Jill Schupp told me how she spent her summer vacation: campaigning for other Democrats running for state rep. Amid all the tedium of door knocking and phone calling, she did have some excitement–one harrowing moment. She and some other campaigners were leaving a parish picnic where at least a thousand people had gathered and where they had been campaigning for Cyrus Dashtaki. The car (Schupp wasn’t driving) suddenly speeded up on its own while the driver had it in reverse. It went downhill backwards through a parking lot, through an area where lots of people were walking, through another parking lot and finally down a hill where it ran into a fence. No one was hurt, all of the pedestrians managed to get out of the way, no other cars were damaged. But Schupp realized “sort of the risk that I was putting people in by just taking them around the state to do this.” The people with Schupp were rooting extra hard for Dashtaki to win because they had–and she laughed as she said–“sure been through a lot of trouble to help him.”

Unfortunately, Dashtaki was another of the fine candidates who did not prevail. As was Carl Thompson, who was running to replace term limited Rachel Bringer. Bringer, a rep who studied issues carefully, had taken it upon herself to get the freshman Democrats together each session so that she could bring them up to speed on what was happening and answer their questions. Schupp will miss Rachel Bringer, and now that seat won’t even be filled by the man that Bringer had high hopes for.

Among those Schupp helped who did get elected is Susan Carlson, who will be taking Rachel Storch’s place. Schupp characterized Carlson as “a wonderful, a brilliant attorney” who will do a superb job. Another success was Clem Smith. Schupp and some of her friends–as well as her parents–made phone calls for Smith in the primary. He was running in a safe Democratic district to replace Don Calloway, who gave up that seat to run for the senate.

This brief video will give you the flavor of some of the other races Schupp talked about: Jeanne Kirkton’s, Rebecca McClanahan’s, Courtney Cole’s, and Kelly Schultz’s.

Schupp ended her summer of campaigning for other candidates by holding a fundraiser at her house in Creve Coeur. It was well attended. Democrats, who came to listen to and shake hands with Nixon, Montee, Zweifel, and Koster, donated almost $110,000. Which, along with all the other donations Democratic candidates garnered, still meant that the Ds were way outspent.

But Schupp doesn’t blame our bad year on money woes alone. She stresses that Democrats did not work hard enough to get out a positive message. On both the state and national levels, we could have stressed the values we believe in and emphasized the disaster that stimulus funds averted. And we should have trumpeted the advantages of health care reform on the jobs front. Once national health care gets put into place in our state, not only will more people get much needed care, but more people will be employed. There will be new jobs available for health care providers as well as in the ancillary businesses that spring up to support the providers. Schupp is excited about that and thinks Democrats should have claimed their bragging rights.

But Democrats didn’t have that unified message. As a result, there will be the Heinz 57 in the House this session: 57 Democrats to 106 Republicans. Those Dems will need to be unified, she says. She has some ideas about how to achieve that. More on that later.

Progressives have a brand new source for news in Missouri: FordwardSTL, an aggregator site that gathers together articles and commentary from selected Missouri newspapers, radio broadcasts and blogs is now open for business. The contents reflect progressive concerns and includes a calendar of events. This may sound like a modest production, but it’s really a big deal. If you want to know why, consider the 2010 elections.

You’ve heard lots of rationalizing about the election disaster, right? I have my own way of describing that little upset – theft. Right-wing theft of the political narrative, the details of which comprise a bigger, more complex story than I can deal with here. It’s a sure thing, though, that the most recent iteration of the GOP big lie was facilitated by the explicit and implicit bias that permeates our information infrastructure.

There was indeed a small percentage of Americans who were up in arms about the Obama presidency from the beginning – Bush dead-enders who enlisted early in the Tea Party and, according to polls, make up the largest part of that merry band of lunatics. But, thanks to media failures, they were able to hijack the narrative of the Bush recession and persuade some of the ever-malleable “independents” that hard times are a result of government over-reach, that success is failure, and that black is white.

Consider Fox News. Very recently Media Matters reported that Fox News bosses ordered news personnel to slant their coverage of climate issues in order to cast doubt on climate science.  Last week we learned how Fox News honchos ordered reporters to bias their coverage of the debate over health care reform. It’s no wonder that survey after survey has found that Fox News viewers usually harbor serious misconceptions about the real world. (A sample of such findings can be found here, here, here, here and here.) The same misinformation and mean-minded drek is spread by conservative talk radio stations – such as KSGF or KWTO-AM in Missouri, or locally-produced programs like Brian Nieves’ Teaple-oriented “The Patriot Enclave” on KWMO.

The problem goes beyond the explicit bias of agenda-driven coprorate outlets like Fox News and right-wing talk radio; there is also the problem of what is covered and what is ignored – implicit bias – by the traditional media. Last week Republicans deep-sixed the Zadroga  9/11 Health and Compensation Act, which would have paid for the health care of 9/11 first responders who were harmed by ground-zero aftermath conditions. Among the reasons given by many in the GOP, who were, incidentally, fighting for Richie Rich’s tax cuts at the same time, was the cost. Media Matters’ Eric Boehlert points out that the role played by congressional GOPers in this matter received absolutely zero, nada, zilch coverage on ABC, CBS or NBC.  

Another type of implicit bias has been characterized as the “he says, she says” reporting style which accurately reports politicians assertions, but provides no follow-up as to the veracity of the claims that are made. Or alternatively, there is reporting that leaves out or soft-pedals embarrassing details. Adam at the St. Louis Activist Hub has made the case for this type of “lazy” bias in the political reporting of the St. Louis’ Post-Dispatch‘s Jake Wagman (see, for example, here and here).

You don’t have to look far to see the consequences of explicit and implicit bias in our information infrastructure. The classic case is the ease with which the GOP media machine was able to sell the infamous death panels. Apropos of which, when considering implicit bias, ask yourself how many of the Tea Party girls and boys have heard that one of their own, Arizona governor Jan Brewer, has actually enacted “death panels” – real rationing, not the comparatively benign end of life counseling of the dreaded “Obamacare” – in the service of the GOP obsession with cutting social spending and never, never raising taxes?  

We all know that to a certain extent, progressive political blogs exist to counter media bias as well as to present the progressive viewpoint. To take a local example, consider FiredUp! Missouri‘s coverage of Missouri’s Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder. So far as I know, FiredUp! is the only media resource that has addressed numerous irregularities in Kinder’s conduct, most notably, but not limited to some rather obvious questions about the funding for Kinder’s challenge to the Affordable Care Act. It’s hard to argue that Kinder’s comportment is not newsworthy since he is a major state office holder who, apparently, has ambitions to be governor one day.

However, although they offer an important corrective to right-wing and traditional media, regional blogs in particular often reach a somewhat limited and fragmented number group of readers. Which is why a well-organized and comprehensive site like ForwardSTL can play a significant role, bringing readers from across the state together in a one-stop-shopping site. Integrating information and expanding its reach isn’t a magic bullet – but it is an important step in building a progressive infrastructure in Missouri, and as it matures, ForwardSTL will provide one more tool to use as progressives work to recapture the essential narrative line.

Today the Senate failed to invoke cloture and advance the DREAM Act by a vote of 55-41. By Senate rules the bill needed 60 votes to move forward for consideration:

Question:  On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment No. 3 to H.R. 5281 )

Vote Number: 278 Vote Date: December 18, 2010, 11:09 AM

Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Cloture Motion Rejected

Measure Number: H.R. 5281 (Removal Clarification Act of 2010 )

Measure Title: A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to clarify and improve certain provisions relating to the removal of litigation against Federal officers or agencies to Federal courts, and for other purposes.

Vote Counts: YEAs 55

NAYs 41

Not Voting 4

Bond (R-MO), Nay

McCaskill (D-MO), Yea    

[emphasis in original]

The DREAM Act would have enabled a path to citizenship and productive service for children who were brought into this country illegally (through no fault of their own) and who have lived here for a number of years.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) issued a statement on her vote:

Dec 18, 2010

Statement on DREAM Act

First and foremost, I believe it is wrong to punish innocent children for the crimes of their parents.  This bill would ONLY have applied to children who were brought here at least five years ago by adults, children who were under the age of 16 at the time and had no choice. These are not children who made a decision to break the law. These children were simply the victims of adults who were law breakers.

My faith played a big role in my decision.  Ezekiel 18:20 reads: “The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.”

Unlike the last time this legislation was considered, this bill was much more narrow in scope. The children that would have been allowed to stay in this country are those who have already been here for five years at the time the legislation is enacted. If someone illegally came to America after this bill was already enacted, they would not be eligible. In other words, this bill cannot be a magnet for future illegal immigration.

Lastly, these children must meet very strict criteria, such as proving themselves of good character during their time in the United States and during 10 total years of conditional residency, which can be readily revoked at any time. The application process also included other rigorous requirements including health examinations, background checks, and the completion of two years of college education or military service.   I know many of the young people that would have been impacted by the legislation would love an opportunity to serve this country in the world’s finest military.

Of course, the batshit crazy wingnuts in the Twitterverse went insane:

@Ed4Congress Will @clairecmc vote for #DADT? Two votes against the will of Missourians in one day? First her YES on Amnesty/#DREAM, now …? #MOSen about 6 hours ago via HootSuite

Uh, Ed, you lost your congressional race in November in an environment that was the most favorable for republicans and teabaggers in years. What does that tell you?

@jeffmw @clairecmc would you allow the childern of bank robbers to keep the money the robbers stole? about 2 hours ago via web in reply to clairecmc

And you probably think that the profits from dumping credit default swaps are sacrosanct.

@chuck1125 @clairecmc your through about 2 hours ago via web from West Central, Springfield in reply to clairecmc

Maybe. And only because there are no longer literacy tests for voters.

@DanME @clairecmc It’s really disgusting that Democrats even tried to jam through the Dream Act and DADT after defeat in election – Stop Lame Ducks about 2 hours ago via web in reply to clairecmc

And, of course, you spoke up when Newt Gingrich (r – serial adulterer) pushed impeachment during the 1998 lame duck session, right?

@jantoday @clairecmc and I guess you care about the unborn . They are innocent too. about 2 hours ago via web in reply to clairecmc

Because all matters facing the nation should be based on what single issue voters think?

@flyoverland @clairecmc a tough decision. Why I will be voting against you. about 2 hours ago via web in reply to clairecmc

As if you ever were going to vote for Claire McCaskill?

@RyanSilvey I think @clairecmc #DREAM of convincing Missourians she isn’t a liberal is slipping away. #hcr, #DREAM, #DADT, the list keeps growing. about 1 hour ago via Twitter for iPhone in reply to clairecmc

Yes Representative Silvey (r), we understand that you used to work for Kit Bond (r) and that you consider anyone not to the right of Attila the Hun a liberal. We’ll just assume you’ve never voted for Claire McCaskill and leave it at that.

@907611 @clairecmc obviously you prefer illegals over legal citizens we will not forget who to vote out of office when your term comes up again 17 minutes ago via web from Elgin, IL in reply to clairecmc

Uh, if you’re from Elgin, Illinois you don’t get to vote in Missouri.

@RandyJohnsonLA @clairecmc You thinking of the next election? 4 minutes ago via web in reply to clairecmc

As if you ever voted for Claire McCaskill?

There were a significant number of thank you posts in the Twitterverse, too.

Later the motion to invoke cloture (and end the republican filibuster) on the repeal of DADT passed by a vote of 63-33:

Question:  On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2965 )

Vote Number: 279 Vote Date: December 18, 2010, 11:36 AM

Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Cloture Motion Agreed to

Measure Number: H.R. 2965 (SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2009

Bond (R-MO), Nay  

McCaskill (D-MO), Yea

[emphasis in original]

The rules were waived to allow a vote on the bill this afternoon which then passed 65-31:

Question:  On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2965 )

Vote Number: 281 Vote Date: December 18, 2010, 03:02 PM

Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Motion Agreed to

Measure Number: H.R. 2965 (SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2009 )

Measure Title: A bill to amend the Small Business Act with respect to the Small Business Innovation Research Program and the Small Business Technology Transfer Program, and for other purposes.

Vote Counts: YEAs 65

NAYs 31

Not Voting 4

Bond (R-MO), Nay

McCaskill (D-MO), Yea  

Brown (R-MA), Yea

Bunning (R-KY), Not Voting      

Burr (R-NC), Yea

Collins (R-ME), Yea    

Ensign (R-NV), Yea

Gregg (R-NH), Not Voting

Hatch (R-UT), Not Voting    

Kirk (R-IL), Yea  

Manchin (D-WV), Not Voting  

Murkowski (R-AK), Yea  

Snowe (R-ME), Yea  

Voinovich (R-OH), Yea

[emphasis in original]

That would make it a bipartisan vote.

Sixty-five votes. It passed by a margin greater than two to one. And why was this bottled up in the Senate for so long with an outcome like this?

Blue Girl, via Twitter:

Yes! DADT repeal passes the Senate 65-31!!!     about 5 hours ago  via web  

I sent a message via Twitter in response to Blue Girl:

@BGinKC “Yes! DADT repeal passes the Senate 65-31!!!” | Why was it so hard and why did it take so long to get there with a vote like that?     about 5 hours ago  via web  in reply to BGinKC

She replied:

@MBersin Cuz Senate is broken, like the Polish Sejm of the 18th century. Rules MUST change 1/5/11, or it’s the Dems fault. cc: @clairecmc    about 5 hours ago  via web  in reply to MBersin

Good point.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) had a good day today.

Heh. So much for our accurate political prognostication. The problem isn’t so much the cats, it’s the herders:

Herding Cats – Barack Obama 2.0 (January 14, 2009)

Obama on the rope line after his speech in Columbia, Missouri on October 30, 2008

(immediately below the outstretched arm holding a digital camera in the center of the image).

Retooling Obama’s campaign machine for the long haul

…As Barack Obama builds his administration and prepares to take office next week, his political team is quietly planning for a nationwide hiring binge that would marshal an army of full-time organizers to press the new president’s agenda and lay the foundation for his reelection.

The organization, known internally as “Barack Obama 2.0,” is being designed to sustain a grass-roots network of millions that was mobilized last year to elect Obama and now is widely considered the country’s most potent political machine…

Boy, did I get that one wrong. I wasn’t alone.

You can’t win any battles if you don’t bring your army:

Why is Obama leaving the grass roots on the sidelines?

By Sam Graham-Felsen

Friday, December 17, 2010

In the wake of President Obama’s deal to extend the Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, pundits have focused on how Obama has alienated the left. But the issue isn’t the left – it’s the list.

Obama entered the White House with more than a landslide victory over Sen. John McCain. He brought with him a vast network of supporters, instantly reachable through an unprecedented e-mail list of 13 million people. These supporters were not just left-wing activists but a broad coalition that included the young, African Americans, independents and even Republicans – and they were ready to be mobilized…..

….Obama has made it clear that, for the most part, his administration isn’t seriously interested in deploying this massive grass-roots list….

Because we’re all barbarians and the inside the beltway cocktail weenie circuit is afraid of us? They needn’t worry.

And the lunatic right wingnut fringe (now, the republican mainstream):

Dec 15, 2010

They’ll Just Get Madder

by paradox

….I vividly remember 2004 and the crushing loss to that Sarah Palin clone, George Bush, how liberals and progressives had every reason to pack it and quit but manifestly, resolutely did not with an adamancy that still surprises me. Even with this abominable deal in 2010, even if Obama should lose 2012, passionate liberal and progressive junkies will dive into politics to loudly promote the liberal agenda, it’s what patriots and junkies do.

Then the Right and Republicans will loathe us even more and get more berserk against liberals, for as Digby so wisely knows, Teabaggers and Republicans are authoritarians to the bone, they do not seek to accommodate liberals in any sense, they seek to destroy and totally silence. When we won’t shut up and keeping scoring small wins it enrages them even more than liberal policy.

Win or lose, they just keep getting madder. Something to keep firmly in mind in the future as we reach for whatever liberal goals are available to us.

[emphasis added]

Goals? What goals?

Just imagine all of the upscale holiday gag t-shirt gifts which will be opened and proudly worn by millionaires and billionaires for a few hours at the end of this next week: “69,456,897 chumps voted for ‘change’ and all I got was the renewal of my Paris Hilton tax break, no more inheritance taxes, and another successful assault on Social Security…”

The nonbelievers apparently had the upper hand this year:

12/16/2010 7:27:00 PM

‘Scroogy’ omission raises ire

Sue Sterling

Staff Writer

Holden – Councilman Scotty Walker took city leaders to task for failing to decorate the business district for Christmas.

“It’s inexcusable the town’s not ready for Christmas the week before,” Walker said. “I think we, as a city, should take responsibility.”

Mayor Mike Wakeman advocated forming a committee to begin the planning in mid-summer, with the city and Chamber of Commerce sharing costs.

“If we’re going to have a downtown committee,” he said, “they can discuss the future of a lot of different things.”

Walker agreed to chair the committee. Volunteers who want to serve may contact him.

“…It’s inexcusable the town’s not ready for Christmas the week before…I think we, as a city, should take responsibility…”

“…with the city and Chamber of Commerce sharing costs…”

You’ve got to be kidding me.

Ahem:

Missouri Constitution

Article I

BILL OF RIGHTS

Section 7

Public aid for religious purposes–preferences and discriminations on religious grounds.

Section 7. That no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion, or in aid of any priest, preacher, minister or teacher thereof, as such; and that no preference shall be given to nor any discrimination made against any church, sect or creed of religion, or any form of religious faith or worship.

Doesn’t anyone read the Missouri Constitution anymore?

State Representative Cynthia Davis (r-let them eat McDonald’s) is still in office through early January until the new Missouri General Assembly is sworn in. Our good friends at Fired Up! caught her latest newsletter, pointing out her inimitable views on cosmology.

We note her (lack of) constitutional scholarship in the same newsletter:

…Missouri is Also Special

Our Missouri constitution has some parts that are better than our US Constitution.  For example, Missouri’s Bill of Rights states:

  1. “Missouri is a free and independent state…all proposed amendments…affecting the individual liberties of the people or which in any wise may impair the right of local self-government belonging to the people of this state, should be submitted to the conventions of the people.” (Section 4).

  2. “All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; that no human authority can control or interfere with the rights of conscience;” (Section 5).

  3. “No law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech, no matter by what means communication; that every person shall be free to say, write or publish, or otherwise communicate whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuses of that liberty;”  (Section 8)

  4. “…The court shall excuse any woman who requests exemption there-from before being sworn as a juror.”  Section 22 (b)

  5. “Private property shall not be taken for private use …except for private ways of necessity, and except for drains and ditches across the lands of others for agricultural and sanitary purposes…” (Section 28)

  6. “To be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman.  (Section 33)….

“…Our Missouri constitution has some parts that are better than our US Constitution…”

Uh, there’s a small matter of the supremacy clause in the United States Constitution:

Article VI

….This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding….

[emphasis added]

“…and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding…”

Cynthia Davis is an idiot.

The Bill of Rights?

While we’re at it, the Missouri Constitution, has an establishment clause in, count ’em, two places:

Missouri Constitution

Article I

BILL OF RIGHTS

Section 7

Public aid for religious purposes–preferences and discriminations on religious grounds.

Section 7. That no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion, or in aid of any priest, preacher, minister or teacher thereof, as such; and that no preference shall be given to nor any discrimination made against any church, sect or creed of religion, or any form of religious faith or worship.

Article IX

EDUCATION

Section 8

Prohibition of public aid for religious purposes and institutions.

Section 8. Neither the general assembly, nor any county, city, town, township, school district or other municipal corporation, shall ever make an appropriation or pay from any public fund whatever, anything in aid of any religious creed, church or sectarian purpose, or to help to support or sustain any private or public school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other institution of learning controlled by any religious creed, church or sectarian denomination whatever; nor shall any grant or donation of personal property or real estate ever be made by the state, or any county, city, town, or other municipal corporation, for any religious creed, church, or sectarian purpose whatever.

The concept is so important that it’s in two places in the Missouri Constitution. Cynthia Davis (r) ignores that? How convenient.

 

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) on the floor of the Senate last night:

…I have made a decision that earmarking is not a process that I think is the appropriate way to spend public money. But I, I’m a little confused about some of the righteous indignation coming from the Republican side of the aisle about this bill. Um, the omnibus twenty-ten that they have sitting out there, they’re wanting the American people to think that this document came from Democrats. They want the American people to think that omnibus twenty-ten, that all those pages sitting there were done by Democrats. They weren’t done by Democrats. Those pages were done by Democrats and Republicans. Every bit of that document was drafted by Republicans and Democrats right down to the earmarks.

And for the minority leader [Senator Mitch McConnell (r)] to stand here and act as if this document is something that is the fault of the Democratic Party when he well knows that he has been involved, I have been involved in terms of trying to get the number down, and I’m glad we succeeded in getting the number down as been referenced to the Sessions McCaskill number, but this was a bipartisan effort to get the number down.

And the irony is, guess who has earmarks in there? The minority leader who just voted on a moratorium for earmarks ten minutes ago. Did he pull his earmarks out? No.

Did any of the Republicans who voted for a moratorium on earmarks, did they pull their earmarks out before this bill came to the floor? We could have eliminated a few pages.

So, you know, I just don’t think the righteous indignation works. This was a bipartisan effort drafted by Republicans and Democrats. It came to the floor after months of work by Democrats and Republicans. And it was presented to this body in a bipartisan way to vote on. I wasn’t gonna vote on it. I’m against it. But I just, so I think that I have a slight bit of credibility to call these guys on this notion that this is something that sprung from nowhere out of some back room on the Democratic side of the aisle.

This sprung from a bipartisan effort of the Appropriations Committee and every member on that side of the aisle knows it. They know it. And they know the earmarks in there, there are almost seven hundred million dollars of earmarks in there from people who voted on  a moratorium on earmarks. That’s like being half pregnant.

They should have said before this bill ever came to the floor, and they were asked, would you like your earmarks pulled out? No, no, they were perfectly willing to vote no and take those earmarks home.

So, on one hand, I would have voted no had we had the vote, and I said that from day one. I voted no on the omnibus last year. I voted no on another omnibus because I don’t think it’s the right way to appropriate.

But this is an equal opportunity sin. The problems with this process don’t lie on one side of the aisle, they lie on both sides of the aisle. And the notion that the Republicans are trying to say this is just about the Democrats is the kind of hypocrisy that gives us the lowest ratings we have in terms of confidence of the American people.

We need to own up here. This is not about the Democrats. This is about both sides of the aisle and a flawed appropriations process that couldn’t get to the floor because of a lot of obstructionism. And when it finally did get to the floor it came in one package. But it is not fair for the Republicans to act like that all those ages came from the Democratic side of the aisle. They certainly did not…

Gee, it would have been nice if Senator McCaskill (D) had expended the same energy and vote opposing the windfall tax break for millionaires and billionaires.  

The dubya Obama budget busting windfall tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires passed the U.S. House of Representatives in a “bipartisan” vote last night. Evidently most House Democrats and the administration didn’t realize, again, that the republicans are going to make them own this mess in perpetuity.

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 647

H R 4853      RECORDED VOTE      17-Dec-2010      12:00 AM

QUESTION:  On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amdt to the House Amdt to the Senate Amdt

BILL TITLE: Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2010, Part III

—- AYES    277 — [139 Democratic, 138 Republican]

Akin

Blunt

Carnahan

Clay

Emerson

Graves (MO)

Luetkemeyer

Skelton

—- NOES    148 — [112 Democratic, 36 Republican]

Cleaver

Given their past rhetoric and actions and a vote total like this you think the republicans weren’t doing fist pumps and high fives in the cloak room over what they pulled off on the Democrats? Just asking.

Missouri State Representative Stephen Webber (D-23) via Facebook:

So we have the house (for now) the senate and the president, and our compromise is 801 billion in tax cuts and 57 billon in UI?…..and some how Americans dont respect Democrats because they think we are weak….where did they get that idea?

Funny, that was my impression, too.

Update:

John Burnett (D) via Twitter:

OK. Got it. Tax cuts for billionaires unemployment for paupers. This is called compromise. Oh. Gratuitously lower estate taxes? Yep. 25 minutes ago via Twitter for iPhone

Last August we adopted two kittens, both female. Or at least, that’s what the people at the animal shelter claimed. And as far as Skitty goes, we believe them. But Molly–named after Molly Ivins because of her spirited nature (she’s pictured looking down at me from a six foot high cabinet)–is so determined and daring that she seems like the male cats we’ve had over the last 35 years. We’ve taken to calling her a shemale. My husband, Connie, has gone a step further. He insists that they got it wrong at the pound and that Molly is actually a male. And once he gets an idea in his head ….

Never mind that she’s been spayed and that the vet would probably have noticed if she hadn’t possessed a uterus. Connie waves that objection away.

“Of course, he’s been neutered. And some female cat was spayed at the same time, and they mixed up the paperwork.”

“They’d have both had to be long haired gray cats. What are the chances?” I respond.

Ignoring that, he insists that we need to take her to the vet to be sexed. “Fine,” I agree, “as long as I get to take my camcorder so that I can record the amusement on the vet’s face when he tells you you’re wrong.”

“No, no,” he says. “I’m holding the camcorder. I want to see your jaw drop when you find out that Molly is really Molly-Jake.” (He refers to a supposedly female stray his family took in when he was a kid. When Susie started mating with the local females and producing offspring, the family had to rename her Susie-Jake.)

Thursday morning, when we had that conversation one more time, I had just finished kvetching all the way through Maureen Dowd’s column about the insanity of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, the birther who just got court martialed for refusing to obey orders from the usurper in chief. I kept moaning about how batshit crazy a large minority of this country is.

So when Connie insisted that he be the one holding the camcorder in the vet’s office, I nailed him: “You’re just like a birther. You live in fantasy land.”

He clutched both hands to his heart and allowed as how that was a low blow. I had to agree. At least when the vet informs him that Molly is a female, he’ll quit pretending otherwise.

Which is more than a birther does when presented with proof.