TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Archive | September, 2009

Essential Truth: Greed is Still Good

By on 13 September 2009
wall-street-bull-0

Recalling The Collapse of a year ago.

The “I.B.G.” philosophy lives on. Read this, it will explain it.

Then there is “Tales from Lehman’s Crypt.”

TOM OLLQUIST remembers Sept. 9, 2008 — the day Lehman Brothers laid him off — as if it were yesterday. “You’re not going to believe it,” he told his wife. “I was shot.”

Federal regulators let the foundering firm slip into bankruptcy, a collapse that touched off the most perilous week of the financial debacle, after years of freewheeling lending, trading and regulation produced outsize losses that devastated the banking system and brought the economy to its knees. …

From Ron Brownstein the other day, which is a reminder of reality:

Thursday’s annual Census Bureau report on income, poverty and access to health care-the Bureau’s principal report card on the well-being of average Americans-closes the books on the economic record of George W. Bush.

It’s not a record many Republicans are likely to point to with pride.

On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush’s two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country’s condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton’s two terms, often substantially.

Meanwhile, Pres. Obama is going to make another speech, this one on the economy. Remains to be seen what action will be taken to help with job recovery and other middle class realities while Wall Street churns along.

Frankly, I’m speech weary. I don’t think I’m alone.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Wingnuts Hit Washington

By on 12 September 2009

–updated below–

… Beck has voiced support for the marches and will broadcast from Washington Saturday afternoon. He even recorded a two-minute video welcoming marchers to the city though it’s unclear whether FreedomWorks will play it before the march. But he has downplayed characterizations that he’s leading the marches or the movement. Some activists, however, look to him more than any national conservative leader or group. “Glenn is probably the unofficial leader of the group – he doesn’t want to be, but he is – more than any national group,” said Brian Britton, who heads the Greeley, Colo. 9/12 group, which he estimates has an email list with about 400 members. …- Politico

live

From tea party town brawls to march on Washington, the party of Joe “You Lie” Wilson offered all kinds of over the top signs for their political carnival, with estimated crowd numbers all over the map. Michelle Malkin manufacturing a 2 million number, with a shot that doesn’t seem quite right, but is being picked up by all the conservative blogs. Flags haven’t been at half-staff for a few days now. In fact, the picture shows the same vantage point and clearly illustrates that the flag is flying full. I’ve been in and around D.C. all last week, not seeing flags flying at half-staff any longer, with Obama ordering them to fly at half-staff until Aug. 30. (To add, here’s a verified shot from Mary Katharine Ham.) So, I don’t know when the shot Malkin, Instapundit and a slew of other conservative blogs are showing was taken. Question is, was it taken today? –See update below–

For reality, ABC is reporting a crowd of 60-70,000, while the Washington Post has it at “tens of thousands.” A memo that TPM has says they were expecting “hundreds of thousands to 2 million” people. They didn’t get even close.

Huffington Post has some of the outrageous signs, from Obama saying “Woah boys! I’ll take it from here” as he waves off what are clearly terrorists, to Speaker Pelosi with a Hitler moustache, and “Impeach the Muslim Marxist”, as well as wingnuts taking pictures of an Obama sign placed under police horse excrement.

Politico’s main page headline remakes them into “Freedom Fighters.”

“Ladies and Gentlemen: Welcome to Waterloo!” Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said to the cheering crowd, referencing his July remark that health care reform could be Obama’s Waterloo.

Jennifer Rubin offers the sanitized version:

Conservative activists from around the country are gathering in Washington on Saturday, seeking to continue their momentum in shaping the national debate on everything from health care to White House staffing. …

Hahahahahahahahaha………….. That’s a full throated cackled, just in case you didn’t recognize it.

I’m always amused when the Republicans try to use “populism” to explain their, what was it Republican Mark McKinnon called them? Oh right, “wack jobs” and “crackpots.”

Their plan? To stop Democrats and Pres. Obama from enacting health care legislation, while hoping to take down his presidency.

Meanwhile, we have Speaker Pelosi, who clearly favors a public option, telegraphing what I’ve been expecting for a very long time, as she begins to back off of her a bill without public option can’t pass the House declaration, to deal with what she’s obviously been told from the White House is the new reality. Everything seemed to shift after Reid and Pelosi met with Pres. Obama, after his speech.

Why you want to throw in before you have to, if you believe in the public option, is beyond me, except that pressure is building from above, as the word has come down: Get it done. Now. From CNN:

“This is about a goal. It’s not about provisions,” Pelosi said, adding that as long as legislation meets goals of “affordability and accessibility and quality … then we will go forward with that bill.”

A goal, but what goal? Any health care legislation at all, which the White House and some Democrats will call victory.

Whatever the Democrats eventually settle for on health care, the noise of Joe “You Lie!” Wilson and the “Bury Obamacare with Kennedy” town hall tea party birthers is not going away. In fact, all signs point to them getting louder, especially when Democrats are willing to cave upon hearing their shouts.

UPDATE: Answering the question about the photo, MSNBC has a video showing the flag at half-staff, unlike the capture above, which is also a capture of the flag today. MSNBC estimates the crowd from “tens of thousands” according to one anchor, to “hundreds of thousands” from Tom Costello.

ABC is not happy at all about the rumors spawned from Freedom Works president, quoting their news organization about totals of the crowd today being “2 million.” Here’s a late story, where ABC also mentions that bloggers repeated the Freedom Works erroneous report and then repeats the numbers I have quoted above:

Conservative activists, who organized a march on the U.S. Capitol today in protest of the Obama administration’s health care agenda and government spending, erroneously attributed reports on the size of the crowds to ABC News.

Matt Kibbe, president of FreedomWorks, the group that organized the event, said on stage at the rally that ABC News was reporting that 1 million to 1.5 million people were in attendance.

At no time did ABC News, or its affiliates, report a number anywhere near as large. ABCNews.com reported an approximate figure of 60,000 to 70,000 protesters, attributed to the Washington, D.C., fire department. In its reports, ABC News Radio described the crowd as “tens of thousands.”

Read full story · Comments are closed

New Poll Shows Joe ‘You Lie’ Wilson In Trouble

By on 11 September 2009

Wilson trails Democratic challenger Rob Miller 44-43 in a PPP survey conducted Thursday night and Friday morning. Last year Wilson defeated Miller 54-46. – Public Policy Polling

…and Rob Miller is now over $800,000 in donations and according to someone in the know, has also crushed every other candidate, bar none, for a 48-hour period on Act Blue.

Being South Carolina, people are starting to ask if former Marine Rob Miller might also be another Blue Dog Democrat? Well, compared to Joe Wilson, he’s a vast improvement, not only for South Carolinians, but for this country.

But it does raise the question of having candidates in these Republican strongholds who turn out to be conservative Democrats. Is it helping our cause or moving the Democratic party to the right? (Personally, I just want Wilson out, something that would certainly be better for Congress.)

Pres. Obama wasn’t speaking in front of the House of Commons at “Question Time.” But that does raise an interesting point, which Tina Brown talked about on “Morning Joe” early today. In a nutshell, should we have more “gladiator” politics, including during Obama’s speeches? “In Praise of Hecklers” makes the case:

The convention that Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill of the President in His Presence elides the great difference known to every Briton—that between insulting the head of state and insulting the mere head of the executive branch of government.

Queen Elizabeth is one thing; insulting Gordon Brown is practically an obligation. Disrespecting the former is an act of treason; disrespecting the latter and his office, a necessity: Every Wednesday, Brown must endure Prime Minister’s Questions, during which his enemies in Parliament grill him. Prime Minister’s Questions may not be the be all and end all, but it affords an opportunity for “telling truth to power” that does not exist in the regal American system.

America’s problem is that it has combined the head of state and the head of the executive branch into a single office, and it can no longer distinguish between the two roles. Obama’s health-care address was not given in his role as head of state. It was, rather, a political speech made by—pinch yourselves—a mere politician seeking to advance his own political agenda.

The author gives himself away when he excuses the queen from heckling, while saying it’s obligatory to go after the prime minister. Our president is also the commander in chief and the holder of American honor; the closest thing we have to American royalty. When he (someday she) speaks in the well of the House to a joint session, it’s as grand a setting as we have, which doesn’t stop hecklers from making a mockery of the moment, but they’re going to have to pay the price.

Mark McKinnon, a Republican who refused to work against Obama, opines: Send Joe Wilson home. McKinnon also gave to Rob Miller.

I still contend a formal reprimand is in order. Write your Congressperson.

Read full story · Comments are closed

From 9/11 to Iraq

By on 11 September 2009

Pres. Obama has declared today a national day of service and remembrance.

No surprise that the right wing is attacking him for it.

I apologize, but this day led to the ultimate politization of our national tragedy and I won’t ever let it pass unremembered.

See, this day hits me differently than others, particularly so now that I live here. I simply cannot think of the horror on that day without thinking of how George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and their administration used it to get from a horrific attack to changing the foreign policy of this country into one of preemptive war.

The video here is old, something we put together a very long time ago. It’s too quick on the draw and needs another edit, but if you want to fully read everything, just pause it. Otherwise, the sentiment still applies today, at least around here.

Today is also a moment to remember why we initially went into Afghanistan. It’s one reason Pres. Obama calls it “the good war.”

Seeing the images played again on MSNBC never fails to send a chill up my spine. For me, I think of Kristen Breitweiser, whom I’ve traded many an email with and also interviewed when her book came out. That interview still on my podcast page, “the best of TM” section, which is at the bottom of the page. Some of you may not remember, but no one fought harder to get at the truth of how the terrorists came to slip underneath the U.S. intelligence radar. But Kristen also reminds us of the sheer incompetence of Rudy Giuliani that day.

It was a national tragedy, which if you think about it happened at this very moment so many years ago, at the very point Pres. Obama is in his presidency.

A collective failure for sure, but I will never understand how Louis Freeh got a pass on that day. …or for that matter the Republican Congress during William Jefferson Clinton’s impeachment, who thought his zipper was more important than the nation’s business.

But no single move illustrates the Bush-Cheney administration’s failure like the demotion of Richard Clarke from his cabinet position; the man who knew more about counterterrorism than anyone in government, because the new Administration took the tact of “anything but Clinton.”

Pres. Clinton warned the new President. But not even when Bush got the PDB screaming BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN US did he budge.

But it took both parties and scared politicians to get us into Iraq, including our best and brightest. I railed at their cowardice to stand up to Bush at the time on radio, because they were afraid a no vote on a bad war would be used against them in the upcoming election.

It’s why we must always hold our elected officials accountable, especially on matters of war and peace. We can’t ever let it happen again.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Right Wing Rushes to Make Wilson a Hero

By on 11 September 2009

Rush wishes Wilson had not apologized. It’s not like Rep. Wilson did it of his own accord. GOP leaders made him do it. So, considering that it really doesn’t mean much. Except that the right wing thinks they’ve found themselves a new hero and the perfect compliment to an “I’m with stupid” t-shirt. From the WSJ:

“I’m proud of him. I’m tired of politicians sitting back and keeping their mouth shut and not calling it when it’s wrong,” said Jake Knotts, a 64-year-old Republican state senator whose district overlaps with Mr. Wilson’s. “Washington has been getting away with lies for too long….It’s time we have people like Joe Wilson stand up.”

While Fox can’t get their facts straight as they try to make Wilson the wonder boy.

From Open Congress:

H.R. 3200: Sec 246 — NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

Then there is Wilson himself, who is part of the “Magnificent Seven of Senators” who were in favor of letting the ultimate sign of southern racism flying high over the Confederate Soldier’s monument.

The flag came down that year after Republicans in both houses went for a compromise that would put it on Statehouse grounds at the Confederate Soldier’s monument. The “Magnificent Seven” of Senators who voted to keep the flag up included current Congressman Joe Wilson (who I served with in the 218th Infantry Brigade of the National Guard.) The campaign against people like Bauer and the other people who had changed their position on the flag in the legislature was called No Votes for Turncoats.

Mind you, the south has the largest constituency of people who believe the birther lies about Pres. Obama.

What shame Wilson has brought on South Carolina, though you’ve got to admit it’s a wacky state. Just look at their governor. While you have Rush Limbaugh, but also Sean Hannity making Wilson out a hero.

The upside is that it’s helping former Marine Rob Miller rake in lots of cash. He’s now over $700,000+. Give what you can, even $5 to this cause. Help kick a cretin out of Congress.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Hillary Hater Case Hits the Supreme Court

By on 10 September 2009

Will they or won’t they overturn McCain-Feingold?

Hillary: The Movie case (aka Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission) is what the case is known by. The film is so extreme that it got pushed off the air during campaign season because it violated McCain-Feingold. It gets down to, as Dahlia Lithwick puts it: stare decisis and how old a case needs to be before you can torch it. The right is pushing for a very broad ruling on the case.

When we first met this case, it involved a narrow question about whether a 90-minute documentary attacking Hillary Clinton could be regulated as an “electioneering communication” under McCain-Feingold. The relevant provision bars corporations and unions from using money from their general treasuries for “any broadcast, cable or satellite communications” that feature a candidate for federal election during specified times before a general election. A federal court of appeals agreed with the FEC that the movie could be regulated. Citizens United, the conservative, nonprofit advocacy group that produced the film, appealed. The issue last spring was whether a feature-length documentary movie was core political speech or a Swift Boat ad. But the court surprised everyone when it ordered the case reargued in September, this time tackling the constitutionality of McConnell and Austin. Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas are already on record wanting to overturn these cases. Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts have been inclined to wait. The question today is whether we wait no more. – Slate

Watch the video. Never mind it was made by David Bossie. If Hillary: The Movie isn’t a Swift Boat ad on steroids I don’t know what is.

Unfortunately, the political gods seem to be in a mood to mix things up, though opening up the campaign floodgates to right-wing ideological swiftboating hit groups like Citizens United would be an absolute travesty.

Roberts, explaining why the court and not the Federal Election Commission should determine whether a federal campaign law is valid, said, “We don’t put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats.” Kagan, too, acknowledged that the government was unlikely to win the case outright and that the best it could do was hope for a ruling that might apply only to ideological groups like Citizens United.

It gets down to is money speech? The Left says no. The Right says yes. It’s a tough philosophical point and one worth discussing. I come down on 100% transparency on who’s giving the money, with online disclosure.

Let’s hope Kagan’s analysis ends up happening.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Pelosi Blinks

By on 10 September 2009

–Clyburn update below–

Here’s the headline: Pelosi halts effort to sanction Wilson over ‘You lie!’ outburst

Democratic leaders were looking into what formal action the House may take against Wilson, whose outburst during the Wednesday night address has rocked the lower chamber. On the list was a move to censure him.

But Pelosi dismissed that idea, as well as a call for Wilson to apologize on the floor.

“I’m on to healthcare reform. I’m not going to discuss Joe Wilson,” she said. “I think his action spoke for itself. He has apologized. He will figure out what is appropriate for him to do.”

Speaker Pelosi has been around a long time. No doubt she doesn’t want to distract or get into a partisan war just as markup on health care legislation is coming down, on which I’m sure Pres. Obama agrees.

But this is an example of why we got “death panels” in a summer filled with town hall brawls, not to mention the resignation of Van Jones, and now Yosi Sergant’s position with the Administration threatened by Glenn Beck.

Elite DC Democrats just do not know how to wage a battle for health care, while holding politicians accountable when they challenge a sitting president in such a humiliating display of disrespect.

I never thought I’d say this, but Arlen Specter is right. Wilson should be censured.


UPDATE: Interesting exchange with Rep. Clyburn, an Obama administration insider, on MSNBC earlier. Greg Sargent has more.

Clyburn: … And so I think that what we saw last night was a lot of bad manners on the floor of the House by my colleague from South Carolina, and it is very, very unfortunate because the decorum of the House was violated and I would have hoped when I spoke with him today that he would have followed my advice and go to the well of the House and apologize to his colleagues for violating the decorum but he refused to do that. And now he’s saying today that the only reason he called the White House is because his leadership ordered him to do so. So he has no remorse whatsoever so his words have very little meaning.

David Schuster: Congressman, I thought I heard you say earlier today that you described his actions as cowardly. Do you still believe that and do you think the House should now censure Congressman Wilson?

Clyburn: Well I never used that word, cowardly – that was somebody else. What I said is I thought his words were inappropriate and I think they’re a sign of bad manners. Do I think we should censure? No. Do I think we ought to pass a resolution of disapproval of his actions? Yes. And I do believe that that or a reprimand would be appropriate next week when we come back into session. We’re no longer in session today, but I plan to introduce such a resolution or ask my leadership to do so if he refuses to go to the well and apologize to his colleagues.

Read full story · Comments are closed

AIPAC No Longer The Only Game In Town

By on 10 September 2009

–interesting development below–

israel-lobby

During the July meeting, held in the Roosevelt Room, Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, told Obama that “public disharmony between Israel and the U.S. is beneficial to neither” and that differences “should be dealt with directly by the parties.” The president, according to Hoenlein, leaned back in his chair and said: “I disagree. We had eight years of no daylight” — between George W. Bush and successive Israeli governments — “and no progress.” – The New Israel Lobby

Call them the little Israeli lobby who has the audacity to think they can. Change what it means to be pro-Israel.

J Street does not accept the “public harmony” rule any more than Obama does. In a conversation a month before the White House session, Ben-Ami explained to me: “We’re trying to redefine what it means to be pro-Israel. You don’t have to be noncritical. You don’t have to adopt the party line. It’s not, ‘Israel, right or wrong.’ ” – The New Israel Lobby

They’re challenging the big guns, particularly AIPAC, who believe that George W. Bush is the model. Need I say more?

Blame John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, who basically started it all with their book The Israeli Lobby, which challenged conventional thinking that to criticize Israel is to basically be anti-Semite.

“The bottom line,” Mearsheimer and Walt wrote, “is that Aipac, a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on Congress, with the result that U.S. policy is not debated there, even though that policy has important consequences for the entire world.” Mearsheimer and Walt also wrote that Aipac and other groups succeeded in installing officials who were deemed “pro-Israel” into senior positions. This is, of course, what effective lobbies do. … .. And yet mainstream American Jewish groups had implicitly agreed to subordinate their own views to those of the government in Jerusalem. The watchword, says J. J. Goldberg, editorial director of The Forward, the Jewish weekly, was, “We stick with Israel regardless of our own judgment.”

And don’t stop with the New York Times Magazine piece, because Mother Jones profiles the power of AIPAC, the biggest challenge to changing the status quo between Israel and the Palestinians, mainly because their thinking is moored in the 20th century.

Now, if more traditional media would cover the new Israeli lobby force coming up, giving Congress members cover when they don’t have their own moral courage to do the right thing, because they sense an AIPAC backed challenger breathing down their neck, we’d really be somewhere. An example of what’s needed happened recently when Fareed Zakaria’s interviewed Michael Oren, when Zakaria pushed to clarify Israeli nuke numbers. This is an exception, which exists amidst a deafening silence from his colleagues who won’t dare broach the subject.

The only way to change Middle East policy is if Pres. Obama has back up in Congress, which he’s not going to get from the likes of Democratic Rep. Steny Hoyer, AIPAC’s man, though he’s got lots of company. With J Street and other players arriving on the scene to challenge this entrenched power, eventually we’ll see pro-Israeli anti-war politicians less afraid to stick their necks out for Israel, hoping for a progressive shift in thinking that includes holding Israel accountable as well, without worrying that any earned criticism or new idea will get their political heads lopped off.

UPDATE: Laura Rozen reports an interesting happening today when Dennis Ross spoke with Jewish leaders wanting a harder line from the Administration on Iran.

Reporters were escorted out of the room at Washington’s 6th and I Streets Historic synagogue this morning before NSC uber Middle East strategist Dennis Ross addressed some 300 Jewish leaders attending a conference on Iran today.

Also officially off the record were the remarks of the U.S. government’s point man on Iran nuclear negotiations, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns.

But reporters could apparently hear their remarks over the public address system from the hallway (this reporter wasn’t there). …read on…

Read full story · Comments are closed

Heckler Reveals Southern Soul of Republican Party

By on 10 September 2009

–important update below–

“No president has ever been treated like that. Ever,” Mr. Emanuel said. … Critical body language and murmurs of disapproval are typical at presidential addresses and part of the political theater. But members of both parties were trying to recollect such a pointed attack from an individual lawmaker at a presidential address and noted that a similar remark could draw a formal reprimand if delivered at a routine session of the House. – In Lawmaker’s Outburst, a Rare Breach of Protocol

A formal reprimand is fitting for Mr. Wilson, who deserves a censure, in my opinion. However, there will likely be no show towards him from Democrats, as getting health care done is difficult enough that antagonizing the Republicans— Wait a minute, they’re not going to vote for any health care reform. So, strike that. Democrats may think it’s a distraction to confront Wilson formally, but given the traditional media and cable shows are leading with Wilson’s insults it would hardly add to it; instead perhaps remind people that Democrats stand up to wingnut thuggery, we don’t turn the other cheek.

To add, just moments after I posted this piece, Roll Call reported that Democrats are demanding Wilson apologize on House floor:

Top Democrats are demanding that Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) apologize on the House floor for screaming, “You lie!” at President Barack Obama during last night’s joint address to Congress and are investigating whether to take further action.

Obama_wilsonlie2

It was a prime moment for the Sergeant at Arms to bring forth the Mace. Ah, what theater that would have provoked.

During its first 100 years, the House followed the practice of asking its Sergeant-at-Arms to quell disorder on the floor by parading around with the Mace. The sight of this symbol of order was supposed to be sufficient reminder to Members to resume parliamentary decorum.

What Wilson revealed is what Republicans represent today. That the presidency is their personal toilet on which they can throw rhetorical excrement fitting southern country boy rallies if the person presiding over the Office of the President doesn’t meet their good old boy standards. Disrespectful, tantrum throwing thugs who believe Congress is one big frat house that they can destroy with antics not fitting gentlemen and gentle ladies charged with running this country.

I say this with all due disrespect.

Wilson unmasked the birther, town hall brawlers, “death panel” punk mentality that is the Republican Party. People who shrug and stand aside when people are hurting, lives are at stake, as well as the foundational health and moral charge we all have to be our brothers’ keeper.

Wilson illustrated the Republican fundamentalism that has made them a minority party and will keep them that way if cretins like Wilson aren’t expunged from the public square, which Republicans don’t seem all that keen to do.

Let’s help them.

SUPPORT ROB MILLER

The PERFECT PATRIOT for Joe Wilson’s seat.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Obama Invokes Kennedy and ‘Character of Our Country’

By on 09 September 2009

–updated–

When Rep. Joe Wilson (R – S.C.) yelled “LIE!”, the moment when Pres. Obama said his health care reform would not insure illegal immigrants, I thought Speaker Pelosi was going to come out of her chair. President Obama leveled a deadly gaze… but didn’t drop a beat. Someone should have told Mr. Wilson he wasn’t at a town hall.

Nothing could daunt the delivery.

It was at the end when Obama invoked the late Sen. Ted Kennedy’s letter that the President’s emotional connection soared.

He repeated the truth that health care is decisive for our future prosperity, but he also reminded me that “it concerns more than material things.” “What we face,” he wrote, “is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country.”

I’ve thought about that phrase quite a bit in recent days – the character of our country. One of the unique and wonderful things about America has always been our self-reliance, our rugged individualism, our fierce defense of freedom and our healthy skepticism of government. And figuring out the appropriate size and role of government has always been a source of rigorous and sometimes angry debate.

On issues like these, Ted Kennedy’s passion was born not of some rigid ideology, but of his own experience. It was the experience of having two children stricken with cancer. He never forgot the sheer terror and helplessness that any parent feels when a child is badly sick; and he was able to imagine what it must be like for those without insurance; what it would be like to have to say to a wife or a child or an aging parent – there is something that could make you better, but I just can’t afford it.

That large-heartedness – that concern and regard for the plight of others – is not a partisan feeling. It is not a Republican or a Democratic feeling. It, too, is part of the American character. …

Sen. Sherrod Brown said it was the best speech he’d ever heard at a joint session.

Pres. Obama was at his best at a moment he needed to be, laying out “The Obama Plan.”

Rep. Wilson should be censured for such disrespect, not just for President Obama, but for the chamber in which this speech was given, and made to apologize. I am ashamed for the Republicans. This is what Reagan’s Party has become. It was reprehensible behavior, proving that whatever the party of Goldwater, Nixon and Reagan once was it is no more. It’s Sarah Palin’s “death panel” party.

But nothing could stop Pres. Obama tonight, who obviously was on a mission, carrying the torch for Sen. Ted Kennedy.

Rep. Boustany made the rebuttal.

The second he finished Keith Olbermann eviscerated him in a sentence.

Congressman Boustany, we should note, has been sued for malpractice three times, and he’s a birther who believes there are questions about the President’s citizenship, and as Rachel reported last night, he’s a man reported in court papers to have fallen for a scam in which he tried to buy the British royalty title of Lord. – Keith Olbermann

Obama could not have delivered a better speech.

But from rhetoric and words, which are Pres. Obama’s strengths, how he puts it all into concrete actions is what matters. The toughest part of all lies ahead. It’s crunch time. But Obama set it up. Now he needs to deliver.

UPDATED: Wilson apologizes. He’s getting creamed on Twitter, his site is down, and his email is getting bombarded. Support his Marine Dem opponent Rob Miller.

“This evening I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the President’s remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the health care bill. While I disagree with the President’s statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the President for this lack of civility.”

Read full story · Comments are closed

Obama Speaks, Then Action

By on 09 September 2009

–updated–

“We talked about the public option. I was … urging him if he could take the public option off the table in his speech this evening so it could provide, I think, a momentum of a different kind in moving this issue forward overall. … The point is I don’t support a public option. And none of my Republican colleagues do and some Democrats don’t in the Senate and even in the House. I think the point is how do we bridge the divide?”" – Sen. Olympia Snowe

This is our great bipartisan hope? Next we’re going to hear that Max Baucus is including tort reform in his legislation.

On that note, and to add, on MSNBC advisers were talking about the speech beforehand saying there would be Republican ideas in it. The second that slipped the lips all I could think of was tort reform. Here kitty, kitty, kitty.

Meanwhile, Ben Smith has White House talking points that has the Administration specifically targeting Sarah Palin. Attention she and her people are bound to love.

So, Pres. Obama’s saving the public option mention for showtime, but you can bet it will be in there. As for the Republican rebuttal, Sargent has the DNC’s prebuttal. To add, as the links come pouring in, if you want to see Rep. Congressman Boustany’s conflicts of health care interests, look no further.

Below are excerpts of Pres. Obama’s speech:

I am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last. It has now been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for health care reform. And ever since, nearly every President and Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, has attempted to meet this challenge in some way. A bill for comprehensive health reform was first introduced by John Dingell Sr. in 1943. Sixty-five years later, his son continues to introduce that same bill at the beginning of each session.

[...] Our collective failure to meet this challenge – year after year, decade after decade – has led us to a breaking point. Everyone understands the extraordinary hardships that are placed on the uninsured, who live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. These are not primarily people on welfare. These are middle-class Americans. Some can’t get insurance on the job. Others are self-employed, and can’t afford it, since buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer. Many other Americans who are willing and able to pay are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or expensive to cover.

[...] During that time, we have seen Washington at its best and its worst.

[...] We have seen many in this chamber work tirelessly for the better part of this year to offer thoughtful ideas about how to achieve reform. Of the five committees asked to develop bills, four have completed their work, and the Senate Finance Committee announced today that it will move forward next week. That has never happened before. Our overall efforts have been supported by an unprecedented coalition of doctors and nurses; hospitals, seniors’ groups and even drug companies – many of whom opposed reform in the past. And there is agreement in this chamber on about eighty percent of what needs to be done, putting us closer to the goal of reform than we have ever been.

[...] But what we have also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have toward their own government. Instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise. Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge. And out of this blizzard of charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned.

[...] Well the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed. Now is the season for action. Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together, and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do. Now is the time to deliver on health care.

[...] The plan I’m announcing tonight would meet three basic goals:

[...] It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance to those who don’t. And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government. It’s a plan that asks everyone to take responsibility for meeting this challenge – not just government and insurance companies, but employers and individuals. And it’s a plan that incorporates ideas from Senators and Congressmen; from Democrats and Republicans – and yes, from some of my opponents in both the primary and general election.

[...] Here are the details that every American needs to know about this plan:

[...] First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.

[...] What this plan will do is to make the insurance you have work better for you. Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it most. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime. We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick. And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies – because there’s no reason we shouldn’t be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse. That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives.

[...] That’s what Americans who have health insurance can expect from this plan – more security and stability.

[...] Now, if you’re one of the tens of millions of Americans who don’t currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices. If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage. We will do this by creating a new insurance exchange – a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices. Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers. As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage. This is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance. It’s how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance. And it’s time to give every American the same opportunity that we’ve given ourselves.

[...] This is the plan I’m proposing. It’s a plan that incorporates ideas from many of the people in this room tonight – Democrats and Republicans. And I will continue to seek common ground in the weeks ahead. If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open.

[...] But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it’s better politics to kill this plan than improve it. I will not stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what’s in the plan, we will call you out. And I will not accept the status quo as a solution. Not this time. Not now.

[...] Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most. And more will die as a result. We know these things to be true.

That is why we cannot fail. Because there are too many Americans counting on us to succeed – the ones who suffer silently, and the ones who shared their stories with us at town hall meetings, in emails, and in letters. [...]

Words are wonderful, but it’s now time for serious action.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Post 9/11, What is Afghanistan About?

By on 09 September 2009

“The mission here is in crisis. Pres. Obama is holding a basket case of a war in his hands. … Does he decide to fight this war or not?” – Michael Ware, CNN

Harrowing report from McClatchy illustrates what Ware is talking about.

A discussion on fighting terrorism, especially since that’s what began the war in Afghanistan, leads to a wider discussion on counterterrorism goals and the methods and practices that are most effective. Steve Clemons brings up a very good point about Afghanistan, which goes well with the CNN video here, which has Michael Ware giving his usual hair on fire candor on what we face in Afghanistan. Clemons:

The Obama administration has made a major mistake in allowing a sleight-of-hand shift in its overall framing of challenges in Afghanistan.

Rather than focusing on al Qaeda and Arab jihadists as “the threat” the US is trying to quash, the Taliban now seems to be the overwhelming focus.

The Taliban and al Qaeda are now used interchangeably — and frankly, we are hearing the words “al Qaeda” less and less. We now seem to be fully at war with the Taliban — a now huge indigenous group embedded in Afghan society.

I hate to sound flip, but bingo. Whenever I hear the Obama administration talking about “the good war” and that we need to defeat the Taliban, I have one of those IMAX, 3D experiences of hurtling back through time to the Vietnam war, which challenges every fiber of my feminist hawk soul where Afghanistan is concerned. Like the Vietcong, we will never and I mean never defeat the Taliban. (Never mind that we financed their beginnings, getting the first financial spurt through Carter, with Reagan putting the efforts on steroids, missing entirely what Director Casey was doing on our behalf.) They will simply wait us out.

Related to the terrorism issue, this story on former Vice President Cheney should remind everyone the difference between how Republicans and Democrats view counterterrorism, which began anew after 9/11 and when we launched our counterattack on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Further proof that on foreign policy the Republicans never walk softly and are rarely competent, seldom playing well with allies. As if we needed further evidence.

Dick Cheney, the former US Vice President, nearly destroyed Britain’s efforts to bring the airline bomb plotters to justice, police and intelligence experts said today.

By ordering the early arrest of Rashid Rauf, the bombers’ link man in Pakistan, Washington forced British police to detain the suspects in the UK before all the evidence had been gathered, it was claimed. …

It’s about the philosophy of bringing terrorists to justice and the rule of law. Bush-Cheney and Republicans believe that the U.S. can throw people into a dungeon for the duration without making a legal case that justifies our actions. Democrats believe that good investigative work and evidentiary compilation can actually cement a case that can morally and ethically hold terrorists accountable according to the Geneva Conventions and U.S. Constitution. More from the UK Times:

… Michael Clarke, the director of the Royal United Services Institute, said he gave “great credence” to the theory that US interference was to blame for Rauf’s arrest. He described how the decision appeared to lead straight back to the White House and to Mr Cheney.

“We know that Tony Blair briefed George Bush on July 28, that he told them that the plot was hatching, but it wasn’t quite ready yet,” said Mr Clarke.

“Mr Bush didn’t seem to commit anything to paper, but Vice President Cheney despatched a man called Jose Rodriguez to Pakistan in secret. The British didn’t know he was there.

“And after Mr Rodriguez’s arrival in Pakistan, Rashid Rauf was picked up. The British were hopping mad about that, because it meant that on August 10 they had no choice but to move in on this plot before all the evidence was as mature as possible.

“There is a general belief in British security circles that the despatch of Mr Rodriguez to the White House came straight from the White House.” [...]

I could wrangle a moment to talk about Gitmo too, but in the end it all comes down to the broader question of just how the U.S. is waging our counterterrorism strategy and just where we are going in the foreign policy era of Obama.

Right now we just don’t know. But questioning whether our fight right now in Afghanistan is against the Taliban or Al Qaeda is a good place to start. Especially since the Taliban is now an organically embedded force in Central Asia with deep ties inside these countries, even as some no doubt are also tied to Al Qaeda. But it’s far more complex than the discussion currently illustrates.

It does seem clear from the link Laura Rozen posted on the new strategy for Afghanistan advising Pres. Obama to dig in, we’re looking at a greatly expanded mission in Afghanistan. I just hope we’re not about to repeat Republican mistakes.

Regardless of the cries to get out of Afghanistan, which I appreciate, there is no way our engagement will end, because we can never abandon the women and girls in this backwards country, on whose progress Afghanistan’s future depends. The conundrum is that without massive security how can any progress be made by the groups charged with aiding their rise?

Read full story · Comments are closed

Sarah Palin’s ‘Death Panels’, Part Deux

By on 09 September 2009

Tonight Pres. Obama will deliver the speech of his short tenure, one that will either shore up allies or break the ties asunder, though there are some interesting rumblings, but I’ll get to that later. It’s on this occasion that Sarah Palin has chosen to once again prove that Republicans have no clue the purpose of government, let alone how effective parts of it work for people. She also has decided to take “death panels” out for another spin, because it worked so well the first time. There is no single buzz phrase that so knocked the Democrats off stride. I just wonder who wrote this drivel for her:

Common sense tells us that the government’s attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us to be skeptical when President Obama promises that the Democrats’ proposals “will provide more stability and security to every American.”

[...] Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats’ proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans. Working through “normal political channels,” they made themselves heard, and as a result Congress will likely reject a wrong-headed proposal to authorize end-of-life counseling in this cost-cutting context. But the fact remains that the Democrats’ proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. …

Mrs. Palin Her ghostwriter continues: Rather than another top-down government plan, let’s give Americans control over their own health care.

The Washington Post offers up Iran-Contra felon Elliott Abrams; the Wall Street Journal offers up Sarah Palin, a woman I’d be glad to listen to if she had any experience of knowledge whatsoever on health care.

Let’s just start with the basics. Does anyone actually believe she wrote this op-ed herself? Okay, not fair, politicians have ghostwriters all the time. But does anyone get anything out of the op-ed except a regurgitation of her “death panels” greatest health care hit?

You don’t become someone worthy of listening to by virtue of mentioning Ronald Reagan. That does not make you a leading conservative voice unless you can back it up. Palin proves yet again that she cannot. Sarah Palin’s ghostwritten op-ed, a bad one at that, doesn’t add to her policy muscles any more than travel alone will make her understand foreign policy.

However, in an era where Pres. Obama allows Glenn Beck to swiftboat one of his advisers into resigning, I guess anything is acceptable.

Read Marc Ambinder.

However, the ghostwriter never once offers a solution. No Republican has at this point. What they’re offering up instead is a Stop the Democrats campaign driven by fear of “death panels” that do not exist.

So, how did Republicans win on message, putting Democrats on the defensive on health care?

How did Sarah Palin’s “death panels” squeal take a once wildly popular new president and knock him and his majority party back on their heels so that months after the health care debate started he has to address a Joint Session of Congress to convince Americans that the November election actually happened?

We won, remember? So why are Democrats taking this crap from Republicans? After all, we’re actually offering solutions, something they haven’t begun to do.

How did Democrats allow Republicans to make the public option idea nuclear so that it will likely be jettisoned (unless a miracle happens and the DC elite Dems come to their senses)? As they realize it’s the major means by which health care legislation can actually be called reform?

It’s a study in campaign policy failures, but also that bipartisanship isn’t worth it unless you have an honest partner. If you don’t it simply hijacks your purpose and message while fueling your adversaries attacks.

It’s also why raising the roof matters.

Now, the Wall Street Journal is the only outlet reporting this, so I’m taking it with a grain of salt, but besides Palin, here’s their other headline: Obama to Endorse Public Plan in Speech.

The progressives have given Obama hell over his health care campaign, but also his lackluster support of the public option. IF the WSJ turns out to be true and he endorses the public plan in his speech tonight, even though the President is unlikely to draw a veto line in the sand, your victory will be huge. However, a word of caution. Just because he believes in a public option doesn’t mean he’ll demand it. See Obama’s ABC interview.

It pays to pitch a fit and hold Democrats accountable for what they promised, including the President. Does anyone believe we’d be where we are today, with Democrats feeling pressured and being made to take a stand, without the progressive caucus and new media, but also those of you who are working hard behind the scenes, raising hell? Factions that didn’t exist during Hillarycare.

Playing follow the leader blindly and silently never works, because nice guys (and especially gals) finish last.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Bob McDonnell: Gay Okay, Except for Privacy

By on 09 September 2009

–this post has been moved–

“There is certain homosexual conduct that is in violation of the law,” McDonnell added. “I’m not telling you I would disqualify a judge per se if he said he was gay. I’m talking about their actions.” – Scrutiny Spreads to ’03 McDonnell Remarks

It’s been a very bad few weeks for Virginia governor hopeful Robert McDonnell. George Allen Macaca bad.

Obviously, Mr. McDonnell is saying that sodomy is not befitting a judge, though being gay in and of itself is no problem. Why do I feel like he’s channeling his mentor Pat Robertson?

After the Washington Post revealed McDonnell’s master thesis, this latest bombshell is, let’s just say, a bit alarming. Especially since what Robert McDonnell is saying is that no gay or lesbian is fit to serve if they live their lives fully. Actually, that’s a basic tenet of the Republican party in the 21st century.

What’s hilarious is seeing Republicans try to extricate McDonnell from the revelations unfolding about who he really is.

The wingnuts are confused, however, as to why all this is coming out now. Evidently the fact that he’s running for governor of Virginia in the 21st century isn’t good enough. You know, because being a sexist as well as someone who is not only homophobic, but believes that the private lives of public servants, particularly what happens in their bedrooms, is any business of a man who hopes to govern the state of Virginia.

Powerline:

As with McDonnell’s thesis, the real question is, why is the story running now. Is it because something more substantial is being held in reserve for October, or because McDonnell is still far enough ahead in the polls that the Dems and their friends in the MSM felt they couldn’t wait any longer?

But the juicy element for some is that Robert McDonnell doesn’t seem too willing to reveal his own sex life, even as he believes others should. Back to the Post:

Scanlon, who now lives in Colorado and is no longer a reporter, also remembers asking McDonnell whether he had ever violated the crimes against nature statute himself — a fair question, he thought, because McDonnell had raised the legal point. The statute, among other things, prohibits oral or anal sexual contact, regardless of the sex of the participants. McDonnell’s response, Scanlon reported, was: “Not that I can recall.”

He doesn’t remember?

Campaign Spot at NRO offers the punchline to McDonnell’s amnesia in a post that seems never ending.

But hey, I’m sure Creigh Deeds is willing to tell a reporter whether or not he’s ever had anal or oral sexual contact, so that will earn him the Post’s endorsement this fall.

As of September 1, Public Policy Polling has Deeds closing the gap.

The race to be the next Governor of Virginia is back in single digits, as Creigh Deeds has pulled to within 49-42 against Bob McDonnell after trailing 51-37 a month ago.

With all the ammunition let’s hope Deeds can beat this guy or Republicans will never let us hear the end of it. A Democratic loss could also become the wind beneath their wings for 2010.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Whatever You Call It Won’t Be Reform

By on 08 September 2009

All this waiting, the caterwauling from the Blue Dogs that pushed everything through August and into this week, waiting for Republicans to give us a signal they might sign on and all we got is a measly shrug from Sen. Grassley. Nobody is surprised. So what was it all for? Political theater is exciting, but this has been a colossal waste of time, effort, campaigning and calling. The fight is one thing, the show quite something, but in the end there was never any way the DC elite Democrats were ever going to hand the Republicans a victory on health care. Never mind that they’ll take the lap anyway. The euphoria will be on their side alone, regardless of White House lawn ceremonies to come.

I just keep remembering back to when Obama came into office. When there were questions of whether conservatism was dead, with their scorched earth politics one sure thing that never dies, which is how they stay alive. All it took was ineptitude on health care messaging and the President waiting until after Labor Day to put his expectations in a speech to invigorate the right to such an extent that Democrats are bargaining with themselves to dumb down any meaningful reform that can be built on, while Republicans run them around in “death panel” circles eliciting a spasm of uncoordinated reactions.

On a personal note, the conflict for me is that I never had any interest in seeing Obama weakened further (through the White House message ineptitude on health care), because there are bigger — that’s right — bigger issues waiting that matter more, in my estimation. The Middle East is a primary point of great concern for many of us, with Pres. Obama the first person to actually get what’s needed and understands how to talk tough to the Israelis on settlements. So, I’ve never been able to see the point of scuttling Obama on health care, because of what’s at stake if we screw up the Middle East this time around, which a loss on health care would make more probable. The right wing would take health care’s demise as a sign they can thwart Obama on any number of other issues, but especially on Israel and Palestinian peace, even as we crawl toward possible new talks.

Just don’t try to spin that the bill Democrats will pass is any sort of victory, let alone has any resemblance to health care “reform”.

Ezra Klein

The main disappointment is that insofar as you see the bill as a vehicle for moving us towards a better, more efficient, less costly system, there are some problems. In particular, this bill seems to block off a lot of its own possible points of expansion. The health insurance exchanges are limited to the state level, and appear to split the individual and small-group markets apart from each other. There’s no mention of a possible expansion toward larger employers, either. Similarly, the co-op plan is an interesting policy proposal, but unlike a public insurance option, it’s difficult to imagine it growing into anything significantly stronger than what’s outlined in the paper.

[...] As such, the failure is not so much in the bill as in its unwillingness to lay the groundwork for the bills that may need to succeed it.

What may come out of the Democratic Congress is stand alone legislation that moves things forward quite a bit but has no building blocks on which to continue the push towards universal health care. I’m also not sure about the cost containment issue either and neither is anyone else.

So, of course the Democrats will get a bill passed. It won’t be reform, because the one person with all the clout didn’t believe. That’s Pres. Obama.

The sad fact is that if the bill is bad enough, leaving far too much left undone, Pres. Obama could lose substantial support never to recover, no matter that he will be able to crow he was the first person to get something passed on health care since LBJ. So, just getting any bill at all will not be good enough, because he’ll pay later and whatever others of us hope for in the Middle East, as well as his team’s solid commitment to women around the world, will all pass away because he’s lost his clout.

Read John Aravosis. Read Digby.

This isn’t what I bargained for in a Democratic post Bush presidency.

The mediocrity coming from Pres. Obama and his team is mind numbing.

Read full story · Comments are closed

ABC News on Leaked Baucus Plan

By on 08 September 2009

Via Johnathan Karl and George Stephanopoulos give a “quick read” of it:

- By 2013, Americans would be required to have health insurance or pay a fine. Depending on income level, the fines could be as high as $3800 per family.

- Native Americans, the very poor and those with religious objections are exempt from this new mandate.

- There’s no mandate on companies to provide insurance to their employees.

- Health insurance companies bear a big share of the costs with two new taxes:

  • A $6 billion annual tax that will be divided among companies based on market share
  • A tax on so-called Cadillac plans; insurance plans valued at more than $8,000 for individuals or $21,000 for a family of four.

- Expansion of Medicaid to those up to 133 percent of the poverty level.

- Federal subsidies to help those up to 300 percent of the poverty level buy insurance

- No new government-run insurance program, aka “public option”

- As an alternative to the public option, the bill creates and funds non-profit “cooperatives” that will provide insurance coverage

- New regulations on insurance companies: e.g. Bans denial of coverage or higher rates b/c of pre-existing conditions. Insurance companies would still be allowed, however, to charge higher rates for smokers.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Elliott Abrams Pipes Up

By on 08 September 2009

[...] Most inaccurate of all, and most bizarre, is Carter’s claim that “a total freeze of settlement expansion is the key” to a peace agreement. Not a halt to terrorism, not the building of Palestinian institutions, not the rule of law in the West Bank, not the end of Hamas rule in Gaza — no, the sole “key” is Israeli settlements. – Elliott Abrams

It’s really difficult for me to take Mr. Abrams seriously when he continues to posit that the end of Hamas rule in Gaza is not only a prerequisite for equilibrium, but is remotely tied to Middle East reality. Taking on Jimmy Carter’s Sunday op-ed, Abrams goes all out. Wonder if Mr. Abrams remembers George W. Bush’s role in handing Hamas their mantle? Never mind that Abrams doesn’t deal with Pres. Obama’s recent “regrets” remarks on Netanyahu’s decision to approve more settlements.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s statement today that settlement freeze is a “national necessity” made Abrams look like an even bigger fool.

But the better question is why the Washington Post is using a convicted Iran-Contra neoconservative to rebut former Pres. Carter. Even considering I still blame Carter for giving me nowhere to go in 1980, his post presidency has been a Nobel Prize winning tour de force, starting with being one of the most public voices willing to tell truth to power on the Palestinians’ plight.

Meanwhile, Bibi’s boy Abrams gets some help from the WSJ who decides to push the panic button.

… Already, cracks are starting to show within his governing coalition, which includes staunchly pro-settler politicians alongside ministers from the more dovish Labor Party. At Monday’s pro-settler rally, convened at the site of a controversial proposed settlement outside Jerusalem, Minister of Infrastructure Uzi Landau publicly denounced the government’s steps to restrict building in the West Bank. Mr. Landau said he remained a loyal member of Mr. Netanyahu’s government, but warned the prime minister that “you can only pull the rope so far before it breaks.” [...]

Read full story · Comments are closed

Any Bill Will Do

By on 08 September 2009
szep_baucus

No, it won’t.

Democrats cannot accept a bill that would allow private insurers free reign and no competition. But that’s the way that is being prepared.

Matthew Yglesias offers a stunner of a post getting Max’s back.

[..] That said, I think a lot of the blog response to this proposal is overblown. There’s just no reason to think that the system envisioned by Baucus would be either a political or a substantive disaster. Instead, it would create something comparable to the situation that currently prevails in Switzerland or Massachusetts. Is that great? No, it’s not. Health care in Massachusetts is substantial worse than health care in any number of foreign countries. That said, the Massachusetts health care system is better than the health care system that exists in any other American state. Similarly, if it were up to me Switzerland is about the last country I would choose to emulate. In terms of excessive costs—spending that lines the pockets of medical providers with little real medical benefit—it’s worse that everyone except . . . the United States of America. And there’s the rub. The status quo in the United States is really bad. Baucus’ plan would make it better. …

Evidently some think anything and I do mean anything is better than nothing. That clearly is where Pres. Obama is headed, with many elite DC Dems no doubt ready to make that case, because for Obama and his Democratically controlled Congress to pass nothing is seen as the worst prospect. We got something passed. Yes, we did.

However, if Dems pass a health care bill that doesn’t actually reform health care, meaning no public option to keep costs contained, but also costs $900 billion, I fail to see how that’s going to enamor Democrats to the public who is lukewarm, at best, to Obamacare.

But the better than nothing plan seems clearly where Pres. Obama is headed. Oh, how I hope to be proved wrong.

While Blue Dem Mike Ross is giving Speaker Pelosi the middle finger, saying he will now oppose any bill with a public option. The screaming wingnuts made him do it.

Ross credited the August recess and his interactions with constituents with leading him to oppose the public plan, about which he had previously expressed a great deal of apprehension. [...] if House leadership presents a final bill that contains a government-run public option, I will oppose it.”

Read full story · Comments are closed

Afghanistan Report Stunning in Scope

By on 08 September 2009

Over at Politico, Laura Rozen offers the document outlining the U.S. strategy on Afghanistan, signed off on by U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry and Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of U.S. forces Afghanistan. Frankly, it’s frightening in scope. Nation building on steroids.

I’ve culled out the sections on women below, which is my focus and also what I believe is the second most important goal beyond what Obama campaigned on, which is keeping Afghanistan from becoming a failed state. Women are key to this goal in emerging states.

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT INTEGRATED CIVILIAN – MILITARY CAMPAIGN PLAN FOR SUPPORT TO AFGHANISTAN

Access to Justice –page 14–
Afghan access to fair, efficient and transparent justice in both state and traditional justice mechanisms is increased and Taliban influence on the informal system is reduced.

Background: Traditional dispute resolution mechanisms are integral to Afghan society. Imposed dispute resolution has been a core insurgent strategy. Some communities have been forced to accept “Taliban justice” to restore order or avoid violence and intimidation. In many areas, a governance void combined with corrupt and inept state justice institutions leaves communities with few alternatives for impartial justice. As security operations diminish Taliban influence, communities require respite from predatory corruption, ineffective policing, and increasing criminality. Women face even more daunting challenges getting access to justice.

Change Concept: Holistically improving police and state justice services at provincial and key district centers provides more effective access to justice (particularly for underserved individuals such as poor rural populations and women) and improves communities’ confidence in their government.

Priority Objectives 2009-2010: [...]

  • Formerly marginalized groups (women and physically challenged) are part of the political process.

Creating Sustainable Jobs: Address the immediate urban challenges of Kabul’s exponentially growing youth population through Cash for Work and small infrastructure programs by providing jobs for urban poor and addressing urban renewal/beautification. At the same time, private sector investment and development programs will be expanded to create sustainable jobs for multiple population segments, including women.

However, the horror of this new document is that it goes far beyond what Obama ever pledged. It’s simply stunning. I frankly don’t know how he sells it or if Congress should buy it, with his allies mostly on the Republican right, with a few feminist hawks like me barely hanging on, though after reading what is outlined I’m closer to removing my support than ever before.

Read full story · Comments are closed

WSJ Gets One Right

By on 08 September 2009
Leadership

It’s always interesting when Paul Gigot and his crew weigh in with their analysis on Democratic machinations. But you’ve got to give it to Mr. Gigot today, because he hits the mark on one point squarely.

… Mr. (David) Sirota is speaking for many on the movement left who believe they helped to elect Mr. Obama and therefore deserve seats at the inner table of power. They are increasingly frustrated because they are discovering that Mr. Obama will happily employ “movement progressives,” but only so long as their real views and motivations aren’t widely known or understood. How bitter it must be to discover that the Fox News Channel’s Glenn Beck, who drove the debate about Mr. Jones, counts for more at this White House than Mr. Sirota.

No one likes the taste of rising bile.

Or facing the reality that the president you helped elect has been caught kowtowing to the likes of wingnut huckster Glenn Beck.

However, on other points the WSJ misses it completely. If only Obama were “governing from the left,” as they claim, but that’s not it at all. In fact, the right has totally missed Obama’s real Achilles’ heel; that thing that’s hurting him so badly.

In the end, it’s the lack of leadership, stupid, though he’s taking another shot at it on Wednesday. But please forgive me if I think it’s rather late in the game to finally be proffering declaratives.

Instead, the President has been waiting for calls from Congress, smoke signals from Sen. Snowe, and hopeful signs that his staff has come up with some compromise that the Blue Dogs will buy, while checking his reviews with Independents who have left him with a double digit drop.

As someone said to me over the weekend, George W. Bush was an idiot, but he sure wasn’t afraid to stake out a course and shoot for it. He might have been wrong, but he was sure.

Right now Pres. Obama not only looks wrong, but his actions appear appallingly unsure.

One very astute Independent, someone who has followed politics for a very long time, summed it up bluntly: Obama is in over his head.

That can happen to anyone, including the most gifted, which Obama surely is. Especially when you don’t know where you’re going and you’re purposely distancing yourself with the people who really care if you succeed; believing you look stronger when your base is steaming.

If only Pres. Obama could please Glenn Beck.

Read full story · Comments are closed