Hullabaloo

Saturday, October 10, 2009

 
An Armed Citizenry

by digby

Some Republican official in Florida says:

"As long as we have the second amendment, that's what keeps the government dealing with us. That's what gives us the right to freedom of speech that's what gives us the right to freedom to assemble, because the government knows the bottom line is that we are an armed citizenry."



Really? Being armed is what makes the government deal with us and "gives us" our inalienable rights? Because if that's the case, I'd better load up on tanks, aircraft carriers and nuclear bombs because from where I sit the government has me seriously outgunned.


Update: BTW, does anyone think it's a great idea to arm that senior citizen in the video who's shooting willy nilly and saying "I don't know what I'm doing!" I'm sure we'll need the manpower when the revulushun comes and all, but maybe they could assign her to the rear and have her knit flags or something. The idea of her running around with a gun is more than a little bit unnerving.

.
digby 10/10/2009 09:00:00 AM |

Friday, October 09, 2009

 
Thanks For All The Fish

by dday

Just offering a last goodbye. I'll be sure to let you know when we have a URL firmed up over at FDL.

See you in the 'sphere.


Update: By digby

Good luck and congratulations.

Your contribution to this blog has been immeasurable and I'll miss you greatly. This place won't be the same without you. But we'll all be reading you in your new digs I'm sure, so the pain of separation shouldn't be too great.

Come back and see us anytime!

digby


.
dday 10/09/2009 09:30:00 PM |

 
Knowledge Worker

by digby

Grayson has been all over the TV today saying a lot of typically smart quotable things about the Nobel Prize and health care. But I think his statement on Afghanistan from a couple of days ago was exceptional, mostly because it showcased his personal familiarity with the country, which is so rare among our leaders you wonder if they can even find it on a map. (In fact, Alan Grayson has been just about everywhere on the planet and can evidently speak in great detail about nearly any country you can mention.)

Howie Klein is another world traveler of epic proportions has also spent time in Afghanistan and writes this:

In 1969 I drove to Afghanistan. Between then and 1972 I spent over half a year there, and never spent one single day in a hotel. Traveling from London, through then still-Communist nations like Hungary and Bulgaria, then through Turkey and Iran and into Herat, the most important component doesn't feel like mileage, but time. Sure, I traveled in space; but what seemed far more profound was a trip back in time. Afghanistan was like being in the 11th Century, not the turn of the 20th. And I noticed immediately that the people there don't recognize a country called "Afghanistan." In Herat and Kandahar, respectively the 3rd and 2nd biggest towns, there was resentment towards the "central government" as a pretension-- backed by foreign military equipment-- of Kabul, the biggest town and what foreigners insist is the capital of "the country."

The only part of the discussion of Afghan policy more awkwardly missing from the calculations that there is no Afghanistan, is that all the men there-- yes, all of them-- are stoned all day, every day on the strongest hash (much of it opiated) on God's earth. I know West Point was just named the best college in America by Fortune but do they teach them that stuff there?

I doubt it. I'm sure they get a whole lot of drivel about hearts and minds and Lone Superpower and the like.

Anyway, Grayson's comments, which were made during a panel on Afghanistan at a screening of Brave New Films' Rethinking Afghanistan were along those very same lines and are well worth thinking about as we begin to debate how to go forward (or backward) on the war. You can see the Youtube and read the transcript of his remarks at DownWithTyranny.

As dday noted earlier today, David Obey, at least, seems to be thinking along these same lines. Let's hope the rest of the leadership is as well.


.
digby 10/09/2009 07:00:00 PM |

 
In Case You Missed It

by digby

... the Senate Judiciary Committee voted yesterday to make the Patriot Act even worse. Hairdressers and manicurists everywhere beware. You are now suspected terrorists and the government has the right to target you without due process. But don't worry, it's not all bad.

Here's Marcy:

Remember how last week I used the hypothetical example of using Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act to get records on people who had bought hydrogen peroxide and acetone?

I'm going to make a wildarsed guess and suggest that the Federal Government is doing a nationwide search to find out everyone who is buying large amounts of certain kinds of beauty products. And those people are likely now under investigation as potential terrorism suspects.

Well, two different Senators used, essentially, the same hypothetical today (albeit in context of National Security Letters).

[...]

I'm not certain, but I think they'd have to use Section 215 rather than NSLs for this purpose.

So while Kyl assures us that they're not searching everyone in the country buying hydrogen peroxide, it appears very very very likely they are searching some subset of the country for their beauty, home improvement, and cleaning supplies.

Well that's good. If you don't fit their profile, whatever that is, you have nothing to worry about.


.
digby 10/09/2009 05:30:00 PM |

 
Mean And Cruel

by digby

Here's another reason why Republicans don't win the Nobel Peace Prize. I received this note from one of my readers:

I'm VERY upset, I see where Senator Kyl of Arizona has put a stop to the fast track extension of the unemployment benefits...I wrote him an email even though I'm from Florida and thank god he's not my senator....however I see no coverage on this at all. This is a terrible situation for so many people. Jobs aren't available even though I continue to send my resume out and look for any sort of employment. I'm a single mom trying to make ends meet and put food on the table....it's really not possible without some help. I've recently applied for food stamps for the first time ever, yet that takes some time...and it doesn't pay the water or light bill. Any delaying the extension of unemployment benefits is very upsetting and scary.

Here's the story:

Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) can expect a lot of hate mail soon. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) tried to accelerate the usual lengthy process in order to take a quick vote on proposed bill H.R. 3548 to give federal unemployment benefits extension to all 50 states but Kyl halted his efforts, calling for more time to consider the bill and possibly add amendments to it. Kyl did this despite my warning to the contrary.

This means that the bill has no chance of a vote this week, as Senate Dems had indicated was likely, but rather the earliest can pass is next week. So for the thousands whose benefits will run out soon, let alone those whose benefits have already run out, you have Jon Kyl to thank for not getting this extension passed sooner.

Here's more:

As Congress debates the measure, 400,000 people ran out of benefits in September and another 208,000 are set to lose them this month, according to the National Employment Law Project. Some 1.4 million people will stop receiving checks by year's end if Congress doesn't act, according to the employment law project.

Evidently, Kyl is worried that undeserving people are receiving benefits. So 600,000 people have to suffer. Typical Republican.

His phone numbers are here if you'd like to give him a buzz and tell him what you think of his compassionate conservatism.


.
digby 10/09/2009 04:30:00 PM |

 
The British Get It

by tristero

Earlier today, I made what I thought were utterly uncontroversial statements: (1) It's a rotten idea to serve your kids Nutella on toast for breakfast every day and (2) Nutella's commercial urging parents to do so because they can scam their kids into eating "multi-grain toast" is misleading and despicable.

And as usual, some commenters leapt to defend Big Food. We learned from them that sugar and fat are good for you. But that's not the problem. The problem is, obviously grossly excessive sugar and fat consumption that is the problem with a daily dose of Nutella on toast for breakfast followed, again quite obviously, any reasonable diet you care to imagine.

Bottom line: you care about your kids? Don't feed them Nutella and toast every day for breakfast. Are you rushed for time and Nutella and toast is the only thing you have time to prepare? Well, ok, but don't pretend you're giving them something "healthier" than pop tarts because you're not. Merely because you can prepare a potentially less-nutritious breakfast choice than Nutella and toast does not make Nutella and toast "better." It just means you're kidding yourself. It also means you're still not feeding your kid a decent breakfast. If you do it every day... well, that's my point. Again: if you care about your kids, don't feed them Nutella and toast every day for breakfast.

Please don't blame me for pointing out, again, something that is patently obvious. If, as one commenter says, you have only 90 seconds to prepare breakfast, that doesn't mean Nutella on toast is a responsible solution to your time problem. You still haven't fed your kids a decent breakfast even if you replaced the [insert here the least nutritious breakfast you can think of here] when you did so. It is not "better."

Which brings us to the Nutella advertising campaign. Turns out I'm not alone in feeling they are being cynically misleading in associating Nutella with healthy eating. Britain banned a Nutella ad, and they were right. There were three complaints made. Two were dismissed but the third one stuck.

[The Advertising Standards Association] said the ad implied Nutella made a "more significant nutritional contribution to a balanced breakfast than was the case".

The ASA added that in the context of claims for the nutritional benefits of a balanced breakfast Nutella had only mentioned hazelnuts, skimmed milk and cocoa powder.

This created "the overall impression that Nutella made a significant contribution to a balanced breakfast".

The ASA said that only small quantities of sugar and fat were recommended as part of a balanced diet and the ad was misleading, and therefore should not be shown again, because Nutella had a high sugar and fat content.

tristero 10/09/2009 03:00:00 PM |

 
Costs

by dday

Here's something you don't see everyday - a member of Congress asking to fiscally quantify endless war:

“There are some fundamental questions that I would ask of those who are suggesting that we follow a long term counterinsurgency strategy:

1. As an Appropriator I must ask, what will that policy cost and how will we pay for it? We are now in the middle of a fundamental debate over reforming our healthcare system. The President has indicated that it must cost less than $900 billion over ten years and be fully paid for. The Congressional Budget Office has had four committees twisting themselves into knots in order to fit healthcare reform into that limit. CBO is earnestly measuring the cost of each competing healthcare plan. Shouldn’t it be asked to do the same thing with respect to Afghanistan? If we add 40,000 troops and recognize the need for a sustained 10 year or longer commitment, as the architects of this plan tell us we do, the military costs alone would be over $800 billion. And unlike the demands that are being made of the healthcare alternatives that they be deficit neutral, we’ve heard no such demand with respect to Afghanistan. I would ask how much will this entire effort cost, when you add in civilian costs and costs in Pakistan? And how would that impact the budget?

Warmongers have had the great luxury in this country of never having to justify their costs. Not just the human costs, but the real financial costs to constant military buildup. The usual retort is that you can't put a price on human lives. If that was the case, there would be no requirement for budget neutrality in health care reform, something that could save as many as 45,000 lives annually - the people who die from a lack of health insurance.

Rep. Obey's full remarks are well worth reading - he makes all the points about the futility of nation-building in a country without a partner in the government, the danger of angering local populations with a heavier occupying footprint, the fantasyland strategy of bringing democracy to Afghanistan, the need for an achievable policy, the potential for the war to crowd out any other Presidential agenda item. But I wanted to highlight this part because it's so alien to the contemporary political debate. It's certainly nothing you'd ever hear coming from the mouths of one of the fiscal scolds. The Pentagon budget, the budget for perpetual war, is inviolable and somehow magic - it doesn't create deficits, it doesn't produce burdens on long-term spending, it is never "at risk of going bankrupt." David Obey at least is trying to change that misimpression.

Some insider leaked the idea that the top-level troop request is actually 60,000, in an effort to make the 40,000 number seem like the middle course. Maybe they can write down on paper how much that would cost. And do it in a ten-year budget window to make sure the costs are inflated as possible.


.
dday 10/09/2009 01:24:00 PM |

 
Lest You Wonder

by dday

...why a Democratic President received the Nobel Peace Prize essentially for not being a Republican.

South Florida Republicans held a weekly meeting at a gun range, shooting at targets including cut-outs of a Muslim holding a rocket-propelled grenade launcher.

The GOP candidate to replace U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz fired at a full-body silhouette with "DWS" written next to its head.

The conservative movement treats politics like warfare, warfare like a video game, and actually participating in war with a shrug and a retreat to their gated community.


.
dday 10/09/2009 11:00:00 AM |

 
Hmmmm

by digby

I guess this Nobel Peace Prize is more about intentions than accomplishments, although the symbolism of the first African American ascending to the presidency is a sign of peaceful progress in America to be sure. But if that was part of the reasoning, I wouldn 't get my hopes up too much. Adele Stan at Alternet has begun documenting some of the atrocities:

John Bolton, Bush's former U.N. ambassador, told The National Review that Obama should decline the award (a move that would probably not play so well on the world stage):

“The Nobel committee is preaching at Americans, but they won’t be deceived,” says Bolton. “He should decline it and then ask to be considered again in three or four years when he has a record.”

“I was nominated three years ago and I’m still waiting for the call,” laughs Bolton. “Today’s news is just another demonstration of how politicized the Nobel Peace Prize has become, from President Carter winning in 2002, to Al Gore in 2007, and President Obama in 2009."

"When the award was given to President Carter, the chairman of the committee said that it was a 'kick in the leg' to the Bush administration," recalls Bolton. "This is yet another 'kick in the leg' for the Bush administration."

Then there are those who simply can't accept that a black man won the Nobel. Here's Erick Erickson at Red State:

I did not realize the Nobel Peace Prize had an affirmative action quota for it, but that is the only thing I can think of for this news. There is no way Barack Obama earned it in the nominations period

Back at the National Review Online, blogger Andrew Stuttaford, riffing on the internet craze of mocking American culture and just about anything through the character of Adolf Hitler at the time of his downfall, trots out a Hitler metaphor:

How Long Can It Be . . .

. . . before we see another Downfall rewording, this time with Hitler shocked and disappointed that he didn't win the Nobel Prize?

(And no, this is not a cunning attempt to compare the president to the Fuhrer . . .)

At ResistNet, home to the Fringy McFringers of the Tea Party movement -- gun nuts, birthers, and more Hitler analogists who apparently form the base of the Republican Party -- a discussion board takes on the topic of whether Obama's Nobel is proof that he is actually the anti-Christ. (ResistNet is a project of Grassfire, an astroturfing outfit with friends in high places -- like the U.S. Congress. Senator Jim DeMint and Rep. Mike Pence are Grassfire boosters.)

Reply by Herbert L Ring Jr

While taking my youngest granddaughter to the bus stop this morning @ 7:30, an announcement came over the radio that literally had me shaking. The announcer said "PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS JUST AWARDED THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE". Can someone please tell me how one man can have so many believeing every word he says? Lately I have been watching the History Channel who's subject has been centering on the ANTICHRIST. Go to their archives, people, and watch what the experts are saying. Then tell me what your opinion is about Mr Obama relative to that subject. It's not just an issue that the people of the United States were mesmerized by his talk, it appears now that the world has fallen for it. If never before, we MUST rise up and be stronger than ever

The Peace Prize has not been kind to conservatives in recent years and they are in a continual state of sputtering outrage about it. But maybe that's because they are so violent.


Update: Media Matters is also documenting the reactions. Wow. And watch this: "Rooting Against America: Nobel Prize Edition:"




Update: What Shayera said.

.
digby 10/09/2009 10:00:00 AM |

 
Have The Democrats Found Their Vocal Cords?

by tristero

Of course not, Grayson's not one of the party's top honchos, but the question's at least thinkable:

"Madame Speaker, I have words for Democrats and Republicans tonight."

"Let's start with the Democrats"

"We as a party have spent the last six months, the greatest minds in our party, dwelling on the question, the unbelievably consuming question of how to get Olympia Snowe to vote on health care reform. I want to remind us all that Olympia Snowe was not elected President last year. Olympia Snowe has no veto power in the Senate. Olympia Snowe represents a state with one half of one percent of America's population."

"What America wants is health care reform. America doesn't care if it gets 51 votes in the Senate or 60 votes in the Senate or 83 votes in the Senate, in fact America doesn't even care about that, it doesn't care about that at all. What America cares about is this; there are over 1 million Americans who go broke every single year trying to pay their health care bills. America cares a lot about that. America cares about the fact that there are 44,780 Americans who die every single year on account of not having health care, that's 122 every day. America sure cares a lot about that. America cares about the fact that if you have a pre-existing condition, even if you have health insurance, it's not covered. America cares about that a lot. America cares about the fact that you can get all the health care you need as long as you don't need any. America cares about that a lot. But America does not care about procedures, processes, personalities, America doesn't care about that at all."

"So we have to remember that as Democrats, we have to remember that what's at stake here is life and death, enormous amounts of money, and people are counting upon us to move ahead. America understands what's good for America. America cares about health care, America cares about jobs, America cares about education, about energy independance, America does not care about processes politicians or personalities or anything like that."

"And I have a few words for my Republican friends tonight as well. I guess I do have some Republican friends."

"Let me say this; last week I held up this report here and I pointed out that in America there are 44,789 Americans that die every year according to this Harvard report published in this peer reviewed journal because they have no health insurance. That's an extra 44,789 Americans who die who's lives could be saved, and their response was to ask me for an apology."

"To ask me for an apology?"

"That's right. To ask ME for an apology!"

"Well, I'm telling you this; I will not apologize. I will not apologize. I will not apologize for a simple reason; America doesn't care about your feelings. I violated no rules by pulling this report to America's attention, I think a lot of people didn't know about it beforehand. But America DOES care about health care in America."

"And if you're against it, then get out of the way. Just get out of the way. You can lead, you can follow or you can get out of the way. And I'm telling you now to get out of the way."

"America understands that there is one party in this country that is in favor of health care reform and one party that is against it, and they know why."

"They understand that if Barack Obama were somehow able to cure hunger in the world the Republicans would blame him for overpopulation"

"They understand that if Barack Obama could somehow bring about world peace they would blame him for destroying the defense industry."

"In fact, they understand that if Barack Obama has a BLT sandwich tommorrow for lunch, they will try to ban bacon."

"But that's not what America wants, America wants solutions to its problems and that begins with health care, and that's what I'm speaking for tonight."

Yep, that's exactly the right kind of rhetoric, angry, but if you've been following the madness of so-called moderates like Grassley, well-measured and proportional to the provocation. Brimming with well-deserved contempt of Republican behavior and ridicule for their "positions." A refusal to back down and apologize in the face of fake outrage, and an appeal over Republican heads directly to the people they pretend to represent.

Democrats need to do this more often. A lot more.

UPDATE: Will you look at that! Looks like Grayson's not alone. It's too early for me to say I stand corrected on the emergence from decades of hiding of the Democrats' vocal cords, but if this continues, I just may have to:

The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists — the Taliban and Hamas this morning — in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize. Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize — an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride — unless of course you are the Republican Party. The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It’s no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore – it’s an embarrassing label to claim.

tristero 10/09/2009 08:30:00 AM |

 
Nutella Does Not A Healthy Breakfast Make

by tristero

I know, I know, Obama won the Nobel and all you wanna do is talk about fucking Nutella? Sure, why not? What's there to say about the Nobel? He deserves it? Of course, he does. He doesn't deserve it? Of course, he doesn't. The award is driving the lunatics into apoplectic fits? Yes, that's very good to hear. That about covers it, as far as I can tell. Now, let's talk Nutella!

The great food policy blogger Jill Richardson tells a tale about her stint working the pastry counter beat at Whole Foods. Customers would come up to her and ask if the desserts were "healthy." Jill, to their great disappointment, would reply that no, they weren't.

The false notion that a food is healthy simply because it uses ingredients of a certain level of quality is unbelievably widespread. My 13-year-old daughter loves organic lemonade and thinks it's good for her. Um...well, it tastes good, that's for sure (although Dad makes better). But lemonade - organic, inorganic, fair-trade, harvested entirely from lemons that fell off the tree, or whatever - has tons of sugar and can in no way be considered a healthy drink.

(Of course, that's no reason to avoid lemonade if you like it. But it's a damn good reason not to drink it every day.)

This bogus association of quality ingredients with health is no accident. Far from it. It's aided and abetted by the food biz. Courtesy of Mark Bittman's blog, Leora Broydo Vestel tells us about the latest absurd attempt to rebrand a sweet non-healthy treat as good for you, ie, as part of a healthy diet. The product? That's right: Nutella! Who knew? Here's the text of their latest ad, making an incredibly bizarre argument for serving kids a regular dose of a treat and calling it a nutritious breakfast :

“As a mom, I’m a great believer in Nutella, a delicious hazelnut spread that I use to get my kids to eat healthy foods. I spread a little on all kinds of healthy things, like multi-grain toast. Every jar has wholesome, quality ingredients, like hazelnuts, skim milk, and a hint of delicious cocoa. And Nutella has no artificial colors or preservatives. It’s quick. It’s easy. And at breakfast, I can use all the help I can get.”

No. It doesn't work like that. If you put Nutella on a piece of multi-grain toast, it doesn't magically transform this delicious snack into a healthy breakfast. From a health standpoint, it simply adds lots of calories, fat, and sugar to a piece of toast.

Let's say this very clearly, for the benefit of conservatives and others with severe cognitive impairments: I'm the last person to advocate "eating for health." I eat stuff because it tastes good. Why anyone would eat something because "it's good for you" is a genuine puzzle - it sounds creepy to me. That doesn't mean I'm pro-garbage, of course, or that I think we should eat an unbalanced diet. I'm simply saying that I have no sympathy for food Puritans. I eat the way I do not to improve myself or my health but for a far more important reason: sheer enjoyment. And so... I really like Nutella, it's delicious. But it is not health food. It is a treat. Sure, smear it on some bread for your kids for a special occasion, they'll love it. But don't kid yourself into thinking you're doing them any favors by serving it for breakfast every morning, for crissakes! The only favors you're doing are for the good folks who own Nutella who, most likely, are using your hard-earned cash to provide their children with a really decent breakfast, one that doesn't include regular servings of, you guessed it, Nutella.

Cue the defenders of Big Food to argue that because Americans eat so incredibly poorly, it actually is better to eat the stuff on toast every morning than to mainline Nutella straight out of the jar. Nope. It's not better, unless by "better" you mean "absolutely, totally awful for you to eat frequently, except that probably there's even worse ways you can eat it." That's not what most of us mean by "better," but that is what the food biz wants us to think it means. (Cue long, pointless discussions of what "better" really means, complete with genuinely fascinating observations on the etymology of the word and less fascinating, but nevertheless still amusingly harsh criticism of tristero for contradicting himself (I didn't, read it again), for advocating food fascism (ditto), and for failing to understand the nuances of the phrase "on a continuum" (nope). As if any of that will change the simple fact that giving your kids Nutella for breakfast on a regular basis is a rotten idea.)

You want better? How about Coconut Oat Pilaf? Now, that's a real breakfast of champions! It tastes totally awesome, it's a snap to prepare, and you can make enough to last a week in 30 minutes or so. Think your kids won't go for it? That's cool, there are plenty of decent alternatives you can find to serve them as a regular breakfast. But whichever way you slice it, which ever multitudinous grains you happen to have in that slice, Nutella on toast is not one of them.

tristero 10/09/2009 06:07:00 AM |

Thursday, October 08, 2009

 
Enough Time

by digby

Joe Conason says it's time for the media to fess up.

I won't hold my breath.


.
digby 10/08/2009 08:30:00 PM |

 
Opting For 60

by digby

Everybody's been talking about an "opt-out" public option trial balloon being floated in the senate. As I understand it, it would automatically provide a public option but would allow the leadership of any state to tell their constituents that they can't have one. Sucks for the people in their states who need it, but perhaps these leaders will react as the Republicans did during the stimulus and squeal and squawk about how they won't cooperate --- and then cooperate. Who knows?

I think this is mainly an attempt to get a public option that could garner 60 votes, so they can break the inevitable Republican filibuster. The thinking goes that if both Houses don't go into the conference with a public option they are far less likely to come out with one. The bridge is just too far. So, they need to get to get the best public option they can get in the Senate.

This opt-out clause is the latest attempt to coerce the recalcitrant corporate Dems to vote with their party. And it got some high profile liberal support today:

Dean: If I Were A Senator I'd Vote For Opt-Out Public Option

One of the most respected progressive voices on health care reform said on Thursday that he could live with and even support a compromise to the public plan that would grant states the right to reject the option entirely.

Former DNC Chair Howard Dean told the Huffington Post that the "opt-out" compromise that is being discussed by Senate Democrats was not his ideal conception of what a health care overhaul should be. But he granted that the proposal would produce "real reform" and said that, if there were no other vehicle for getting a bill through the Senate, he would support it.

"If I were a member of the U.S Senate I wouldn't vote for the [Senate Finance Committee] bill but I would vote for this," Dean said, "not because it is necessarily the right thing to do but because it gets us to a better conversation about what we need to do."

In a brief telephone interview, Dean stressed repeatedly that his preference remained, far and away, a national public option that was available to anyone -- regardless of state -- from the day of its conception. But in a wholly political context, he acknowledged, adding the opt-out option to the bill might be the best and only way to get something through the Senate.

"I would like to see that come out of the Senate because it is a real public plan," he said of the opt-out compromise. "Then they can negotiate it [with the House] in conference committee... And if this passes I won't say it is not reform because it is reform."

"If this is what it takes to get 60 votes I say go for it," said Dean

One of the loudest proponents of a national public option, Dean's support for an opt-out provision -- however qualified -- is sure to have ripple effects on Capitol Hill. Currently a group of Democratic senators, led by Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), are discussing the opt-out as a means of bridging the divide between progressive members of the caucus (who demand a public plan in the final product) and conservatives in the party (who are worried about the effect a government-run insurance provider would have on private markets). Dean's remarks on the compromise provision could help Schumer and company help bridge that divide, though the former Vermont governor himself predicted that conservative members would still fight it.

Keep in mind that whatever comes out of the conference will probably be at least somewhat different than what we've seen going in. So this is still part of the negotiation process not the final word by any means. And I'm not sure it serves the final process for the netroots to get too invested in anything other than strong support for the public option such as that which was passed in the HELP committee.

But the fact that Dean endorsed this is meaningful since he's been the staunchest voice in the media for the public option. We'll see if it moves this along.


Update: After Obama's HC speech last month, I noted this:

Jonathan Cohn has a rundown on the news Obama made in the speech. I can't speak to the policy importance of these new elements, but on a political level, this seems very smart to me:

A promise to provide low-cost, bare-bones policies right away--merely as a stopgap, until full reforms kick in.

This could be huge because it will get a lot of people under some kind of coverage immediately and, combined with the insurance reforms, may show enough people some benefits right away so the rest of the plan can kick in before the Republicans can demagogue their way back into office.

Dean has been talking about this problem too, and his solution is even better:

To address that problem, Dean said Democrats need to do something that will have tangible results by next summer. His proposal: opening up Medicare to people over the age of 50 so that a "certain mass" of people will already have benefited from health reform by the elections. "You need to have people sign up for this program by July 2010," Dean said.

I've heard this before but it never seems to go anywhere. I'd be first in line to sign up for that plan. Even if it is eventually phased out it would be worth doing right now. The people my age --- and they are a huge group --- are in real trouble with the current economic mess --- lost their retirement nest eggs, their property values are in the dirt and their health care costs are insane. This would be very, very helpful.



.
digby 10/08/2009 06:00:00 PM |

 
No Dollars For Oil

by digby

You may remember that among the million and one reasons why we may have "really" gone into Iraq was this one, embraced mostly by alleged conspiracy theorists and silly leftists who thought that the invasion might have something to do with oil and the dollar:

October 30, 2000
Web posted at: 8:45 PM EST (0145 GMT)

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) -- A U.N. panel on Monday approved Iraq's plan to receive oil-export payments in Europe's single currency after Baghdad decided to move the start date back a week.

Members of the Security Council's Iraqi sanctions committee said the panel's chairman, Dutch Ambassador Peter van Walsum, would inform U.N. officials on Tuesday of the decision to allow Iraq to receive payments in euros, rather than dollars.

Today, there is a lot of chatter about this:

In the most profound financial change in recent Middle East history, Gulf Arabs are planning – along with China, Russia, Japan and France – to end dollar dealings for oil, moving instead to a basket of currencies including the Japanese yen and Chinese yuan, the euro, gold and a new, unified currency planned for nations in the Gulf Co-operation Council, including Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Qatar.

Secret meetings have already been held by finance ministers and central bank governors in Russia, China, Japan and Brazil to work on the scheme, which will mean that oil will no longer be priced in dollars.

Nobody knows for sure that this is happening, but if it is, it's a profound change, and one that may have simply been put off by our little six year adventure in the middle east.

Ian Welsh unpacks what this would mean for all of us over at C&L. Shorter Ian: for a lot of reasons, "it will hurt."


.
digby 10/08/2009 04:30:00 PM |

 
This Is the Smooth-Sailing Bill

by dday

Barron YoungSmith (I'll admit to the name irking me) reports on President Obama's student loan reform, one of the most no-brainer bills of all time, but one which has been stymied for decades by business interests wanting to cash their corporate welfare checks:

Last month, taking cues from Obama, the House of Representatives passed the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, which would alter the way the government funds Pell Grants and other student loans. Under the current system, the government gives banks huge subsidies to encourage them to lend to students. Effectively, this means the government is bribing banks to extend student loans by handing them money and letting them cream huge profits off the top. It is a vast waste of taxpayer money, since Uncle Sam could accomplish exactly the same thing by cutting out the middleman and lending directly to students [...]

The next hurdle is the Senate, where Tom Harkin's HELP Committee plans to introduce a student loan bill as soon as it's cleared some *ahem* backlog on health care reform. It looks as if Harkin's committee will introduce a bill that, like the House version, hews very closely to President Obama's proposals as well. And, since the bill is moving through the notorious budget reconciliation process instead of the normal legislative track--a decision made by Obama's allies who want to increase the likelihood of passage--it will pass through no other committees, save the quiescent Budget Committee, and it will not face the threat of a filibuster.

Game over? Not quite. In a testament to the sway that student lenders exercise over the Senate, it's not clear that Democrats have the 51 votes necessary to pass the bill in its current form. Ben Nelson, the staunch friend of lending companies, is against it--as are Blanche Lincoln, Mark Begich, Jeff Bingaman, and Tom Udall. And Senators Bob Casey, Arlen Specter, Bill Nelson, Mark Warner, Jim Webb, and Mary Landrieu are all said to be wavering because their states contain student loan companies. Many are searching for a way to keep lending companies involved in the process--an anguished Senator Casey even held a field congressional hearing in Philadephia this week, hoping to clarify his thoughts on the issue--and they'll be tempted to back some of the numerous pro-lender amendments that will be offered once the bill is open for floor debate. (Even in the House, Democrats couldn't prevent a mass revolt until they watered down the legislation by exempting existing state-based non-profit lenders from subsidy cuts.)

It's insane that there would be eleven lawmakers TOTAL opposed to something this obvious, let alone 11 Democrats. It's a pure bank subsidy with no reason to exist whatsoever. There's no argument to be made other than "let's give the banks we bailed out even more free taxpayer money." And yet, I count eleven Senators up there wavering, despite the fact that this bill would create the largest benefit to students in history and cement Democratic gains among young people, while saving the government money. With college costs rising we're on the verge of not having a higher education system in this country, at least not one for anyone but the super-rich. Even this bill, which would expand Pell Grants with all the savings from no longer subsidizing banks to make student loans, would fall short of keeping pace with costs (although they would index an increase to inflation).

But that's the way it in in this corporatocracy. Really, if we can't do this, Congress might as well pack it in and go home for a couple years to do some soul-searching.


.
dday 10/08/2009 03:00:00 PM |

 
Tell Us What You Really Think

by digby

In case you were wondering what the local Republican officials think of politics these days, a plucky academic sent out a questionnaire asking them. It's just fascinating, fascinating stuff. Here's just one example:

Gene Edwards writes:

1) So long as it's in the opposition, where should the Republican Party focus its energy?

Protecting personal liberties. Cleaning out corruption, both parties, in DC.


2) What is the most worrisome part of Barack Obama's presidency?

His plan to fundamentally change the US as we know it and as it was envisioned by our founders. His contempt for the constitution.

3) There's been a lot of debate about the role that talk radio and cable news hosts should play on the right. Particularly controversial are Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Mark Levin. What do you think about these folks? Do they help the right or hurt it (or is it more complicated than that?) How should Republicans interact with them?

It is certainly more complicated with that. However, most of these men are critical in getting the conservative word out to the public. Hannity wears me out quickly, same shit over and over. I’ve tried, but can’t listen to Levin; the constant Libertarian stuff also wears me out. I watch O’Reilly, agree with about half of what he says, but he is certainly not a leading conservative or Republican. Only NY and DC would think he is a Republican. Limbaugh has been a conservative voice for a long. I don’t listen to him anymore, but I appreciate the fact that he is out there keeping people stirred up and informed. Beck is really something else. He has struck a nerve with people who are fed up with Washington and corruption. I probably agree with 75% of his views. He alone is responsible for the groundswell of conservative, patriotic resistance that will kick the liberals’ asses in 2010. He is a little scary, but God bless him.

4) One particularly fraught controversy pertains to race in America -- with the first black president in the White House, some conservatives have been criticized as racists for opposing him, and some on the right have accused the Obama Administration or its allies of racism or anti-white sentiments (for example, Sonja Sottomayor's "wise Latina" comment drew fire, as did the Skip Gates incident). As the right thinks about political strategy and policy, how should it approach matters of race?

Obama is all about race. He campaigned on bringing the country together, but his entire focus is on race. He wants payback. I am a Republican county chair, but I don’t feel like a Republican and haven’t since the beginning of Bush’s second term. I’m just smart enough to know that you can’t change anything as an independent. You have to work within the system to make a difference. I often feel very lonely in the RPT because I don’t support litmus test. I’ve even been accused of not being Christian enough, but I’ll keep up the good fight. I hate everything about Obama except his race; I could care less what his race is. I despise him for what he is doing to this country. I’ve been to tea parties; and if you think those people are right wing nuts, you haven’t been to a tea party. There are the expected fringe people, but 95% are citizens concerned about their liberties and the future of the country. Obama and the liberals should fear them; they are not going away.

5) Is there anything you observe locally, or that Republicans in your area of the country care about, that doesn't get sufficient attention in the national media conversation? If so tell me a bit about the issue, and the approach you think the right ought to take.

Most of the issues I hear about are covered daily on FOX, but probably not the so-called main stream media. I can tell you that Obama is the best advertisement I have had since I got involved in 1999. People are calling, emailing and stopping me on the street to ask what they can do to take the country back. I have known Democrats contributing the $25 to join the party because they know we are working for the same causes they are concerned about.

6) Traditionally the Republican Party has been a coalition of religious conservatives, libertarians, fiscal conservatives, and national security conservatives. Is that alliance viable going forward? If so, what must be done to hold it together? If not, what alliance should the GOP try to build?

The alliance is the same, and it will remain so. The Christian coalition controls the RPT. I am very much a Christian, but I do battle with them at every convention – I always loose. Bush, Cornyn, and others tried to sell us on compassionate conservatism, but we didn’t buy it. Cornyn is still pushing it, but we still aren’t buying it. Trying to sell the fact that illegals are actually God fearing family people like us, and we should woo them to the Republican party doesn’t sell. I wish that were true, but we realize they are only illegal Democrats.

7) Is there anything I didn't ask about that you'd like the media or the country as a whole to know?

We are here; we are no longer silent; and we intend to take the country back. Washington, NY, Chicago, the east coast, the left coast and liberals in general think we are just a bunch of gun toting goobers from Texas. I may resemble that remark because I am always armed and extremely dangerous to anyone wanting to do my family, friends, or me harm. I am also an MBA, a retired Special Forces officer and a successful self-employed businessman. There are many of us. We are coming. Watch out for us. We mean business.

I probably didn’t give you what you were really looking for, but this is what I see, hear and interact with every day. The Republican brand is broken, but conservatives will bond together to defeat the liberal who are trying to change the US into Europe. I lived in Europe for 12 years. I love Europe, but this is America – the home of the individualist, the entrepreneur, the risk takers, the self-made man. I can’t imagine why anyone would want to change us into Europe.

I urge you to read all of them. (It starts with the 20th respondant and goes backwards.) I think they probably pretty well reflect the grassroots sentiment of the activist members of the GOP.


Update: Be sure to read this one. It pretty much says it all.

.
digby 10/08/2009 01:30:00 PM |

 
Counting Coups

by digby

So today the famous Floyd Brown, (now of World Net Daily) makes the first call for Obama's impeachment. I wonder what took him so long?

And last week we had a Newsmax columnist calling for a military coup. Newsmax took it down after being called on it, but it turns out that this wasn't a one-off outlier. Jonathan Schwarz noted in an email to me that there has been quite a bit of this at the teabagger rallies:



It puts this in a whole different light, doesn't it?

Six House members on Friday sent a letter to the president of the Honduran Congress warning that the Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and his travel delegation to Honduras do not represent the views of the White House or Congress, but are mere members of the “minority party.”

“We understand that you received visitors from our Congress who represent the minority party, the Republican Party, who have expressed views that differ markedly from those of President Obama’s administration and the Democratic Majority in the U.S. Congress,” they wrote.

DeMint’s trip to Honduras has drawn fire from Democrats, who are concerned because of his position on the government coup. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry blocked his mission this week. But the trip was then approved by Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)

(It sheds a light on this too, now that I think about it.)

This seems like crazy fringe stuff, I know. But during the Clinton years these wild ideas all started on the fringe and then became mainstream when the Republicans took the congress. Congressman Bob Barr actually called for an official House impeachment inquiry before the Lewinsky affair was revealed.

It's highly unlikely that events will follow the same course, but it's worth keeping an eye on. And needless to say, this throwing around the idea of a military coup is exceedingly dangerous. With that teabagger sentiment running the way it is, DeMint going down to Honduras and declaring his own position is contrary to the US Government's official position and that the coup was a legitimate constitutional function of the Honduran government should be something that gives everyone pause. This stuff is right in their wheelhouse.


.
digby 10/08/2009 12:00:00 PM |

 
Second Thoughts

by digby

I don't think the Republicans can possibly do a U-turn on health care reform at this late date, especially after they've ginned up their crazies over the specter of death panels and the like, but it did occur to me that by hauling out the elders, Dole, Frist etc, they might be making a play to get back in the game. After all, their biggest failure was actually proving to the White House that there was no chance in hell that they would ever vote for a bill, thus taking all bipartisan cover away from Obama and making him negotiate only within his own party.

It was truly a big mistake because the Republicans' best hope is a health care reform bill that doesn't work. And without them involved in the negotiations to ensure that it will be a clusterfuck of epic proportions, it might just end up working despite the Dem corporate lackeys' best efforts. After all, even the Senate Democrats are now talking about what kind of public option to have, not whether to have one at all.

If the Republicans were still on the field, the Dems wouldn't go near there for fear of blowing the whole thing up at this late date. And Obama probably wanted a bipartisan bill more than anything in the whole world. After all, his real raison d'etre is to "change the way Washington works." If they would have thought clearly (and controlled Boss Limbaugh) they would have kept just enough skin in the game to screw up the legislation in just the right ways that it would fail perfectly, thus ensuring a big win for them. There's nothing they like more than to see Americans suffer and blaming it on the government.

I think it's too late now, but the bizarre emergence of Frist especially, with his coached, yet incoherent style, makes me think there might be some move to restore the bipartisan vision. But the Republican Party no longer venerates its elders. It's not a conservative party anymore. It's the party of Glenn Beck. And Dole and Frist are among those responsible for creating that monster.


Update: Looks like they're going to give it the old college try now that the death of the public option turns out to have been wildly overstated. Good luck with that.



h/t to Sleon

.
digby 10/08/2009 10:30:00 AM |

 
Independents

by digby

I was listening to all the gasbags drone on all day yesterday about how the "independents" are all unhappy with Obama and are probably going to vote for the Republicans again when just a couple of years ago they were all unhappy with Bush and voted with the Democrats. This was interpreted as a signal that Obama needs to tack right immediately to recapture them.

Does that make sense? Isn't the answer more logically that independents just habitually dislike whoever is in power and think that both parties are incompetent? Why else would they identify as independents in the first place?

I realize that the villagers think there is some sort of "median" moderate voter who believes that the answer to all of our problems lies somewhere between the positions of the two parties. But that's not necessarily the independent's position. They don't like either party true, but it doesn't necessarily follow that they yearn to split the difference. In fact, I suspect that a large number of them are apolitical people who don't really understand politics at all and simply reject whoever is in power when things aren't going well, without regard to party. (In fact, there is great social utility in rejecting party politics and proclaiming yourself unhappy with the whole set-up. Who can't relate to that on some level?) Many independents ideologically fall far enough outside the two parties that they can't consider themselves members of either --- libertarians, greens etc.

The number of independents out there is quite large and all national politicians need to reach them in elections in order to win. But the knee jerk assumption that they are always more moderate than everyone else is probably wrong. They might just be more cranky, more cynical, more uninformed, more skeptical or more impatient. There are a lot of reasons why someone might be an independent in American politics but I suspect that ideology is at the bottom of the list.


Update: To clarify, I did say that I can understand why people hate both parties and that some independents are actually liberatarians, greens, etc. I should have made clearer that there are, of course, independents who are thoughtful and engaged and who reject both parties in favor of ... well, something else. It is not an indictment of all of them to say that many of them are not ideological and may be driven by reasons that are more emotional than intellectual.

I can't help but note that people reveal an awful lot about their own insecurities when they read any criticism of "independents" as a criticism of them personally. Perhaps they need to look at what the word "independent" actually means. It would seem to me that it logically would include a lot of different kinds of people and that one can't extrapolate from that designation any kind of ideology or that they are inherently moderate ---which is the point of this post.

Update II: Via Steve Benen, I see that Kaiser Foundation did a study of independents and came up with sopme specific designations. It's interesting.
It certainly doesn't follow that all of those people can be determined to be "moderates."

Atrios weighs in here.


.
digby 10/08/2009 09:00:00 AM |

 
Trying To Find The Exit

by dday

Andrew Sullivan, 15 years after the fact, kinda sorta apologizes for Betsy McCaughey but not really, calling it not his finest hour but saying that he was somehow roped into publishing it:

I do not think it's professional to air the specifics of internal battles after the fact, and I take full responsibility for being the editor of the magazine that published the piece. I accepted an award for it. I stood behind it. In my view, it had many interesting points and as an intellectual exercize in contemplating the full possible consequences of Hillary Clinton's proposal, it was provocative and well worth running. But its premise that these potential consequences were indisputably in the bill in that kind of detail was simply wrong; and I failed to correct that, although all I can say is that I tried. One key paragraph - critical to framing the piece so it was not a declaration of fact but an assertion of what might happen if worst came to worst - became a battlefield with her for days; and all I can say is, I lost. I guess I could have quit. Maybe I should have. I decided I would run the piece but follow it with as much dissent and criticism as possible. I did discover that she was completely resistant to rational give-and-take. It was her way or the highway [...]

Again, I take responsibility.

This is taking responsibility? Who else but the editor of the magazine should be responsible for its content? Who was Sullivan fighting with, as the editor of the magazine, that forced him to label the piece as fact instead of as one woman's opinion? Martin Peretz? Betsy McCaughey herself, as he seems to intimate here? Who was in charge? As Kevin Drum says, he surely owes us the rest of this story. As much as Sullivan tries to discount it, the piece was crucial to killing health reform:

But look: it was one piece in a magazine. It's being treated as if it were a turning point in history. Please. There's one reason the Clinton healthcare bill failed and it isn't Betsy McCaughey. It's Hillary Clinton.

Sullivan is offering the "innocent bystander" theory of journalism, where journalists have no effect on public opinion. In this case, it's mixed in with his visceral hatred of Hillary Clinton, which is nonsense. But the original "No Exit" had huge implications for the health care debate in 1994, not least of which because of its impact on OTHER JOURNALISTS. They figured that McCaughey had some kind of authority and took her claims as important ones, which they subsequently disseminated across the media. That's how opinion leaders get their information, and that dribbles down into the public at large. There is no question that the article hurt health care reform, and Sullivan doesn't want the responsibility, so he tries to wriggle off the hook. In fact, he was defending the article a couple years ago before McCaughey resurfaced. Sullivan's mistake actually has affected the health care debate TODAY, 15 years later, by making McCaughey's claims viable, at least to conservatives who knew how to use them. And he doesn't come out of this exchange looking good.

When an editor publishes something that he admits that he knew at the time to be false--"[McCaughey's] premise that these potential consequences were indisputably in the bill in that kind of detail was simply wrong; and I failed to correct that, although all I can say is that I tried"--there should be consequences.

And I think there should be consequences for the Atlantic Monthly, and for other publications that continue to employ Andrew Sullivan.

As Ezra Klein says, that Sullivan won't defend McCaughey anymore shows how toxic she is, though she still manages to get on the teevee at will. But this is a very weak effort to bury the past.


.
dday 10/08/2009 06:00:00 AM |