One of the many depressing aspects of the health care "reform" process (more appropriately called the "preserve private health insurance profits" process) is the degree to which the patient is being blamed.
Republicans all but assert that Americans use too much health care because they don't pay directly for the services they get. To Republicans, there is no difference between buying health care and buying a car. Insurance company profits? Not an issue. The lack of true competition in most health insurance markets? Not a problem. Doctors ordering tests because they have a financial interest in the labs? Not a problem. No. American citizens are at fault.
But Democrats, too, blame the patient. We don't exercise enough. We don't eat right. We don't get regular checkups.
One can only conclude that Americans belong to a different species, that we are physically and psychologically distinct from Canadians, the British, the French, Scandinavians, the Japanese (who, BTW, visit doctors more often every year - an average of, if I recall the statistic properly, 17 times a year - than any other nationality), etc. all of whom live in countries where the average cost of health care as a share of GDP and per person is significantly less than it is in the good old U.S.A.
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Obama's School Speech: Hypocrisy on Both Sides
The whole brouhaha about Obama's speech to school children is depressing because there is so much hypocrisy on both sides.
The Democrats just "can't understand", it's a speech encouraging students to study and make the best of themselves, we should respect the office of the President even if we don't agree with the positions of the current inhabitant, etc. Now, I don't remember what happened when Reagan and Bush 41 gave similar speeches, but I am willing to bet that liberals didn't much like it and for pretty much the same reason that Republicans object to Obama's speech: because they didn't want their children exposed to the opinions of a President whom they opposed.
Now, Republicans are being quite upfront about why they have objected to the broadcast: they don't want their children being exposed to the opinions of a President whom they oppose. I heard one Republican today, African-American, who said it was an even worse offense from this President because he is so superbly literate, such a great orator! (He, I assume, wouldn't mind half so much if Obama were as incoherent as Bush 43). But, of course, I'm guessing that these same Republicans saw nothing wrong with the speeches by Reagan (also renowned as a superb orator) or Bush 41 and argued that one should show respect for the Office of the President.
Personally, as a Liberal, I'm opposed to all speeches by all Presidents, of any party, directly to school students because I do think it smells a little, admittedly a very, very little, of Big Brother. I might feel differently if, in all 3 cases, it had been the Secretary of Education giving the speech - but, then again, I really like our current Ed. Sec. and can't even remember who they were under Reagan and Bush 41 - so maybe I would have objected in any case.
The Democrats just "can't understand", it's a speech encouraging students to study and make the best of themselves, we should respect the office of the President even if we don't agree with the positions of the current inhabitant, etc. Now, I don't remember what happened when Reagan and Bush 41 gave similar speeches, but I am willing to bet that liberals didn't much like it and for pretty much the same reason that Republicans object to Obama's speech: because they didn't want their children exposed to the opinions of a President whom they opposed.
Now, Republicans are being quite upfront about why they have objected to the broadcast: they don't want their children being exposed to the opinions of a President whom they oppose. I heard one Republican today, African-American, who said it was an even worse offense from this President because he is so superbly literate, such a great orator! (He, I assume, wouldn't mind half so much if Obama were as incoherent as Bush 43). But, of course, I'm guessing that these same Republicans saw nothing wrong with the speeches by Reagan (also renowned as a superb orator) or Bush 41 and argued that one should show respect for the Office of the President.
Personally, as a Liberal, I'm opposed to all speeches by all Presidents, of any party, directly to school students because I do think it smells a little, admittedly a very, very little, of Big Brother. I might feel differently if, in all 3 cases, it had been the Secretary of Education giving the speech - but, then again, I really like our current Ed. Sec. and can't even remember who they were under Reagan and Bush 41 - so maybe I would have objected in any case.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Republicans - Inconsistency is a Tool for Killing Health Reform
One of the most interesting aspects of the Senate's Health Committee hearings on health reform is how Republicans argue all sides of the case in order to kill the bill.
For example: they spend a lot of time asserting that Medicare and Medicaid are monumental failures because they cost too much and because large percentages* of doctors refuse to accept Medicare or Medicaid patients. But, of course, if one increases how much the government pays providers under those two programs, the costs will only be higher. The Republican solution? Obviously, they want to kill Medicare but, during the hearings, the idea seems to be to move Medicaid recipients into the private market (the health care exchanges).
With respect to the health care exchanges, the Republicans are endlessly creative. They argue about who should be eligible for subsidies. One proposal, to move people at the 150% of poverty level to Medicaid, fails their smell test because, first, it is unfair to those who are at 151%** of the poverty level and because Medicaid is a failed system giving second-class care. But, of course, if the alternative is to provide subsidies to those people so they can buy health insurance from an exchange, the cost of the bill goes up. Which is unacceptable.
Then we come to penalties for individuals and companies who don't buy health insurance. The size of the penalties, of course, is a real issue. But, although Republicans admit that it has to be high enough to encourage both to buy health insurance rather than simply pay the penalty, they object to even small penalties ($750 per full-time employee) because they will discourage small businesses from hiring new employees and might even force them to fire employees. Obviously, setting an appropriate penalty is a key to mandates which are key to covering everybody. But Republicans know that if they kill the penalties or make them really small, lots of people and businesses will rationally choose to pay the penalty rather than buy health insurance and that will put an added burden on the system which could lead to its failure - which, of course, is what they want.
Another argument about small businesses came up today. Sen. Murkowski of Alaska proposed that "small business" be defined for the purpose of the bill not as a company with less than 25 employees but as one with 500 employees because that is what the SBA uses as the definition for a small business. Now most of us don't normally consider a 500-person company to be small. And I think it was Enzi, as usual, who pointed out how unfair it would be to the company that wanted to add another employee (from 500 to 501**) because the penalty or requirement to buy health insurance would then kick in. Now, remember, Republicans like our employer-provided health care system; they just don't want to penalize companies who choose not to provide health insurance, no matter what their size.
Paying for the system? Republicans have proposed amendments specifically prohibiting higher taxes or penalties or any other method that might be used to pay for the program in order to, according to them of course, keep Obama's promise not to raise taxes. Without these elements, the program becomes prohibitively expensive. So they could oppose the bill on the grounds that it will increase the deficit.
Republicans are sure that "free market competition" will solve the cost and access problems, but they object to letting the Secretary of HHS negotiate rates for a public plan. Why? Because it will inevitably lead to the Secretary's imposing reimbursement rates which is the problem with the Medi programs. Republicans worry a lot about what may happen in the future because "that's what always happens". One of their solutions is to set the rates of a public plan as an average of the rates in the state. That many states in the country have health insurance markets that are either monopolies or duopolies - where there is, in essence, no market pressure to reduce rates - is irrelevant.
And, of course, they oppose any kind of reimbursement system based on "best practices". So how do they expect to stop the huge annual growth in health care costs? Well, letting the "free market" work. I wish, just once, some Democrat would point out that we've always had a "free market" and it doesn't seem to have held down costs. (They might also point out that Republicans assured everybody back in the 1990s that HMOs would increase coverage and decrease costs.)
And, as usual, the Republicans continue to try to talk the bill to death. Yesterday, Coburn introduced an amendment to replace the entire bill that they have been arguing about for weeks. I think this must be at least the second or third time the Repubicans have tried this. And, each time, they argue their side for ages. (I've lost track of the number of Republican amendments that have consumed a full hour of debate each - and the number of amendments proposed and pending has reached, I think, somewhere into the 400s.) Obviously, a Democrat-controlled committee isn't going to junk a bill they've spent weeks on so the only reason for this kind of amendment is to prolong the process - past the August recess.
Indeed, I am baffled by the continuing efforts of Democrats to accept Republican amendments of any kind since they must know that they will not get a single Republican vote to move the bill from the committee to the floor. Is it possible that Democrats still just don't understand Republicans?
* - this committee, and, for that matter, the rest of the Congress, needs a CBO for statistics. Representatives and Senators on both sides of the aisle throw statistics around willy nilly, rarely providing a source. A lot of time, I suspect the stats come out of their own heads, based on their oh-so-good personal experience. I'm not sure it will help the Republicans who tend to ignore studies that contradict "what they know" (even after the CBO scored a revised bill as costing about 600 billion rather than 1.5 trillion, Republicans continued to use the latter number).
**Democrats can be really dumb. Whenever an issue comes up about what constitutes a small business, or what penalty makes sense, or the percent of poverty or whatever, a Republican will wax eloquent about the poor business or person who just misses the cutoff point (26 employees, 151% of poverty), etc. I keep waiting for some Democrat to point out that this happens whenever one uses a cutoff point for anything. Earning one more dollar in income can move a person from one tax bracket to another. Short of never using a cutoff point for anything, this lack of fairness is inevitable.
For example: they spend a lot of time asserting that Medicare and Medicaid are monumental failures because they cost too much and because large percentages* of doctors refuse to accept Medicare or Medicaid patients. But, of course, if one increases how much the government pays providers under those two programs, the costs will only be higher. The Republican solution? Obviously, they want to kill Medicare but, during the hearings, the idea seems to be to move Medicaid recipients into the private market (the health care exchanges).
With respect to the health care exchanges, the Republicans are endlessly creative. They argue about who should be eligible for subsidies. One proposal, to move people at the 150% of poverty level to Medicaid, fails their smell test because, first, it is unfair to those who are at 151%** of the poverty level and because Medicaid is a failed system giving second-class care. But, of course, if the alternative is to provide subsidies to those people so they can buy health insurance from an exchange, the cost of the bill goes up. Which is unacceptable.
Then we come to penalties for individuals and companies who don't buy health insurance. The size of the penalties, of course, is a real issue. But, although Republicans admit that it has to be high enough to encourage both to buy health insurance rather than simply pay the penalty, they object to even small penalties ($750 per full-time employee) because they will discourage small businesses from hiring new employees and might even force them to fire employees. Obviously, setting an appropriate penalty is a key to mandates which are key to covering everybody. But Republicans know that if they kill the penalties or make them really small, lots of people and businesses will rationally choose to pay the penalty rather than buy health insurance and that will put an added burden on the system which could lead to its failure - which, of course, is what they want.
Another argument about small businesses came up today. Sen. Murkowski of Alaska proposed that "small business" be defined for the purpose of the bill not as a company with less than 25 employees but as one with 500 employees because that is what the SBA uses as the definition for a small business. Now most of us don't normally consider a 500-person company to be small. And I think it was Enzi, as usual, who pointed out how unfair it would be to the company that wanted to add another employee (from 500 to 501**) because the penalty or requirement to buy health insurance would then kick in. Now, remember, Republicans like our employer-provided health care system; they just don't want to penalize companies who choose not to provide health insurance, no matter what their size.
Paying for the system? Republicans have proposed amendments specifically prohibiting higher taxes or penalties or any other method that might be used to pay for the program in order to, according to them of course, keep Obama's promise not to raise taxes. Without these elements, the program becomes prohibitively expensive. So they could oppose the bill on the grounds that it will increase the deficit.
Republicans are sure that "free market competition" will solve the cost and access problems, but they object to letting the Secretary of HHS negotiate rates for a public plan. Why? Because it will inevitably lead to the Secretary's imposing reimbursement rates which is the problem with the Medi programs. Republicans worry a lot about what may happen in the future because "that's what always happens". One of their solutions is to set the rates of a public plan as an average of the rates in the state. That many states in the country have health insurance markets that are either monopolies or duopolies - where there is, in essence, no market pressure to reduce rates - is irrelevant.
And, of course, they oppose any kind of reimbursement system based on "best practices". So how do they expect to stop the huge annual growth in health care costs? Well, letting the "free market" work. I wish, just once, some Democrat would point out that we've always had a "free market" and it doesn't seem to have held down costs. (They might also point out that Republicans assured everybody back in the 1990s that HMOs would increase coverage and decrease costs.)
And, as usual, the Republicans continue to try to talk the bill to death. Yesterday, Coburn introduced an amendment to replace the entire bill that they have been arguing about for weeks. I think this must be at least the second or third time the Repubicans have tried this. And, each time, they argue their side for ages. (I've lost track of the number of Republican amendments that have consumed a full hour of debate each - and the number of amendments proposed and pending has reached, I think, somewhere into the 400s.) Obviously, a Democrat-controlled committee isn't going to junk a bill they've spent weeks on so the only reason for this kind of amendment is to prolong the process - past the August recess.
Indeed, I am baffled by the continuing efforts of Democrats to accept Republican amendments of any kind since they must know that they will not get a single Republican vote to move the bill from the committee to the floor. Is it possible that Democrats still just don't understand Republicans?
* - this committee, and, for that matter, the rest of the Congress, needs a CBO for statistics. Representatives and Senators on both sides of the aisle throw statistics around willy nilly, rarely providing a source. A lot of time, I suspect the stats come out of their own heads, based on their oh-so-good personal experience. I'm not sure it will help the Republicans who tend to ignore studies that contradict "what they know" (even after the CBO scored a revised bill as costing about 600 billion rather than 1.5 trillion, Republicans continued to use the latter number).
**Democrats can be really dumb. Whenever an issue comes up about what constitutes a small business, or what penalty makes sense, or the percent of poverty or whatever, a Republican will wax eloquent about the poor business or person who just misses the cutoff point (26 employees, 151% of poverty), etc. I keep waiting for some Democrat to point out that this happens whenever one uses a cutoff point for anything. Earning one more dollar in income can move a person from one tax bracket to another. Short of never using a cutoff point for anything, this lack of fairness is inevitable.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Media Missing in Action: The Stimulus Package (If only the Democrats hadn't shut out Republicans)
I am sooooooooo tired of the endless whining by Republicans that they were shut out of the writing of the Stimulus Package and that, if they had been able to participate, it would have passed with overwhelming support of both parties. Bull.
But our useless media, of course (including NPR), continue to repeat this idiocy, to rail against Pelosi (who has become this decade's Hillary Clinton).
Now, I realize that these blow-dried, 6-figure media figures can't be expected to actually report on anything, but couldn't NBC or CNN or ABC hire an unemployed liberals arts graduate to watch C-SPAN? If they had, they would have learned that Republicans were involved. I watched the mark-up committee; I watched the arguments on the floors of both chambers.
Dozens (maybe a hundred or more)of amendments were offered by both parties. Most, but not all, of the Republican amendments were defeated. But a number of the tax cuts survived solely to garner Republican support - not that they did much good.
What proposal did Republicans think would gain bipartisan support? A $450 billion dollar bill focused almost solely on tax cuts.
The Republican amendments failed not because they were not allowed to participate but because they implemented Republican theories of government and spending. Republicans, it should be obvious to our dolts in the media, lost the election in Nov. 2009 by substantial majorities. They have no right to expect a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress to throw over Democratic principles in favor of Republican principles.
One wouldn't think that this simple fact should need to be pointed out to those self-defined experts on politics. Republicans lost. Lost. Lost. If they want to have some input, they have to be willing to step outside their hard-right ideological base. If they don't, they cannot expect Democrats to move right to join them. That is what elections are about.
To quote Republicans after 2000: get over it.
But our useless media, of course (including NPR), continue to repeat this idiocy, to rail against Pelosi (who has become this decade's Hillary Clinton).
Now, I realize that these blow-dried, 6-figure media figures can't be expected to actually report on anything, but couldn't NBC or CNN or ABC hire an unemployed liberals arts graduate to watch C-SPAN? If they had, they would have learned that Republicans were involved. I watched the mark-up committee; I watched the arguments on the floors of both chambers.
Dozens (maybe a hundred or more)of amendments were offered by both parties. Most, but not all, of the Republican amendments were defeated. But a number of the tax cuts survived solely to garner Republican support - not that they did much good.
What proposal did Republicans think would gain bipartisan support? A $450 billion dollar bill focused almost solely on tax cuts.
The Republican amendments failed not because they were not allowed to participate but because they implemented Republican theories of government and spending. Republicans, it should be obvious to our dolts in the media, lost the election in Nov. 2009 by substantial majorities. They have no right to expect a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress to throw over Democratic principles in favor of Republican principles.
One wouldn't think that this simple fact should need to be pointed out to those self-defined experts on politics. Republicans lost. Lost. Lost. If they want to have some input, they have to be willing to step outside their hard-right ideological base. If they don't, they cannot expect Democrats to move right to join them. That is what elections are about.
To quote Republicans after 2000: get over it.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Sen. Corker - Very Effective and Very Dangerous: My Way or the Highway
1. Corker will run for President.
2. He has proven himself to be incredibly effective as a politician, both in getting what he wants and in putting a positive spin on it. If only Reid had half his skill, the Democratic minority, and majority, might actually have accomplished something these past years. But Conservative commitment to their goals remains much stronger than Democratic commitments to their values. And Ron Gettelfinger is vastly outgunned and out maneuvered by Corker and, quite frankly, does not know how to sell his case. (He continually talks in generalities rather than in the specifics that would strengthen his case).
3. What makes him effective? He clothes his ideological rigidity in a combination of southern charm and seeming reasonableness.
4. What did Corker do that was so effective? First, he put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the UAW by insisting that only 3 words stood between success and failure. And to him, of course, those 3 words were reasonable. He also lied in his news conference, something easy to do because our media don't bother to watch C-SPAN. In the interview I saw on C-SPAN, he insisted that "any date certain" would have been fine. On the floor, he insisted on a date in 2009. In the caucus, apparently, he had insisted on Mar. 31, 2009. And it was "parity" not "competitive" that I heard on the floor. It didn't occur to any of his interviewers to suggest that if it was "only 3 words", he could have ceded. After all, that's what bargaining is: give and take. There were, to him, three key provisions. The UAW accepted the others. But 2 out of 3 wasn't good enough. So Corker essentially told the UAW that "it's my way or the highway", and he sold it in such a way that nobody realized that he, not the UAW, was even more guilty of refusing to bend.
Corker and his fellow Southern Senators made clear during the hearings, which I also watched on C-SPAN ( again, something that nobody at CNN or MSNBC or NBC apparently ever thinks to do)), that they opposed bailouts in general and this one in particular. Corker was forceful in his opinion that Chrysler was just waiting to be bought (rather obviously true) and that GM was doomed to fail. Give him credit for being one of the few Senators/Reps. in the hearings who realized that Ford did not need a loan but simply a line of credit and, then, only in case the recession was even worse than anticipated or one of the other companies failed.
I suspect that those "3 words" were added specifically so the Republicans could torpedo the legislation and blame it on the UAW. And Corker has pretty much succeeded in both objectives. Which is why he is somebody that Democrats should both fear and emulate.
What else was Corker able to do? He was able to laugh at the idea of a "Car Czar" while at the same time taking upon himself the role of a "Car Czar" and a bankruptcy judge. Corker turned himself into judge and jury. He alone understands the reality and he alone knows the solutions. For a man who, at other times, argues strongly against Government micro-management of business (esp. when it comes to environmental matters), that is exactly what he did. And our useless media, of course, let him get away with it.
One last thing: he managed to hide the fact that his plan required GM and Chrysler to prove their viability in 3 months. Given the state of the economy, that is incredibly unrealistic. It was just another way to ensure that GM and Chrysler would fail - and the failure would be seen to be theirs alone, not something helped along the way by the Southern Republicans.
2. He has proven himself to be incredibly effective as a politician, both in getting what he wants and in putting a positive spin on it. If only Reid had half his skill, the Democratic minority, and majority, might actually have accomplished something these past years. But Conservative commitment to their goals remains much stronger than Democratic commitments to their values. And Ron Gettelfinger is vastly outgunned and out maneuvered by Corker and, quite frankly, does not know how to sell his case. (He continually talks in generalities rather than in the specifics that would strengthen his case).
3. What makes him effective? He clothes his ideological rigidity in a combination of southern charm and seeming reasonableness.
4. What did Corker do that was so effective? First, he put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the UAW by insisting that only 3 words stood between success and failure. And to him, of course, those 3 words were reasonable. He also lied in his news conference, something easy to do because our media don't bother to watch C-SPAN. In the interview I saw on C-SPAN, he insisted that "any date certain" would have been fine. On the floor, he insisted on a date in 2009. In the caucus, apparently, he had insisted on Mar. 31, 2009. And it was "parity" not "competitive" that I heard on the floor. It didn't occur to any of his interviewers to suggest that if it was "only 3 words", he could have ceded. After all, that's what bargaining is: give and take. There were, to him, three key provisions. The UAW accepted the others. But 2 out of 3 wasn't good enough. So Corker essentially told the UAW that "it's my way or the highway", and he sold it in such a way that nobody realized that he, not the UAW, was even more guilty of refusing to bend.
Corker and his fellow Southern Senators made clear during the hearings, which I also watched on C-SPAN ( again, something that nobody at CNN or MSNBC or NBC apparently ever thinks to do)), that they opposed bailouts in general and this one in particular. Corker was forceful in his opinion that Chrysler was just waiting to be bought (rather obviously true) and that GM was doomed to fail. Give him credit for being one of the few Senators/Reps. in the hearings who realized that Ford did not need a loan but simply a line of credit and, then, only in case the recession was even worse than anticipated or one of the other companies failed.
I suspect that those "3 words" were added specifically so the Republicans could torpedo the legislation and blame it on the UAW. And Corker has pretty much succeeded in both objectives. Which is why he is somebody that Democrats should both fear and emulate.
What else was Corker able to do? He was able to laugh at the idea of a "Car Czar" while at the same time taking upon himself the role of a "Car Czar" and a bankruptcy judge. Corker turned himself into judge and jury. He alone understands the reality and he alone knows the solutions. For a man who, at other times, argues strongly against Government micro-management of business (esp. when it comes to environmental matters), that is exactly what he did. And our useless media, of course, let him get away with it.
One last thing: he managed to hide the fact that his plan required GM and Chrysler to prove their viability in 3 months. Given the state of the economy, that is incredibly unrealistic. It was just another way to ensure that GM and Chrysler would fail - and the failure would be seen to be theirs alone, not something helped along the way by the Southern Republicans.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
The Economic Crisis - A Republican Plot?
If I were a conspiracy addict, I'd believe that this entire economic crisis was devised by Republicans. Why?
Well, simple. Just as in 1990, knowing they would lose the Presidency, the Republicans have made sure that the economy would be in such a mess, and the deficit so huge, that even a Democratic President with a Democratic Congress would be unable to implement any of the traditional Democratic policies - not that Obama or Pelosi or Reid has any interest in them anyways.
So, Obama will get the blame for the recession that may last into 2010 - close enough to Congressional elections to give the Republicans a solid chance at winning back one or both Houses. And the strategy will probably succeed.
Well, simple. Just as in 1990, knowing they would lose the Presidency, the Republicans have made sure that the economy would be in such a mess, and the deficit so huge, that even a Democratic President with a Democratic Congress would be unable to implement any of the traditional Democratic policies - not that Obama or Pelosi or Reid has any interest in them anyways.
So, Obama will get the blame for the recession that may last into 2010 - close enough to Congressional elections to give the Republicans a solid chance at winning back one or both Houses. And the strategy will probably succeed.
What's the Difference Between a Republican and a Democrat? Convictions
Watching John McCain and Sarah Palin mouth the same old Republican platitudes (low taxes, government is bad, etc., etc.) at a time when most of the people in the country know it is just those principles which got us into this mess, has made me aware yet again of the strength of Conservative convictions and the weakeness of Liberal ones.
Obama can barely bear to mention the word Democrat. His campaign is all about him. He panders to the Right, not even to the center. He is all "soft": both parties are at fault, we have to come together, etc., etc. Why? Well, partly of course, it's because he has no political convictions, but mainly because he cares only about what he has to do to win.
Unfortunately, this describes most Democrats today. Republicans (Conservatives) stuck to their principles throughout the reigns of FDR, Truman, Kennedy and LBJ. Their mantra of personal responsibility (social Darwinism), low taxes, no government regulation (except, of course, when it comes to morality), and the supremacy of the free market has never changed.
We can see this in the McCain/Palin campaign. At a time when McCain needed to reach out to Independents and disaffected Democrats, he chose possibly the least qualified and most conservative Republican woman candidate around because she would appeal to the Right Wing base of the Party. He, himself, has given up any pretense to being a maverick. He continues to sell himself as a Bush Republican, but a Bush Republican who will actually govern as a Republican.
The Democrats, OTOH, after the Vietnam War seemed to completely lose their way. Not only did they stop promoting Democratic (Liberal) values, they stopped defending them. Even Bill Clinton campaigned and governed mainly as Republican Lite. (Hillary, OTOH, is much closer to the FDR, RFK ideal.)
Today we have Obama, Pelosi, Reid, etc. all bowing to the Conservatives, begging for their support, doing everything they can to avoid creating controversy, least they be accused of being Liberals.
What I don't understand is why. Why do Conservatives never lose faith in their principles, no matter how much reality differs from fact while Liberals caved in at their first major loss (to Reagan)?
Obama can barely bear to mention the word Democrat. His campaign is all about him. He panders to the Right, not even to the center. He is all "soft": both parties are at fault, we have to come together, etc., etc. Why? Well, partly of course, it's because he has no political convictions, but mainly because he cares only about what he has to do to win.
Unfortunately, this describes most Democrats today. Republicans (Conservatives) stuck to their principles throughout the reigns of FDR, Truman, Kennedy and LBJ. Their mantra of personal responsibility (social Darwinism), low taxes, no government regulation (except, of course, when it comes to morality), and the supremacy of the free market has never changed.
We can see this in the McCain/Palin campaign. At a time when McCain needed to reach out to Independents and disaffected Democrats, he chose possibly the least qualified and most conservative Republican woman candidate around because she would appeal to the Right Wing base of the Party. He, himself, has given up any pretense to being a maverick. He continues to sell himself as a Bush Republican, but a Bush Republican who will actually govern as a Republican.
The Democrats, OTOH, after the Vietnam War seemed to completely lose their way. Not only did they stop promoting Democratic (Liberal) values, they stopped defending them. Even Bill Clinton campaigned and governed mainly as Republican Lite. (Hillary, OTOH, is much closer to the FDR, RFK ideal.)
Today we have Obama, Pelosi, Reid, etc. all bowing to the Conservatives, begging for their support, doing everything they can to avoid creating controversy, least they be accused of being Liberals.
What I don't understand is why. Why do Conservatives never lose faith in their principles, no matter how much reality differs from fact while Liberals caved in at their first major loss (to Reagan)?
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
The Democratic Race: Who's the Real Establishment Candidate?
Hillary is, among other things, widely characterized as the old-style, liberal Democratic candidate because she is supported by labor (horrors), older women (horrors of horrors), high-school graduates (what could be worse?) - none of whom, of course, have any right to a candidate whom they think will represent them. And, we should not forget, she is Bill's wife, was First Lady and is now a Senator.
Obama, OTOH, is the fresh new face. Young people like him. African-Americans like him. The highly educated like him. And, oh yes, he has endorsements from Sen. Ted Kennedy (who must feel pleased to know that he is not part of the Establishment) and John Kerry (ditto). He also has the support of most of the netroots who have expended enough energy repeating right-wing, neo-con, Republican slurs against Hillary to, surely, power an entire city.
Oh, and let us not forget: the MSM love Obama. They don't even bother to try to restrain their enthusiasm. Indeed, they have already crowned him our next President. Even Andrew Sullivan, self-styled saviour of the Conservative movement in America, loves him.
Anybody supported by such a motley mix is surely worthy of more than a little skepticism. He's such a blank slate that everybody from the far left to the far right, excepting those in the middle, sees in him what they want to see.
So, it looks to me as if the "change" guy is really the old-style pol who is careful not to offend anybody and who wins by slandering his opponent...and rolling in the dollars from the Democratic establishment.
Obama, OTOH, is the fresh new face. Young people like him. African-Americans like him. The highly educated like him. And, oh yes, he has endorsements from Sen. Ted Kennedy (who must feel pleased to know that he is not part of the Establishment) and John Kerry (ditto). He also has the support of most of the netroots who have expended enough energy repeating right-wing, neo-con, Republican slurs against Hillary to, surely, power an entire city.
Oh, and let us not forget: the MSM love Obama. They don't even bother to try to restrain their enthusiasm. Indeed, they have already crowned him our next President. Even Andrew Sullivan, self-styled saviour of the Conservative movement in America, loves him.
Anybody supported by such a motley mix is surely worthy of more than a little skepticism. He's such a blank slate that everybody from the far left to the far right, excepting those in the middle, sees in him what they want to see.
So, it looks to me as if the "change" guy is really the old-style pol who is careful not to offend anybody and who wins by slandering his opponent...and rolling in the dollars from the Democratic establishment.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Democratic Debate - June 3, 2007 High Points
First, the moderator: Blitzer could have gotten in at least a few more questions if he had taken the time before the debate to thoroughly prepare his questions and had practiced stating them as succinctly and briefly as possible. And, as usual with these debates, he wasted valuable time on ridiculous questions, such as what each of the candidates would do with Bill Clinton.
So far, none of the moderators has focused in on, forcing responses from all the candidates, the questions that matter most to me: what would they do about Gitmo and the wholesale assault on civil liberties in this country: torture, habeas corpus, the Geneva Conventions?
Nevertheless, a couple of the candidates did mention these important issues.
Edwards was correct in calling the "War on Terror" a bumper sticker slogan:
In response to a question about The Patriot Act, Kucinich was eloquent:
In response to a different, and later, question about genocide in Dafur, Obama made a point that should be central to every Democratic campaign speech:
Gov. Richardson, in response to the same issue, said what I want to hear from every candidate - but he was cut off by Blitzer who didn't have the sense to take this opportunity to get responses from the other candidates:
On health care, Edwards was the most honest when it came to the cost of overhauling the health care system:
I think it is way past time for Democrats to tell the American people that they can't expect something for nothing, and for Republicans to admit that they support tax cuts not in order to leave more money in people's pockets but because they want to starve the federal government in order to close down all of the government programs, which means just about everything except Defense, that they oppose. The reason Republicans don't do this, of course, is because they know they couldn't get elected dog catcher if they were honest about all the programs they want to shut down.
Senator Dodd surprised me by mentioning some key statistics that every Democrat should quote when Republicans start spouting off about our having the best health care system in the world:
But, on health care, Kucinich wins. A single-payer system (which, Republicans to the contrary notwithstanding, is not the same thing as socialized medicine) is the only one that makes financial sense:
On gays in the military, I was surprised to find, on reading the transcripts, that the Democrats support not just ending "don't ask, don't tell" but on ending discrimination against gays in the military:
Senator Clinton:
Senator Biden was both brief and inspired in his response:
And on gay marriage, Edwards cut to the core of the issue:
I think the state and federal governments should get out of the "marriage" business altogether: They should limit themselves to authorizing civil unions, regardless of the gender of the partners. Marriage should be a religious act , not a civil act. (In Latin America, a distinction between a civil wedding and a marriage por la iglesia has long been observed.)
Blitzer's dumbest question, about Bill Clinton, elicited the best response from Gov. Richardson:
On global warming, we didn't get a lot of heat or light, but Edwards gets points for stating the obvious:
One day I wish Republicans would should as much concern about corporate welfare as about social welfare policies.
Biden gave the best response on Iran:
Kucinich raised an important point about how bad policies can boomerang:
LOW POINTS
As is true of all of these debates, there was a lot of bloviating and too little specificity. One should not expect Presidential candidates to answer hypothetical questions such as "under what circumstances would you bomb Iran", but I think every candidate for President should have well-considered plans about the tax system, health care, government priorities, etc.
The moderator and the during-and-after-debate pundits were also, as usual, the ones most deserving of outright disdain with their emphasis on who "won", who looked "presidential", what this did to their various chances, etc. I don't think I heard a single comment on something substantive.
June 3, 2007 Democratic Debate Transcript
So far, none of the moderators has focused in on, forcing responses from all the candidates, the questions that matter most to me: what would they do about Gitmo and the wholesale assault on civil liberties in this country: torture, habeas corpus, the Geneva Conventions?
Nevertheless, a couple of the candidates did mention these important issues.
Edwards was correct in calling the "War on Terror" a bumper sticker slogan:
I reject this bumper sticker, Wolf. And that's exactly what it is. It's a bumper sticker.
As president of the United States, I will do absolutely everything to find terrorists where they are, to stop them before they can do harm to us, before they can do harm to America or to its allies.
Every tool available -- military alliances, intelligence -- I will use.
But what this global war on terror bumper sticker -- political slogan, that's all it is, all it's ever been -- was intended to do was for George Bush to use it to justify everything he does: the ongoing war in Iraq, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, spying on Americans, torture.
None of those things are OK. They are not the United States of America.
In response to a question about The Patriot Act, Kucinich was eloquent:
Benjamin Franklin once said that those who would give up their essential liberties to achieve a sense of security deserve neither.
The Patriot Act has undermined civil rights in this country. And as president of the United States, one of my first acts in office will be to move forward to have the Justice Department overturn the Patriot Act as unconstitutional.
We have to remember that 9/11 led us down a cul de sac. Americans need to reconnect with our deepest sense of self here, Wolf. We have to remember that, you know, the courage that it took to form this country is still within us.
And I want to have what I call the 9/10 forum to recreate -- help us reconnect with the deeper sense of who we are as Americans.
In response to a different, and later, question about genocide in Dafur, Obama made a point that should be central to every Democratic campaign speech:
Second point, our legitimacy is reduced when we've got a Guantanamo that is open, when we suspend habeas corpus. Those kinds of things erode our moral claims that we are acting on behalf of broader universal principles, and that's one of the reasons why those kinds of issues are so important.
Gov. Richardson, in response to the same issue, said what I want to hear from every candidate - but he was cut off by Blitzer who didn't have the sense to take this opportunity to get responses from the other candidates:
We should shut down -- I would as first day as president, I would shut down Guantanamo. I would shut down Abu Ghraib and secret prisons. That is the moral authority that we don't have...
On health care, Edwards was the most honest when it came to the cost of overhauling the health care system:
Let me say, first, I think it's a very healthy thing that we have Democrats coming out with health care plans. This country's health care system is completely dysfunctional. I am proud of the fact that I was the first person to come out with a specific, truly universal health care plan.
Senator Obama came out with a plan just a few days ago, which I don't believe is completely universal, but he deserves to be credited because he laid out what the cost is, and exactly how he was going to pay for it.
I do believe that -- and by the way, you didn't say this, but my plan costs $90 billion to $120 billion a year.
I'd pay for it by getting rid of Bush's tax cuts for people who make over $200,000 a year.
And I believe you cannot cover everybody in America, create a more efficient health care system, cover the cracks, you know, getting rid of things like pre-existing conditions and making sure that mental health is treated the same as physical health, I don't think you can do all those things for nothing. That's not the truth.
And I think people have been so sick of listening to politicians who come and say, "We're going to give you universal health care. We're going to change the way we use energy in America. We're going to strengthen the middle class, have middle class tax cuts, and, in the process, we're going to eliminate the federal deficit."
I think it is way past time for Democrats to tell the American people that they can't expect something for nothing, and for Republicans to admit that they support tax cuts not in order to leave more money in people's pockets but because they want to starve the federal government in order to close down all of the government programs, which means just about everything except Defense, that they oppose. The reason Republicans don't do this, of course, is because they know they couldn't get elected dog catcher if they were honest about all the programs they want to shut down.
Senator Dodd surprised me by mentioning some key statistics that every Democrat should quote when Republicans start spouting off about our having the best health care system in the world:
Well, listen, this is a -- there's not a person in this audience or who's watching this program who wouldn't tell you that they've encountered the problems of the health care system in this country.Senator Obama touched on the primary problem with health insurance strategies that rely on forcing everybody to buy some kind of insurance:
It is shameful. We rank 42nd in infant mortality in the United States worldwide. We rank 45th in life expectancy.
It is shameful that in the 21st century we have 47 million of our fellow citizens without health care coverage; 9 million children. And the number's growing every single day.
Look, as we've said here, there's basic agreement about universality here, dealing with information technology, preventive care, chronic illnesses -- what's been missing in all of this is the ability to bring people together to get the job done.
... But on this issue of mandatory versus nonmandatory (OFF-MIKE) going around trying to avoid buying health care coverage. And, in fact, if you look at auto insurance, in California, there's mandatory auto insurance -- 25 percent of the folks don't have it. The reason is because they can't afford it.
But, on health care, Kucinich wins. A single-payer system (which, Republicans to the contrary notwithstanding, is not the same thing as socialized medicine) is the only one that makes financial sense:
I reject this whole approach.
And the American people should know that with half the bankruptcies in the country connected to people not being able to pay their doctor bills or hospital bills, premiums, co-pays and deductibles are going so far through the roof, 46 million Americans with no health care, another 50 million underinsured, there is only one way to get health care coverage for all Americans.
And that is to have a universal, single-payer, not-for-profit health care system, Medicare for all.
Wolf, I have written the bill. It is H.R. 676, with John Conyers, supported by 14,000 physicians.
On gays in the military, I was surprised to find, on reading the transcripts, that the Democrats support not just ending "don't ask, don't tell" but on ending discrimination against gays in the military:
Senator Clinton:
And yet I have watched how "don't ask/don't tell" has been implemented. And I've concluded that it is not the best way for us as a nation to proceed.
It has been in many instances implemented in a discriminatory manner. You know, after the first Gulf War there was a big flood of discharges of gays and lesbians because they let them serve and then after they finished the war, then they discharged them.
In this particular time period, we've had Arabic linguists discharged under "don't ask/don't tell" when we are unfortunately so short of having people who speak the very language that our men and women in uniform have to understand in the streets of Baghdad.
So I believe we could change the policy to let gays and lesbians serve in the military and be covered by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
So just like those who are not gays and lesbians, if there were conduct problems, then the conduct problems we looked at. But people would not be judged on who they are.
Senator Biden was both brief and inspired in his response:
Peter Pace is flat wrong. I've been to Afghanistan, I've been to Iraq seven times, I've been in the Balkans, I've been in these foxholes with these kids, literally in bunkers with them.
Let me tell you something: Nobody asked anybody else whether they're gay in those holes, those foxholes, number one.
Number two, our allies, the British, the French, all our major allies, gays openly serve.
I don't know the last time an American soldier said to a backup from a Brit, "Hey, by the way, let me check, are you gay, you straight?"
This is ridiculous.
And by the way, we got a war on our hands we're trying to end. In the meantime, we're breaking the military. Nine thousand of these people have been kicked out.
And on gay marriage, Edwards cut to the core of the issue:
I don't think the federal government has a role in telling either states or religious institutions, churches, what marriages they can bless and can't bless. I think the state of New Hampshire ought to be able to make that decision for itself, like every other state in the country. I think every church ought to be able to make that decision for itself.
And I think it's very important that we stand up against intolerance and against discrimination.
I think the state and federal governments should get out of the "marriage" business altogether: They should limit themselves to authorizing civil unions, regardless of the gender of the partners. Marriage should be a religious act , not a civil act. (In Latin America, a distinction between a civil wedding and a marriage por la iglesia has long been observed.)
Blitzer's dumbest question, about Bill Clinton, elicited the best response from Gov. Richardson:
Well, the ideal job for President Clinton would be secretary general of the United States. But that's probably not doable.
On global warming, we didn't get a lot of heat or light, but Edwards gets points for stating the obvious:
But in the short term, can America finally stop spending $3 billion a year of taxpayers' money subsidizing oil and gas companies that already make billions of dollars? That's what we ought to be doing.
One day I wish Republicans would should as much concern about corporate welfare as about social welfare policies.
Biden gave the best response on Iran:
Well, first of all, I would do away with the policy of regime change. What we're saying to everybody in Iran is: Look, by the way, give up the one thing that keeps us from attacking you and after that we're going to attack you, we're going to take you down.Most of the MSM appears never to have heard or, at least, learned from the saying "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me". Having not just been burned but scourged on the issue of Iraq and WMDs, most pundits are nonetheless confident that the government is telling the truth this time about Iran.
It's a bizarre notion, number one.
Number two, understand how weak Iran is. They are not a year away or two years away. They are a decade away from being able to weaponize with exactly what the question was, if they put a nuclear weapon on top of a missile that can strike. They are far away from that.
Number three, in fact, we have to understand how weak that government is. They import almost all of their refined oil. By 2014, they are going to be importing their crude oil. There are much better ways if we had to get to the point of real sanctions of doing economic sanctions on them forcefully that way. But at the end of the day, if they posed a missile, stuck it on a pad, I'd take it out.
Kucinich raised an important point about how bad policies can boomerang:
I don't think that a president of the United States who believes in peace and who wants to create peace in the world is going to be using assassination as a tool.
Because when you do that, it comes back at your country. And I think that Osama bin Laden, if he's still alive, ought to be held to account in an international court of law. And so should any other person who's been involved in a violation of international law which has resulted in the deaths of many people.
And so, I think that an America which has a strong stand morally in the world is an America that shows a way to get to peace. And an America that stands for peace is a strong country. So I would say to answer that question, I don't believe in assassination politics, and when you do that, you inevitably bring the assassination of our own leaders into play.
LOW POINTS
As is true of all of these debates, there was a lot of bloviating and too little specificity. One should not expect Presidential candidates to answer hypothetical questions such as "under what circumstances would you bomb Iran", but I think every candidate for President should have well-considered plans about the tax system, health care, government priorities, etc.
The moderator and the during-and-after-debate pundits were also, as usual, the ones most deserving of outright disdain with their emphasis on who "won", who looked "presidential", what this did to their various chances, etc. I don't think I heard a single comment on something substantive.
June 3, 2007 Democratic Debate Transcript
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
