Yesterday, little kids pulled red wagons loaded with signed petitions up to Capital Hill, in support of expanding children’s health insurance — today Bush vetoed the bill, telling the nation only that it would “move us in the wrong direction.”

NOW he’s a fiscal conservative — anxious not to pour the nations wealth into the gaping hole of “socialized” medicine and those ever-needy welfare cases [the cigarette tax that would pay for this was considered a “tax increase” on his cronies in Big Tobacco;] and all this, despite his record of borrowing and spending more than ALL PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS PUT TOGETHER, and raising the debt bar up to 10 trillion bucks [all those “supplementary increases” he gets for Iraq, by the way … billions on billions … do not figure into that debt; it will take the NEXT president to determine how much damage has been done to America’s solvency.]

So for Bush and his Republicans, gimme more more more to kill kids in Iraq … and less less less to kill them here.

I don’t know if this was the wisest plan to cover the little ones; Kucinich voted against it … I’d be interested in his thoughts. It was, however, one of the first nods toward doing ANYTHING AT ALL for the public in recent memory. And I think THIS one’s a nail in George’s already-closed casket — legacy? HA! Even his own are hanging their heads.

Jude

Bush the Fiscal Conservative?
Dan Froomkin, WaPo
Wednesday, October 3, 2007

The three previous times President Bush vetoed a bill, he did so in public.

In July 2006 and this past June, he surrounded himself with supportive anti-abortion activists who welcomed his veto of stem-cell legislation. In May, when he vetoed legislation that would have established a timeline for troop withdrawal from Iraq, he did so in a televised address that rallied his fellow Republicans.

But this morning’s veto of a bipartisan bill that would have dramatically expanded children’s health insurance came behind closed doors, with no fanfare or visuals.

Who, after all, would have cheered him this time?

Jennifer Loven writes for the Associated Press that the veto was “one that some Republicans feared could carry steep risks for their party in next year’s elections.”

A Washington Post/ABC News poll taken last week found that 72 percent of Americans supported the legislation.

[…]

‘Stop the Madness’

Sometimes the best defense is a good offense.

Here’s White House press secretary Dana Perino on Bush’s expected veto yesterday: “In a time when [Democrats] think that they want to increase funding for children’s health care, they’re actually wanting to pay for it with a cigarette tax, which includes — people who smoke are usually — the majority are in the low-income bracket. And so they’re raising taxes on something to pay for a middle-class entitlement. It’s just completely irresponsible. Stop the madness on Capitol Hill.”

Bush Vetoes Children’s Health Bill
DAVID STOUT, NYT
October 3, 2007

WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 ā€” President Bush vetoed the children’s health insurance bill today, as he had promised to do, setting the stage for more negotiations between the White House and Congress and sparking unusual dismay from some prominent Republicans.

Mr. Bush wielded his pen with no fanfare just before leaving for a visit to Lancaster, Pa. The veto was only the fourth of Mr. Bush’s presidency.

“Because the Congress has chosen to send me a bill that moves our health care system in the wrong direction, I must veto it,” Mr. Bush said in his veto statement,
adding that he hoped to work with the lawmakers “to produce a good bill that puts poorer children first.”

The bill was approved by Congress with unusual bipartisan support, as many Republicans who side with the president on almost everything else voted to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, or Schip, from its current enrollment of about 6.6 million children to more than 10 million.

The measure would provide $60 billion over the next five years, $35 billion more than current spending and $30 billion more than the president proposed. Mr. Bush and his backers argue that the bill would be a step toward federalization of health care, and that it would steer the program away from its core purpose of providing insurance for poor children and toward covering children from middle-class families. The program was to expire on Sept. 30 but financing for it has been continued through a stopgap spending bill that will be in effect through mid-November.

The White House has rejected as “preposterous” any suggestion that Mr. Bush does not care about the welfare of poor children.

Later, in an appearance before the Lancaster Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Mr. Bush expanded on his reasons for vetoing the bill. “It is estimated that if this program were to become law, one out of every three persons that would subscribe to the new expanded Schip would leave private insurance,” the president said. “The policies of the government ought to be to help poor children and to focus on poor children, and the policies of the government ought to be to help people find private insurance, not federal coverage. And that’s where the philosophical divide comes in.”

But the philosophical divide is not just between Republicans and Democrats, as the reaction of some Republicans demonstrated.

“Unfortunately, I believe that some have given the president bad advice on this matter,” said Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah. He said supporting the health bill “is the morally right thing to do,” and that he hoped Mr. Bush’s veto could be overridden.

Another Republican, Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon, expressed similar sentiments and called Mr. Bush’s decision “an irresponsible use of the veto pen.”

And Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas, said there were “valid concerns about expanding Schip,” but that Mr. Bush should “sit down with Congress so that we can continue the Schip program within the scope of its original mission.”

As expected, the veto brought immediate statements of anger from Democrats.

“Today we learned that the same president who is willing to throw away a half trillion dollars in Iraq is unwilling to spend a small fraction of that amount to bring health care to American children,” said Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

Mr. Kennedy’s fellow Democrat from Massachusetts and Mr. Bush’s 2004 opponent, Senator John Kerry, said, “Today with a single stroke of his veto pen, President Bush single-handedly jeopardized health care for millions of poor children.”

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said the “heartless veto” showed how “detached President Bush is from the priorities of the American people.”
Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said, “Today the president showed the nation his true priorities: $700 billion for a war in Iraq, but no health care for low-income kids.”

Gov. Jon Corzine of New Jersey said: “Once again, President Bush has missed an opportunity to display compassionate leadership. Instead, he has resorted to political and ideological gamesmanship rather than seek a bipartisan solution that would protect this nation’s most vulnerable children.”

Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said: “We have no choice but to try to override his veto. The Senate already has the votes to do it, so it is now up to the holdouts in the House to decide whether to vote their conscience or join the president in putting ideology above kids.”

Mr. Schumer put his finger on the numbers working against supporters of the bill. It cleared the Senate by a veto-proof 67 to 29, but the vote in the House was 265 to 159, a couple dozen short of the two-thirds needed to override Mr. Bush’s veto, assuming that the full House voted.

Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the House Republican whip, told The Associated Press he was “absolutely confident” that there was strong enough opposition in the House to sustain a veto. But Mr. Blunt’s counterpart in the Senate, Trent Lott of Mississippi, said Congress should be able to reach a compromise with the president. “We can work it out,” Mr. Lott told the A.P.

Dana Perino, the White House spokeswoman, said Mr. Bush’s critics had “made their political point.”

“What the president said is, look, send me the bill, I will veto it, and then we will get about the business of trying to find some common ground and reach an agreement on a way forward,” Ms. Perino said.

Making Hay Over the Health Care Veto
JAY NEWTON-SMALL, TIME Magazine
Tuesday, Oct. 02, 2007

Democrat Eric Massa happened to be in Washington last week for a fund-raiser for his bid to challenge Rep. Randy Kuhl (pronounced “cool”), a Republican from upstate New York, for his seat next year, and he couldn’t believe his good fortune. As his potential opponent voted against the expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Plans (SCHIP), Massa felt like he was watching Kuhl commit “political suicide” for all to see on C-SPAN.

Massa wasted no time broadcasting Kuhl’s vote in the district, which stretches from near Lake Ontario to the Pennsylvania border. The next night at a house party in Naples, New York, he told supporters how Kuhl’s vote represented the worst of the Republican Party: solidarity with special interest groups and a rigid refusal to stray from the party line.

That party line, of course, is coming straight from the top, and many observers think it will come back to haunt the entire G.O.P. a year from now. While the bill passed both chambers of Congress with relatively strong bipartisan support, it failed to get enough votes in the House to override President Bush’s veto, which he issued Wednesday morning. Bush insists the expanded program, by raising the income eligibility levels, would draw children away from private insurance plans and act as a first step toward socialized medicine. But Democrats know that ideological debates are no match for pictures of sick children, and they are already training their sights on eight vulnerable Republicans, including Kuhl, who voted against it. “It is a defining vote; it says a lot about people’s values and priorities,” said Representative Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat and head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

The Democrats’ priorities in this instance are abundantly clear ā€” they intend on making as much political hay of the children’s health care veto as they can, whether or not they can eventually turn enough Republicans to override it. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has insisted he will continue to send the bill back to Bush’s desk without modifying it for wavering Republicans, though House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has left the door open for changes. If the President vetoes the bill a hundred times between now and the 2008 elections the Democrats can portray the G.O.P. as voting against sick poor kids. If the G.O.P. caves, they can declare themselves the champions of children’s health care and finally have a legislative accomplishment to boast about. Either way, they think they can’t lose. “It’s our hope that these members of Congress, when they hear from their constituents, that they’ll choose children’s health,” Van Hollen said. “If not, voters will hold them accountable.”

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is already running radio ads against Kuhl and his seven colleagues, in addition to automated phone calls and an e-mail campaign. “Congressman Kuhl has a simple choice: give 10 million children the health care they need or turn his back on those children,” the radio announcer says in one spot. “Call Congressman Kuhl and tell him to stand with kids, NOT George Bush.”

Republicans are not taking the attacks lying down. They point to other compromises on the issue that they have proposed, such as Bush’s plan to expand the program by $25 billion instead of the $35 billion the Democrats want, and they accuse the Democrats of making SCHIP into a political football. Kuhl said he voted for a stopgap measure that extended the program, which was due to expire this week, by 45 days and is co-author of a bill that would further extend the current level of funding by eight months while Congress and the White House work out a compromise. “I’m not voting against health care for poor children, I’m voting for it,” said Kuhl, who won reelection in 2004 with just 51.4 % of the vote. “The people who elected me didn’t elect me to vote according to perception. They voted for me to do what’s right.”

House Minority Leader John Boehner stressed it was a Republican Congress that created the popular program in the first place a decade ago. But “it’s irresponsible to use a program designed for children as a trial balloon for government-run health care in this country, especially when we still have low-income kids who need to be identified and covered,” Boehner told TIME.

The proposed $35 billion SCHIP expansion is being paid for by a 61-cent increase in federal taxes on tobacco products, a move Kuhl and many Republicans oppose as a “tax increase.” Adding to Kuhl’s woes, Massa accuses him of being in the pocket of big tobacco since he’s received $10,000 from Altria and R. J. Reynolds, the two largest U.S. cigarette manufacturers, since 2006, according to Federal Election Commission Records. Kuhl dismissed such accusations with a laugh, saying he isn’t even committed to running again yet so the term “opponent” hardly applies to Massa. “I would hope that the Democratic majority, who controls the agenda, would stop playing politics with a bill like this and would bring a bill back that would actually be acceptable to a veto-proof majority of the House,” Kuhl said.

Massa, a 48-year old retired naval officer who ran against Kuhl in 2004 on a platform largely about Iraq, said he is now making SCHIP his No. 1 priority. “It is rapidly overcoming Iraq and here’s why: people have a hard time finding a solution on Iraq, they just can’t. This has a solution ā€” this bill makes sense, it is clear and evident.”

Bush veto strategy threatens Republicans
Steven Thomma and Tony Pugh, McClatchy Newspapers
Wednesday, October 3, 2007

WASHINGTON ā€” President Bush is putting his fellow Republicans on a collision course with the American people, forcing them to choose between guns and butter.

In this newest example of a historic clash over priorities, Bush is asking Congress for $190 billion to keep financing the unpopular war in Iraq for another year and vowing to veto as early as Wednesday a bipartisan plan to spend an additional $35 billion over five years on health insurance for children.

Polls suggest that Bush’s budget battle could be a loser for his party. Two new polls ā€” one nonpartisan and one sponsored by a labor union ā€” showed that solid U.S. majorities want to cut the financing for the war and increase spending on children’s health insurance.

Democrats and allied interest groups know it. They’re launching ad campaigns to increase pressure on Republican lawmakers in vulnerable seats to support the increased spending ā€” or face great risk in next year’s elections.

“This is a fight that Democrats ought to welcome, that Republicans ought to fear,” Democratic pollster Geoff Garin said.

“The battle over spending priorities is the most important fight since the showdown over privatizing Social Security,” said Gerald McEntee, the president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. “I don’t think we need to remind Bush who won that battle.”

Bush’s political motive is clear: He wants to restore his party’s reputation as fiscally conservative after six years of letting domestic spending grow faster than it did under Democrat Bill Clinton.

Thus, a president who didn’t veto a single spending bill in his first six years in office now vows to veto not only more spending for children’s health insurance but nine other spending bills as well. Bush says Congress mustn’t spend more on domestic programs than the $933 billion he requested for fiscal 2008. The Democratic-led Congress wants to spend $22 billion more than that ā€” less than 1 percent of the federal budget. On this difference rests his nine-bill veto threat.

The American people seem to line up against Bush, particularly as he appears to link the two controversies by sending Congress his request to finance the Iraq war at the same time that he’s vetoing the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

In a new ABC-Washington Post survey, 67 percent of the respondents said they wanted Congress to reduce the amount of money going to Iraq and Afghanistan, while 27 percent wanted lawmakers to approve Bush’s spending request. At the same time, 72 percent said they wanted Congress to approve the additional spending on children’s health insurance, while 25 percent opposed it.

Republicans at the White House and in the congressional leadership say there’s no connection between spending on Iraq and on children’s health insurance, and work to portray the children’s bill as a partisan Democratic proposal.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, for example, said the proposal was put together without input from Republicans.

That isn’t true. Senior Republicans such as Sens. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee and a fiscal conservative, and Orrin Hatch of Utah helped draft the bill, and 18 Republicans in the Senate and 45 in the House of Representatives voted for it.

Moreover, Grassley contests Bush’s objections to the children’s health insurance bill.

Pressure now mounts on Republicans who voted against the new spending but come from swing districts, where the idea of greater spending on health insurance for kids could be as popular with their constituents as it is nationally.

Health-insurance advocates need 25 more votes in the House to override a Bush veto. They have enough votes to override in the Senate if they hold every vote they collected at the measure’s initial passage.

The Democrats’ political operation for House candidates, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, began running radio ads this week in the districts of eight swing-district Republicans who voted against the measure. As many as 25 others could be targeted.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and another group, Americans United For Change, are launching a $3 million to $5 million ad campaign against other Republicans.

At the same time, Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., said Tuesday that of eight House Democrats who’d opposed the measure and three others who didn’t vote on it, five had now agreed to support it. Clyburn wouldn’t disclose their names.

ARE BUSH’S POINTS VALID?

President Bush claims that the bipartisan bill to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program “would result in taking a program meant to help poor children and turning it into one that covers children in households with incomes up to $83,000 a year.”

That’s not true.

The bill maintains current law. It limits the program to children from families with incomes up to twice the federal poverty level ā€” now $20,650 for a family of four, for a program limit of $41,300 ā€” or to 50 percentage points above a state’s Medicaid eligibility threshold, which varies state to state.

States that want to increase eligibility beyond those limits would require approval from Bush’s Health and Human Services Department, just as they must win waivers now. The HHS recently denied a request by New York to increase its income threshold to four times the poverty level ā€” the $82,600 figure that Republican opponents of the bill are using.

Under current law, nineteen states have won waivers from these income limits. The biggest was granted to New Jersey, which upped its income limit to 350 percent of the federal poverty level, or $72,275 for a family of four in 2007. The expanded SCHIP program retains the waiver option under federal discretion; it doesn’t change it.

The president also claims that the proposal would cause some families to drop private coverage and enroll their children in the cheaper SCHIP program.
That’s true.

Peter Orszag, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, said that was inevitable to some degree when any government program expanded. The CBO estimates that the legislation would attract 5.8 million new enrollees by 2012. Of them, 3.8 million would be uninsured and eligible under current requirements, and 2 million probably would have had private coverage before the expansion.

That’s a rate of about 1 in 3 new enrollees dropping private insurance. “We don’t see very many other policy options that would reduce the number of uninsured children by the same amount without creating more” dropouts from private insurance, Orszag said.

DEMOCRATS’ TARGETS

Democrats are airing radio ads to pressure eight Republicans in the House of Representatives to support expanded spending for children’s health insurance: Reps. Steve Chabot of Ohio, Thelma Drake of Virginia, Tom Feeney of Florida, Sam Graves of Missouri, Joe Knollenberg of Michigan, John “Randy” Kuhl of New York, James Saxton of New Jersey and Tim Walberg of Michigan.

ON THE WEB

Read an analysis of the proposal by FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan, nonprofit project that monitors accuracy in U.S. politics, sponsored by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.

“CROWD-OUT” IS NOT THE SAME AS VOLUNTARILY DROPPING PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE FOR PUBLIC PROGRAM COVERAGE
Leighton Ku, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

As leading health policy experts have explained, under the fragmented U.S. health insurance system, virtually any effort to cover more of the uninsured ā€” including efforts that rely on tax deductions or credits for the purchase of health insurance in the private market, as well as public program expansions ā€” will result in some “crowd-out” (in the substitution of one type of health insurance for another) or in more heavily subsidizing people who are already insured, rather than in extending coverage to those who are uninsured. For example, an analysis of the Administration’s health tax proposals from last year by the noted health economist Jonathan Gruber estimated that 77 percent of the benefits would go to people who already are insured.

In comparison, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that under the bipartisan SCHIP agreement passed yesterday by the House on a 265-159 vote, about one-third ā€” or 2 million ā€” of the 5.8 million children who would gain SCHIP or Medicaid coverage by 2012 under the legislation would have otherwise had private coverage, a percentage less than half the 77 percent for the Administration proposals.[1] The CBO estimates also show that 3.8 million children who otherwise would be uninsured would gain coverage by 2012.

In any case, the phenomenon of crowd-out related to SCHIP and Medicaid is widely misunderstood. Many people assume that CBO’s estimate of the bipartisan agreement means that the families of 2 million children who currently have private coverage would voluntarily drop that coverage for their children and enroll the children in SCHIP or Medicaid instead. As CBO director Peter Orszag has explained, this is not correct.

CBO defines “crowd-out” to include all children who are uninsured when they enroll in SCHIP or Medicaid but whose families would ā€” in the absence of SCHIP or Medicaid ā€” have purchased private coverage for these children at some point in the future, possibly many months later. Orszag has explained that these children account for a substantial share of those whom CBO estimates would otherwise have private coverage.

In other words, a large share of the SCHIP “crowd-out,” as estimated by CBO, involves children who are uninsured now but who would obtain private coverage at some later point if SCHIP (or Medicaid) coverage were not available to them. These are not children who had private insurance that their families voluntarily dropped for public program coverage.

Surveys show, in fact, that only a small share of children had private health insurance before enrolling in SCHIP or Medicaid. The Congressionally-mandated 10-state evaluation of SCHIP found that while 28 percent of newly enrolled children had private coverage before joining SCHIP, half of them ā€” or 14 percent ā€”lost their private insurance for involuntary reasons before enrolling in SCHIP, such as when parents lost their jobs or became divorced or employers stopped offering health insurance for dependents.[2]

CBO estimates an overall crowd-out rate of about one-third under the bipartisan SCHIP legislation in part because of what CBO estimates would happen after some children who are uninsured enroll in SCHIP or Medicaid. For example, an unemployed parent of an uninsured child who enrolled in SCHIP may eventually get a low-paying job in which private insurance is available but employees have to pay hefty premiums and deductibles (or the insurance has large gaps). In such cases, the low-income parent may choose not to pick up private insurance for her children because the children already have satisfactory insurance through SCHIP. CBO counts these children as individuals who would otherwise have had private insurance and thus as part of its crowd-out estimate. Referring to the families whose children show up as “crowd-out” children in CBO’s estimates, Orszag has said that “For many such families, after they are on the program [SCHIP], they could have had an opportunity to pick up private coverage but don’t.”[3]

Some who cite the CBO crowd-out estimates misuse them, contending that all of the children included in CBO’s crowd-out estimate are children who would voluntarily drop existing private health insurance to join SCHIP or Medicaid. At the point that they would enroll in SCHIP or Medicaid, however, many of the children cited in the CBO crowd-out estimate would be uninsured, and they often would remain uninsured for some period of time unless they enrolled in public coverage.

Faithful America provides a list of rep’s who need to be contacted in the House … check for your state and respond.

Ask your representative to override the SCHIP veto. Here’s a list of representatives whose vote is crucial.

AL Robert Aderholt
AR John Boozman
CA Brian Bilbray
CA John Doolittle
CO Marilyn Musgrave
FL Gus Bilirakis
FL Ginny Brown-Waite
FL Tom Feeney
FL Rick Keller
IL Judy Biggert
IL Tim Johnson
IL Peter Roskam
IL Jerry Weller
LA Rodney Alexander
MI Joseph Knollenberg
MI Thaddeus McCotter
MI Tim Walberg
MN Michelle Bachman
MO Sam Graves
NJ Rodney Frelinghuysen
NJ Scott Garrett
NJ Jim Saxton
NY Randy Kuhl
OH Steve Chabot
OR Greg Walden
PA John Peterson
TX Kay Granger
VA Thelma Drake
VA Randy Forbes

Republicans Who Didn’t Vote

CA Wally Herger
WY Barbara Cubin

Democrats Who Voted No

FL Kathy Castor
MS Gene Taylor
NC Bob Etheridge
NC Mike McIntrye
OH Dennis Kucinich

Democrats Who Voted Present or Absent

CA Diane Watson
IN Julia Carson (if back for the vote)
MA William Delahunt

Click here for information on how to contact representatives.

“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
Shemale stripersBenutzername AssparadeMƤdchen Unrasierte behaarte69 und Vater Schwulen SohnBehaarte KlitorisnatĆ¼rliche BrĆ¼ste Floppyclits Ebony bigBaby Russisch Schwester Bruder fucking Map

Add comment October 3rd, 2007

Rush to judgment

Rush Limbaugh is pond scum and Hate Radio is calculated to promote the darkest of human emotions… and both have a right to their voice in this nation. On the other hand, considering Rush is the chosen mouthpiece for the entire Bush administration and there seems no checks or balances on what the man says, I stand with Wes Clark in calling for him to be removed from Armed Forces Radio. You can sign a petition for that, last, if you’d like.

I’m less hot on the proposition to censure him congressionally [although it rankles considerably to learn that he was made an “honorary member of congress” … and that the Red’s continue to try to “honor” him for his dark drivel — what does THAT say about the Republic??] That feels too tit/tat for me, considering the MoveOn doin’s … Congress should have kept their legaleze out of that. And I sneer — indeed, I offer my nekkid bum — at the Righty howl that Rush was taken out of context by the Rampant Liberal Satan … they can kiss it; that old saw is as tired out and limp as Mr. Limbaugh’s Viagra-driven nether-part.

This is what I wrote to my Congresspersons on Wes Clark’s blog:

I have always disapproved the implications of allowing Limbaugh’s radio program, clearly political and clearly offensive to many, to be broadcast to our servicepersons and to represent the “face of America” overseas. Now it has taken something egregious in order for us to even LOOK at the bias involved, and hopefully, correct it. Last week, Rush Limbaugh called American servicemembers who support an end to the war in Iraq “phony soldiers.”

The Congress went about an almost instantaneous censure over a MoveOn ad — but they allow Limbaugh to question the patriotism of the many US soldiers that have concerns about their purpose in Iraq? Will someone please tell me how that can be considered non-partisan? I know for sure it’s unAmerican.

If you sign the petition, you can add your own thoughts to their brief message — I urge you to do so; if Rush can run his hateful, bigoted and egocentric mouth to the entire world, YOU can tell your representatives EXACTLY how you feel.

THAT’s the American Way!

Jude

When Hate Radio Attacks…
Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Satyam Khanna, Matt Corley, Ali Frick, and Jeremy Richmond, The Progress Report
10/3/2007

Last Wednesday, right-wing pundit and “hate radio” pioneer Rush Limbaugh declared that U.S. troops who support withdrawal from Iraq are “phony soldiers.” Limbaugh made the off-handed comment on his daily radio show while engaging in conversation with a caller about Iraq. As Media Matters first noted, Limbaugh said, “[I]t’s not possible, intellectually, to follow these people” who call for a withdrawal. The caller replied, “No, it’s not, and what’s really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.” Limbaugh interjected, “The phony soldiers.” The caller agreed, replying, “The phony soldiers.” Limbaugh’s slap at “phony soldiers” appears to be a direct attack on seven members of the 82nd Airborne who wrote a New York Times op-ed in August, warning that Iraqis had been “robbed of their self-respect” as a result of the invasion and would “soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.” A poll conducted last December found that, at the time (prior to the escalation), 37 percent of the military believed we should not have gone to Iraq, while one in five felt we should have fewer troops on the ground.

…THE LEFT FIGHTS BACK: Limbaugh’s smear has generated a fast and furious response from the left. Last Friday, the Democratic Senate leadership began circulating a letter on Capitol Hill that called on Clear Channel CEO Mark Mays, Limbaugh’s employer, to repudiate the “phony troops” remark. The letter, signed by Sens. Harry Reid (D-NV), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Charles Schumer (D-NY), and Patty Murray (D-WA), states that Limbaugh’s comments were “outrageous” and “unconscionable.” Mays has since responded, offering his “regret” for Limbaugh’s comments. On Monday, Reid took to the Senate floor and challenged those senators who recently criticized a MoveOn.org newspaper ad to condemn Limbaugh “with equal fervor.” Also last week, Rep. Mark Udall (R-CO) announced that he would be introducing a resolution in the House criticizing Limbaugh. Several lawmakers have made comments denouncing the smear. VoteVets.org, a pro-military organization founded by veterans of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, has released a series of ads, highlighting the faces of soldiers who oppose Bush’s failed policy in Iraq. Additionally, retired Gen. Wesley Clark has called on activists to demand Limbaugh be taken off Armed Forces Radio.

…LIMBAUGH IMPLODES: As a result of having been forcefully condemned for his smear, Limbaugh has responded with revisionist history, claiming he was taken out of context. Limbaugh argues his “phony soldiers” remark was actually in reference to one man — Jesse MacBeth — who pretended to be an injured Iraq war veteran. But in fact, Limbaugh did not make reference to MacBeth on that show until nearly two minutes after talking about “phony soldiers” who opposed the war. Also, he used the phrase “phony soldiers” in direct response to his caller’s complaint that we “never” hear from “real soldiers” who oppose the war, only troops who “spout” against the war “in the media.” Moreover, when attempting to clarify his remarks on Friday, Limbaugh severely undermined his case by identifying Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), who earned the bronze star and two purple hearts during 37 years of service, as an example of a “phony soldier.” Having been placed under the microscope for his smears against the troops, Limbaugh has begun lashing out, calling Reid a “nut.” Rather than offer an apology to defuse the situation, Limbaugh instead fueled it by claiming to apologize on behalf of Media Matters for creating a “firestorm over something that did not happen.” And yesterday, Limbaugh took his defense to an even more insulting level, comparing an Iraq war veteran who criticized him to a suicide bomber.

…THE RIGHT WING CIRCLES THE WAGONS: Evidence of his powerful influence in conservative circles, Limbaugh has found no shortage of defenders on the right, including Fox News, Republican lawmakers, the Drudge Report, and right-wing blogs. While House Democrats were pushing a resolution to condemn the “unwarranted slur” made by Limbaugh, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) took exactly the opposite tact, offering a resolution to “commend” Limbaugh’s “commitment to American troops.” In the wake of the recent furor over a MoveOn ad against Gen. David Petraeus, 72 Senators stood to “strongly condemn any effort to attack the honor and integrity” of any member of the U.S. forces. But the Senate letter calling on Clear Channel to repudiate Limbaugh’s comments have garnered only 41 votes, lacking the support of a single Republican and 10 Democrats. Right-wing radio host Melanie Morgan offered a full-throated defense of Limbaugh that echoed his smear. She called soldiers involved with the VoteVets organization “anti-America” “fake” “posers.” Fox News has performed its obligatory spin on the incident, offering an unfair and unbalanced perspective that takes Limbaugh’s side while attacking his critics. ++

Top Democrat slams Limbaugh over ‘phony soldiers’
Reid had some harsh words for Rush Limbaugh Monday
CNN
October 2, 2007

WASHINGTON ā€” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid slammed Rush Limbaugh Monday over his recent controversial “phony soldiers” remark, despite the conservative talk-radio host’s protests that his words have been taken out of context.

Limbaugh’s comments in question came last Wednesday when he and a caller were discussing critics of the Iraq war:

“What’s really funny is, they [Iraq war critics] never talk to real soldiers,” the caller said. “They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.”

“The phony soldiers,” Limbaugh then said.

Several Democrats released statements late last week condemning the remarks and in a speech on the Senate floor Monday, Reid called the comments “so beyond the pale of decency that it cannot be left alone.”

“Just as patriotism is the exclusive realm of neither party, taking a stand against those who spew hate and impugn the integrity of our troops is a job that belongs to all of us,” Reid said.

“I can’t help but wonder how my Republican colleagues would have reacted if the tables were turned ā€“ if a well-known Democratic radio personality had used the same insulting line of attack against troops who support the war,” the Nevada Democrat added.

Responding to his critics on Friday’s show, Limbaugh said he was “taken out of context,” adding his remark was referring to one soldier specifically ā€” Jesse MacBeth, a vocal war critic who falsely claimed to have served in Iraq.

“The effort here is simply to discredit people that they consider effective and powerful on the right ginning up, leading up into the ‘08 elections,” Limbaugh said Friday. ++

Clarence Thomas and Rush Limbaugh…Dirty Duo
News Sophisticate
Monday, October 1, 2007

Most of us here in the media are what I consider infotainers…. Rush Limbaugh is what I call a disinfotainer. He entertains by spreading disinformation.

~ Al Franken at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner (4/23/94)

How can I put this…I know…Rush Limbaugh is an idiot. His recent on-air attack on Paul Hackett absolutely disgusted me. How can this oxycontin popping “D” student say such a thing a distinguished VETERAN? Appalling.

Who is the wretched Limbaugh? Well that’s easy..Let’s start with the fact that the military DIDN’T want him to serve during Vietnam. That’s right..the armed forces gave Rush a deferment from service. In fact it was a ‘4F’ deferment which basically means he was pathetic..He refutes the claim and says he remained out of the war through student deferments.

“4F..Registrant not acceptable for military service. To be eligible for Class 4-F, a registrant must have been found not qualified for service in the Armed Forces by a Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) under the established physical, mental, or moral standards.”

Sad ….he had a hairy lil’ cyst that hurt..no military service for Rushie.

Rush comes from a long line of GOP, status quo lawyers and scholars. His younger brother David is a christian neocon author, his cousin Stephen, is a judge on the Supreme Court of Missouri, his rather distinguished grandfather was a Missouri state representative for 2 years, and his uncle Stephen Sr. was appointed by Reagan as a federal judge in Missouri….and Rush..well he’s not that bright..but he makes a great snake oil salesman.

What catches my eye about Rush is not his families political past, but their influence within the Judicial system past and present.

Directly after Rush made his “unpatriotic” comments about Mr. Paul Hackett, Rush and Clarence Thomas Supreme Court Justice pre taped a 90 minute show which will air on the Rush Limbaugh Show on Mon. Oct. 1st. Oddly enough, the show will air while the Supreme Court starts their new session.

In the Transcript between a stark raving lunatic caller and Rush, the caller begins by raving about getting his “…never nicotine-stained fingers [on] a copy of Justice Thomas’ book — i.e., his memoirs.”. Rush and the caller go through a ridiculous diatribe relating stories of Justice Thomas’ life and the such. However. I found it quite odd that not at anytime during the conversation did Rush disclose his previous relationship with Justice Thomas.

Clarence Thomas officiated the third wedding of Rush Limbaugh in 1994. In fact, the wedding was at Justice Thomas’ house. (It sure would be nice to get a hold of the ‘guest registry’).nndb ,slate, palmbeachpost

Is that not worth disclosing? …and now we’re going to suffer through 90 minutes of Rush praising the Supreme court and Clarence..yet not a word of the Court giving ‘w’ the oval office..never a word of disclosure…Nothing of importance. Just another GOP campfire joy fest.

Clarence…why? Who starts a book tour on the Rush Limbaugh show unless they’re a raving GOP Christian zealot? I guess we found the answer….To add to the drama..

On Monday, Congressman Mark Udall will be introducing a resolution to condemn Rush:

Honoring all Americans serving in the Armed Forces of the United States and condemning the attack by broadcaster Rush Limbaugh on the integrity and professionalism of some of those Americans.

On Monday I will introduce a resolution honoring all Americans serving in the Armed Forces and condemning this unwarranted attack on the integrity and professionalism of those in the Armed Forces who choose to exercise their constitutional right to express their opinions regarding U.S. military action in Iraq.

Sincerely, Mark Udall

The irony in this is …Rush Limbaugh was declared an “honorary member of Congress” and the ” Majority Maker” after he helped the GOP capture the Congress in 1994.

Hey, Senate…make sure you revoke that “honorary” member status, too. ++

Digging a Deeper Hole: Rush Responds to Our New Ad
Brandon Friedman, Daily Kos
Tue Oct 02, 2007

As many of you have already seen today, VoteVets.org has a new ad we’ve just released. So I want to take the time now to provide some information on the ad itself, give you some background on Brian McGough, the soldier in it, and let you know what Rush had to say about it today.

In case you missed it, here’s the new commercial

Because not all of our commercials are meant for primetime television (some are web ads), people are asking whether or not this one is going to be on TV. I can assure you that it is. In fact, it will air both Wednesday and Thursday on FOX News and CNN. We’ve also prepared a radio version of the ad that will air during Rush’s show in select markets. So there will be no preaching to the choir here. We’re taking this message to the people who need to hear it most.

As for the soldier in the commercial, Brian McGough served in the same unit I did, though I didn’t know him personally at the time. Brian was a field artillery NCO (noncommissioned officer) attached to the Rakkasans, the 3rd Brigade of the 101st Airborne Division. He served in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq before he was injured. I knew of him because he was friends with one of my own soldiers in Afghanistan. At the time, Brian was a Forward Observer (a guy who goes with the infantry to call in air strikes, artillery, and mortars).

In Iraq, Brian served in the same capacity, but at a higher level. He was a team chief in northern Iraq, and he served there throughout that long, but relatively peaceful, summer of 2003. That all changed though, on October 17 when Brian was wounded. The incident was captured in vivid, heartbreaking detail by another soldier, and Brian has it posted on his own blog, Inside My Broken Skull. It’s one of the most chilling pieces of combat writing I’ve ever read.

For those who know him, Brian is a great guyā€”thoughtful and articulate. And, despite the issues he’s had in dealing with his injury, he’s become politically active. Last week he met personally with members of Senator Webb’s staff in Washington to go over proposed legislation that concerns veterans.

Now, Rush Limbaugh came out today and addressed the VoteVets ad on his live radio show. He also tried to minimize Brian’s efforts to change Iraq policy.

Rush said today that Brian McGough’s decision to work on this ad was a “blatant use of a combat veteran” by VoteVets.org. Rush’s brain then must have fallen out of his head, because he then tried to paint Brian as a clueless, brainwashed, tool of the Left by comparing him to a suicide bomber:

“This is such a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said and then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media and a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into. This man will always be a hero to this country with everyone. Whoever pumped him full of these lies about what I said and embarrassed him with this ad has betrayed him, they aren’t hurting me they are betraying this soldier,” Limbaugh said.

What Rush obviously didn’t know when he made the response, was that Brian’s injury in Iraq had resulted from a real-life suicide bomber.

People need to key on this repugnant analogy for a number of reasons, not least of which is because Brian is a blogger, active member of VoteVets.org, and more than capable of defending himself. Rush went on to state, incredulously, that “unless he [McGough] actually believes what he’s saying. . .,” as though McGough couldn’t form his own opinions. This is disgusting. The fact that Rush has portrayed him in this light is a further insult to Brian and the rest of the troops who don’t agree with Rush on Iraq policy.

On one hand, this whole situation is a sad waste of time, but on the other, it’s personally satisfying to see Rush Limbaugh, a Real American Tough Guy, continuing to dig himself a deeper and deeper hole.

Keep it up, Rush.

UPDATE: As I was preparing to post this, Brian emailed me his response to Rush’s statement made on the radio today. Here it is in its entirety:

So, Rush Limbaugh called me a “suicide bomber.” More slander from the high and mighty sitting in his chair nursing the boils on his ass. I can assure you that I am no suicide bomber and that I can think for myself.

Rush, your phony soldier comments pissed me off. The audacity of someone like you who never had the courage to stand and fight for what you believe in makes my head spin. That is what made me stand up and state my convictions in front of a camera. I wanted to point out that you are wrong. I am not a phony soldier. I believe that we are not doing the right thing for national security by staying in Iraq. We are putting too much strain on our military by extending tours and not giving people enough time at home to rest. We have taken our eye off of the real Al-Qaeda and let them regroup to their pre-9/11 strength. We have not developed a political system in Iraq that would enable the country to stand on its own.

I stood in the sand, snow, dirt, mud and dust of both Afghanistan and Iraq. I spent over a week on a side of a mountain in Afghanistan during Operation Anaconda. I received The Bronze Star medal for my actions during that battle. I crossed the border into Iraq with the first wave of the 101st Airborne. I sustained an open head injury on the streets of Mosul after a vehicle borne IED exploded next to the vehicle I was riding in. I have seen the aftermath of a real suicide bomber. I had loved ones who died in the 9/11 attacks. I have friends and colleagues who returned from the war in body bags.

How dare you call someone like me a phony soldier and a suicide bomber? In the commercial I just taped, I told you unless you had the guts to say something to my face, stop telling lies about my service. Well you haven’t had the guts to say it to my face, but I am waiting and the offer is still on the table.

Wow. ++

Take Rush Limbaugh Off Armed Forces Radio
Gen. Wesley Clark, HuffPo
October 2, 2007

Last week, Rush Limbaugh labeled any American soldier who supports an end to the war in Iraq as “phony.” We challenged Limbaugh through an email campaign to invite VoteVets.org’s Jon Soltz to his show and repeat these same insults to an Iraq war veteran’s face. Over 10,000 people responded and emailed Rush — but to our disappointment, he has refused to respond to our request.

It’s time to put real pressure on Rush Limbaugh. His show is broadcast on Armed Forces Radio, and this time we are going to go straight to the lifeblood of Rush’s show — Congress. Congress has the power to remove Rush Limbaugh from Armed Forces Radio, and it won’t be as easy for elected officials to ignore our call.

Tax dollars are used to fund Armed Forces Radio, and that money is not intended for radio show hosts to spout insults at our soldiers. These “phony soldiers” have simply exercised their right to free speech, as Rush Limbaugh does on a daily basis. Simply because a majority of our troops who return from Iraq disagree with Rush on Bush’s failed war policy does not give him the right to dishonor their service.

Unlike Rush Limbaugh, members of Congress cannot casually brush off the concerns of citizens. Since Rush won’t listen to us, we’re going directly to Congress, who can prevent him from disrespecting and censoring the voices of our soldiers.

How have Republicans in Congress chosen to respond so far? Congressional Republicans have actually drafted a resolution supporting Rush Limbaugh, “commending [his] relentless efforts to build and maintain troop morale through worldwide radio broadcasts and personal visits to conflict regions.”

That’s outrageous. Rush Limbaugh’s “phony soldiers” comment should not be commended — it should be condemned. And it’s time to tell Congress to act swiftly to hold Rush Limbaugh accountable.

Click here to hold Rush Limbaugh accountable for his offensive and outrageous comments — tell your members of Congress to take Rush off Armed Forces Radio today!

Our armed forces have served us honorably in Iraq, and the least we can do is respectfully listen to what they have to say about their experiences and perspectives on the war. To question the sincerity of our “phony” troops is disgraceful and must end.

Thank you for speaking out. ++

“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Add comment October 3rd, 2007