his base by doing so AND gotten a better result for the nation.



It really is THAT easy. And you're only focusing on ONE piece of legislation whereas the author's detailed analysis of several major efforts are insurmountable with your meager excuses. You have very low expectations - but that doesn't mean the rest of us should have low expectations, too.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Are Progressives Just Whiners? Saving Lives Is What Matters

I want you to have the courage to, if this bill is left largely intact and results in the many problems dissenters from your opinion have predicted, posthumously admit that you were wrong and offer a lengthy apology to me and others who so dared defy your self-worshiped opinion.



Your ego is a bit inflated when contrary concepts (which have more basis in fact as they are rooted in an understanding of a history of the industry and public corporations) are referred to as what you just wrote. And, by the way, I wouldn't be allowed to successfully post the same text you submitted and how you characterized my perspective. So kudos to you!



If this mess goes through to get signed into law and it all fails, you know where to find me, OK?
About Health Care
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Are Progressives Just Whiners? Saving Lives Is What Matters

Wow.



Millions of people will be fined for not buying a plan from a private company. What do you tell them? Not only do they lose the money that they need to survive, the government puts a gun to their heads and forces it into a corporation.



I laid out how this bill is a dead end. Others have postulated that a republican congress will gut or repeal it. Industry insiders made commented here that the loopholes will be exploited and although some people will be helped, overall it will be ineffective.



And all you can do is parrot the same flawed talking points.



And thanks for piling on Ms. Monk. How about both of you promise to never post a comment again if my predictions don't come to fruition? And if I'm wrong and the industry competes honestly and it's a success, I will delete my accounts and be forever silent. Deal?
About Health Care
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Are Progressives Just Whiners? Saving Lives Is What Matters

The poor argument postulated by Ms. Monk from the perspective misses the deadly political aspect.



Look at the stimulus bill. Obama gave into repugs and spent around 40% of it on tax cuts that we all knew weren't going to provide any sustained, long-term benefits to the economy. Why did the repugs vote against it? Because in 2010 and especially 2012, they will ironically blanket the airwaves with how wastefully ineffective the bill was and that they fought against it. They knew tax cuts would fail to help, so they let Obama swallow the poison pill and will reap the political benefits.



This bill is no different. The changes made by nelson and lieberman on behalf of repugs leave open many avenues for abuse by the companies who have proved themselves to be enthusiastically willing to abuse. Unless some substantial changes are made in conference for a public option and/or serious cost controls (some up, some down), this bill will not help the intended people. And although it won't likely immediately harm those who have insurance, we'll be fed a steady diet of stories of failure by the repug candidates in 2010 and 2012.



And with those two 'biggest accomplishments' will return Congress to the republicans again.



After that, how and when will we be able to make the next round of changes to fix the flaws in the bill?!?!



THAT is why this should be fixed or killed.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Fire Robert Gibbs...Or At Least Make Him Apologize to Howard Dean

"Is this the beginning of Obama's version of Clinton-era triangulation?"



I think it's safe to say that the triangulation "officially" began the moment he brought in rahm and the rest of the clintonista crew to run the ship.



Obama is clearly very comfortable using his bully pulpit to call out Democrats. He has also hit the Repugs, to be sure. But he heaps adulation on the "moderates." I can see that he absolutely wants control of K street and keep the money flowing from lobbyists. I can only conclude that he's going to continue the divide and conquer strategy employed by clintonistas and their offspring (DLC) to help kick incumbent, progressive Dems out of Congress and promote players (even if it means losing to repugs).



Problem with the strategy is that the corporate powers were happy to help the economy under clinton by splattering venture capital money around and boosting employment. Unless they do the same thing for Obama (which they haven't done yet), he will be a one-term president.



The other thing that is different today than 1993 is the amount of information flow that we have now. All these coincidences like a secret pharma deal are adding up to "evidence" now and blinders are coming off many of the unwashed. Few of Bubba's deals leaked.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why We Lost Healthcare

Absolute nonsense.



Not even sure where to start on this - mainly because many folks have already made great comments.



First, since when does a "leader" have a finite amount of "political capital?" What an eye-popping concept! Leaders accrue political capital through ACCOMPLISHMENTS. If they sell out/fail, they lose capital. They don't lose it by displaying passion and leadership on an issue.



Second, solution A insures all and saves consumers $800 billion. Solution B insures most and saves consumers only $400 billion. Solution C insures all but pumps public money into private corporations and only saves about $80 billion.



So if the decision were essentially boiling down to these three choices, isn't it illogical to conclude that Solution C is the best one because maybe a republican would vote for it? And why would anyone in a position of "leadership" even contemplate compromising from Solution A for a split second?!



No, Neffinger's diagnosis is flat wrong. The problem isn't marketing - the problem is cowardice and corporate entrenchment in Congress. Please...
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Harry Reid's Slavery Remark 'Ignorant,' Says Michael Steele

Reid BETTER NOT apologize!



He's set off a great media frenzy. He needs to throw more gas on the fire.



The attempts to gently coax the system into a more ethical and cost-effective one have all failed. Just as with the emancipation of slaves in this country, the entrenched beneficiaries of these reprehensible "industries" fight bitterly to preserve the status quo.



Reid should tell the media those words and state that not only is his previous comment extremely accurate, steele makes himself the embodiment of the old slave-owners who perpetuated a national, immoral system that allowed unconscionable acts resulting in the death and maltreatment of innocent citizens.



Perhaps mr. steele believes that murder by lynching is worse than murder by denial of medical treatment. Perhaps mr. steele believes that the eviction and disbursement of your worldly possessions to pay for medical bills is slightly more moral than the conscription of people into servitude. Maybe so.



But to be completely unable to see the clear parallels between slavery and health insurance industry shows an mora| and 1ntellectua| bankruptcy that doesn't deserve the dignity of an apology - AND once again proves that there is no credible leadership for the Republican party.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Right in the Middle

It's sometimes hard to read, uh, "posts" like this and know whether to laugh or cry.



jmpurser and others have explained how the post is inaccurate, but I haven't the patience to add my observations to support theirs - other than to say that equating the works of Noonan to Dowd is all anyone really needs to know about the veracity of the thing.



Instead, all I will offer to you, Mr. Davis, is a little advice. Pat your DLC-self on the back firm and proud today. Enjoy it and celebrate it.



Because when mid-term elections roll around, I doubt very much you'll be wanted by candidates. Similarly, I doubt that any Dem candidates are going to want Obama to come out to campaign for them. Revert back to these comments in order to understand why.



And then, when the next Presidential election rolls around, expect to carry a more befuddled and somber countenance as massive numbers of the folks who so diligently supported Obama defect to support someone who is willing to fix problems instead of the President's stool-polishing approach. Re-read these comments to your past posts and then write for us a touching, "whoops - what was i thinking" retraction.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Poll: GOP Divided Over Party's Direction, Leaders

You've seen toddlers writhing with indignation on the floor of the supermarket? That's pretty much the intellectual equivalent.



An immature intellect knows how to express dissatisfaction, but can't do much else.
About Health Care
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Geithner Is "Obama's Rumsfeld": Replace Him With Robert Reich

When the president I voted for finally makes an appointment or initiates a legislative pursuit that doesn't primarily benefit maintenance of the status quo (i.e. keep the absurdly wealthy absurdly wealthy, and the huge corporate interests appeased), then I will revert back to my position of "cautious optimism."



At this point we can't, in good conscience, give Obama the benefit of the doubt for anything on the economy.



With the current track record of clearly prioritizing groups like mortgage companies and banks over working Americans, Obama has provided ample proof that there is no hope that someone like Reich will ever have a role in this administration.



Mark my words, if Geinther was to step down, his replacement will be another Wall Street insider or DLC hack. An American flag cape will be pinned to his/her shoulders and pandering babble about 'cleaning up Wall Street' will follow - and change will be entirely constrained to the name on the office letterhead.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama and Charges of Elitism-Again

This is oddly similar to another equally disoriented post by a different HuffPo blogger a couple days ago.



The hate spew frothing from the limbaughs is meaningless to the vast majority of the country's voters. Them screaming "elitist" means nothing and it's almost bizarre that anyone would make that a key lynch-pin in an argument.



The only issue that is relevant is that Obama was elected to make strong steps toward cleaning up a dysfunctional Executive Branch and lead legislative initiatives to fix the economy and our failed foreign policies.



What we all see - regardless if we listen to Air America or Faux News - is virtually none of that taking place.



We see dithering, stern speechifying about personal responsibility, capitulation to - and even incorporation of (vis a vis Treasury Sec and economic advisor picks) - the forces that have decimated our nation's economy. And virtually no real movement on real issues with real impact on real people.



Calling Obama "elitist" would truly be a most trite and shallow aspersion at this point. And it would most absolutely have only an infinitely microscopic impact on how the public views him, his administration, and his "accomplishments" to date.



I had a sign in my yard for Obama and am a lifelong Democrat. We started last January with an historic opportunity to right so many wrongs. Well, if the first 10 months are any indication of the next 3 years, we picked the wrong guy for the job.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Great Disconnect

I'd humbly suggest that there is a deeper layer beneath your description of the disconnect more fundamentally driving the effect you describe. And that is media corporatism.



The media, whose visible, on-screen elements you've very clearly described, are just the veneer. The corporations who have literally and figuratively purchased "the fourth estate," have the agenda, the means, and the motivation to move and cheer-lead as the income distribution goes from 11 times to 22 times and if they can, to 100 times. THEY are the problems.



The pundits and the Ken and Barbie dolls aren't driving the agenda and the wedge between haves and have nots as much as they are willing and easily motivated (due to the financial benefits derived from the advertising loot) accomplices in a sick, warped, and ultimately self-defeating fraud. The media conglomerates control the message - it's intensity, frequency, and "analysis." The campaign money helps keep the FCC out of the way. And on goes the game.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Great Disconnect

To some measurable degree, tho I haven't measured it myself due to the scale required, some of the "Christian" outlook toward the poor is based on blind faith in other subtle ways. Specifically, those who would otherwise be distraught over the plight of others purposefully replace empathy with apathy. In a phrase, "god will help them."



Another is a feeling that a god will reward them with tangible things if they are "good." So the rich people (and even non-rich people!!!!... which I just can't wrap my brain around...) equate wealth with goodness. In a phrase, "god has chosen to reward my goodness with prosperity and if someone doesn't have prosperity, it's because god hates them... and why would I ever want to help someone hated by god?"



Sick.
About Paul Krugman
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The September 12 March Against Sanity

I am 100% with you - except for the list of things that steamed those protesters.



These people are probably clinically paranoid, or at least extraordinarily insecure. The intensity of their fears removes any compulsion for logic or reason. So virtually ANYTHING that is said gets them "steamed." And it doesn't really matter who delivers the "news" - and they are basically addicted to anything that can feed their rage.



Abortion is an easy binary (well, it's not really binary, but being completely anti- vs. any other nuanced position is as close as they can get) thing for their brains to handle in the perpetual siege mentality. But pretty much anything else will do.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why Washington Needs to Keep Its Eye On the Cloud

This could be the most awkward and powerful demonstration of technological incompetence that I've seen publicly professed in a long time.



Sure, surveys say lots of things. Look back to the ASP (Application Service Provider) rage that took off in the later 90s and you will see the same misguided, overblown cheerleading. The same problems that relegated ASP to a small niche business concept block it's heirs. You can change the names and the tools, but the core problems that held it down are still there. You're trying to get to them by mentioning "cyber security" - but there will always be boneheads making mistakes that will prevent ubiquitous trust in faceless corporations.



Before trumpeting some vague, revamped strategy as some sort of viable vehicle with more technological mass than marketing mass, gird yourself with more knowledge.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

NBC's <i>Today</i> Focuses on Obama's Remarks About the Gates Arrest, Not Health Care

What, is this the first time you've watched the MSM? You expected "news"?



What the heck is wrong with you?!



The MSM is a structured outlet for "reality" show vignettes. All they care about is wallowing in conflict. Just like the reality shows try to pick explosive, extreme personalities for their cast to ensure a steady stream of turmoil and conflict to put on the air, the MSM sifts through events to find the same nonsense.



It sells ads. So that's what they show.



Discussing adult issues doesn't have any chair-tossing and doesn't sell. So it doesn't get air time.



Stop reading so much into it.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Ed Rendell: Hardest Working Man in Infrastructure

First, what the hell is a P3?



Second, PA has one of the top 3 WORST records for consuming farmland for suburban sprawl. There is NOTHING more UNsustainable than suburban sprawl. The worst thing about it in this state is that developers get all the profits for their "work" while the tax payers have to maintain the additional sprawled infrastructure in perpetuity. Traffic jams swell and the people who swarm the suburbs petulant1y scream for the roads to be "fixed" (widened, lights, lanes added, bypasses built, etc.).



So Fast Eddie is crowing about sustainable infrastructure investment? That's great. While he's at it, the laws in PA that have heavily incented over-development, added lanes, roads, and bridges that we can't afford to maintain, and the destruction of farmland stay intact - condemning taxpayers to pay now AND later for maintenance of thousands of miles of roads serving more vehicles than they can realistically support.



That is Eddie's legacy - lots of lip, no action.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Right Wing Hate Getting Out of Control

I think the right wing slimeb@lls aren't quite as sophisticated as the cited, paraphrased author seems to portray. I don't think they are intentionally trying to get certain people killed.



I don't think they are smart or introspective enough (a lacking that is required, basically, for being a fan of those shows - or hosting them) to be that specific. I think they are the absolute embodiment of "loose cannons." That is not to belittle the damage they do, just as an actual loose cannon would absolutely do tremendous damage in its own right.



I just doubt their ability to aim. Aiming takes intelligence, logic, and planning. Their only strength is being determined, which overpowers their stark lack of cognitive ability. Their audience isn't sharp enough to see through the streams of nonsense, and you get what you get.



If someone has inside information where there is a deliberate, collusive relationship between the handlers for the big hate players, THEN you've got a blockbuster book... or perhaps a blockbuster hate crimes indictment. Until then, I for one am skeptical that this effect is deliberately systemic and the cited book is just a good post mortem that simply connects the dots between very angry, scared, hateful people and shared delus1ons.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Ensuring Investment in Healthcare Information Technology Does Not Flatline

++ Evaluate the efficacy of the VA and Medicare systems for deployment as public plan infrastructure.

++ Adopt the one that will be most able to be extended.

++ Reject fadism-driven solutions. They are great in a company carrying a few thousand transactions a day. For something this scale, it will be beyond the breaking point and become too hard to manage. **

++ Put management and code evolution of the basic infrastructure up for bid every 7 years. No offshoring.

++ Keep the source code - all must be government-owned.



** - VLANs and networking are example. 15 years ago when FastEthernet switches became affordable, you could just plug in machines and get to work. Your system admin could handle it all. Not optimal, but functional. But now, you're not cool if you're not running a dozen VLANs in your network and you need a full time admin. Then expand your network to multiple campuses and now you need 7/24 teams of highend engineers to deal with the hundreds of scattered VLANs - not to mention edge hardware that costs a bloody fortune. Cisco and Juniper will tell you with a straight face that VLANs scale to as large as you want - because the answer is always finished with, ".. if you use the most expensive hardware." (which doesn't mean that VLANs are bad, BTW!).



Realize that fadism is used by vendors to sell more hardware and licenses - NOT to solve problems that actually inhibiting productivity. They
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Ensuring Investment in Healthcare Information Technology Does Not Flatline

The next multi-agency SOA architecture that is successfully and cost-effectively deployed will be the first one successfully and cost-effectively deployed. For that matter, how many true CORBA (or similar OO solution) architectures have been cost-effectively implemented to serve multiple organizations?



After all, SOA is basically just a re-marketing of the same old ideas that sounded absolutely awesome in doctoral dissertations and self-adulating IT academics. But when it comes time to implement outside a lab, these architectures become immensely complicated to manage, spawning cottage industries (like SOA's wonderful three-headed spawn, UDDI - how much does a commercial UDDI v3 server license cost, hmmm?), and forcing programmer retraining (ah hell, let's just off-shore it instead!) to deal with a maze of concepts that are really just the same as older concepts, but have to be renamed so that there is an appearance of some sort of improvement from the older concepts.



Please, let's step away from the altar of fad technology and just put together something simple that works.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

ACES is Not a Victory for the Environmental Movement

This whole bill smacks of a total capitulation to the Rs (and campaign financiers). I think the only reason there is ANY legislation on this front is that it was driven by the Dem's desire to offer a marketable "accomplishment" to voters next year.



I can't help but think that if this topic was cast as a critical national security pursuit (armies grind to a complete halt without oil, factories can't build tanks without electricity, etc.) all the important goals could be achieved.
About Climate Change
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Rendell: Sestak Would "Get Killed" And "Marginalized" If He Runs Against Specter

Words cannot adequately express how disgusted I am with rendell.



Ever since he refused to give up his Philadelphia Eagles post-game TV gig during campaign season (where he talks with people who know football about the game), I've found the man to be a throw-back politician, emblematic of all that is wrong in politics. He's the quintessential smoke-filled-room "player", drunk with lust for power and the spotlight.



The funny thing is that he's decided to pick a winner-take-all fight with Adm. Sestak. Rendell may be right that Sestak could be a short-timer if he were to lose big in the primary to Specter. BUT when Sestak beats Specter, rendell and his little pack of wolves he thinks run the "machine" will be utterly, totally gelded. I'm sure the Admiral knows this. And I'm 100% certain that it is explicitly why Sestak is in it - to gut rendell's "machine" that would rather shove a fox in sheep's clothing down our throats than make room for a REAL DEM to rise to challenge for a Senate seat.



So the lines are drawn eddie. If I had $100 to bet, I'd put it and the house, the car, the truck, and the barn on Sestak. He's made of stronger stuff than your average Philly Dem committeeperson who'd be intimidated by rendell's childish rants.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Rush and Cheney Show Accelerates Military Desertion of the GOP

Wow wendy, that's the most outlandish reaction to my sentence that I could have expected. Mind reading and traitor accusations are nowhere in my sentence - your imagination has to be fertile indeed to reach those conclusions.



But at the risk that others may utterly misinterpret my comment, I will restate so as to clarify....



Gen. P is very politically astute. His writings on quelling insurgencies are studied at military academies and are very logical and dispassionate. As such, they are anathema to the cheney administration's approach. So he played the game in order to get the chance to implement his strategies, to some reasonable degree of success. General P is as aware as anyone of the impact from 'news' at home on activities in Iraq and Afghanistan.



Therefore, he would understand the significance of our nation considering electing a military man who 'worked' in the Middle East on a ticket that would champion 'crushing terrorists,' hunt "islamo-fascists," etc. General P would have to confront that rabid element of our society that is the RNC and demand that they refrain from that sort of campaign message. He will find it easier working with militant Arabs than white maile xenophobes. He may get his way with the RNC, but if not, there can be no rational person believing that it would have no effect on terrorist recruiting.
About Colin Powell
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Rebranding Will Not Be Enough For These Republicans

I agree with the premise and most conclusions, but the problem's diagnosis is wrong.



The problem isn't short-term identification with the bushies. Their party is built atop a rigid structure that actually has deep roots in most states and started a good 30 - 40 years ago.



The party demands conformance from all its operators like military and gangland groups - from the polling place flier-wavers all the way up to the candidates for Congress. You take orders, adopt the orders as "gospel," and passionately do what you're told. You have to earn your stripes by either effectively attacking "enemies" or positively supporting someone else in the club. Loyalty is demanded and rewarded. Skills and ideas are irrelevant unless they help other gang members succeed.



To make a long story short, you attract a predictably stereotypable person when filling these roles. People must believe in their uselessness except to serve the gang, hate without justification, be incapable of introspection, and have blind faith that the 'leaders' are brilliant beyond reproach.... to name a few.



This apparatus is still 95% intact. Since new 'leaders' can't win on merit of ideas or logic (they are essentially anointed by virtue of their track record in rank), they will continue to represent completely dysfunctional views and policies for at least another decade or two - until the current gaggle of middle managers make way for a different approach to how to run a party.



At this point, I don't think it will ever happen.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

How Obama's Supreme Court Nominee Can And Can't Be Filibustered

The threat of a filibuster will definitely have a huge effect on his choice - no doubt about it.



I expect he will have learned from some of the other appointments where people weren't vetted terribly well - so he will cover a few more bases on that front.



In the end, his choice will be someone with a more watered-down set of progressive bona fides, but not TOO watered down. But it will most assuredly be someone who will not be objectionable. That will be the key to driving down the repug party even further. Here's how:



- repuglicans will block the nominee because they've decided their path to success is saving the US from socialism, fascism, communism, tyranny, etc. They will NEVER agree with ANYTHING proposed by Obama.

- repugs will need to build their salvation case on petty events and wildly exaggerate.

- the ensuing childish spectacle presented by the repugs will prompt an adult response from Obama and chip away another 3 or 4% approval for the repugs.



This is Obama's approach these days.



Then again, we still have geinther..... so let's just hope for continuous improvement!
About Supreme Court
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

When the Left Went Teabagging: As You Chuckle at the Right's Newfound Activism, Don't Forget That the Left Sucked Balls for Years

Angry dude, you need to improve your reading comprehension skills. You made up a whole mess of stuff that's inconsistent with what I wrote. I'll try to change it up to maybe get past your rage:



1.) Protests like the tea baggers and kkk pull off, and like some of the others that have gone off whose intention was to spew hatred, racism, bigotry in order to bring a confrontation or to just plain spew in the most loud way possible, are NOT productive.



2.) People who protest in this fashion, who block traffic on busy streets to otherwise make life miserable for "innocent" bystanders are making enemies - NOT improving awareness of an issue, regardless of the "rightness" of the protester position.



3.) Protesters may feel powerful when being noisy, but they are relinquishing power when they are abusing others in the process of trying to make a point. Poking someone in the eye to make them pay attention to what you have to say doesn't fly.



4.) These teabaggers contrast with the WTO protesters because the Seattle protesters were peaceful. It was the police that turned ugly - just like in the civil rights marches. Those protests inspired because they clearly showed what and who the problem was.



5.) If you can't deal with the fact that these highly counter- and unproductive activities are a bad choice, that's YOUR problem, not mine. I'm reporting the news here, not making it.



Now go flame someone else.
About Tax Day Tea Parties
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Sharing Tea Bags with Right Wing Extremists

We can always rely on your crowd to come up with deluded, miscontrued, illogical, and unintelligible commentary in response to a well-reasoned, fact-based, logical essay.



You put on big yellow shoes and a red nose and then march around and shout in the streets. When people look at you funny for the outlandish behavior and appearance, your response is, 'my superior political view have you rattled - ha!' The fact is, the incoherent grasp of reality and impulsive, irrational, unfounded hatred is what is alarming.
About Terrorism
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Will Muslims Hear the Change in Tone in Obama's Counter-Terrorism Policy?

Well, I actually think that it goes beyond starting a war they can't win. They must not win the war, because if they actually "win," and there is actual peace and safety, they are screwed! Their "base" is motivated by fear and dread and hate. When there is peace, they have nothing.



So to that end, I'm in agreement with your premise. However, where I have a very hard time keeping with you is with the general pervasiveness of the evil needed to consciously create the 'war on terror.' There are some people like cheney who I can credit with the intelligence and evil to do this. But I can't even give the R sw.ine in Congress any credit for being smart enough. They're just not very bright. Do you think Mr. Steele has it in him to cook up such a thing? Could dubya have come up with it? Not a chance.



I think there are a few "special" vermin at the top of the R pyramid who conjure these things up. But even they are defective. They are tuned only into the audience in the US. Their hatred for non-them limits the impact of their carefully laid marketing campaigns to their base and a few weak-kneed - like the ironically named commentator (commonsenserules) of the original comment I responded to.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Will Muslims Hear the Change in Tone in Obama's Counter-Terrorism Policy?

Your comment projects a significant lack of understanding as to what "America is all about" in the eyes of Muslims (or any non-American).



Our history is littered with misdeeds that are very widely known within the societies in which they occurred. For example, the CIA deposed Iran's democratically elected leader in the early 1950s and inserted the Shah. The Shah was every bit the butcher that saddam was. You have to look reasonably hard to find out about these and many other misadventures in this country. But 'foreigners' who lived through it are very keenly aware and are, therefore, reasonably mistrusting of the US. Not so much of the American PEOPLE - but of our elected officials and corporations.



So, yes, our problems with extreme Muslims didn't start with bush or 911. We've been giving non-extreme Muslims plenty of reasons to upgrade to extremists for many years.



The "war on terror" phrase wasn't so much an euphemism for 'we're gonna git you Muslims' as it was an acknowledgment that our former president and his people are at best, adolescent or prepubescent in their thinking and communication. Declaring an on-going crusade against a technique like terrorism is embarrassing - because it's logically a recursive admission that we are terrorized. It told the world's sentient citizens that the US was being run by a bunch of chest-thumping flunkies.



Communicating as an adult won't pacify extremists, but it will start to help prevent more people from gravitating toward or supporting extremists.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Libertarian Madness

One of the elegantly circular fairy tales that libertarianism propagates is disguising their actual, root concept of 'pure social darwinism' with dreamy terms like "free markets" and "free choice." As if stapling the word "free" magically transforms something from ruthless and heartless into sweet and wonderful.



Mix in oblique, professorial-sounding anecdotes about marginally documented, ancient civilizations (so there's no way to actually perform a scientific analysis on cause-effect) and you have basically a new religion. A religion whose practice will NEVER be implemented with voter support in an industrialized nation, of course, which helps perpetuate the tail-gunning lunacy. This is because they have the luxury of blaming EVERYTHING bad on the failure of the world to take up their belief system.



The author's most compelling statements surround the observation that the most ardent Libertarians expose personality traits that belie a lack of human empathy. I've witnessed the same thing. And it makes sense you recognize that you'd have to truly not care about your neighbors' well-being in order to embrace such a code.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

If the Republican Party Represents Family, Then How Come Their Two Leaders Are Childless?

Brilliantly argued point.



I think the lowest common denominator with the current national republican party apparatus is an eternally stubborn, infantile reflex to cling to their own opinion of people and the world. Facts and ground truth are "liberal conspiracy." They hate everyone and anything who dares challenge their defective world view.



There is also a very Neanderthal-like tendency to gravitate toward the person(s) who grunt the loudest and flail a club around the most wildly. An image of power and strength is far more respected than reason and logic and knowledge.



And I suspect your husband has a heart of gold, otherwise, the tired, superficial republican campaign drivel would have at least been critically evaluated before being accepted as something that would actually be actuated upon election. I know some "moderate Rs" and they are sweet and trusting souls. Unfortunately, WAY too trusting for their (and our) own good.
About John McCain
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why Are the Republicans Such Anti-Obama Liars?

Let's face it, though. The fact is that people who are willing to center their lives around a very malleable artifact (Bible) are, by definition, more easily conned than those who are less devout and dogmatic.



This is why Frank's father was so important to the GOP. The more of the evangelical "leaders" they could bring into their camp to spread the repuglican gospel intertwined with Jesus' teachings, the stronger the hold will be on the sheep.... the many, many, many voting sheep.



And this isn't something new. This has been going on for about 40 years. It didn't happen overnight and won't go away overnight. The best we can all hope for is that our fellow voting citizens who heretofore have done/believed what they were told by a preacher will at least begin to recognize that candidates who yammer about Jesus aren't necessarily the best politicians to vote for on election day.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why Limbaugh Is Right to Oppose Obama's Economic Policies

Interesting spin. Maybe I could agree with you if history, facts on the ground, complete lack of honesty from the administration during the ramp-up, and analysis from anyone with any knowledge of the incompetent f00ls in charge of the operation didn't SCREAM that the whole invasion/occupation idea was a pure dead-end disaster waiting to happen.



I knew we'd fail because the "plan" couldn't succeed. It may as well have been a plan to build a human pyramid to moon in order to mine it for its delicious pies. Impossible logistically and based on the quest for a nonsensical prize.



So it may be semantics, but whether or not I wanted it to succeed, there was just no chance at all for "winning." I think your comparison is flawed because of it.
About President Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Tea Party Republicans

Well, your cousin isn't cut out for leading the Rs, is he?



Those who ARE R party "leaders" will tell you what they believe in: marketplace anarchy, carte blanch for the rich, hating Muslims and people whose skin are browner than theirs, "the ends justify the means," etc. They really do believe "in" a lot of things.



The "smart" ones have law degrees, electrical engineering degrees, etc., and can perform many highly-detailed jobs extremely well and sound lucid when speaking. But when it comes to thinking all the way through a large social problem, understanding all the sweeping scope of variables, considering historic analogues, and arriving at a reasonable, logical conclusion - they are quickly overwhelmed and devolve into slogans, sound bytes, and irrational, scary tantrums.



They all scare the crap out of me. The only thing scarier is the thought that Obama might continue to try to appease them into the foreseeable future. Clinically insane people may make for interesting carnival freak show attractions. But while trying to solve the most imposing problems we've ever faced, they are a totally unnecessary distraction.
About President Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Mileage Tax Considered By Obama Transportation Secretary LaHood

Good start. However, I'd only agree to it if my non-stop screeching for a moratorium on new highway construction is heeded.



Others have commented about the need to get things under control before levying this tax. True enough on that front. The assertions that this is 'communist' are flat ridiculous. The more you use the highways, the more you should pay. That's not pinko, it's reasonable. And it encourages an end to unsustainable sprawl development and forces us to confront the problems in urban/industrial/commercial centers where people will start to gravitate.



Building new highways means more highways to maintain and repair in the future (i.e. MORE taxes). We don't need new highways. We need people with more patience, better mass transit, flexible work schedules, and a general realization that the fantasy suburban life is truly just a fantasy whose curtain has just come down.
About President Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Wait ... Didn't Michael Steele Just Say My Parents Never Had Jobs?

There's no need to be getting angry or offended by what steele says.



I'm not a psychiatrist, but I have to believe that he and the rest of the general leadership of the repug party (and many of their die-hard apostles) are mentally challenged.



I don't intend to be mean about it. But the pure, unadulterated stream of nonsense spouting from the palin and steele and boehner and mcconnel, et. al. is a mountain of evidence that can't be ignored.



For a long time I thought the vast majority of their hierarchy were just vicious and greedy, finding ways to milk the system for their personal gain. But I've come to realize now that most of those people are gone (guess they're full?) - and are replaced with this crew of cartoon characters who I can hardly believe are able to minimally function in a civilization without assistance.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Secretary Stalled By Fierce GOP Resistance

Specifically on the Labor front, Dems need to immediately close corporate tax loopholes and create the tax tiers to penalize the companies that build outside the country and reward those that build here. It's silly to be in a tizzy about the unionizing format right now. What good is a union if there are no places to work? And what good is it to a newly organized company's workforce if the company will just close domestic operations and move overseas in response?

The purpose of unions is to help ensure fair and equitable treatment of employees who otherwise are subject to the whims of a small group of people whose primary pursuit is purely the enrichment of shareholders. Under current trade and tax rules, unions are hard pressed to actually be able to execute their mission. There's always a lower bidder lurking around the corner somewhere and someone else who's easier to exploit if employees get 'uppity.'

But on a higher level, this is just but one example of what I'd been saying for months. The repugs will do anything to keep status quo - even if it means an implosion of the republic. Serving their masters is paramount. They will fight, scream, cheat, lie, and lie more to maintain the power of the few.

Obama can still remain above it, I guess. But his turning up of the nose at the stench of repug obstructionism won't stop it or get things done. At minimum, he needs some policy knee-crackers in Congress to be the front line in exposing the obstructionism, the pettiness, the counter-productive effort, and most importantly, the record. Dems in Congress need a relentless PR push. Support from the bully pulpit would help, but I doubt Obama will go there.

No matter what happens on votes for legislation or appointments, the repugs will be screaming that Dems are obstructing them, preventing them from 'doing their job,' etc. They will do it every time a camera or tape recorder is within earshot. They will make up controversies and offenses that send them into a choreographed murmuring of stunned 'oh the humanity!' while staggering around the halls of Congress - showcasing their intense acting skills in portraying people who actually care about the operation of government.

About Obama's First 100 Days
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Harry Reid, Punk'd By Blago Over Burris, Rejects The Rule Of Law

Comments combined from two blogs at HuffPo on the Blago-Burris scandal.

If Reid has any manhood at all, he'd plan to flop on this grenade by letting burris get seated and then resign as Majority Leader. That ANYONE would agree to be pig-boy blago's appointment to the Senate is a testament to their clear lacking in character.

It shouldn't be for the Senate to decide. But since there IS a "man" with no morals, scruples, nor smarts (pretty clear to me to be the only way you can accept this appointment from blago), they should give burris one or two nothing appointments to serve on do-nothing committees. Every Senator will have to refuse every "co-sponsor" attempt Burris makes, because of the stain the man will leave on everything he's associated with. Any legislation Burris may author will be tainted and will simply die in committee.

It's a tragedy, really. Illinois has been robbed of it's constitutional rights to 2 Senators. They will have 1 Senator and one guy with a big cat-in-the-hat-like cloud of scandal over his head who won't be capable of doing anything at all other than vote on legislation... and who knows what in the world he might do then, too.

Could Reid have helped himself by having a spine? Sure. Sadly, if there were more Dem Senators with spines, Reid wouldn't be majority leader at all. THAT is the core of the problem.

However, Burris has a chance to create a positive legacy when this is all said and done. If Burris resigns when a new governor takes office in Illinois so that someone else can actually do the job, he can claim that he always intended to minimize the damages that could have been inflicted by other blago appointees. Burris can then go on with life as the guy who fell on the sword for the integrity of Illinois. Short of that, he'll be a laughing stock.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost