Book of the Month

KRXA Hal's picture

Melissa Harris-Perry adopts Articleman's former position

by KRXA Hal 8/26/2012 - 11:48 am   |

At this site a couple of weeks ago, the always estimable Articleman posted the definitive explanation why Paul Ryan would sink the Romney ship.  If you listened to my radio show this past Wednesday from 8-9a Pacific, you would have heard "A" sensibly, in my view, pull back from his earlier declamation.  I agree that the Paul Ryan choice is problematic for Romney and that Ryan's (and Romney's current) position on medicare may be outcome determinative.  Nevertheless, we'd be a little too early and optimistic to so conclude.

Not according to the sometimes estimable Melissa Harris-Perry (MHP) who published an article, dated August 22, that "appeared" in the September 10, 2012 Nation. 

Brief digression: Are you wondering how an article can have "appeared" in an edition that won't be published for two weeks? Me too.

Back from digression: MHP argues that it's Ryan's extreme view on abortion rights (women deserve none), not necessarily medicare, that will torpedo the ticket.  After reading in Women's Health the editor's description of her positive experience at Planned Parenthood when she was 15 and the angst that women should feel when contemplating a Romney-Ryan victory, MHP believes that the Republican position is just too extreme to carry a national election.

She may be right but I doubt it.  If any position will sink Romney-Ryan, it's medicare.  Virtually every American either benefits from it now or hopes to in the future.  Many of us who have good employer-provided health insurance or can afford to buy it on our own at a young and healthy age, are perfectly willing to reject universal health-care thereby throwing country-men and women to the wolves. 

But, we still worry about what will happen to us when we reach retirement age.  We know that if we have to pay for our own healthcare from 65 on, we will face a huge, growing, and for many ultimately insurmountable burden.  The idea of a voucher that goes to an insurance company and will not cover the entire premium has little or no appeal.  All who are not superrich are very glad to have medicare when we turn 65 and we are right to be.  After all, cancer treatments can literally cost millions of dollars and wipe out very sizable savings.  Quite simply, eliminating medicare as a single-payer program that covers every American above a certain age is a much tougher sell than eliminating abortion.

Men can't get pregnant and no woman past menopause can have an unwanted pregnancy.  Plus, there are many women of child-bearing age who for a variety of reasons can't imagine ever seeking an abortion.  As important as choice is, its loss does not strike fear in the heart of nearly every American the way that the loss of medicare does.  I think it should but it doesn't.

As someone who argued a bit with A-man at the time, I'd be interested in his reasons for pulling back.

Not that I ever thought Ryan was a slam dunk, just that I thought it could work out for them using their reality-defying rhetoric.

As Articleman bases much of this on practical poll outputs though - sensibly if we're talking concrete effect on actual Nov outcome - I'm curious what his crystal ball is showing, because from my angle it doesn't seem Ryan's getting as much of a hall pass as I thought he might - on abortion or Medicare, though seems tax releases have lost their news value.

A-man? any thoughts?

by PeraclesPlease 8/26/2012 - 12:48 pm

I think the fav/unfav numbers aren't as bad as they first seemed, because all politics is collapsing into a 45/45 world.  I do think he has helped a bit, in WI for sure, and by a point or so nationally.  In an enthusiasm-driven election, he's probably a very mild help, although I still think Ayotte would have been much better.  How is this guy more Presidential?  He's not even meaningfully more conservative.  It's just red meat.

I still think Romney loses, but I think the defining nature of this cycle, and the era we're moving into, it base-revving, so this isn't as weak as some things.  I also think Romney has earned and spent his bounce with this choice, and that this thing is locked in hard, barring major scandals, gaffes, or international or financial crises.

by Articleman 8/27/2012 - 12:21 am (re: PeraclesPlease)

Makes sense - a bit of hand-wringing and screaming and analysis, then everyone goes back to their entrenched positions.

Kinda sounds like the 1000-mile trench on the Western Front.

(BTW, someone documented 10,000 French names for the trench arrays in WWI - amazing awful approach to war)

by PeraclesPlease 8/27/2012 - 2:07 am (re: Articleman)

Typical French.

Know what the English called them?

The Trenches. 

by Ask Dr. Q (not verified) 8/27/2012 - 10:43 am (re: PeraclesPlease)

Personally I figure the French called them "Les Trous" - the book was written by some Englishman, so they probably gave him a bunch of horseshit and showed him the same pit 14000 times giving it a new fancy name each. (describing a variety of sexual perversity, of course, helps the book sell on Amazon)

I'm surprised there isn't a big trench between English & French in Canada just like we have been the US and those uppity blokes upstairs. But I guess only the Germans are truly dangerous.

by PeraclesPlease 8/27/2012 - 11:51 am (re: Ask Dr. Q)

We really don't know Romney's position on anything. He appears to take the position taken by the loudest voices in the Conservative movement. Romney doesn't want to answer questions about abortion or Akin because doesn't know what here he should come down. Does he stand by his request for Akin to step down, or has he folded because Huckabee and others on the religious Right are supporting Akin? Is Huckabee still speaking at the Convention?

Republican and Independent voters can believe that Romney agrees with them on a host of issues, because at some point he said he agreed with their position. What Romney says now can be taken as the thing he has to do to appease his base. 

Romney losing because of his political position. When has he taken one?

 

by rmrd0000 8/26/2012 - 12:56 pm

We really don't know Romney's position on anything.

Republican and Independent voters can believe that Romney agrees with them on a host of issues, because at some point he said he agreed with their position.

Exactly so!  Which begs the query, would democrats be so careless and willing to deliver their allegiance to any who would refuse to give specifics as to touted policies and processes; not be forthcoming with financial data; flip-flop, teeter-totter and equivocate on most issues with the one exception of only minimally taxing the richest of us?

Ironically, the one trait Ryan has now adopted with nary a pause is the teetering and tottering on his former stances.

I am literally astounded by the willingness of multitudes to give without pause their support for POTUS to those who make it clear he (they) doesn't believe in 'the people's right to know'.  But, even the dems have quieted down greatly about his/their lack of full disclosure - so ???????

by Aunt Sam 8/26/2012 - 1:18 pm (re: rmrd0000)

It may be wiser to wait for the GOP to show it's hand at the convention and then hone in on positions during the debates.

by rmrd0000 8/26/2012 - 1:27 pm (re: Aunt Sam)

Vs. a president who's invoked executive privilege even more than George Bush? Does produce a quandary, doesn't it? But then again, even the Democratic leadership approves sheltering Wall Street from disclosure and the military from international standards.  Hey, let's just give up.

by PeraclesPlease 8/26/2012 - 5:43 pm (re: Aunt Sam)

FYI - I think that Romney playing hide and seek with the voters during the campaign and seemingly 'getting away' with it is scary.  Hope you read this and share your thoughts:

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/26/romney-bain-taxes_n_1828816.htm...

It was a 'reader's tip' that brought this to publication.

 

 

by Aunt Sam 8/26/2012 - 5:57 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

"Vs. a president who's invoked executive privilege even more than George Bush?"

If you're talking about Barack Obama vs. George W. Bush, once again you've got your facts completely wrong:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/22/obama-executive-privilege_n_161...

by Anonymous b-man (not verified) 8/26/2012 - 11:42 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

 

Vs. a president who's invoked executive privilege even more than George Bush? Does produce a quandary, doesn't it? But then again, even the Democratic leadership approves sheltering Wall Street from disclosure and the military from international standards.  Hey, let's just give up.

What really sucks is that Melissa Harris-Perry could take a moment to think of a way to inspire her readers with say a way to talk to GOP women, how to split the vote, get some crossovers, point out where it's in their kids' interest, etc.

Instead she leaves it to the editor of Women's Health to do the converting. "A lefty political rag it is not." Oh my. Nor is it an emblazened symbol of rightie anger, unifying political righteous or what-not. It's a capitalist magazine intended to keep women just interested enough on the stair-master, and not past the cleanup shower - wasn't that obvious?

In short, we're going to keep talking in symbols and logic that appeals to traditional leftists who already know what they're going to do; and we're going to squander the chance of GOP overreach by not building dialogue with rightest women. Why? Because we're stupid and self-obsessed. If it makes us feel clever, well, that's good enough. Who needs to win elections if we can lose with just the right amount of victimhood and feeling of being wronged? Well okay, there's a chance that Democrats will squeak by with 50.1% of the vote so that we don't need to pick off GOP voters. 

" And if choice appears in a magazine this mainstream, this close to the election, there’s good reason to think huge numbers of women will be prepared to demonstrate that at the polls. " Oh right, and did the lady notice that in the meantime many of those who would "demonstrate that at the polls" will be disenfranchised?

So how about some pro-active rabble-rousing, and not another preach-to-choir we're-so-clever column?

by PeraclesPlease 8/26/2012 - 6:12 pm (re: Aunt Sam)

Let's hear some ideas for  'some pro-active rabble-rousing, and not another preach-to-choir we're-so-clever column' because couldn't agree more. 

It's way past time to combat voter's ADD and stop playing the catch-up and reactionary game that is happening.

by Aunt Sam 8/26/2012 - 6:21 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

Amy Holmes who describes herself as an independent says that she voted for Clinton, is pro choice and pro Gay marriage.She then voted for GW and McCain, how do you format an appeal to her?

 

by rmrd0000 8/26/2012 - 6:45 pm (re: Aunt Sam)

It would depend on exactly where  pro-choice and pro-gay marriage ranks on her 'list' of important issues.  What else is on her list and what are the three most important issues?  Most have one or two issues that supersede all others.  These are the issues that really decide a voter's choice in the voting booth.

by Aunt Sam 8/26/2012 - 7:00 pm (re: rmrd0000)

You might have to link the anti-choice attitues for abortion/contraception/medicare to the anti-choice/pro-embezzlement on Wall Street and mortgage theft -

i.e. the right has gotten a lot of mileage off the big fear issues trumping the softer social  issues - why else would we be pissing ourselves at airports and supporting more wars while the economy's in the crapper?

So it's not "they're violating you to keep you safe" - "they're violating you here so they can violate you more there - it's what they do - tell them to stop"

by PeraclesPlease 8/26/2012 - 10:19 pm (re: Aunt Sam)

I'm having a hard time understanding the attacks on MHP for this article.  I too would be startled to see such a letter in Women's Health.  Startled but gladdened, since most mainstream women's magazines steer clear of any pro and con discussion about abortion. It could be for the reasons you suggest--rather condescendingly, I thought--that they're all capitalist rags pandering to women for profit, using shallow talk to sell magazines to women who want that sort of thing.  (I'll agree that MHP was herself more than a little condescending, too.)

Harris-Perry wrote her piece for The Nation.  Not many women on the right will even read her piece, so she wasn't gearing it to them.  Nor was she trying to educate the women on the left about how to approach GOP women with facts they need to know before they go and vote. This was a piece about signs that women of all persuasions--not just ours--may be ready to throw Ryan under the bus.  That's all it was.

While I don't necessarily agree that Paul Ryan's distorted views on women's sexual health issues are the only thing that will kill Romney/Ryan's chances this November, I do think women's views on Ryan's stance will play a huge part in decision-making at the voting booth.

Melissa Harris-Perry isn't suggesting that the very real issues of Social Security and Medicare aren't important, she just didn't choose to include them in this particular article.  They weren't germane to her point, which, again, was about the growing number of women who understand the dangers to a woman's health if the Romney/Ryan ticket wins.

 

by Ramona 8/26/2012 - 9:48 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

" This was a piece about signs that women of all persuasions--not just ours--may be ready to throw Ryan under the bus.  That's all it was."

Yes, exactly - 'may be ready', and we'll sit around saying how much better our policies are but never figure out a way to talk to and convince "wingnuts" because they're already too crazy to accept the obvious brilliance and superiority of our views.

So for MHP and everyone else - what's the plan to expose and capitalize on GOP/independent women's disgruntlement with abortion/contraception/meddlement in women's lives/Medicare/etc?

If they voted for McCain/Palin, how to convince them to vote against Ryan/Romney?

Because I'm sure the Koch Brothers et al. have some ideas on how their gargantuan media buy will work this fall. Wondering if the Dems have a plan on their side.

Other than write clever opinion pieces for the Nation

by PeraclesPlease 8/26/2012 - 10:07 pm (re: Ramona)

Sorry, I guess I don't see anything wrong with writing clever opinion pieces for the Nation.  I don't think MHP promised to answer all of your questions when she started the piece, so for you to be disappointed (or whatever) because she didn't deliver what you maybe expected--well, it's just not her problem. Or her responsibility.

If you want to talk about how we can get through to those women, fine.  (Lordy, I wish I knew)  But blaming MHP for not talking about it when she had no intention of talking about it is--kind of strange.

Melissa Harris-Perry is an extremely thoughtful writer and commentator who digs deep into women's issues all the time.  She talked emotionally on her Saturday show about how it felt to be pregnant with a wanted child--how you could experience that unbelievable joy and still have no problem supporting the decision of a woman who was planning to abort an unwanted fetus. 

These are the kinds of discussions we have to have in order to get through to the women who are so opposed to allowing a woman a choice.  We have to let them know that we understand their feelings about the beginnings of life, and may even agree with much of it, but our feelings can't dictate how another woman makes decisions about her own body.

by Ramona 8/26/2012 - 11:20 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

You know, Ramona, I think we have to accept the reality that sometimes there is no compromise, no win win solution. Abortion is one of those issues. We can nibble around the edges and maybe move a few fence straddlers but the true pro-life people will never be satisfied with anything but a total ban on abortion. They'll go on from there to ban any type of birth control that allows sperm to meet egg. No talking, no personal stories, nothing will change their mind. And nothing will change mine.

In the end one side will win and one side will lose. I'm not all that confident that the pro-choice side will win. If Romney wins and one liberal justice retires I bet that Roe v Wade is overturned and abortion is thrown back to the states. Many states will ban abortions.

by ocean-kat 8/26/2012 - 11:37 pm (re: Ramona)

Roe v. Wade has always dangled on a thin string.  The privacy argument, though I believe in the principal wholeheartedly, has always been specious but practical.  Without it, Roe would have been long gone.

If the abortion issue went back to the states, it might change our Federal elections for the better, but it would ultimately mean the end of legal abortions anywhere.  I can't see that happening any time soon.

by Ramona 8/27/2012 - 12:01 am (re: ocean-kat)

The last time people were parading MHP around I think it was about how racist white liberals were abandoning Obama, with a whole lot of twisted logic. 

(one example of awfulness was the plaint of how black unemployment was 2x whites' under Clinton, same as Obama - ignoring that black unemployment of 18% means millions more unemployed than black unemployment of 8% and that not every measure of ratio is relevant to an argument - I would rather say "black unemployment was 1 million more than whites' under Clinton and 1 million more than whites' under Obama - which might mean 9% to 8% vs. 1990's 6% to 4% - wouldn't that be a better goal? )

Where some people like MHP, I think she's entirely predictable and won't change a thing, but she'll have a good career doing what she does.

If she does get her emotional tales in front of female (or male) conservatives in a way to persuade them that we're off the rails, God-speed, but I don't think her venue or presentations are designed to do more than feed the choir.

My 2 cents.

by PeraclesPlease 8/27/2012 - 3:38 am (re: Ramona)

Etcetera etcetera etcetera.  It shouldn't surprise you that I'm a big fan of emotional tales.  I've written more than a few myself.  I also preach to the choir. (Not that I wouldn't like to preach to the outside crowds)  Most opinion writers are forced to preach to the choir and if whatever is said somehow changes a few minds on the other side, well, miracles have been known to happen.

MHP has said her share of cringe-worthy comments (who hasn't? Blush) but I wouldn't be such a fan if our points of view didn't mesh.  Our POVs mesh completely on the issue of abortion.  She's a mom and so am I.  We reveled in our pregnancies and welcomed our children into this world, but at the same time we work our asses off trying to give total emotional support to women who, for whatever reason, need an abortion.  If we see signs that more and more women are leaning that way, we're going to want to make mention of it.  It's a good thing.

I'm not getting your irritation at her in this thread.  I guess I'll have to leave it at that.

by Ramona 8/27/2012 - 8:08 am (re: PeraclesPlease)

All wonderful - but how will it help win the election?

Either it will get more people out to the polls, or counter the incoming disinformation (to whom?), or convince those near the fence with some shared values to cross over.

Overall, we're talking politics here, not Mothering magazine or Better Homes and Garden or Cycle. These are all fine - and I suppose if political content got slipped in that made a difference it'd be interesting - but it's far away from the political discourse that will say decide the election in Florida. Meanwhile, people are getting disenfranchised by the tens of thousands if not up to a million?

by PeraclesPlease 8/27/2012 - 11:57 am (re: Ramona)

PP, it's a short article in Nation Magazine, it's not the keynote speech at the Democratic Convention.  If you don't like reading women writers getting all emotional over women's issues there's nothing saying you have to--either here or elsewhere.

by Ramona 8/27/2012 - 1:27 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

Harris-Perry wrote what many in the Black community feel about some White Liberals. Angry Black Lady posted responses to Joan Walsh and David Sirota criticisms. Some White Liberals reflexively idismiss certain sentiments. Those liberals are just as predictable as Prof Perry. 

Ta-Neshi Coates recently wrote about the racial tightrope Obama faces. Michael Moore and Bill Mahrer talked about their disappointment that Obama wasn't the Gangsta President that they desired. (Gangsta is not a compliment).Post election, Ralph Nader called an Obama Uncle  Tom. Nader's claim and refusal to apologize was predictable. 

Romney is predictably unpredictable because he denies previous statements and political positions. That unpredictability is not a plus.  Is he lying now, or was he lying before? I prefer Harris-Perry's so-called predictability.

 

 

by rmrd0000 8/27/2012 - 12:07 pm (re: Ramona)

So terrible - so we have groups like Public Enemy who are intelligent and make gangsta rap cool, but then it's awful for a guy from Detroit to admire and want that cool in a president.

Instead we get Obama doing his best to act stiff and sellout like Romney.

No, we wanted the black guy, say Samuel Jackson reading Ezekiel 25:17 on their ass and them blowing them away. That would be cool.

But some people want to be hurt and broken - it's now a bad thing to have wanted a black president because we were supposed to be colorblind to get a black president who acted exactly like a white president. Well that's a disappointment. So much for the minority opinion, the breaking up the old boys' club, the bringing in a new style, Sotomayor et al.

Yes, "Gangsta" can be a compliment and you don't dictate everybody's proper way of saying things, Miss Manners. There's a whole world out there where people aren't so uptight about this shit. And yes, Jesse Jackson made some comments about Obama's balls and what not, so it's not just poor Barry being beat up by white folk. Tell him to ditch all those Harvard/Goldman Sachs white boys and get back to some common folk of whatever color who aren't all on payola for life.

Did he want this job or not?

by PeraclesPlease 8/27/2012 - 12:28 pm (re: rmrd0000)

Harris-Perry was addressing a small subset of Liberals.Come November Obama will have the votes of the majority of Liberals.

Rap may have been socially conscious in the past, but now even Chuck D markets his material online realizing that the rap being produced is commercial crap. Being called a Gangsta now means thug, criminal and misogynist, not social activist. The term is an insult.

by rmrd0000 8/27/2012 - 1:33 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

Nader did not call Obama an "Uncle Tom". He asked a rhetorical question; Will Obama be an Uncle Sam or an Uncle Tom?

The phrase "Uncle Tom" has also become an epithet for a person who is slavish and excessively subservient to perceived authority figures, particularly a black person who behaves in a subservient manner to white people; or any person perceived to be a participant in the oppression of their own group. [Wikipedia]


Poor choice of phrasing in an overly knee-jerk politically correct populace but as it turns out it was an inciteful analogy. Failure to let go of knee-jerk offense when it is found to be unwarranted is predictable. 

by A Guy Called LULU 8/27/2012 - 1:34 pm (re: rmrd0000)

You are free to interpret the term "Uncle Tom" as you see fit. One of the things that I mentioned was a dismissive attitude. You may feel that the term is not offensive and that the message of Uncle Tom in the book was that he was acting in a submissive manner in order to relive pressure on other Blacks. Uncle Tom would be a courageous character.

However, given that you understand how the term is received in the present era, you have to decide if the message you want a peculiar audience to hear is the glorification of Uncle Tom or actually delivering the political or social message you came to deliver.

You can knowingly dismiss the sentiment of an audience and spend a great deal of time explaining "Uncle Tom" and very little on what you came to say.

I can understand your reasoning about Uncle Tom. Can you think of any reason that the character might not be considered heroic?

Different people see things differently. The Morgan Freeman character in "driving Miss Daisy" was not welcomed with open arms in the Black community. There were complaints about the Black characters in the book and movie "The Help". We're the reactions "knee-jerk reactions" or differences of opinion about works of art? Are people obligated to share one view?

by rmrd0000 8/27/2012 - 2:23 pm (re: A Guy Called LULU)

 I have not seen the movies you reference and so cannot comment on any relevance their story has to this discussion.
 I do not see Uncle Tom as any sort of heroic character even if he was a good hearted soul trying to do good. I have not read the book but checked with wikipedia to see if my understanding of what is meant when calling a person an "Uncle Tom" was correct.
 The way I see Nader using the term in his question is that he considers an Uncle Tom to be something we do not want anyone to be as President and obviously he was referencing Obama's skin color when asking if Obama would be such a person, one who would be subservient to perceived authority figures. That goes along with Nader's long time political position. So I do believe that the term can be used offensively. Calling a black man an Uncle Tom would usually, as I understand it, be intended to be offensive. I think Nader was asking whether Obama would be the leader we hoped for and need or would he be subservient to other authority figures and therefore deserving of derisive descriptors.
 Regardless how the term is understood or what Nader's intention was, he asked whether Obama would be an Uncle Tom, he did not accuse Obama of being such. That is a significant difference which we might just as well get right.
 I'm off for the rest of the day, I hope its a good one for all. 

by A Guy Called LULU 8/27/2012 - 2:48 pm (re: rmrd0000)

We will have to disagree. I see Romney's mention of hospital birth and not being asked about a birth certificate as a direct message to the birthers. If Nader knew hoe the term Uncle Tom was perceived and would not have uttered the phrase when questioning how a newly elected White President would behave, he should have refrained from using the term. Nader should have apologized when given the chance.

Have a nice day. "Uncle Tom's Cabin", "Driving Miss Daisy" and "the Help" are among many cultural signposts. The debate surrounding them is part of the fabric of racial conversation in the US.You might enjoy one, if not all three. Reading a discussion about the works is better after having spent time with them IMHO.

Have a nice day.

by rmrd0000 8/27/2012 - 3:06 pm (re: A Guy Called LULU)

Thanks for the links.

by artappraiser 8/27/2012 - 3:16 pm (re: rmrd0000)

U R welcome. 

BTW Walsh has a new book "What's The Matter with White People? That discusses the decline of the White Middle Class amid the destruction of unions and the rise of the Southern Strategy. She notes that partisan and racial divides are increasing. Many of the problems have been engineered by Republicans, but Liberals have failed to construct a message of unity.

Interestingly, Charles Murray is now demonizing the social behavior of poor Whites in the same fashion as Blacks were demonized in the past.The book is in my much too long Kindle queue on my iPad. Hopefully. I'll get to it in the next few weeks.

 

by rmrd0000 8/27/2012 - 3:40 pm (re: artappraiser)

She notes that partisan and racial divides are increasing.

I'll go along with the partisan, but think she's pretty off-base with the racial, unless she's only thinking a couple years ahead, but even then.

Simple fact: there's a lot of Barack's coming in the next generation; the racial questions on the next census will have an obsolete problem..

In my own family, I've seen it: how quickly having bi-racial grandkids or grand nieces/nephews can upend racism. Doesn't mean they change their political opinions, though. The Charles Murray book is just another signifier of that happening, I think. What's a much more likely prediction to my mind: new angry 100 %-white rural poor minority replaces other angry minorities as the ones many others wish would quit whining about oppression. Obama shouldn't have made the "cling to their guns and bibles" comment, should have kept it to himself, but that doesn't mean it wasn't expressing the thinking of an astute observer of cultural change trajectories.

by artappraiser 8/27/2012 - 4:27 pm (re: rmrd0000)

Interesting perspective. Those angry rural Whites are probably the ones Santorum was after.

by rmrd0000 8/27/2012 - 4:37 pm (re: artappraiser)

Ramona,

   FYI - http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/romney-touts-massachusetts-hea...

by Aunt Sam 8/27/2012 - 12:29 am (re: Ramona)

So he's basically using the state's rights thing to narrow the abortion issue without saying those same health issues belong in the Federal government.  And he's running for president.  Nice.

by Ramona 8/27/2012 - 8:16 am (re: Aunt Sam)

'does not strike fear in the heart of nearly every American'

We have 78% of the world's arms trade and the biggest 'defense' budget in the world, and our voters are motivated by 'fear'. Sad but true.

I remember the fear and the rush for duct tape when the Bush administration linked the anthrax attacks to Iraq, and talked of crop dusters spreading spores. Turned out one of the largest manufacturers of duct tape in Ohio was a big GOP supporter.  Saddam had no anthrax.  The stuff was our own, and the attack was widely expected, while also coincidentally aiding the march to war.

Maybe the day will come when Americans get beyond fear, and pay sufficient attention to what their government is doing or needs to do, to ignore the billions spent on campaigns and TV ads, and vote in politicians who display some measure of honesty and competence at leading the nation for the benefit of all.

by NCD 8/26/2012 - 9:26 pm

And no one was ever found responsible for the anthrax attacks, except a lone guy in a lab who couldn't have done it but the FBI pinned it on him anyway.

But the public doesn't care - one of the great unsolved crimes of our time. Ignored. Probably most people think Saddam did it. Except it was from domestically grown anthrax. Your tax dollars at work.

by PeraclesPlease 8/26/2012 - 10:22 pm (re: NCD)

PP- Congratulations for being the sole poster who has ever evinced doubts on the 'official story' of the anthrax attacks. I posted the 'coincidences' 50 times over the years on different blogs with zero reaction. There was one writer on Counterpunch years ago who called it a black ops (2 letters were to Democrat leaders, Daschle and Leahy, at the time holding up the PATRIOT Act).

The coincidences are so well known that even Wikipedia now notes Bush, Cheney and Co. started on anti-anthrax CIPRO on 9/11/2001, one week before the first 'Death to America Allah is Great'  letter was mailed. A good essay on the frame-up of Ivins is at 9/11 research, written by a UTx - Austin retired professor.

by NCD 8/26/2012 - 11:49 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

Marcie Wheeler (Emptywheel.net) has done some very good deep analysis of the FBI investigations, what the lab results meant, different players, the pounding silence, etc. Hopefully you can find stuff easily in her archives.

by PeraclesPlease 8/27/2012 - 1:59 am (re: NCD)

Sorry I missed the show.

I think that there is a possibility of backlash from men if, say at the Dem. convention, the pitches are so lopsidedly towards women's rights that the men might feel left out. Or put another way, because Romney is targeting white males, the Dems might miss an opportunity to shore them up. After the Akin affair, I have a hard time believing that there are many women who are not already scared of the extreme agenda represented by Romney/Ryan.  But in terms of actual voting behavior, maybe they need a final push.

I'm not so pleased with Obama's response to the Romney attacks on Medicare. A catch phrase that is a lie is being promulgated with a great deal of money---stealing $716 B and giving it to Obamacare---and it's not that easy to counteract given the animosity toward Obamacare.

A counterattack is necessary, and I think one avenue is the issue of pre-exisitng conditions:

"Romney will put pre-exisiting conditions into Medicare!"  

by Oxy Mora 8/26/2012 - 9:49 pm

I think you have the right ideas but needs to be stronger:

"Romney/Ryan will disqualify seniors from Medicare"

which might need to be more specific/scarier still

That "stole $700 billion from Medicare" is once again a beautiful soundbite - how come Democrats never nail a talking point like that?

by PeraclesPlease 8/26/2012 - 10:11 pm (re: Oxy Mora)

Good line. It's frustrating and we don't have a Frank Luntz.

"Do you want Bain Medicare?  Don't outsource Medicare."

 

by Oxy Mora 8/27/2012 - 10:10 am (re: PeraclesPlease)

  I can't claim to be an expert on this, but I heard Ryan's plan was to provide vouchers to people to pay for private insurance. That wouldn't mean leaving old people to sicken and die, would it? If I'm wrong, I'm willing to be educated.

by Aaron Carine (not verified) 8/27/2012 - 4:37 am

If the voucher kept pace with the cost of insurance. But the medicare trusties as well as other independent analysis say it will not. When you hear the claim that it will cost seniors $6400 out of pocket, that number is from the medicare trusties. The medicare trusties are insurance analysts who are theoretically non partisan.

But that's only the first problem. The insurance companies will pick off the healthiest people, the ones they think, by statistical analysis, they can make money off of. Since Obamacare is ended by Romney/ryan insurance companies can deny people for pre-existing conditions, or for any reason they chose. Lets assume the average cost for a medicare patient is $100. An insurance company offers a policy at $90. At first glance it appears as if the government saves $10. Let's assume there are 2 people 1 is relatively healthy and uses 50 dollars of health care, the other less healthy and uses 150. Total cost to the government is 200, the average of 100 per person. The insurance company offers insurance at 90 dollars per person but only takes the first person. The second person stays on medicare. The actual cost to the government is $150 plus $90. Total cost to the government is now $240.

Of course insurance companies do not always guess correctly and will enroll people who cost more in health care than they pay the insurance company. But statistical analysis is pretty good over thousands of people. They'll guess right often enough to leave most of the highest cost elderly in medicare while pulling in profits on the lower cost patients. Cost to the government will go up if the vouchers keep up with the cost of an average private policy.

The theory of course is that market forces will bring down the cost of health care by introducing competition thereby saving money for medicare. Unfortunately market forces don't seem to work with health care.Why that is is another long post but one need only look at Medicare Advantage or HMO's for evidence it doesn't work.

by ocean-kat 8/27/2012 - 7:24 am (re: Aaron Carine)

The unspoken contradiction is this: They say Medicare spending is not sustainable; it has to be brought down. At the same time, they say that their voucher plan won't result in cuts in benefits.

Both of these things can't be true at the same time. If there are no cuts in benefits, there are no savings. If there are savings, there are cuts in benefits. This is because there's no attempt to make things more efficient as a way to bring down costs.

As you say, the theory is that competition alone will bring down costs, and you have the proper rejoinder to that. It's just very expensive to provide good care to people who are getting older, unless they do a lot to keep themselves in shape, and even then.

In addition, the Ryan plan does nothing to lower the underlying costs of medical care. Obamacare does, some. That's where the rubber meets the road. Insurance of whatever type is just an intermediary cost in the whole supply chain. And if you need to make a profit, you just can't afford to take on a majority of people who need a lot of care without charging HUGE premiums--which might make sense if all really old and sick people were also very rich. But, in fact, the opposite is mostly true.

by Anonymous PS (not verified) 8/27/2012 - 3:14 pm (re: ocean-kat)

Useless trivia of the day:

The dates on magazine covers are the dates when retailers are supposed to pull them off the shelves and replace them with new ones.  If you're a subscriber, your New Yorker, for example, will always be dated about a week ahead of when you receive it.

by Michael Maiello 8/27/2012 - 9:30 am

So any magazine I see that looks "up-to-date" is actually out-of-date. 

Thanks Magazine-Publishers! 

by Ask Dr. Q (not verified) 8/27/2012 - 10:48 am (re: destor23)

Yep!  Always check the date to insure that you're buying the freshest news and commentary.

by Michael Maiello 8/27/2012 - 10:57 am (re: Ask Dr. Q)

Oh shit, that's the problem. I've been getting spoiled news that's gone bad.

by ocean-kat 8/27/2012 - 2:41 pm (re: destor23)

Because my weekend routine, I haven't seen a great deal of Up With Chris Hayes.I did catch a snippet this weekend with Melissa Harris-Perry and Ta-Neshi Coates. The format on "up" seems to be identical to that on MHP. Perry has panels that discuss issues in more detail than the norm. References to supporting articles articles is provided. I generally feel that I have actually learned something or gotten a referral to an informative source. I enjoy the program.

This weekend, she had two Black Republican activists and Independent Conservative Amy Holmes. They were able to detail their reasons for voting for Romney in a calm atmosphere. I wish more time had been spent on how they perceived voter suppression, but it was still informative. I hope the show has a long lifespan.

by rmrd0000 8/27/2012 - 2:33 pm

Latest Comments

more