The federal Constitution does not provide for recalling members of either chamber of Congress. I do hope there is a strong real Democrat to challenge him next time, though.

...he could guilt a few Blue Dogs in his own party into voting for such things as health reform we'd be in business!

When I saw "Foxx" in the headline, I just thought someone double-typed the X in the name of a certain "fair and balanced" news channel and the editors didn't catch it. I also assumed the Republican Congresswoman in question was Michelle Bachmann. Then I saw her and I must admit she's not the image I have of a wingnut. I assumed someone her age, while quite possibly conservative in the sense of traditional, would also be a bit more circumspect and not jump off the rhetorical deep end.

...is why the other side can't/won't get its act together and hold pro-reform rallies. After all, Obama DID win a majority of the vote last year. It seems we can be at least as much a presence as the wingnuts.

I believe SCOTUS has already ruled that Jehovah's Witnesses don't have to recite because they consider it idolatry. (I wish they would learn the difference between worshipping and saluting, but I digress.) Conscientious objection should be protected whatever the reason, but there is nothing wrong with encouraging loyalty to one's nation and its ideals. At least it's a symbol and a system we're pledging allegiance to rather than a specific person or group. I would also argue that "liberty and justice for all" is a statement of an ideal rather than a statement of fact, and by that interpretation we should be pledging ourselves to that as well.

If what the government is asking to be kept secret is the identity of witnesses against the defendant or exculpatory evidence withholding such is unconstitutional. If I were a federal judge I would say at least let ME see the evidence you're trying to withhold and if you refuse I will rule in favor of te defendant by default. When will people get that there is NOTHING in the Bill of Rights that renders it inoperative for any reason?

My understanding is that there is in fact a broad consensus on "extraneous matters" like prohibiting denial based on pre-existing conditions and prohibiting caps on coverage. Pass the things with broad support the usual way and then introduce new legislation to create the public option and use reconciliation to pass that.

First, if I remember correctly she justified her opinion by saying that's what her parents taught her, betraying an inability to think for oneself. Whenever someone cites parental teachings on something with a religious factor I'm tempted to ask, "Does that mean you still believe in Santa Claus too or was he too secular for your family anyway?"

Second, I cringe a bit more when someone of my generation expresses views like that. I can understand older people being set in their ways, but there's a sense in my gut that young people are "supposed to" be more inclusive and tolerant.

If the law were being written to require everyone on a single government plan, but exempt Congress, the Senators would have a point. However, th public option is exactly that - an OPTION. Nobody would be required to use the public option and neither should members of Congress.