Randi is on Vacation until January 4th, but in the meantime you can enjoy Frangela, Nicole Sandler and of course The Best of Randi!

Happy Holidays

from all of us at

Team Randi!

12/18/09

Today, President Obama is at the climate change summit in Copenhagen. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/19/science/earth/19climate.html?hp That's in Denmark, for our Republican friends who just know Copenhagen as a brand of chewing tobacco. So far the climate change summit has produced no agreement—showing that things can get bogged down even without the help of Senate Republicans. Of course, if Senate Republicans were there, there wouldn't even be any talks. They'd be spending all their time reading thousands of pages of proposals aloud. World leaders are still optimistic that an agreement can be reached... mostly because Joe Lieberman isn't involved.

Someone who is involved, oddly, is GOP Senator James Inhofe. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30769.html Bizarrely, Jim Inhofe took time out from derailing healthcare reform in the United States to fly to Copenhagen for a few hours to try and derail climate change reform for the entire world. Inhofe had no meetings scheduled. He's just the turd in the punchbowl of international summitry. Inhofe traveled to Copenhagen specifically and deliberately to undercut the message of the President of the United States by spreading two messages: Global warming is a hoax, and there's no way the Senate is going to pass a cap-and-trade bill. You've heard of "good will ambassadors"? Jim Inhofe was functioning as a "bad will ambassador." Amazing. A U.S. Senator travels abroad to undermine American efforts abroad. Jim, you have wide latitude to destroy a climate change agreement at home. Can't you be satisfied with that? At least there was an upside to having Inhofe over there--it was like telling the rest of the world "Look what we have to deal with!"

I don't think they would believe what we have to deal with. In the wee hours of the morning today Senate Republicans tried to filibuster a bill to provide funding for the troops! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/18/AR2009121800241.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR So much for "supporting the troops." Supporting our soldiers isn't as important to Republicans as denying healthcare to all of us is. Even Democrat Russ Feingold--who actually opposes the war—voted for the funding. Bizarre! The Republicans are now the mirror opposite of liberals who say they oppose the war, but support the troops. Now Senate Republicans support the war, but oppose the troops! As our President would say: "Enough!" Let's keep working to stop climate change globally, and to change the political climate at home. Happy Holidays.

12/17/09

When you're an adult, there never seems to be enough time before Christmas gets here. When you're a small child, it seems to take Christmas forever to arrive. Well the Republicans must be children, because in their world, the time is moving in super-slow motion... while Democrats are scrambling to get everything done that they need to do before Christmas. Of course the reason time is moving slowly for the Republicans is that they want it that way. Yesterday the GOP ratcheted up their stalling tactics to prevent healthcare reform from passing. They're replacing debate with delay in an attempt to deny. Yesterday Tom Coburn used Senate procedures to insist that an entire 767-page amendment be read on the Senate floor. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/health/policy/17health.html?ref=health Ironic that a party that represents people who refuse to read would use reading as a delaying tactic. The amendment in question had been introduced way back on December 2, so Tom Coburn has had plenty of time to read it. But it seems he preferred to have it read to him. Maybe he wanted a bedtime story. It would have taken over 12 hours to read the entire 767 page bill. But then that would have been 12 hours the Republicans didn't have to use up their other delaying tactics, like pretending to lose their voting cards. http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=99E14AFD-18FE-70B2-A86676EAC918EC44

The Republicans are like a roadblock... except that a roadblock serves a function. A roadblock can prevent you from driving into a ditch. The Republicans' purpose is to force us into that ditch. And make no mistake these delays endanger not only health care legislation, but also other bills for funding the military and for extended unemployment insurance benefits. Republicans say they don't want government-run healthcare. And they seem willing to destroy government in their attempts to stop it.

Republican Grinch tactics also endanger Christmas itself. Max Baucus says that if Republicans keep using delaying tactics, then Democrats will work on Christmas Day in order to complete passage of the healthcare bill by the end of the year. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/72599-baucus-dems-will-work-christmas-day-to-pass-healthcare-bill?tmpl=component&print=1&page GOP stalling could force the Senate to work through Christmas. Gee, that sounds to me like the Republicans are declaring war on Christmas! No matter if the Democrats can push through decent healthcare reform by working through Christmas, it would be the best present the people of this country could possibly get. Here's hoping we get what we deserve this holiday season.

12/15/09

The debate over the healthcare reform bill is almost over. Now we're beginning the debate over whether or not this is a healthcare reform bill at all. Howard Dean is saying that Democrats should just scrap the bill and start over. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/15/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5983608.shtml The question isn't exactly whether or not half a loaf is better than nothing... in the case of what's left of this bill, it's whether a small slice of a loaf is better than nothing. It's a tough call. Scrapping the bill makes sense on some levels, but it would also make Republicans happy... and we don't want that. But hey, then we're starting to think like Joe Lieberman.

"Traitor Joe" Lieberman, the man almost single-handedly responsible for the demise of the Medicare buy-in, has flat out said that he decided to kill the Medicare proposal because liberals liked it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/15/lieberman-liberal-enthusi_n_392887.html Obviously Joe was fine with Medicare expansion as a policy—he supported it until just recently. It seems he just hated the fact that it might make other people happy! The New York Times reported that Lieberman "said he was particularly troubled by the overly enthusiastic reaction to the proposal by some liberals, including Representative Anthony Weiner..." Nice! Joe Lieberman is motivated by pure vengeance. That isn't legislating... it's not even politics. It's childish petulance. If that's the case, can't Lieberman just let the bill pass and add an amendment that says "Liberals suck"? Congressman Weiner pointed out "Let's be clear, this is an idea Senator Lieberman has proposed, repeatedly." Unfortunately, Lieberman seems willing to go against his own preferences in order to hurt others. Maybe liberals should have pretended to hate the Medicare buy-in proposal. Then Lieberman may have continued to support it. But as Representative Weiner said, "that suggests we all agree to live in an Alice in Wonderland world of saying the opposite of what we mean." It also assumes we don't have to deal with Joe "Mad Hatter" Lieberman. Sadly, Joe Lieberman DOES live in an Alice in Wonderland world. If he can't get reelected as Senator from Connecticut he should run for Senator from Through the Looking Glass. Finally, Congressman Weiner said "I hope Senator Lieberman looks into his heart and does the right thing." Rep. Weiner, remember the "opposite" rule! If you want Joe Lieberman to do the right thing, you should call on him to do the wrong thing. In the meantime, we'll take a look at what's left of the healthcare reform loaf... and hope that it doesn't get further reduced to a few crumbs.

12/14/09

Today President Obama met with some of the nation's biggest bankers. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/business/economy/15obama.html?hp I say "some" because the chief executives of Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Citigroup didn't make it. Gee, who was actually there - Mr. Potter, the banker from "It's a Wonderful Life"? Vikram S. Pandit, chief executive of Citigroup, didn't come because he was negotiating a deal to repay the $20 billion in bailout money that Citigroup got. Hey Vikram, you could have just come and brought a check for the $20 billion. You could have saved Citigroup 44 cents on a stamp. Decisions like that are why these banks almost collapsed in the first place. Several of the bank execs didn't make it because bad weather stranded them at airports. Is this their passive aggressive way of complaining about being pressured to give up their private jets? Ironically, last night on 60 Minutes, President Obama referred to big bankers as "fat cats." What did he serve for snacks during the meeting - Purina Friskies, Fancy Feast, and Meow Mix? Obama pressured the bankers to speed the economic recovery by providing more loans to small businesses and homeowners. After he's done doing that, maybe he can go try to squeeze blood from a turnip.Oh well, at least having a high profile meeting with big bankers reminded people that there are other bad guys in the world besides the health insurance company executives.

Oh, and those guys are plenty busy, working through helpful assistants like Senator Joe Lieberman. Yesterday on Face the Nation Joe Lieberman said he won't vote for any healthcare bill that includes a public option or a Medicare buy-in. Essentially he won't vote for any healthcare reform bill that includes healthcare reform. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/health/policy/14health.html?hpw This country needs a healthcare plan that will cure whatever the hell is wrong with Joe Lieberman! Ezra Klein in the Washington Post has a pretty good idea what that is. He wrote "At this point, Lieberman seems primarily motivated by torturing liberals. That is to say, he seems willing to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in order to settle an old electoral score." http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/joe_lieberman_lets_not_make_a.html
Tough words, but they ring true. It seems that to Joe Lieberman, the 42 million Americans without health insurance are just collateral damage in his insane war against progressives. Forget obesity, Joe Lieberman is now the biggest threat to the health of Americans. We could save more lives by getting Joe Lieberman out of the Senate than we could by getting transfats out of our diets! Ask your doctor for a plan that's right for you.

12/11/09

Reactions are still coming in to President Obama's speech accepting the Nobel Peace Prize yesterday. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/10/AR2009121003164_pf.html It was not your typical Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech. Obama spoke of the concept of a "just war," as in "justified." It's different from George Bush's concept, which was "just war" as in "just war, only war and nothing but war." The President also made the point that sometimes war is necessary. He could have added that when you become president right after George Bush was president, war is unavoidable. It's already there... just like the recession. The speech made you think. But the fact that some Republicans liked it made me think twice. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/80392.html When I heard that Newt Gingrich said the speech was "very good," it made me double check to make sure we had heard the same speech. Certainly some liberal critics of the President weren't happy with the speech. They said that parts of the speech were things that George Bush could have said. Well, certainly not without a lot of major mispronunciations. Could George Bush have delivered that speech? It was an eloquent speech. So right there, the answer is "no."

After hearing even a few positive things from Republicans about Obama, it's almost a relief to know that conservatives are still right on their talking points when it comes to global warming. And the talking point is that global warming is a hoax. The reality is that 2009 will be one of the 10 warmest years on record. http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_869_en.html Global warming data is based on scientific observations made by climate stations and satellites all over the world. The data for the denial of global warming comes from morons sticking their head out the door and saying "It's cold today! Global warming is a hoax!" Their hoax claims are based solely on the infamous hacked emails. http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/v-print/story/1376362.html The stolen emails don't discredit any of the climate change science. All they did was to launch a massive conspiracy theory—which is pretty much all the people who hacked them wanted to do. Deniers of global warming would rather have a conspiracy theory than a scientific debate—they would lose a scientific debate. A conspiracy theory doesn't need facts or figures or logic. All they need is a bunch of gullible and paranoid people. And the rightwing has those in an unlimited supply.

12/10/09

This week groups from all over the world are gathered in Copenhagen to try and solve the problem of global warming. But a much smaller group from a world of their own is also in Copenhagen... to deny the problem of global warming. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/science/earth/10skeptics.html?hpw Now I don't know exactly how to solve global warming, but I do know that denying the existence of a problem rarely works. Hey, I watch A&E's "Intervention." If there were an intervention on these climate change deniers, at the end of the show we would find out that they left treatment after a week. Now they're back in their dark basement trying to hack researcher's emails. http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/09/climategate-swift

So why do they do it? Conservative corporate interests and polluters deny global warming because they have a financial interest in doing so. As for the rest of them, I'm not sure if they hate the notion of global warming because it's something that liberals accept, or because it's true. The two things conservatives hate the most are liberal dogma, and the truth. And they especially hate when those two overlap. If a liberal or a scientist pointed out that a volcano was about to explode, right wingers would claim that it's not, just out of reflex. And they would urge people living under the volcano to stay where they are. They themselves, of course, would discreetly relocate. Just like I'm sure none of the current climate change deniers have any real estate investments in the Maldives. The right wing is absolutely obsessed with denying global warming. The Drudge Report has a huge headline every time a snowflake falls somewhere below the Mason Dixon line. If you believe the Drudge Report, one morning frost in Virginia proves that global warming is a hoax. But a rainforest in Antarctica would do nothing to show that global warming is real. It's not like liberals or scientists have any vested interest in promoting the stopping of global warming... unless you consider wanting to live on Earth a vested interest. My point is that the opposition to global warming isn't being financed by some secret cabal from the earmuff industry who wants things to remain chilly. I probably shouldn't even throw that out there. Tomorrow you'll see the "Earmuff Industry Conspiracy" being discussed on Fox & Friends.

Please conservatives, concentrate on denying healthcare to people. Just let us save the Earth without fighting you. If we manage to save the planet, then you can live here too.

12/9/09

Here's a hypothetical question: Is there anything a conservative won't say? Let's start small and build. First of all, it's pretty obvious they're not afraid to contradict themselves. With the new Democratic proposals for expanding Medicare (after months of phony defense of Medicare by conservatives), Republicans have had to do a complete about face... but they couldn't do it fast enough to avoid having egg on their face. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/08/republicans-forced-to-rev_n_384680.html
Mitch McConnell sent out a press release on Sunday titled: "Cutting Medicare is not what Americans want." 24 hours later his press release for Monday said "Expanding Medicare 'a plan for financial ruin.'" Wow. I hope Medicare covers whiplash, because I think I just got it.

Next up, conservatives are certainly not afraid to directly contradict reality, as their reactions to this week's summit on climate change in Copenhagen demonstrate. http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/12/08/stephens-intolerant-stalinists In the midst of all their obstructionism over healthcare, it's nice to see that the conservatives still have time to deny global warming. Where do they find the time? I guess they save time on formulating policy... when you're the Party of No, you don't have to take a lot of time fine tuning your approach to the issues. Polar bears are going extinct? Screw 'em! Sarah Palin wrote an op-ed denying the reality of climate change. Sarah! How can you see all the way from your front porch to Russia, and still not be able to see that Alaska is getting warmer? What's it going to take? Are there going to have to be flamingos in Prudhoe Bay before you realize that climate change is real?

The only climate that Republicans are interested in is creating a climate of fear and hate. Which brings us to our final example of intemperate speech, Rush Limbaugh's statement yesterday about "the black frame of mind" and how "I'm sure Tiger Woods' choice of females is not helping them out with their attitudes there either." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/08/rush-limbaugh-the-black-f_n_384616.html Ahhhh! Now we're getting to the issues. And by "issues," I mean Rush Limbaugh's psychological issues. Rush seems to think that black people are upset that Tiger Woods is having sex with a lot of white women. That tells you one thing—Rush Limbaugh is upset that Tiger Woods is having sex with a lot of white women.

Bottom line: it seems like there is nothing that won't come out of a conservative's mouth... except maybe the truth.

12/8/09

As any football fan knows, the problem with having your defense go with a full blitz is that if the opposing quarterback manages to get the ball to a receiver, the defense doesn't have enough players downfield to stop a big gain. Well, the Republicans have been mercilessly blitzing the public option. Now it turns out that Senate Democrats may have found the perfect play to foil that blitz. A big part of the Republicans' blitz package has been a phony and transparently hypocritical defense of Medicare—the same Medicare that they attacked when it was first passed in 1965 as being formulated in the halls of the Kremlin. The latest Democratic proposal involves calling their bluff, and offering a buy-in to Medicare for Americans between the ages of 55 to 65. http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/opening-medicare-sooner-the-better
Whoo hoo! I knew 50 was the new 40. Now 55 is going to become the new 65. Congratulations, Republicans- you may have succeeded in killing the public option, only to have massively expanded Medicare. The lesson here? Be careful what you wish for. Republicans had been using Medicare as a sacred cow to scare people away from supporting healthcare reform. Now it looks like they may have been gored by their own sacred cow. Medicare is a government-run, single-payer system. And it's exactly what Republicans have been using to try and kill the idea of a government-run, single-payer system. How ironic! The conservatives and "moderates" kept watering down the public option. And in the end they just ended up watering the growth of Medicare. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Could-Medicare-Buy-In-Replace-The-Public-Option-1835 Republicans are now forced to do a 180 from supposedly defending Medicare to trying to stop expansion of Medicare—which makes sense, since the Republicans' rhetoric was always 180 degrees away from their real intentions. Essentially, we've turned the tables on the Republican's scare tactics about Medicare. Now their only option is to overturn the tables, like the nutty chick on Real Housewives of New Jersey. Don't get me wrong—these proposals are just taking shape, and right now they're a lot more promise than reality. Ideally, progressives want "Medicare for all." But "Medicare for a lot more" is a good start. To return to the football analogy, we may have found a receiver open downfield. Now we have to try and get the ball to them and let them run through the conservatives' woefully depleted secondary.

12/7/09

In the middle of tackling the problems of the USA, President Obama took a little time last night to honor the man who wrote "Born in the USA," among other artists at the Kennedy Center Honors last night. http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/12/07/kennedy.center.honors/index.html The honorees included Bruce Springsteen, opera singer Grace Bumbry, Mel Brooks, Dave Brubeck, and Robert DeNiro, Wow. Does it seem like this president even gets cooler people for the Kennedy Center Honors? I don't recall, but it seems like George Bush was always honoring people like David Hassefhoff and the guy who sang "Seasons in the Sun." Last night Obama was honoring Mel Brooks, the man who wrote "Springtime for Hitler" for his movie "The Producers." If it had been George Bush he might not have been aware that "Springtime for Hitler" was a parody. The good news was that the ceremonies went off without a hitch. The better news was that the Salahis were not there.

The Kennedy Center appearance would have been the most productive thing George Bush got accomplished in a typical month. For Obama, it was just another entry in a packed schedule. He spent yesterday afternoon meeting with Senate Democrats to urge them to get healthcare reform done. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/health/policy/07healthweb.html?ref=politics Does this guy have enough to do without having to spend time telling other people to do their jobs? So far the Senate debate on healthcare reform has mostly been all posturing... and it's the Republicans who are in the most contorted postures. Give them a break. They have to debate the bill and misrepresent the bill at the same time. Senator John McCain offered an amendment (defeated on a mostly party line vote) that would have restored cuts in the wasteful private Medicare Advantage plans. That's the Republican healthcare approach in a nutshell. They don't want to give people coverage. They want to give insurers profits. The only difference between Medicare Advantage and what Bernie Madoff did is that the Medicare Advantage scams aren't against the law—they are the law. Useless amendments are only one weapon in the Republicans' arsenal of obstructionism. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/politics/story/80108.html All the Senate Republicans have been doing is to use Senate procedural rules to obstruct the debate. If the Washington Redskins had blocking half as good as Senate Republicans they would have beat the New Orleans Saints yesterday. Let's see if we can't win this one... without going into overtime.