Scumbaggery is a great word.

Dacschle would be a disappointment were he not a former Senator popular among his former colleagues. But for the Senate he's pretty much what you should expet to get. I'm sure his self-image is pretty good, because after all he's not the same sort of asshole as Rush. He's a hero, the only one keeping United Health from being truly evil.

I guess I have violated my anti-sarcasm rule there.

I love how Daschle confuses being paid and being talked to.

'Course, so does the U.S. Supreme Court, so... *shrugs*

It's really, really unfair to compare Tom Daschle to prostitutes. I don't just mean it's not fair to the prostitutes (obviously, they're more interesting conversationalists, and most are way more appealing).

Daschle has access to health care.

RW, I was interested in your comment concerning the S.CT. Were you referring to that recent conflict of interest case where the judge was getting millions in campaign contributions and refusing to recuse himself or is there more. I wouldn't doubt there is more, much more. Would like to know more.

You are right on about their destruction of language, it becomes totally meaningless. They are creating babble where nothing means anything and language is meaningless. Being "paid by" is not "talking to" in any language.

Money is speech. Buckley v. Valeo. At least that is what I think RobWeaver was referring to.

Obviously, UnitedHealth can talk to Tom Daschle and Sarah Palin at the same time if they wanted to, but replace "talking to" with "getting bribed by" and you start to see Daschle's real point, which is that the Democrats need to suck up as much of that sweet, sweet, insurance-company cash as they can, in order to keep it out of the hands of those nasty Republicans (even UnitedHealth's resources are finite, and Daschle's cash-sucking abilities are legendary.)

In fact, the efforts by Obama and other Democrats to get the insurance industry and Big Pharma to the table early and often ("Is this acceptable, sir? No? How about this?") on health care "reform" is best understood as an effort to keep the Democrats in their newly preeminent position as the go-to party for Corporate America, and to freeze the Republicans out of as much campaign cash as possible.

It won't work, of course. Corporate interests like to be able to play the two parties off against one another, and so need the Republicans to be competitive, and will make the Republicans competitive, even if it requires mouth-to-mouth resuscitation.

The level of contempt in Daschle's comment is almost incredible. He expects the listener to believe that associating with a bad actor somehow prevents said actor from associating with other awful people. It's incomprehensibly stupid, espeicially when you realize (as has been mentioned here) that "talking to" means "accepting bribes from." Daschle's corruption and incompetence are no surprise, but I might be unpleasantly stunned to learn how much of the audience actually buys this explanation.

Now is as good a time as any to recall Orwell: "Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectiable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. . . In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. . . But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrput thought."

I hope you did not mean this as an insult to call girls because there's really no call for that.

Drip, Thanks, you're undoubtedly right, God what a case of stupid and how fitting for the Supremes.

God what a case of stupid and how fitting for the Supremes.

True, and it's about to get stupider:

The case, which arises from a minor political documentary called “Hillary: The Movie,” seemed an oddity when it was first argued in March. Just six months later, it has turned into a juggernaut with the potential to shatter a century-long understanding about the government’s ability to bar corporations from spending money to support political candidates.

The case has also deepened a profound split among liberals, dividing those who view government regulation of political speech as an affront to the First Amendment from those who believe that unlimited corporate campaign spending is a threat to democracy.

Gosh, and to think the whole mess could be quickly resolved if the Supreme court would just repudiate that 19th-century "opinion" (not actually a Supreme Court opinion, but a note added by a court reporter who was previously a railroad attorney) granting corporations all the rights of human beings. Problem solved!

But something tells me they'll do anything - including limiting freedom of speech for real humans - rather than that.

really enjoying the mental picture of daschle in a "friendly" evening gown, especially having just seen the movie dangerous beauty, i know that courtesans are among the nation's most illuminating lights. if i ever get tom to bed i'll tell him so myself.

i wonder if he's written any poetry.

Money is speech. Buckley v. Valeo. At least that is what I think RobWeaver was referring to.

Yep, that was it.

Buckley's just the germ seed.

As to recusal -- jesus f'in kroyste... while Bush v Gore was being written, Tony Scalia went hunting with Le Dickster du Cheney. Recusal for Papist Tony? Nay, nay, a SCOTUS-Sized NAY!

Shorter DASCHLE:

DASCHLE = Glen Beck
DASCHLE = Sarah Palin

At least he's honest.

Now is as good a time as any to recall Orwell

And Bernard Shaw (the Irish one, not the CNN one): "We've already established what you are. Now we're just dickering over the price."

Gosh, and to think the whole mess could be quickly resolved if the Supreme court would just repudiate that 19th-century "opinion" (not actually a Supreme Court opinion, but a note added by a court reporter who was previously a railroad attorney) granting corporations all the rights of human beings. Problem solved!

I actually asked a federal judge about that once. He laughed and backed away so quickly I was certain the next move was to pull out a crucifix and brandish it in terror. It would have been naive to assume that any sort of positive response would be in the offering, but the level of dismissal and political fear was a bit more impressive than I expected.

Do not expect any judicial reform from the judiciary. They’re fine with how things are.