Yikes, I have not posted a new blog in a while, so I guess I should make this one an extra large entry to make up for lost time.

2009 is almost over. This year saw some major changes for celebrities and politicans alike, especially in the areas where the line between the two are heavily blurred. It's amazing how quickly things can change for some people, either by accident or as the result of years of planning. Even though there is a still a month to go, I am pretty confident that these four people have made the biggest changes in their careers this year, for better or for worse.

The Best Moves

WHO: Sarah Palin

BEFORE: Governor, VP candidate,

AFTER: Pundit, "Author," Celebrity

WHAT HAPPENED: First off, I'm certain anyone who has read this blog before is shocked to see me list Palin on a positive note in any way, but hear me out. While I generally don’t think highly of Palin, but she made one move that for her (and likely everyone else), was the best thing she could have done: she quit politics.

Her meteoric rise in fame in the national political scene was only marginally hindered by her and John McCain's massive loss to Obama in the 2009 election. Palin quickly polarized people's opinions of her, with adoration turning into idolization from her fans and general dislike turning into outright hatred from her detractors.  Palin's fame came with a major drawback, however. The more attention she got, the more people lost confidence in her ability to be a political leader.  Not to mention, ever aspect of her personal life was scrutinized in the public forum, every dime she spent was analyzed and her lack of knowledge on certain subject matters were considered major problems.

In the world of politics, 59 million people can vote for you and you can still go home with nothing at the end of the night, but in the world of entertainment, only one million can buy your book and you're considered a rock star.

Palin made the right move for her career. She had the name recognition and media attention she claims to hate and could obviously read the writing on the wall as far as her future in politics was concerned. Though she continues to say she hasn't ruled out future political office ventures, it seems like an obvious attempt at superficially connecting her new career to her old one for life support. A recent pole show more than 70% of Americans now think Palin is unqualified to be President. Though that number seems to grow the more time goes by, it now means nothing to Palin's future plans. The 30% who do think she is qualified are more than enough to keep her career outside of politics going.

 If Palin admitted she would never run for office again, it's likely her fame would fade quickly as speculation about her 2012 plans and beyond would stop being fodder for the 24 news networks.  Her supporters continue to champion her as a role model and someone they would like to see as President, so it's very unlikely she'll outright dash those hopes when they are what keep her supporters (and critics) interested.

WHO: Conan O'Brien

BEFORE: Host of Late Night with Conan O'Brien

AFTER: Host of The Tonight Show

WHAT HAPPENED: This was years in the making.  Jay Leno's contract with NBC expired, and the network decided it was time to move on to a new host (though they did not let go of Leno). O'Brien has enjoyed immense popularity in the late night slot for years and his ability to draw younger viewers made him the most likely choice to succeed Leno. Though the Tonight Show is no longer the rating juggernaut it once was and David Letterman is now leading in the ratings, it's not really a problem for NBC or O'Brien. NBC has much bigger issues to be concerned about right now, like the horrible ratings and reviews for Leno's new show, and even though O'Brien now attracts fewer viewers than Letterman, he dominates in the younger demographics NBC was hoping he would.

The switch from Leno to O'Brien signifies a massive shift in the Tonight show dynamic. Leno was as traditional of a comic as they come, where as O'Brien's approach is decidedly a more post-modern approach, where the scripted jokes themselves are often not the primary source of humor. Rather, O'Brien calls attention to the formulation of the jokes and the show itself for humor, often mocking himself, the (purposefully, I suspect) poor production value of some of the show's skits or mistakes that others shows might edit out before airing.

Not surprising, some of Leno's older viewers likely jumped shipped to Letterman, who has gotten a ratings boost in recent months, in part, due to two controversies (a poorly worded Sarah Palin joke and an alleged blackmail scheme). Nevertheless, Conan's younger viewers seem to like him, and he is following the footsteps of Johnny Carson, which, even when ratings are down, is not a bad job to have.

The Worst Moves

WHO: Rod Blagojevich

BEFORE: Governor of Illinois

AFTER: Reality TV "star"

WHAT HAPPENED: It's incredible how far and fast Blagojevich fell from grace. After Obama won the presidential election, his seat in the Illinois Senate was scheduled to be vacated and Blagojevich could fill the opening. Though he did fill the seat, it wasn't without a massive amount of controversy. Blagojevich was arrested on federal corruption charges stemming from accusations that he was seeking personal or financial gain in exchange for filling the open seat.  In short, he's accused of trying to sell a seat in the state senate. Well, he was removed from office in Jan. 2009 and is awaiting his 2010 trial, but in the meantime, Blagojevich is not shying from the spotlight. Most disgraced politicians seem to avoid drawing further attention to themselves, but Blagojevich is different. Over the summer he tried to be a contestant on "I'm a Celebrity... Get me outta here!" but was reminded by the courts that the show was filmed outside the country and leaving the US is a big no-no for people facing political corruption charges.  So.... his wife Patricia went instead, because apparently she's a celebrity.  Apparently the Blagojevich family is hard up for money after being booted out of the governor's mansion, so these ventures into reality TV are their only way of making money. Though he was spotted making appearances at office parties for money singing Elvis tunes with a Fabio impersonator. You can't make this stuff up, it's just too sad.



 Now Blagojevich is set to be a contestant on the new season of Celebrity Apprentice as his career, and apparently his self-respect, have all but vanished. And just think, at this time last year he outranked Obama.

WHO: Kanye West

BEFORE: Hip-hop star with a knack for AutoTune and an ego the size of the moon

AFTER: "Jackass"

WHAT HAPPENED: Like you don't already know. Country singer Taylor Swift won her first MTV Video Music Award in a category where she was competing against Beyonce. During her acceptance speech, West, as he has done in the past, decided to steal the spotlight. He jumped on stage, grabbed the mic out of her hand and said " Yo Taylor, I'm really happy for you, I'mma let you finish but Beyonce had one of the best videos of all time!" To which everyone in the audience, including Beyonce, responded to with shock and horror. Booing ensued, and a seemingly defiant West shrugged, flipped off the crowd, and walked off stage.

Within a mere minutes the incident set the blogosphere on fire. Wests antics have annoyed some in the past but most people brushed it off. This time, however, it looked like he amused nobody. It didn't help his image when Beyonce, who later won a different award, and in classy move gave up her mic time and called Swift back out on stage so she could finish her original speech.  West apologized the next day via his website, but it didn't stem the backlash against him. He would later go on The Jay Leno Show and apologize again. For the first time in his career, West actually appeared humble for a moment. But it didn't matter.  The media, like always, fueled the flames by asking everyone they could what they thought, from rock stars like P!nk to President Obama himself, who was recorded calling West a jackass in what was clearly meant to be an off-the-record moment.

West has since canceled most of his plans and is said to be taking some time off to reflect. No doubt he is hoping the storm he created blows over, but it doesn't seem to be happening anytime soon. Not surprisingly, "Kayne interrupts.../ I'mma let you finish" has become one of the fastest growing and most widespread Internet memes of all time.

About 5,000 people joined Michelle Bachman and other GOP speakers at what was officially called a "press conference" outside the Capital Building yesterday. The group was a mix of anti-abortion activists and Tea Party protesters voicing their disapproval of the health care bill schedule for a vote tomorrow.

The protest was similar to others though this one had the official blessing of the GOP.  The Washington Post reports, however,  a total of five people needed medical attention during the event, all of whom were treated by government health care workers.

The details of only one incident are reported:

"a man standing just beyond the TV cameras apparently suffered a heart attack 20 minutes after event began. Medical personnel from the Capitol physician's office -- an entity that could, quite accurately, be labeled government-run health care -- rushed over, attaching electrodes to his chest and giving him oxygen and an IV drip. This turned into an unwanted visual for the speakers, as a D.C. ambulance and firetruck, lights flashing, pulled in just behind the lawmakers. A path was made through the media section, and the patient, attended to by about 10 government medical personnel, was being wheeled away on a stretcher just as House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) stepped to the microphone. "Join us in defeating Pelosi care!" he exhorted."



Read the full article here

Two groups of people were arrested during the event, one was a group of protesters staging a sit-in in Pelosi's office while throwing crumbled pages of the proposed bill around. The other, oddly enough, was a group of Code Pink (a liberal, anti-war group) protesters who were staging a similar sit-in... in Joe Lieberman's office.

One a side note, Bachman is getting high praise from tea party activists for organizing the event, and many want Bachman as the face of the movement, a move that Democrats think is a great idea.

It wasn't surprising to see how quickly both sides tried to spin the results of the 2009 elections in their favor. While conservatives were touting the gubernatorial results in Virginia and New Jersey, liberals were celebrating the two-seat pickup in the US. House, especially the NY-23 victory.

It's both funny and sad that both sides are so predictable in their spin but neither is likely to be an accurate interpretation of the results.

CONSERVATIVES

The SPIN: Republicans winning two new gubernatorial seats is a clear referendum on Obama, and this spells doom for the democrats in future elections.  Even L. Brooks Patterson called it a backlash against Obama, saying “That’s clearly what it was...It speaks volumes."


The REALITY: It really doesn't mean that at all. Gubernatorial races don't give much, if any indication of how a state will vote in national elections. Patterson should know this since even our own state's local history shows it to be true.  Despite electing Republican John Engler three times as Governor, Michigan went Blue in every following Presidential election. California has a Republican governor and is considered a democratic stronghold in presidential elections. Likewise, Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, another "safe" blue state.

Virginia is different though, and to an extent I have to agree that some votes there were likely votes against Obama. However, I strongly disagree that it's statistically significant or will play a role in national races in 2010 or 2012. Virginia's gubernatorial races are odd for several reasons, primarily:


1) They are held in an "off-off" year where no national races are held in the state.
2) Incumbents are legally prohibited from seeking re-election (though they are permitted to run again in the future)

So having to choose between two new candidates in off years likely leads to much lower voter turnout than you would get in other states.The elections always follow the presidential election by a year, and who is more likely to turnout to vote, the party who won or the party who lost the last election?  With low voter turnout, the shift in attitude from the previous election can have a major impact, and in Virginia, history seems to show it does have such an impact. Someone on Fark.com was nice enough to compile this list, so I copied it here for you to see.

1976: Carter (D) elected President
1977: Dalton (R) elected Governor of Virginia

1980: Reagan (R) elected President
1981: Robb (D) elected Governor of Virginia

1984: Reagan (R) re-elected President
1985: Baliles (D) elected Governor of Virginia

1988: Bush I (R) elected President
1989: Wilder (D) elected Governor of Virginia

1992: Clinton (D) elected President
1993: Allen (R) elected Governor of Virginia

1996: Clinton (D) re-elected President
1997: Gilmore (R) elected Governor of Virginia

2000: Bush II (R) elected President
2001: Warner (D) elected Governor of Virginia

2004: Bush II (R) re-elected President
2005: Kaine (D) elected Governor of Virginia

2008: Obama (D) elected President
2009: McDonnell (R) elected Governor of Virginia

History has been following a pretty simple pattern in Virginia for the last 8 election cycles... so while it may be fair to say Virginia gubernatorial races reflect animosity toward the sitting President, it would be equally fair to say they have been doing it for some time now and are not indicative of larger movements in the national political scene. Three of the six Presidents listed above won reelection despite the Virginia results, so to suggest this one election spells doom for the democrats is beyond stretching.



LIBERALS

The SPIN: Bill Owens (D) winning NY-23 over Doug Hoffman (C) destroyed the Tea Party movement.

The REALITY: The Tea Party movement isn't going away any time soon. A democrat winning over a third party candiate is hardly Earth-shatting. The only reason the congressional race in NY-23 got any attention at all was because it was a rather slow news cycle for an election and Sarah Palin decided to throw her celebrity behind Hoffman. While NY-23 was considered a Republican stronghold prior to the election, Democrats picking it up won't change the overall course Congress is heading down at this point, and Owens' victory is more a reflection on a growing divide within the Republican party than an overall rejection of the Tea Party movement.

Owens was not expected to win the district in the original showdown with Dede Scozzafava (R), who was classified by critics and supporters alike as fiscally conservative, but socially liberal. Sarah Palin decided to endorse 3rd party candidate Hoffman because he was more conservative, and other big name Republicans followed. The problem was Hoffman was not a very charismatic candidate, especially when under the tight gaze of the national media, he did not live in the district and was quickly criticized for showing a lack of understanding of the issues facing the district. Scozzafava withdrew from the race and, likely feeling rejected by her own party, threw her support behind her former opponent.

In short, Owens won because the Republican stronghold was divided between conservatives and moderates, not because of backlash against the Tea Party movement.  It was a poorly planned move by Republicans that backfired.

Of course, there are still some who touted Hoffman's loss as a "win" for the movement because it was a close race. But it shouldn't have even been close. Scozzafava was heavily favored to win and polls taken prior to Palin's endorsement of Hoffman showed her with a significant lead over Owens. Republicans had the district locked up, which is probably why some saw it as an opportunity to shift the party in an even more conservative direction. Even after withdrawing, Scozzafava still received 5.5% of the vote, while Owens bested Hoffman by only 3.5%.

This was not an uprising of Democrats trying to send a message to Tea Party activists, this was a house divided that, clearly, cannot stand. However, it does not mean the end of the Tea Party movement. If anything, it means Republicans will have to work to bridge the gaps between the conservative base and the party's moderates leading into the 2010 elections.



A lot has changed in the last 12 months and it's likely a lot more will change in the upcoming year that will influence the next election. Trying to predict the results based on what happened in four local races this year is a waste of time.

Following the fringe group known as the Birthers has been very amusing to me, but it looks like their time in the spotlight is coming to a quick end.

Yesterday, the last case filed by Orly Taitz, Captain Pamela Barnett v. Barack Hussein Obama was dismissed in federal court. This is the case mentioned in a previous entry that Taitz has been smugly referring to in recent interviews because 3 weeks ago the judge declined to make an initial ruling on the matter and set a potential trial date for January 2010. Though Judge Carter was just following legal protocol, Taitz and her supports took this as a success and began bragging that they have forced President Obama to stand trial. As I previously indicated, the delay in a ruling did not in any way imply the judge supported their efforts and if anything, was the equivalent of not saying "get lost" immediately.

Well, now he's told them to get lost. The full opinion can be read here, but in short: Carter said the filings by Taitz on behalf her clients (who included former Presidential candidate Alan Keyes) showed a fundamental misunderstanding of the US Constitution and, in the case of Taitz, legal proceedings. Even with extended deadlines and the legal equivalent of coddling, Taitz frequently failed to properly follow court procedures or even file the proper paperwork. The patience on the part of the judge should dismiss any argument that Taitz was treated unfairly, but she's almost certainly make the case anyway should anyone care to interview her at this point.

One line in the opinion that is certainly the most damning for Taitz and her followers:

"Additionally, the Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves."

That's the game ender. And to be sure, this is a game to them. Up to this point, Taitz has used a legal system she clearly does not understand to push a political agenda based in conspiracy theories and to get attention for herself. She has already faced financial sanctions and has complaints lodged against her to the California Bar Association. Now, sworn affidavits that Taitz has no problem breaking the law and is encouraging others to help her do so. She already presented a bogus Kenyan birth certificate in a past court case, which was quickly and mercilessly debunked. Taitz claimed she was duped by people trying to hurt her credibility but I think most people feel she's done quite a good enough job of that on her own.

She's refused to pay her financial sanctions, all her cases have been dismissed, and she may face charges of some kind. Cetainly she will be disbarred in the near future.

I'll let him speak for himself:

As I mentioned yesterday, conservative websites immediately went on the attack against Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine for her yes vote to move one version of the health care reform bill out of committee. Some of the attacks are pretty vicious, but this one is just plain silly:


http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/10/13/pour-rock-salt-on-snowe/


Here is the full post:

Olympia Snowe has sold out the country. Having been banished to our world after Aslan chased her out of Narnia, Snowe is intent on corrupting this place too.

So we should melt her.

What melts snow? Rock salt.

I’m going to ship this 5 pound bag of rock salt to her office in Maine. It’s only $3.00. You should join me.

It is a visible demonstration of our contempt for her. First she votes for the stimulus. Now this.

It’s time to melt Snowe. ORDER YOUR BAG HERE.

The mailing address is:

3 Canal Plaza
Suite 601
Portland, ME 04101
Main: (207) 874-0883

This is perhaps the most poorly thought-out symbolic attack plan I have seen for two extremely obvious reasons:

- Rock salt is not used to melt snow, it's used to melt ice. You use shovels to remove snow. If you're trying to be clever in your protest you need to at least get the symbolism correct.


- Maine, like Michigan, will likely use a lot of rock salt this winter. So go ahead, buy and send a ton of rock salt to her. I'm sure she'll be happy to give away the free bags to her constituents or use the dozen or so bags she'll probably get to keep the sidewalks around her office clear.



Hopefully they will decide to protest me next. I could use the rock salt.

It seemed liked a good selling point during the last election. Bush's approval numbers were so low the only chance McCain/Palin had was to distance themselves from what they perceived as the standard Republican way. Of course, neither McCain nor Palin were doing anything that actually distanced themselves from Bush in any radical way. Even the phrase "Going Rouge" which Palin is now using as the title of her upcoming book, was not really describing any political differences between Palin and her party, but rather her inability/refusal to work within the confines McCain's campaign managers wanted her to. The strategy obviously didn't pay off for either of them, unless of course Palin's plan all along was to ride her newfound popularity out of politics and into her current job of punditry.


Sure, the idea of someone not walking lockstep with their party line is a nice idea and both parties love to tout they're the ones who do it. However, reaction to the yesterday's senate finance committee vote suggests Republicans are not really looking for someone like that. Meet Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine. If you haven't heard about her, you will very soon. Snowe has been gaining media attention for a few months now, but as of yesterday she is in the center of the spotlight because she was the only Republican to vote in favor of the health care bill in committee yesterday.  This vote doesn't put the health care bill into effect, it just gets it out of committee, which Snowe said was the major reason she voted for it.  Snowe said after the vote that she does not like many things in the current form of the bill but believes the people want action. In essence, she said her "yes" vote was intended to move the bill into the next stage of the process so more things can be worked out. Hardly a huge vote of confidence for Obama, but nevertheless, the backlash came quickly against Snowe from a party claiming it doesn't walk in lockstep. She's a RINO (Republican in Name Only), she's a traitor, she needs to be removed from office immediately. These are some of the more kindly-worded attacks aimed at Snowe to appear on conservative websites in the last 24 hours.


That being said, Snowe's vote should not have come as that big of a surprise to people. The American Conservative Union gives Snowe a lifetime rating of 49.12 for her voting history and The Washington Post rates her at 58 for the current congress.  Those numbers indicate the percentage of times Snowe has voted the same as her Republican colleages. In comparison, John McCain has a lifetime rating of 81.43 from the ACU and some people still weren't happy with the times he crossed the isle on issues.

Clearly one is more "mavericky" than the other, and since Snowe has held her Senate seat for 14 years it's strange that suddenly now her moderate stance is such a shocking problem for some. Despite the immediate and angry calls to push her out of office, such an outcome is unlikely. Snowe has kept her seat in a state that has leaned heavily in favor of Democrats for the last 20 years likey because she is a moderate and does not vote straight along party lines.

Let's be honest, this one vote does not make Snowe a radical champion of health care reform to democrats nor a two-faced traitor to her own party. She's a moderate Republican who would rather work within the system on a solution than stubbornly argue endlessly about ideology. If a maverick is someone who doesn't walk the party line then Snowe fits the definition much better than McCain or Palin, but it seems that's not what people want... at least not in the big picture. Now before anyone says I'm only harping on Republicans, the way Joe Lieberman was treated by Democrats during the 2008 election cycle shows they're not really looking for someone to step outside the lines either. However, they weren't the ones touting such a trait as their biggest strength while simultaneously attacking those who actually did it.

The "Birther" movement seems to have lost some steam in the last month or so. My initial thought on the sudden surge in the movement was a lot of people unhappy with Obama's election saw it as an attempt to undo the 2008 election results, regardless if they bought into the conspiracy or not. As we quickly approach the one year mark, however, it seems attention has shifted to getting "payback" in the 2010 election instead.

One person, however, remains vigilant in her quest to unseat Obama despite a few setbacks from reality. Orly Taitz, lawyer/dentist/real estate agent, was fined $20,000 this morning for misconduct by Judge Clay Land of the U.S. District Court in the Middle District Of Georgia. Land already dismissed Taitz's frivolous attempts to use the court system to further her political agenda, and Taitz responded the way any rational person would: she accused the judge of treason and incorporated him into her ever-growing conspiracy.

Taitz's claims have been dismissed at nearly every turn (see below), several clients have cut legal ties with her, and her refusal to back down is causing the courts to further the punishment. Taitz has already said she will not pay the fine, meaning the courts will likely put a lien on her property. Another attorney has filed a complaint with the California Bar Association saying Taitz behavior and her comments toward Clay are reason for sanctions and possible disbarment.

It's unlikely Taitz would be disbarred at this point, but if she continues down the path she has been on for nearly a year now, the courts may find themselves with no other option.

But Taitz is pushing on, encouraged by what she considers "a major victory" when U.S. District Court Judge David Carter decided to delay his ruling on whether or not to dismiss a case filed by Taitz on behalf of former Southern Baptist Convention second vice president Wiley Drake. Drake sought the vice presidential seat with Alan Keyes for the American Independent Party presidential nomination in the 2008 election. After a 3-hour hearing on October 5 Carter stated he wanted more time to review arguments on both sides. So for Taitz, not being told to get lost immediately is a victory. And she wonders why some of her clients (including Drake) no longer want to be represented by her.

The constant setbacks for Taitz are likely leading to the slowdown in the "birther"
movement. While most "birthers" are probably content to slap bumper stickers on their car and wallow in their own anger, Taitz is pushing as hard as possible to accomplish her goals, and being slapped down for it. Seeing the queen bee getting punished is likely discouraging the rest of the hive from acting up.

Soon this whole discredited "movement" will likely be a faint memory, but what will happen to Taitz? If she is stripped of her legal powers, will she fade into obscurity or will she continue screaming her messages until they have to throw on a straight jacket and take her away? Or worse yet... will she make an infomercial?

Well, I certainly wasn't expecting this. President Obama was awarded a Noble Peace Prize in a move that was "designed to encourage his initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism."

While I support these initiatives, I've always thought prizes were awarded for accomplishments, not to encourage these accomplishments. If this trend catches on, will we be giving the Detroit Lions a Super Bowl trophy to encourage them to be a better team?

Back when Arizona State refused to give Obama an honorary degree because he hasn't accomplished anything yet, I felt they were being overdramatic about the whole thing. It is, after all, Arizona State, and an honorary degree at that. Did they think he was going to abuse it to beef up his resume?

This time, however, it seems like a fair criticism. After all, Obama has only pledged to do these things. While he has shown to be following up on those pledges, there is a loooooooooooooooooooooooong way to go towards nuclear arms reductions and easing tensions with the Muslim world before he can say "mission accomplished." When there is tanginable evidence that he is following up on these initiatives, I would fully support such an award. Now it just seems like a premature gesture given for good intentions.

It must be hard to fill 24 hours of programming, but CNN is now dedicating their time to fact-checking.... Saturday Night Live?




Normally, I get the impression that conservatives are the ones that can't take a joke, but in this case, CNN has really made liberals seem like thin-skinned whiners. Come on guys, I know SNL isn't funny most of the time, but you have to realize they are still in the business of satire. You didn't see fact-checks on Tina Fey's Palin impressions or any of Will Ferrell's Bush spoofs, so why start now? If CNN was trying to dissuade anyone of the persistent liberal media rumors... this didn't help.

There just has to be something more important they can be doing with their time...



...okay, maybe not.

That's quite a bold statement. It came from Republican media consultant Mark McKinnon, who, like several others, is concerned about the perception of his party.

The whole article can be read here, but the real question I have is... how does either party fix this?

Two days ago, very few people probably even knew who Rob Miller was, but now, thanks to Joe Wilson, Miller has raised $800,000 in less than 48 hours by doing little besides twittering.

Miller, who is running against Congressman Wilson in 2010, suddenly has a formidable amount of financial backing. After word of the surge of donations made the news, Sean Hannity encouraged supporters of Wilson to donate to him as well. Today CNN is reporting that Wilson has also raised about $200,000, which when combined with the $200,000 he already had on hand, he's still only about half-way to what Miller raised in less than 2 days.

But even if there was no money to speak of, the attention the two men have gotten has almost completely benefited Miller. Wilson is, for the most part, in a no-win situation until the heat dies down. Come November 2010, this will likely be old news, but for now, Wilson has yelled out, which made him look uncivil and disrespectful, he apologized, which made him look spineless to his supporters, then went on to talk to Hannity seeming unapologetic, which made him look two-faced and even more spineless (if he only apologized because the higher-ups told him to). The best thing he can do now is keep his head down unil the smoke clears. Today's media thrives on knee-jerk reactions, and Miller is benefiting from those reactions. But the election is a long way off. Instead of feeding into the frenzy, he needs to go back to doing his daily job as Congressman and let the smoke clear.

While President Obama did acknowledge incorporating some ideas suggested by John McCain into his health care plan, the idea that it is a bipartisan effort is kind of a joke. The plan is almost entirely the work of Democrats, and as POlitifact points out, ideas incorporated from Republican plans are "mostly technical."


From Politifact:

"In his address on health care to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 9, 2009, President Barack Obama suggested the health care bills in Congress are a bipartisan collaboration.

"It’s a plan that incorporates ideas from many of the people in this room tonight — Democrats and Republicans," Obama said.

Earlier in the day, in a conference call with the media, Obama's deputy communications director, Dan Pfeiffer, argued that while the health bills in the House and Senate have not gotten Republican votes, the process was bipartisan because dozens of Republican amendments were adopted.

And that's technically true. But it's a stretch to characterize it as bipartisan.

The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions adopted 159 amendments offered by Republicans, but only two of them were significant or controversial enough to merit roll call votes. One of those two affected the manufacture of biologics medication and another required members of Congress and congressional staff to enroll in the government-run option.

Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, said 132 of the 159 were for "technical amendments" and that it was a misnomer to call them proof of bipartisanship.

None of the Republicans' priorities have gotten any traction, he said: Tort reform, equalizing the tax code, reducing the proposed cuts to Medicare spending, and scrapping the proposed "public option."

In fact, he said, only one big-picture Republican issue seems to have gotten the attention of the Democratic majority: creating incentives for wellness, such as cutting insurance costs for people who exercise or don't smoke.

Over in the House, several versions of health care bills have passed various committees. Here's how Republican amendments fared there:

In the Energy and Commerce Committee, 16 Republican amendments were adopted. With the exception of one that would create a pathway for nonpioneer drug companies to manufacture "follow-on" biologics, said Lisa Miller, a spokeswoman for Republicans on the committee, none of the Republican amendments could be considered major, and none change the core of the legislation.

"The process in our committee was bipartisan only in that we were given the opportunity to mark up the bill," said Miller. "In large measure, the bipartisanship that existed during the E&C markup was that of luck and circumstance, not intent among Democrats."

In the Education and Labor Committee, just six of the 17 amendments offered by Republicans were adopted. Several "probably are best described as technical," said Alexa Marrero, a spokesman for Republicans on the committee. And one, which sought to have members of Congress be enrolled in any government-run plan that would be created, was defeated by Democrats in other committees.

One, from Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., would allow employers who would have to cut jobs to meet health coverage costs the opportunity to seek a waiver from the bill’s requirements. It was adopted by voice vote.

In the House Ways and Means committee markup, all 38 of the Republican-sponsored amendments were rejected along a party-line vote.

To see a more detailed accounting of some of the Republican amendments that have been considered, click on some of the links in our list of sources. But suffice to say, we didn't come across many that passed that seem significant.

Michael Steel, spokesman for House Republican Leader John Boehner, said that while it's true that some Republican or bipartisan amendments were accepted, the legislation itself has received zero Republican votes.

"No amendments have changed the core of the legislation" or altered the public option, Steel said.

Back when the House Education and Labor Committee considered its version of the bill in mid July, several Republican legislators complained that there was little real effort to engage a bipartisan process, and they called on Democrats to scrap the plan and start over.

According to an article in Congressional Quarterly , the panel’s chairman, George Miller, D-Calif., said that Republicans and Democrats simply have a "serious difference in opinion on how to approach health care in this country."

We also note that after Obama's appeal to the joint session of Congress, the man designated to offer Republican rebuttal, U.S. Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La., again called on Obama and Congress to "start over on a common-sense, bipartisan plan focused on lowering the cost of health care while improving quality."

When Obama said the health plan incorporated ideas from Democrats and Republicans, we think he grossly overstated the bipartisanship of the process to date. Both sides claim the other party is to blame for that, an issue that we will not wade into here. However, we note that none of the plans that have graduated from congressional committees have received a single Republican vote. Yes, Congress adopted dozens of the amendments proposed by Republicans, but we couldn't find any that dramatically altered the plan. Still, to the extent there were at least some, we give Obama's statement a Barely True."

So let's face it, Obama has not bridged the gap between parties on healthcare reform and likely won't. I noticed an interesting tidbit in the polling about his health care reform plans. Approval ratings were steadily dropping prior to the speech, but shot up drastically following. Note this the approval rating for how the health care issue is being handled, not the plan itself. If nothing else, the speech reaffirmed supporters beliefs that Obama is not compromising much, if any, of his plan.

Congressman Joe Wilson has already apologized for yelling "You Lie" during President Obama's speech tonight, but it's probably not going to help him much at this point.

The blog-o-sphere lit up almost immediately following the incident. Almost the moment it was confirmed Wilson was the heckler, his website crashed, his office phone lines were busy, and within hours his 2010 Democratic opponent Rob Miller was close to raising $50,000 from internet donations. (Updated 9/10 4:30 p.m Rob Miller has now raised approximately $425,000 in online donations since the outburst)

To make matters worse, fact-checkers pounced all over things, with Wilson pretty much getting chewed up and spit out.


From Politifact.com:

"Joe Wilson of South Carolina said Obama lied, but he didn't

We suspect it's rare that the president gets heckled during a speech to a joint session of Congress, but Rep. Joe Wilson didn't hold back.

"You lie!" shouted the South Carolina Republican. This was in response to President Barack Obama's statements on illegal immigrants.

"There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants," Obama said. "This, too, is false – the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."

So who's right here? Wilson or Obama?

Incidentally, Wilson apologized for the outbust after the speech, but said he still disagreed with Obama's statement.

We've been monitoring claims about health care reform and illegal immigrants for some time now. Most notably, a chain e-mail claimed that page 50 of the House bill gave free health care to illegal immigrants. That page didn't say that. Rather, it included a generic nondiscrimination clause that said insurers may not discriminate with regard to "personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services." So we rated the chain e-mail's claim Pants on Fire.

We read all 1,000-plus pages of the health care bill and were struck by the fact that it is largely silent on health care for illegal immigrants. Keep in mind that experts estimated there were 6.8 million uninsured illegal immigrants in the United States in 2007, out of a total of 11.9 million illegal immigrants. Right now, most states have laws on the books that require hospitals to treat severely ill people who arrive at the hospital, regardless of immigration status, and we didn't see anything that would change those laws, either.

Most illegal immigrants are also now excluded from Medicaid, the government-run health care for the poor. We didn't see anything that would change that.

One place where the bill does mention immigration status is for "affordability credits." These are tax credits for people of modest means need to buy health insurance. The credits would help them buy insurance on a national health insurance exchange. The bill specifically says that people in the United States illegally are not eligible for tax credits, on page 132, section 242.

Still, given all that, we have heard from people who said that other aspects of reform could benefit illegal immigrants.

One of the most detailed responses was from the anti-immigration group Federation for American Immigration Reform, called FAIR. You can read their statement on the matter on their Web site.

Primarily, they argue that illegal immigrants would be permitted to purchase insurance on the national health insurance exchange because the bill does not include a mechanism for verifying citizenship. So illegal immigrants would have the chance to purchase insurance in the public option, a government-run health care plan that would offer basic coverage at a low price.

FAIR also argues for more robust verification measures for the affordability credit and making sure that illegal immigrant parents won't be able to receive coverage if their citizen children are eligible.

FAIR has a point that illegal immigrants would likely be able to buy insurance on the national health insurance exchange. We don't see anything in the bills that would hinder that. A Congressional Research Service report issued Aug. 25, 2009, confirmed our observation. The House bill "does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens participating in the Exchange—whether the noncitizens are legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently," the report said.

But it's worth pointing out that illegal immigrants participating in the exchange would be paying for their insurance like everyone else. That's similar to the current system -- we're not aware of any particular restrictions that stop illegal immigrants from buying private insurance now. Under health care reform, illegal immigrants would be able to buy private insurance or the public option.

When we look at all of this evidence, it seems that health reform leaves in place the status quo on illegal immigration, and certainly does not provide any new benefits particularly for illegal immigrants. We hope to look at this issue more in the days ahead, because some hospitals are particularly concerned about recouping their costs for treating illegal immigrants, and we're curious to know more about that problem and how it might or might not be solved by reform.

The best argument that we find that health reform would help illegal immigrants is that some might be able to purchase the public option -- if it passes, and it might not -- on the new health insurance exchange. They would purchase that at full cost. Obama's said "the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally," which Wilson said was a "lie." Actually, Obama can make a pretty thorough case that reform doesn't apply to those here illegally. We don't find the public option argument enough to make the case that Obama "lied." We rate Wilson's statement False."

Funny how quiet the comment sections on stories covering President Obama's speech to school children have been. That is, at least, in comparison to how they were late last week. Conservatives were in an uproar, suggesting the speech was going to be indoctrinating children into becoming hardcore socialist. Even L. Brooks Patterson suggested the speech would"brainwash these children at that early age to believe Obama is the messiah."

Well, now that it's over, it turns out it was all for nothing as the speech was not the propaganda film they claimed it would be. Surely all these people will step up and admit when they were wrong and making a big deal out of nothing. Right?

Anyone?

Of course there is one question asked by critics that still lingers... why not release the content of the speech until the day before? I can't say for sure, but I have some ideas:

a) He knew the speech was harmless and has better things to do

b) The President doesn't have to satisfy every critic's demand

c) With the outcry from critics over Obama's proposed health care reform giving him a PR headache, it couldn't hurt to show his critics getting melodramtic and worked up about something, only to have all their outlandish claims be proven wrong.

I'm not saying any of these are the reason why, but c) would certainly hurt his critics' credibility in the world of political theatre at a time where he needs it.

Normally, I try to see both side of an issue even if I disagree with one side completely. This time however, there's nothing to be said for those pulling their kids out of school to prevent them from watching a 15-minute video from President Obama about the importance of staying in school.

The irony of it all is almost too much to handle.

Even L. Brooks Patterson said he thinks the purpose of the speech is to "brainwash these children at that early age to believe Obama is the messiah"

Please Patterson, spare us the melodramatic hyperbole and tell us specifically what is wrong with the leader of the country telling children it's important to stay in school?

What's next? If Obama makes a "don't do drugs" video are parents going to make their kids smoke pot in protest?

This is beyond absurd. Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush both made similar addresses during their tenures in office. Liberals went equally off the deep end back then about Bush's speech and made an absurd amount of noise about something that most people probably don't even remember. Heck, I was in grade school when it happened and I don't remember a word of what was said. The point is, it's stupid regardless of which side does it. Liberals were wrong then, and conservatives are wrong now.

This knee-jerk reaction to the speech has, ironically, shown those making the outcry to be blindly partisan and paranoid. What exactly are they afraid Obama is going to say? Are they worried he is going to end the video by reminding kids to go home and tell their parents to support his health care initiatives or vote Democrat? How can anyone think a "stay in school" video will turn into some sort of brainwashing propaganda piece? If you do, your tinfoil hat may be on too tight.

I've yet to read any legitimate criticism of this video being shown to students. The only consistent theme seems to be those objecting to it simply don't like Obama and therefore, nothing the man says can have any value. The worst part is, parents telling their children nothing Obama says can be good are telling their children how to think rather than letting them do so for themselves. Who's really brainwashing?

Tuesday night was the first time I had ever gone to a town hall meeting, though I ended up spending the entire time outside in the crowd of people who could not get in.

A few quick thoughts and stories I thought were worth sharing:

- MOST (not all) protesters were much more civil than you see on the news. (Note that I am referring to the protests outside the hall only.) Even if the person next to them disagreed with them, most people stood peacefully with their signs and I saw several people debating calmly.

- There were a few people getting into shouting matches, but for the most part the only large group arguments consisted of opposing chants of "Kill the bill" and "Pass the bill."

- It wasn't all kind and respectful though. I heard many comments attacking individuals sexuality, intelligence and motivations as well as rumors of firearms (nothing on display though).

- Using children to promote your political views is extremely distasteful. There weren't a lot of people doing it, but both sides were guilty of it.

- Even though the crowd seemed pretty evenly split, people protesting against the current health care bill seemed to exaggerate the total number of people present when talking about the crowd. There were easily several hundred people present, but not thousands.

- I was personally accused of being a member of ACORN twice because I was filming and asking people questions.

- People protesting against the current bill carried homemade signs, while a majority of the people who showed up in support of the current bill were holding up pre-printed signs. This lead to accusations that ACORN was paying people to protest in support of the bill. However, the signs appeared to be brought by members of SEIU and distributed throughout the crowd.

- At one point, about 10 protesters gathered around several men holding signs with depicting pictures of Obama with Hitler's mustache and the group began shouting "Kill the bill." In response, two women stood silently in front of them holding up their signs showing support. After a moment, another protester accused the women of being paid to do so. I spoke briefly with both the silent protesters and the woman who accused them of being paid to do so after. One of the silent women was over 90 and could not speak over the crowd noise, but the other, who identified herself as her daughter said they didn't need to yell to speak their mind. The woman who accused them of being paid to do so said they were being disruptive to the other protesters, which I found odd considering the larger group was standing on a stone podium and yelling.

- Both sides accused the other of being "AstroTurf," though frm my interviews it seemed like mostly people who lived within 20 minutes of West Bloomfield High School (including some students).

- The "Chappaquiddick Incident" has absolutely nothing to do with the current health care bill, and I found people referencing it in protest to be in extremely poor taste.

- Regarding Obama/Hitler posters... comparing any modern politician to Hitler is a bad argument. No matter what arguments you have to present, you won't be taken seriously by anyone who doesn't already agree with you. Google Godwin's Law if you want all the details, but in short.... "overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact."

One woman who was openly against the current bill, however, said she was sickened to see posters like that, saying it distracts people from having real conversations about the issues and makes it easier for those who disagree with them to dismiss their arguments. Another, also against the bill, said she found the posters funny. Several people were vocally upset about the posters, saying they had relatives who died in WWII. I'll address this more in another blog entry.

- A woman who described herself as an independent who was standing quietly off the to the side said she got the feeling that most people there had not read the actual bill and were not really sure what they were protesting for/against. I don't know if that is true or not, but I did overhear several people claiming they had read the entire bill but failed to quote or reference it in any way beyond that.

- Even though most people could tell I didn't agree with everything they were saying, they were cordial, discussed things in a calm, mature fashion and we shook hands at the end (with the exception of the first person who accused me of being an ACORN spy). I wish I could say the same for everyone else, but there were plenty of nasty things said by both sides.

- Probably the most interesting thing I observed: Regardless if someone was for or against the current bill, most seemed to think it was going to pass, though most opponents added "... but I hope it doesn't."

A few weeks ago comedian and political talk show host Bill Maher caused a bit of a stir when he was blunt and unapologetic when he said Americans are stupid. Some people were quite upset by his comments (I wasn't, for the record). When asked about it on The Tonight Show, Maher was once again unapologetic and instead decided to be more elaborate:



I would think as he details things even further the number of people offended would become more focused. Then again I wasn't offended by what he said in the first place so I can't be sure.

Have a friend or relative who supports the "birther" movement?

Want to have a little fun with them?

Imagine the look on their face when you show them a copy of THEIR birth certificate, definitively proving they were born in the Republic of Kenya.

http://kenyanbirthcertificategenerator.com/

There's a reason nobody takes the "Birther" movement seriously. Pressed for any real arguments, "Birthers" resort to blaming the media for being in the pocket of the POTUS (even Ann Coulter?) and making claims that show just how uniformed they are:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

This is the second time I've seen Taitz interviewed where she argues Obama could not be a US citizen because his father wasn't. The sad/scary thing about it is that neither time did someone correct her. And this woman is a lawyer.

Nevermind that every argument proposed by birthers has been debunked numerous times, they keep coming. And it seems their hope is that if they keep repeating the silly arguments loudly that it will somehow legitimize them.

Of course the question(s) that keeps looming is... "If he's a real citizen, why not... (insert request here)?"

The reason is simple: It won't work. For one thing, even the birthers can't agree on exactly what the truth they are trying to prove is. Second, birthers are not going to be convinced if they were shown video footage of his birth in a hospital in Hawaii time-stamped and authenticated by the CIA. No matter what proof they are shown, the birthers can always claim it is fake. They already do this with the birth certificate that was released before the election. Yet they have shown their own "birth certificate" that "proves" he was born both Muslim and in Kenya and many still cling to it as legit. These people are only going to believe what they want to believe. Responding to anything they demand only gives them the power they want but don't deserve.

The White House and many Republicans and conservative commentators are outright dismissive of the movement and rightfully so. These are not credible activists, these are bitter people who didn't get the result they wanted in the last election and are looking for any way to undermine the President.

In a report by CBS, Professor of Political Science at the Maxwell School at Syracuse University Michael Barkun, an expert in conspiracy theories, had this to say about why so many people get hooked into conspiracy theories like this:

"There are people out there who firmly believe that the truth is always hidden, regardless of whether it's about politics or science or any other subject," he said. "That whatever is presented as public knowledge is necessarily false. That the truth is always hidden from them, regardless of what the subject is."

He also said that, "in a strange way, conspiracy theories are comforting."

"They give people a feeling that we know the truth," Barkun said. "That we have secret knowledge, and that we know how the world really works. In a sense, we're part of a kind of elite of those who know and everybody else is misled or are trapped by illusions."