<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" version="2.0">
<channel>
	<title>Original Signal - Transmitting Politics</title>
	<link>http://politics.originalsignal.com</link>
	<description>Orginal Signal aggregates the 15 most popular Political sites. The main purpose of the site is to provide 
a quick glance on what's happening without using your desktop/web RSS reader. New headlines (since your 
last cookied visit) come in pretty orange, visited ones are grey. All credits go to the authors of these weblogs. 
Without their hard work Original Signal would not exist. Original Signal was inspired by Popurls and the Web 2.0 Workgroup.</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 03:48:03 CEST</pubDate>
	<language>en</language>
	
	  <atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/originalsignal/politics" type="application/rss+xml" /><feedburner:browserFriendly></feedburner:browserFriendly><item>
  <title>New Al Haramain Filing</title>
  <link>http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/6OsE_pvwQ_o/-New-Al-Haramain-Filing</link>
  <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 03:39:31 CEST</pubDate>
  <guid isPermaLink="false">http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/6OsE_pvwQ_o/-New-Al-Haramain-Filing</guid>
  <author />
  <content:encoded><![CDATA[
  In response to Judge Vaughan Walker's order from a hearing in early June commanding the attorney for plaintiffs al-Haramain et. al to file a motion for summary judgment, the attorneys filed that motion  Cheney&rsquo;s theory of executive power."   That the program was illegal isn't in question. Given that al Haramain's lawyers have seen the proof--in that classified memo that was inadvertantely provided to them by the government--it's also not in question that al Haramain was included in that illegal wiretapping, and as bmaz points out was being surveilled during the period within the Bush administration that almost broke the Justice Department--the period punctuated by the dramatic confrontation at John Ashcroft's hospital bedside.  This information has been well known for years. The question now is whether Obama's Justice Department is going to continue to defend it. It hasn't commented yet on the filing. Walker will hear arguments on this filing on September 1.  ]]></content:encoded>
  </item>
    <item>
  <title>Ex-CIA agent: What did they know and when did they know it?</title>
  <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/rawstory/gKpz/~3/8Gk9ZGpVZQA/</link>
  <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 03:39:29 CEST</pubDate>
  <guid isPermaLink="false">http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/rawstory/gKpz/~3/8Gk9ZGpVZQA/</guid>
  <author />
  <content:encoded><![CDATA[
  Ex-CIA agent: What did they know and when did they know it?  ]]></content:encoded>
  </item>
    <item>
  <title>Army suicides set record-breaking pace</title>
  <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/rawstory/gKpz/~3/-k8lCpMuPvM/</link>
  <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 03:39:29 CEST</pubDate>
  <guid isPermaLink="false">http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/rawstory/gKpz/~3/-k8lCpMuPvM/</guid>
  <author />
  <content:encoded><![CDATA[
  Army suicides set record-breaking pace  ]]></content:encoded>
  </item>
    <item>
  <title>The devil, and details</title>
  <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Americablog/~3/SbyHdmA3eYo/devil-and-details.html</link>
  <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 03:09:45 CEST</pubDate>
  <guid isPermaLink="false">http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Americablog/~3/SbyHdmA3eYo/devil-and-details.html</guid>
  <author />
  <content:encoded><![CDATA[
  One of the problems with this entire health care reform debate is that most of us have no idea what the details are of the various plans that the various Senate and House committees are debating.  Nor will we have any idea what the Congress passes, if at all, until a long time after the bill becomes a law.  That's one reason why health care reform advocates have been talking about the "public option."  Their logic is that at least push for a critical component in the plan, if you can't know all the details of the specific plans the Senators and House members are discussing behind the scenes.  Still, this detail, below, is an example of even the "good" plan - the House bill that the health care reform groups support - isn't exactly Sweden.Under the House bill, a couple with joint income of $75,000, before taxes, would not receive a subsidy. And if they are self-employed, and receive no help from an employer, the premiums that they would be expected to pay could easily run as high as $13,000 a year. After taxes, if they live in a high-tax state, they might take home $65,000 a year—or less. This means that health care premiums would eat 20 percent of their income—or more.A joint income of $75,000.  That means each of you makes $37,500 a year.  That's it.  And you're cut off from federal assistance with your premium payments.  Now, if the premium payments aren't exorbitant, maybe this is okay (but under the analysis above, that's a hell of a lot of money for someone to pay).  But I, like you, have no idea if these plans will help me when I'm in my 50s and Blue Cross is charging me well over $1,000 a month for my single person plan (we also have no idea if they'll actually give us real prescription drug coverage, etc.)  It's very difficult to support a plan when you have no idea what the plan is, nor what its impact is actually going to be on YOUR coverage.     ]]></content:encoded>
  </item>
    <item>
  <title>Trapped</title>
  <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/bRuz/~3/4qrJJjBrQJs/trapped.html</link>
  <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 03:09:44 CEST</pubDate>
  <guid isPermaLink="false">http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/bRuz/~3/4qrJJjBrQJs/trapped.html</guid>
  <author />
  <content:encoded><![CDATA[
  As Jesse notes, it's not surprising that people who take out payday loans end up doing it again and again. The business model of a predatory lender is much like a spider and its web, trapping their victims and then sucking out the lifeblood.  Some states have been successful at sending these predators packing by capping the interest rates they can charge consumers. One can hope that some day we'll regulate these bloodsuckers at the federal level.  ]]></content:encoded>
  </item>
    <item>
  <title>Credit Where It's Due</title>
  <link>http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/07/024012.php</link>
  <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 03:09:43 CEST</pubDate>
  <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/07/024012.php</guid>
  <author />
  <content:encoded><![CDATA[
  On Tuesday, in the midst of his overseas trip, President Obama gave an interview to an African news outlet called Allafrica.com.  I don't think it got much attention, but I read the transcript via Congressional Quarterly.  It struck me as the most sensible sustained exchange I've seen from Obama since his inauguration.  Reading Obama's words when, for once, he was saying things I agree with conveyed some sense of why many people find him articulate and effective.  So, here goes.Why Obama has planned a trip to Ghana:Well, part of it is lifting up successful models. And so, by traveling to Ghana, we hope to highlight the effective governance that they have in place.I don't think that we can expect that every country is going to undergo these transitions in the same way at the same time. But we have seen progress in democracy and transparency and rule of law, in the protection of property rights, in anti-corruption efforts. ...I think that the new President, President Mills, has shown himself committed to the rule of law, to the kinds of democratic commitments that ensure stability in a country. And I think that there is a direct correlation between governance and prosperity. Countries that are governed well, that are stable, where the leadership recognizes that they are accountable to the people and that institutions are stronger than any one person have a track record of producing results for the people. And we want to highlight that.Economic development in Africa:Now, I also think on the ground in many of these countries, how we think about not high-tech stuff but low-tech technologies to, for example, improve food production is vitally important. And I'm still frustrated over the fact that the green revolution that we introduced into India in the '60s, we haven't yet introduced into Africa in 2009. In some countries, you've got declining agricultural productivity. That makes absolutely no sense. And we don't need fancy computers to solve those problems; we need tried and true agricultural methods and technologies that are cheap and are efficient, but could have a huge impact in terms of people's day-to-day well-being. ...Number one, you're not going to get investment without good governance. So that's part of the reason why we emphasize it. Again, this is a very practical, hard-headed approach to how we're going to see improvements in the daily lives of the peoples of Africa. If government officials are asking for 10, 15, 25 percent off the top, businesses don't want to invest there. That's point number one.Point number two, I think that when my father left Kenya and traveled to the United States back in the early '60s, the GDP of Kenya and South Korea weren't equivalent -- Kenya's was actually higher. What's happened over that 50-year period? What you've seen is Korea combine foreign investment, integration with the global economy, with a strategic sense of certain industries that they can promote for export; great emphasis on education for a skilled workforce; insisting that foreign investment is accompanied by technology transferring so that homegrown industries can be built and nurtured.So we've got models out there. And I like this exchange, about why much of Africa continues to be so backward:QUESTION: Is that a failure of U.S. policy or is that a failure of governance in Africa?OBAMA: I would say that the international community has not always been as strategic as it should have been, but ultimately I'm a big believer that Africans are responsible for Africa.I think part of what's hampered advancement in Africa is that for many years we've made excuses about corruption or poor governance; that this was somehow the consequence of neo-colonialism, or the West has been oppressive, or racism -- I'm not a big -- I'm not a believer in excuses.I'd say I'm probably as knowledgeable about African history as anybody who's occupied my office. And I can give you chapter and verse on why the colonial maps that were drawn helped to spur on conflict, and the terms of trade that were uneven emerging out of colonialism. And yet the fact is we're in 2009. The West and the United States has not been responsible for what's happened to Zimbabwe's economy over the last 15 or 20 years. It hasn't been responsible for some of the disastrous policies that we've seen elsewhere in Africa. And I think that it's very important for African leadership to take responsibility and be held accountable.And I think the people of Africa understand that. The problem is, is that they just haven't always had the opportunities to organize and voice their opinions in ways that create better results.One could quibble.  It would have been nice for Obama to acknowledge the strong Africa policies of his predecessor, but giving credit to others is not the Obama way.  And one would certainly like to hear Obama talk about property rights and the rule of law in the context of the U.S. as well as Africa.  But let's not dilute our praise: those are sensible comments that many in Africa will probably hear, and some may take to heart.  Well done, President Obama.  ]]></content:encoded>
  </item>
    <item>
  <title>Fox's Napolitano fears hate-crimes law hurts free speech -- but ignores explicit language of bill</title>
  <link>http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/foxs-napolitano-fears-hate-crimes-la</link>
  <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 03:09:37 CEST</pubDate>
  <guid isPermaLink="false">http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/foxs-napolitano-fears-hate-crimes-la</guid>
  <author />
  <content:encoded><![CDATA[
  You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!                              clMediaLoader.loadEmbed("894623853","video","dp=2009/07&amp;mid=8946&amp;controller=video&amp;model=flv&amp;movieLength=271.235&amp;mediatitle=Fox%27s+Napolitano%2C+Cato%27s+Rittgers+claim+hate-crimes+bill+harms+free+speech&amp;embedkey=&amp;nodelink=http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/foxs-napolitano-fears-hate-crimes-la&amp;lup=1247121540&amp;ar=0.75",400,336);                                                                          DOWNLOADS: (0)                                                                                      PLAYS: (4)                                                                             Judge Andrew Napolitano sat in as the guest host yesterday on Glenn Beck's Fox News show, and featured a segment devoted to the notion that the hate-crimes legislation currently before the Senate might somehow be abused to undermine Americans' free-speech rights. His guest was David Rittgers of the Cato Institute.There is, however, a problem right off the bat with their thesis: The bill in question -- the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (LLEHCPA) -- contains specific language designed to ensure that the bill is never construed in such a fashion:Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by, the Constitution.Any honest discussion of this aspect of the legislation would have to bring this language into consideration -- but it's never mentioned by either Napolitano or Rittgers. Rittgers has written about it at Cato -- mostly objecting on the basis of concerns about federalism -- and similarly omits any discussion of the bill's actual language (which also explicitly recognizes the primary role of the states and local jurisdictions).Watch instead what Napolitano and Rittgers do in the course of this discussion: they bring in a totally unrelated piece of legislation -- the "Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act", which is indeed highly dubious from a constitutional point of view -- as though it were part and parcel of the same hate-crimes legislation issues -- even though the two laws have nothing to do with each other.And then they return almost seamlessly to the federalism and double-jeopardy issues around the LLEHCPA -- Napolitano just refers briefly to "this legislation," but it's quickly clear they're discussing not the Megan Meier bill, which does not raise such issues, but rather the LLEHCPA. It's all so muddied up that anyone watching the show could easily conclude that they're somehow packaged together.Moreover, the double-jeopardy problems -- as we've explained in some detail -- are largely nonexistent, or rather simply reflect the ongoing debate over "dual sovereignty doctrine," which involves many more issues than merely bias crimes.The ACLU strongly supports this bill, despite its usual concerns over double jeopardy, and if you look the bill's actual language, you can see why:‘(b) Certification Requirement- No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the Attorney General that--‘(1) such certifying individual has reasonable cause to believe that the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person was a motivating factor underlying the alleged conduct of the defendant; and‘(2) such certifying individual has consulted with State or local law enforcement officials regarding the prosecution and determined that--‘(A) the State does not have jurisdiction or does not intend to exercise jurisdiction;‘(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;‘(C) the State does not object to the Federal Government assuming jurisdiction; or‘(D) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.It also contains this clause:‘(e) Rule of Evidence- In a prosecution for an offense under this section, evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense. However, nothing in this section affects the rules of evidence governing impeachment of a witness.’.This is why Caroline Frederickson, Director of the ACLU's Legislative Office, said this about it:This bill has a provision, that has been in it since 2005, that has enabled the ACLU to support this legislation, because it does protect both civil rights and free speech and association. The bill specifically blocks evidence of speech and association that are not directly related to the crime.    That means that anyone saying we have unleashed the thought police, or thought crimes, is wrong.    ... This bill will have the strongest protection against the misuse of a person’s free speech that Congress has enacted in the entire federal criminal code. Napolitano was obviously looking for a way to grind Glenn Beck's usual ax about "our rights" being "eroded" by the federal government. And he obviously didn't want to bother explaining the facts in order to do it.  ]]></content:encoded>
  </item>
    <item>
  <title>Coburn's dizzying spin on Ensign affair</title>
  <link>http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/YH1cactqzmc/-Coburns-dizzying-spin-on-Ensign-affair</link>
  <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 03:09:33 CEST</pubDate>
  <guid isPermaLink="false">http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/YH1cactqzmc/-Coburns-dizzying-spin-on-Ensign-affair</guid>
  <author />
  <content:encoded><![CDATA[
  June 16: Tom Coburn praises John Ensign's "corrective force" for going public with his affair, and asks for forgiveness on Ensign's behalf:   Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said Ensign could use forgiveness.   "If you look at it in the light of everybody makes errors, at least he fessed up and resolved the problem with his family; so I think it speaks well of his corrective force."    July 8: Tom Coburn's office attacks Ensign for not having followed Coburn's advice to go public sooner:   "Dr. Coburn did everything he could to encourage Senator Ensign to end his affair and to persuade Senator Ensign to repair the damage he had caused to his own marriage and the Hampton&rsquo;s marriage. Had Senator Ensign followed Dr. Coburn&rsquo;s advice, this episode would have ended, and been made public, long ago."   July 9: Tom Coburn claims doctor-patient privilege, refusing to reveal his dicussions with Ensign about the affair, even though a day earlier, his office had done just that:   "I was counseling him as a physician and as an ordained deacon. ... That is privileged communication that I will never reveal to anybody. Not to the Ethics Committee, not to a court of law, not to anybody," Coburn said.   July 9: Despite his claim to have doctor-patient privilege, Tom Coburn goes into detail on what he says he did not discuss with John Ensign:   "I was never present when a letter was written, never made any assessment of paying anybody anything. Those are untruths. Those are absolute untruths."   What we have here is another example of a "Godlier than thou" Republican whose first reaction was to lie, providing political cover to a political ally. Then his lies changed to protect himself. That's certainly within the realm of normal behavior by politicians, but Tom Coburn has always claimed he was different than normal politicians.  Time and time again, Republicans like Tom Coburn prove that they can't walk the talk. Maybe it's time they start talking the walk.  ]]></content:encoded>
  </item>
    <item>
  <title>Naming Someone Who Hates Public Schools to Head the State Ed Board? Gov. Perry, You Can't Be Serious!</title>
  <link>http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/naming-someone-who-hates-public-schoo</link>
  <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 02:39:39 CEST</pubDate>
  <guid isPermaLink="false">http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/naming-someone-who-hates-public-schoo</guid>
  <author />
  <content:encoded><![CDATA[
  Hoo wee. Via Fred Clark, this story about Texas Gov. Rick Perry considering the appointment of a right-wing extremist Christian to head the state's Board of education. Oh, and she just happens to despise public education, thinks it's unconstitutional and thinks public schools should be abolished. (She also thinks Barack Obama is getting ready to impose martial law.) Yep, she sounds perfect for the job - at least, in Wacky Wingnut World.Fred sums it up nicely:...Just like the fire departments, school boards seem to attract a significant unhinged minority of firebugs -- people who just want to destroy public education and laugh while it burns.Dunbar is a member of what one blogger called "the Texas Taliban," a coalition of state school board fundamentalists. Since this is the year the board purchases new textbooks, their goal is to make sure the textbooks selected are as wingnutty and deliciously wacky as their own personal beliefs.By the way, she's a graduate of Regent University School of Law, founded by that noted legal scholar, Pat Robertson. Another notable grad? Monica Goodling. AUSTIN — Critics who engineered the recent ouster of State Board of Education Chairman Don McLeroy, in part because of his strong religious beliefs, could end up with someone even more outspoken in her faith.Cynthia Dunbar, R-Richmond, who advocated more Christianity in the public square last year with the publication of her book, One Nation Under God, is among those that Gov. Rick Perry is considering to lead the State Board of Education, some of her colleagues say.Critics are gasping and allies are cheering over speculation that Dunbar, a lawyer, could win a promotion to the leadership spot.“It would certainly cause angst among the same members of the pagan left that rejected Don McLeroy because he was a man of faith,” said David Bradley, R-Beaumont, one of the seven socially conservative members on the 15-person board.Nicely done, Dave. So any mainstream Christians who dare to disagree with you are secret pagan sympathizers!Perry’s office declined to comment until “a final decision is made.” In a book published last year, Dunbar argued the country’s founding fathers created “an emphatically Christian government” and that government should be guided by a “biblical litmus test.” She endorses a belief system that requires “any person desiring to govern have a sincere knowledge and appreciation for the Word of God in order to rightly govern.”Also in the book, she calls public education a “subtly deceptive tool of perversion.”The establishment of public schools is unconstitutional and even “tyrannical,” she wrote, because it threatens the authority of families, granted by God through Scripture, to direct the instruction of their children.Perry’s appointment of Dunbar would send a statement “thatthe governor shares her shocking hostility toward public education,” said Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, an organization that monitors the State Board of Education.“Just as bad, he would be siding with a faction of self-righteous politicians on the board who have made it crystal clear that they believe the only real Christians are the ones who agree with them,” Miller said. “If the governor really decides that selling out our kids like this is a good re-election strategy, then this state has an even bigger problem than we thought.”From the Houston Chronicle's Lisa Falkenberg (hmm. Isn't that a Communist-sounding name?):If the chatter from some board members proves correct, and Gov. Rick Perry is indeed considering appointing member Cynthia Dunbar as the board’s new leader, we may find ourselves reminiscing fondly about the good ol’ days when Chairman McLeroy simply disregarded experts, sidelined teachers and insisted on inserting his religious beliefs into public policy-making.Dunbar’s shortcomings go far beyond ideology and poor leadership skills to beliefs promoting paranoia and bigotry.This is the same Richmond Republican who penned an online essay shortly before the presidential election warning Barack Obama was plotting with terrorists to attack the country. She refused to retract her claim, even under pressure from Republicans.Gov. Perry will do just about anything to woo the far right fundamentalists, won't he?  ]]></content:encoded>
  </item>
    <item>
  <title>NFL star McNair killed by girlfriend: police</title>
  <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/rawstory/gKpz/~3/i-fOW1r9xew/steve-mcnair-murder-girlfriend</link>
  <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 02:39:32 CEST</pubDate>
  <guid isPermaLink="false">http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/rawstory/gKpz/~3/i-fOW1r9xew/steve-mcnair-murder-girlfriend</guid>
  <author />
  <content:encoded><![CDATA[
  NFL star McNair killed by girlfriend: police  ]]></content:encoded>
  </item>
    <item>
  <title>Book: Hemingway was a KGB spy</title>
  <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/rawstory/gKpz/~3/JnZZCV5CHEI/hemingway-failed-kgb-spy</link>
  <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 02:39:32 CEST</pubDate>
  <guid isPermaLink="false">http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/rawstory/gKpz/~3/JnZZCV5CHEI/hemingway-failed-kgb-spy</guid>
  <author />
  <content:encoded><![CDATA[
  Famed US writer Ernest Hemingway was a failed KGB spy, book asserts.  ]]></content:encoded>
  </item>
    <item>
  <title>Illinois Senator Roland Burris, appointed by Blagojevich, not running in 2010</title>
  <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Americablog/~3/n1QsPcI0WwE/illinois-senator-roland-burris.html</link>
  <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 02:09:47 CEST</pubDate>
  <guid isPermaLink="false">http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Americablog/~3/n1QsPcI0WwE/illinois-senator-roland-burris.html</guid>
  <author />
  <content:encoded><![CDATA[
  Burris is out, which is a good thing. That Blagojevich association was never, ever going to be beneficial.     ]]></content:encoded>
  </item>
    <item>
  <title>Right Wing Concocts False Claim That Obama Is Steering Stimulus Money To Areas That Backed Him</title>
  <link>http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/09/fox-stimulus-story/</link>
  <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 02:09:37 CEST</pubDate>
  <guid isPermaLink="false">http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/09/fox-stimulus-story/</guid>
  <author />
  <content:encoded><![CDATA[
  Some right-wing blogs have been pushing a USA Today analysis &#8212; which found that counties that supported President Obama in the election are getting more stimulus money, per person, than counties that backed John McCain &#8212; to claim that the stimulus is actually &#8220;an Obama-supporter-payoff scheme.&#8221; Steve Benen noted, though, that the conservatives crowing about   ]]></content:encoded>
  </item>
    <item>
  <title>OFA Pushes, Reid Backtracks, Wyden Dithers</title>
  <link>http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/emWKP8PsYpE/-OFA-Pushes,-Reid-Backtracks,-Wyden-Dithers</link>
  <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 02:09:35 CEST</pubDate>
  <guid isPermaLink="false">http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/emWKP8PsYpE/-OFA-Pushes,-Reid-Backtracks,-Wyden-Dithers</guid>
  <author />
  <content:encoded><![CDATA[
  Healthcare reform is nothing if not a wild ride these days. First, conflicting with the supposed message President Obama sent to liberal groups to lay off the pressure on Senators, Organizing for America is organizing members to pressure their Senators.   Late yesterday, Organizing for America, or OFA, blasted out an &nbsp;email calling on supporters to deluge their Senators and members of Congress, Democrats included, with calls demanding that they support Obama&rsquo;s "three principles for real health care reform":  Reduce costs Guarantee a choice of plans and doctors &mdash; including the choice of a robust public insurance option Ensure quality, affordable care for every American Obama is reported to have said this about liberal groups: "We shouldn&rsquo;t be focusing resources on each other." If this is true, it raises the question of why his own political operation should do this, but outside groups shouldn&rsquo;t.... OFA&rsquo;s activities make the meme that Obama wants the groups to muzzle themselves seem pretty far fetched.   Go OFA, SEIU, DFA, FDL--the whole alphabet soup of progressive organizations and activists coalescing around health care, because it's becoming increasingly clear that nothing but sustained, progressive pressure on the Senate can make a dent in the bubble that surrounds them, making them think that somehow bipartisanship and feeding their own and each other's egos matters more than passing the real health care reform their constituents are demanding.  Case in point, after Harry Reid's brief display of backbone, telling Baucus to abandon his fool's errand of getting Grassley on board, he's put bipartisanship back on the table.   Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid promised Wednesday not to leave Republicans out while shaping the health care bill, GOP senators said.  Sen. Olympia J. Snowe of Maine said Reid met privately with her and three other Republicans  and assured them that the GOP would be included in negotiations with the House on a final version of the legislation. "He said it would be a bipartisan, open conference" committee, Snowe said after the meeting.   Finally, health care reform stalwart Sen. Ron Wyden--who I know from a long association with him has been committed to the goal of universal health care from the beginning of his political career--is reinforcing that bipartisan pipe dream.   In an interview this week with the Huffington Post, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) maintained that there was still "great interest in the Finance Committee for a bipartisan bill on both sides of the aisle" and he urged lawmakers to continue to pursue a collaborative path. He would not comment directly on news that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had urged the Committee's Chairman, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) to drop efforts to attract Republican support. But he also didn't hide his own preferences.  "I'm committed to the priority that the president laid out," said Wyden. "I think the president got it right. He said 'I want to get it done this year' and he also indicated that his first choice is to have a bipartisan bill because he recognizes that a bipartisan bill allows the country to come together."   Wyden deserves a lot of credit for keeping health care reform at the forefront in the last few years with his Healthy Americans Act, a bill that has garnered Republican support. Utah Sen. Bob Bennett was, and is, a cosponsor, and in the last Congress, Ron was able to get the support of more Republicans and a wide array of private stakeholders. It's arguable that without his efforts, there wouldn't have been as many trade associations and business organizations willing to come to the table for President Obama. That said, the changes that the Wyden bill becomes the solution--slim to none. Which is probably one of the reasons that there is bipartisan support for it--it's a lot easier for a Republican to sign up for a bill they know doesn't have a chance of passing.  I don't believe that Wyden would ever stand in the way of real health care reform, or a robust public option, but I &nbsp;can only hope that he's using his very good relationship with the Republicans on his bill to try to bring them over to real reform. But the reality is Republicans aren't going to be falling over themselves to allow the Democrats to pass this massive, historic accomplishment. That's a reality that Wyden and the rest of the Democrats are just going to have to come to terms with.  ]]></content:encoded>
  </item>
    <item>
  <title>Sen. Burris will not seek full term</title>
  <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/rawstory/gKpz/~3/qtebk0f2OC4/AR2009070902512.html</link>
  <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 02:09:32 CEST</pubDate>
  <guid isPermaLink="false">http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/rawstory/gKpz/~3/qtebk0f2OC4/AR2009070902512.html</guid>
  <author />
  <content:encoded><![CDATA[
  Sen. Burris will not seek full term  ]]></content:encoded>
  </item>
    	
	</channel>
</rss>
