MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
FROM: YOUR BENEFACTORS IN THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY AND YOUR VERY SMART DC DEMOCRATIC CONSULTANTS
TO: CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS AND OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OPERATIVES
You are, of course, generally familiar with how the game works but this memo should serve as a refresher in how the whole health care reform hocus pocus should go down in DC this year. After all, it has been a while. We haven't had to seriously deal with this problem since the Clinton years. Think of this as an Executive Summary of how to play the game. We'll handle most of the logistics, details and other staging in concert with your staffers so the blame is spread around and everyone looks good after we kill this thing. It won't be all that different than the dives you took on the $750 Billion giveaway to Wall Street last fall, FISA Telecom Immunity last summer, renewing The Patriot Act, your acquiescing on torture, or even your support for illegally invading Iraq on false pretenses. It's like riding a bike. Remembering how to do it comes back to you right away even if it's been a while since you've sold out your constituents and your country's best interest. You really never forget once you know how to do it.
Given how concerned the public has become over the sky high premiums they pay and the outrageous out-of-pocket expenses they must incur on top of those premiums, it is especially important this year to have strict "message discipline" and to follow the scenario and instructions closely so we don't have any mishaps, okay? Right! So let's get to it then shall we?
Here's how our little game works (generally speaking) in case you haven't noticed or don't recall:
1. First and foremost tell the people that single payer would be great but just isn't "practical" or "realistic" in today's political environment. Do not explain why this is so even though you have the majority in both houses of Congress and the President this time around which means you control the political environment. Do remember to make vague references to Republican opposition and the power of various industries. Also, remind anyone who will listen that this issue is so important that "we must be reasonable and pragmatic." That means first and foremost we have to be sensitive to industry and Republican concerns and we have to understand how expensive solving the problem will be. IMPORTANT: Try to deflect any questions that point out that nothing could be more expensive than the system we have now since we pay more and get less than any western nation. Getting bogged down in this sort of thing will get us off message and could cause problems.
Now, having dispensed with the obvious, clear and best solution (and incidentally the approach of every civilized western nation except the United States) we have guaranteed that option won't even be discussed and so we are free to move on to talk about ways to keep the insurance company parasites bleeding the life out of the workers and businesses of the country forever and ever Amen! And this must all be done despite the obviously life threatening malignancy it represents for the American economy overall, for businesses being vastly overburdened by obscene health insurance costs, and for families who are desperately trying to hang on to coverage (if they have it) or who are foregoing insurance if possible because it simply is too expensive.
2. Call all the interested parties (except anyone interested in single payer) to the proverbial "table" to work on a common approach. Make a big show of this at a major photo op. This will give the gullible a reassuring, but false, sense of hope that "this time it will be different". Make sure most of the seats are taken up by the very lobbyists who have thwarted every common sense reform for the past 40 years and allow them to set the parameters for discussion and control the agenda from start to finish. They'll know how to handle this and keep things from getting out of control. Otherwise, they might be unhappy and their mean friends in Congress (the omnipotent Republicans and centrist/conservative Democrats) will get mad and make a scene. Again, make sure you don't even discuss looking at single payer except for the "not practical" disclaimer, otherwise we can't service the needs of the insurance companies as they have grown accustomed and who, in return, will support our campaigns financially. If we even discuss the actual solution they will turn off the money spigot and that's a problem, I think we can all agree, the nation simply cannot allow to occur. The one exception would be if someone would want to take some time out to equate single payer to Soviet totalitarianism and death. It's always good to remind people that nothing could be worse or more dangerous for America or for their families than adequate, affordable health care for every citizen regardless of income.
3. Drag the process out as long as humanly possible, and then some, as though the alternatives and possibilities have never before been considered. During the process, create all sorts of complicated alternatives the public and the stenographers (a.k.a. the corporate media) find too confusing, time consuming and intricate so they'll lose interest. Make it so bad that watching paint dry would be like watching an action movie like "Live Free or Die Hard" in comparison. Oh, and never settle on one option to use as we transition away from the old system. Make absolutely sure legislative deadlock is achieved so nothing passes and it remains cloudy as to who exactly killed the various pieces of legislation. In the worst case scenario, if passage of legislation is impossible to avoid, then make sure it is so onerous and unworkable that the President can not, in good conscience, sign it into law. Your Republican friends will be happy to vigorously support any such effort. But there's only a very, very far outside chance we will ever have to worry about that eventuality.
4. Once the effort fails, tell the public "we did our best under the circumstances", but the insurance companies, the pharmaceutical manufacturers, and of course the always handy omnipotent, mean old Republicans prevented passage once again. But fear not citizens! We hope to try again in the next session of Congress. (wink, wink to the lobbyists and whisper "They fall for this one every time. It's really something. It's like they never learn a thing and by the next time they'll have forgotten everything so we can start all over.") Don't forget to leak word to the stenographic pool that we plan, in the all important interest of bipartisan cooperation and civility, on going back to the drawing board and offering up a new version next time that will be designed to be even more attractive to Republicans and the business interests they love. We hope that will ensure passage of a bill that, perhaps is not perfect, but will cover at least a few hundred more families over the next 10 years. After all, we'd rather take it slow and get it right than to be too hasty wouldn't we?
Remember, as a Democratic member of Congress or an operative in the new administration complicit in this genuinely immoral sell out of the health of the American people: there could be side effects. If you have trouble sleeping at night or think you can't live with yourself knowing what you've done, salve your conscience by rationalizing to yourself that the only real solution "isn't practical in this environment" so in the end, that bogus set of half-measures you supported really was the best you could do. Remember, single payer isn't a realistic option in our country! Ever! Repeat this as many times as it takes to calm you down and not worry about how many people you could have helped are now doomed to inadequate or no health care as a result of your pusillanimous actions.
Sure, single payer is workable, affordable and realistic everywhere else on earth, but not in the richest country the planet has ever seen. No Sireebob! Here in the good ol US of A we are better off letting people get sick, stay sick, live in poor health, die prematurely and pay twice or three times as much as people elsewhere pay in return for much more. It makes perfect sense! It's the American way! The important thing is that the insurance interests are satisfied that their profits are not threatened by anything we do. Don't think about the fact that your own party has the votes (but not the political will or guts) to institute single payer and a new President who says it's best but falls back on the "it's not practical" dodge too. If you start to think about those things too much, the side effect might recur. So say to yourself... "See? There was really no point in even attempting to do the right thing since it wouldn't work anyway." Then, close your eyes and try and get some rest. You have fundraising calls to make in the morning.
5. Rinse and repeat every two years. Just make sure you are thorough and effective in step #1 so "you know what" doesn't get discussed and also that things remain as complicated and confusing as possible for the public. If you do that, they'll never wise up.
Comments
Thank you for making your comment into a blog of its own!
This deserves discussion!
by TheraP (not verified) on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 12:31pm
GOD I HOPE YOU ARE WRONG OLEEB
by dickday (not verified) on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 1:09pm
Well thank you TheraP!
The only way to avoid this all too familiar scenario is for people to raise hell and demand that Congress and the new President do what is right instead of rerunning this tired routine. Don't know about anybody else, but I'm sick of it. Just once I would like them to stand up for what they believe and fight for it and I mean really fight. Health care is the issue on which they shoudl do it and there could not be a better time. The Republicans are weak and despised yet on issue after issue the Democrats act like they are the weak and despised ones. Makes no sense to me.
by oleeb (not verified) on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 1:30pm
Me too dickday. Me too.
by oleeb (not verified) on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 1:30pm
Well done Oleeb. People need to understand the 'inertia' of the extra $500 Billion in profits, that the insurance and drug cos. cull from our economy every year. That's not pretend money, and it's not some others money either. It's money that belongs to everyone of us who pays insurance, consults a physician, or fills a drug prescription. Those special interests never take their eye off the ball, and through the tactics you outline, they work diligently to distract us. Too many are lulled into complacency by their self satisfaction with their adequate health insurance coverage. To those, I say, if you won't change the system to extend coverage to the 47 million uninsured in our country, do it to save the money you're throwing away on our current system. Insuring those not currently covered will be more than covered by the savings from waste, inefficiency, and special interests' profit.
by miguelitoh2o (not verified) on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 1:31pm
Yeah but Miguel, what about the shareholders who get close to fifty percent of the profits after management pays itself?
There are broader economic issues here.
This way management is assured of providing all the health care it needs.
by dickday (not verified) on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 1:34pm
Good points!
by oleeb (not verified) on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 1:40pm
Better yet... "stand up for what WE believe and fight for it."
Great post, Oleeb. The part I find most frustrating is your (2) "Call all the parties to the table." This sounds good to people - even-handed, inclusive, consensus-minded, all that lovely stuff. I don't mind if they're AT the table, I just don't want them to have a VETO. Or even - since they come in packs - even with a VOTE.
I've watched these "Roundtable" approaches rise for 20 years now, and I can't participate anymore. These guys are skilled now, and they know how to play this game to a halt. One of the great failures of the Blair Gov't in Britain was their insistence on these sorts of mechanisms. The Gov't would set a goal (often a very good one); invite the positive proponents; but then invite all the industry groups who stood in direct conflict with the goal. It was like having the Coal Association at the Solar table.
As the man says, The balance sheet is breaking up the sky.
by quinn esq (not verified) on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 1:48pm
Pollitical people quickly realized years ago, as you point out, that this sort of approach is easily manipulated and has the great PR effect of looking open and inclusive. The presumption of having to reach a full consensus automatically provides veto power to industry and the forces of reaction generally.
It has been many years since I've seen anything of the kind that wasn't all prearranged and fixed from the beginning. Of course nobody ever admits publicly that these things are predetermined. That would spoil the effect! It is also what made me leary of Obama's healthcare proposal during the campaign. Putting everyone at the table is his mantra on health care.
by oleeb (not verified) on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 2:01pm
Why indeed invite the coal industry to a roundtable on solar? I'd like to see a poll taken of health economists, (ones not employed by special interests: Heritage Foundation et al), and see what the results are rather than taking a poll of all those special interests with a few independent experts thrown in to add an air of legitimacy to the debate.
by miguelitoh2o (not verified) on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 2:10pm
Quinn:
That's what bothered me about the groups that change.gov sponsored at people's homes - to discuss healthcare. They allowed insurance companies to send representatives! That just galled me! I simply had no desire to fight with people who were coming already armed with talking points, practiced at "proving" how right they were.
As soon as I read that I decided it was a waste of my time - going to one of those meetings.
And your description of what happened in Britain confirms my reaction.
Slick! Very slick, I thought.
by TheraP (not verified) on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 2:12pm
Since I think single payer is a bad idea for policy reasons (which I daresay I'll get around to on my own blog eventually but isn't really appropriate here), which puts me on the outside looking in on this one, I suppose I'll just suggest that with a whole spectrum of political outlooks in the Congress it's probably possible that individual Congressmen come to their own conclusions for their own reasons (or because Kaiser has a lot of jobs in their district) and that in either case, they're doing their jobs, not selling out.
Or, that is, not selling out to anyone but their own constituents, who they're supposed to be sold out to.
by El Presidente (not verified) on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 2:21pm
On the contrary, TheraP: What better way to hear what the opposition has to say, so you can anticipate their remarks in more open forums?
Were I you, I would go, take copious notes, and carefully think about the rebuttals, and then go broader (and louder) with those rebuttals.
Making change and the path of a fight is not the same as validating one's own beliefs.
by clearthinker (not verified) on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 5:09pm
CT. For me, it has absolutely nothing to do with "validating one's own beliefs." Making change & the path of the fight - I get that. I know how to do it. In fact, I immerse myself in material from dozens of perspectives before I dive full-time into a push for change. And even add a bit of thinking of my own. And when I do so, it's quite easy to get information on the industry's positions - as they've invested enormous amounts in putting it out there. Through marketing, conferences & lobbying, they are quite able to outspend the average citizen.
In a situation of such patent inequality amongst the players, why aren't you critiquing THAT? And why aren't you critiquing the fact that most of these paid representatives are there NOT with open minds, looking clearly & objectively at change, or the greater good, but are mostly there to deliver the same (self-interested) points? Instead, you're critiquing the citizens?
And yes, I DO attend meetings with them. But I pick which ones. And yes, I even take notes, though they usually contain nothing more than notes on how the paid reps are repositioning & spinning, who they're working on, how confident they look, etc. - simply because they're NOT (in 99% of cases) adding anything new. And certainly not proposing things like Single Payer or Coal Closure etc.
by quinn esq (not verified) on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 5:45pm
I'll be waiting with great anticipation your 'policy reasons' extolling whatever alternative, (or not), you propose to single payer.
by miguelitoh2o (not verified) on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 6:00pm
Until we start holding members of Congress accountable at every election (most especially primary elections) then it really doesn't matter if this blog is a fantasy or represents actual reality.
We (the American voter) abdicated our responsibility a long time ago with the "liberal" grassroots remaining fractured and tactical rather than cohesive and strategic. Until we have a few election cycles where the results equal the displeasure, this issue will not be solved in one fell swoop.
It's not selling out. It's not some conspiracy. It's a lack of focus, a lack of priorities and a lack of intelligent leadership at all levels in the debate, not just at the top.
by Jason Everett Miller (not verified) on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 6:05pm
Valid points Jason, however trying to remain cohesive, and focused in the face of the kind of focus half a trillion $ buys in being strategic in its opposition is a distinct uphill battle. Not saying you're wrong, just that the deck is stacked against getting a message out about a proposition that removes that much moola from someone's plate. They are few, we are many, so the logistics of mounting resistance are magnified.
by miguelitoh2o (not verified) on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 6:14pm
Totally here what you are saying, but the same could have been said of Obama's candidacy (or Dean's) but they were able to generate grassroots interest despite bigger budget arrayed against them.
I think now is the perfect time for us to use viral communications to by-pass the traditional power structures. Baring that, we need an effort to start weeding out the degenerates from our Congress each and every election. Unless we fix the foundational issue (lack of voter participation to force accountability on Congress) I am afraid that any solution we come up with will be held hostage by time and the notoriously short memories of the average American voter.
Otherwise, we could very easily be right back in this same spot, fighting to win the same battle once again. Or trying to simply keep the ground we gained rather than moving on to conquer new challenges.
by Jason Everett Miller (not verified) on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 6:38pm
Right on mate! I will however reiterate the differential in our excess spending on healthcare, (approx. $480 Billion/year), compared to the budget of the Obama campaign, ($600 Million last I heard, and a record), gives the special interests more than enough cash reserve to inundate the media with a campaign of disinformation and deflection from the core issues.
by miguelitoh2o (not verified) on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 7:37pm
First, quinn, this isn't about you... however as usual, your first move is to make it so. The post was directed to TheraP's comment. Of course, your being in Canada means you aren't going to these meeting anyway -- this is a US matter, so I have no idea what you are talking about.
Second, if reps show up to these small meetings, I think it's fantastic. What better way to sharpen one's skills and access them in a small, nonthreatening environment? If however, a person is of the mind where the last opinion they hear is the one they hold, they have no business expressing their opinion to begin with.
If you want to go into a room full of like-minded people to "debate", all you will get is Kumbaya. That might make you feel good, but it doesn't accomplish anything. People have fought and died for making the world a better place. If you are intimidated by voicing an opinion in a room merely due to the presence of the "opposition", I have no sympathy.
What TheraP has described is an opportunity, not a calamity, especially since it's just a discussion. What better way to strengthen your arguments for when you write to your elected representatives?
by clearthinker (not verified) on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 7:57pm
JEM: BINGO!
I would add, however, that the only members of Congress you control are those from your state. Another reason why I am amused by people getting in a twist about Burris going to the Senate, etc. when they aren't from Illinois.
If people could focus their energies on specifics to get things done, things would get done.
by clearthinker (not verified) on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 8:00pm
Those two campaigns you mention had leadership and a goal. The problem in the battle for health care (and a significant point in the post) is that the Democrats have abdicated the goal or even discussing leading us in the direction that just about every honest observer knows we ought to go. If they will only lead when it is easy and bipartisan and they abdicate in every instance where they should be fighting for what is right then we'll never see progress, let alone significant change.
It is the abdication of leadership, whether on healthcare, domestic spying, torture, illegal wars, corruption throughout the executive departments, on just about every major issue for years now that has been the hallmark of failure for the DC Democrats. It is why they have failed for years to pass anything that would amount to signficant legislation designed to point the country in a new and better direction. It isn't a conspiracy, it is a way of life and of operating that keeps DC Dems in office and in the consulting business but doesn't yield any significant benefit for the people. They like to console themselves by winning re-election anyway when people buy their BS excuses. Once reelected they say to themselves: "It's okay, I don't have to actually get anything done. All I have to do is make it looked like I tried and they'll be satisfied."
The people as an aggregate cannot lead spontaneously on their own for more than a moment even if the blogosphere were whipping them up. It's not the sort of thing that can be sustained from disperate centers of influence except in the most extraordinary of circumstances. The people as a whole require strong, resolute, identifiable leadership to move coherently on anything. One can hardly call the leadership of the Democrat Party on healthcare or just about anything else strong or resolute. But you can identify the leaders of the appeasement first crowd: Harry Reid (and Tom Daschle before him), Nancy Pelosi, Rahm Emanuel, Steny Hoyer.
Take the popular opposition to the idiotic Wall Street Bailout. It wasn't even close. The people knew from the very start it was a stick up and immediately opposed it in huge number. But the vast masses were unable to mobilize despite giant majorities who understood that the $750 Billion heist was a bad idea. Only the lunatic right wingers, the most marginalized of persons in Congress at the moment, even attempted to oppose it. Few others had the courage to voice any opposition to it. Most Congressional Democrats were instantly cowed into supporting whatever came down the pike. It was very reminiscent to the Patriot Act foolishness. So without any credible leadership the will of the people was totally and quickly ignored by Democrats who took comfort in being part of the herd that stampeded right over the cliff in the biggest, most outrageous boondoggle in history ever put into one legislative proposal.
When our alleged political leaders nearly always abdicate, it is practically impossible for the masses to organize themselves effectively. It is all the worse when the alleged leaders of the people announce in advance that they will not even make any attempt pursue the goal the people want or need them to pursue which is also the one they said they were for at campaign time, e.g. "health care for all" but what they end up supporting is some pitiful means of finding ways to subsidize the insurance industry so more people have minimal coverage but the major problem--the rapacious insurance interests--are assuaged.
This kind of appeasement policy costs us more today, only complicates and makes reaching the obvious goal of national health care more difficult and expensive to reach in the long run, and it provides even more ammunition for the Republicans down the line to roll out their standard argument about how the government involvement they themselves supported actually made things worse, therefore, we cannot possibly consider moving toward the option that would have worked had we just tried it the first time since doing it wrong didn't work before, doing it the right way now would be even worse. But it didn't happen in this hypothetical first time because our Democratic leaders abdicated and didn't even attempt to implement national health insurance as they should have. In fact, they wouldn't even discuss it. Thus, the original appeasement move haunts us forever as it places the forces of reaction and the insurance interests in a position of permanent strategic advantage and the people at permanent disadvantage as though all their money and influence weren't enough of an imbalance to begin with.
This pathological dynamic in the health care area also exists on most major issues facing the nation and thus the DC Dems blow it over and over and over. You can take a look at most major issues and see the very same pathology defeating progress again and again over the years. It simply does not work! It actually undermines our ability to reach the goal!
As an example, what took the wind out of the sails of opposition to Bush's numerous crimes and snuffed out the building anti-Bush sentiment in Congress and the nation after the last midterm elections? It was Pelosi announcing at the outset that "impeachment is off the table." What a dumbass move! Even if you don't intend to impeach, why take the one genuine threat you have off the table prior to any engagement? Why discourage the opposition from "doing" anything substantive? What the hell is the benefit in that? It's a recipe for defeat and disappointment.
The use of this very same strategy on a host of issues is what allowed a minority of Republicans to cow the majority Democrats over and over again in the past Congress making them incredibly unproductive and unpopular to boot! The Republicans spent the whole Congress bitch-slapping the Dems for trying to get along, branded them as do nothing pussies and presto chango that is how the public perceives them! What a surprise! Seems no amount of humiliation is too great for the Congressional D's to submit themselves to.
Democrats seem to find no end to the uses for this strategic recipe for appeasement and failure. It needs to come to an end. If it doesn't, no change will occur, let alone the change we've been seeking.
by oleeb (not verified) on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 8:38pm
The "leaders" abdicate because it is a truism that no decision is better than the wrong one. Why? Because the electorate won't send the other message: imperfect but plausible action is better than none at all. Until incumbents know that their re-election is not a practical guarantee nothing can change.
What does this mean? It means, from a practical sense that there has to be a popular take-over of all the local party machines. In other words, an incumbent shouldn't be able to run on the idea that it will either be them or the other party, but rather, there should be credible primary challenge to a timid incumbent.
The 2008 election opens the way for that if people in Congressional districts use the power of the Internet to fundraise, etc. They must also take on their own party (possibly). That's a lot of effort. Of course, either you are in the fight for real, or you are in the fight to whine.
The choice is ours.
by clearthinker (not verified) on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 8:49pm
I'd be wary of any proposal labeled "reform" because that can mean anything even gutting medicare and medicaid. Remember when they "reformed" welfare, they only removed the word "poverty" from every centrist's dictionary.
by bluebell (not verified) on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 9:06pm
They have a ton of cash. We have numbers. Now we have a communications medium that bypasses their propaganda networks. We can do this thing from the grassroots as our efforts scale upward and onward. We just need to be patient, pragmatic and persistent. No efforts of this magnitude happen over night and we are really just getting started after decades of being on the ropes.
by Jason Everett Miller (not verified) on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 9:19pm
Exactly right. We need to have a national strategic vision with a local tactical focus. We also need to turn out and be passionate about every single election. Primaries are crucial and we treat them as throw-away. There is still a lot of work left to do on fronts that start much closer to home than 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
by Jason Everett Miller (not verified) on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 9:23pm
CT. Your reading - like your manners - are appalling. If you'd notice, Thera's comments were to me. Which means YOU made the "the first move" to make it "all about you." Advice: Try not to be so obvious when you try to look put-upon, ok?
As for your repeated mentions that I'm in Canada, I like the way you're taken to playing the "last refuge" card. It's kinda cute. Big Luv comin' at you from the Northside, CT! You da Borg, baby!
But, to the point, re-read my comment (to Thera) which was discussing a particular form of consultation & its results. Go on, I'll give you time to reread it... dum de dum.... Now read Thera's response, especially the Britain part... tra la tra la... Finished yet? No? Hurrrm. Ok. Dee dee dee.... I guess, given your recent comments on the difficulties of changing insurance, doctors, etc., I can see why you'd want to keep the discussion limited to the present US system, eh?
I'm also glad you think the reps showing up gives you a chance to "sharpen your skills." Other people's may not. Perhaps we could let them judge that? Or have they already been graded?
Kumbaya? People have fought AND DIED? Intimidated by the presence of the "opposition"? Are those comments directed at me? If so, you're sadly misinformed about my life, my history & my efforts. Or perhaps you meant Thera? Or Oleeb? Do spell out who you're targeting with your nastiness.
Or we'll be left to conclude that you're still stuck in that Airport Locker, talking to yourself...
... And humming Kumbaya.
by quinn esq (not verified) on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 9:24pm
Thanks for saying it, so I didn't have to, ct.
Oleeb, we agree on the scope of the issues as well as more than a few policy proposals to address those issues. You are correct in all of your very detailed analysis of Congressional failings and the consequences thereof.
What I think you miss is the prime motivator in all that corruption and inertia - voters who refuse to hold their representatives accountable.
Unless progressives, which I consider both of us to be given where we would see the country go in the future, can find a way to both motivate and educate the American voter, we will never see the change in leadership we need in Congress to allow someone like Obama to get some truly phenomenal things done.
Absent movement on the part of voters, however, Barack is left navigating the system we allowed to evolve over the last 230 years.
I am impressed by his ability to move the ball forward in that environment and to chart a course that will take us the direction we want to go. I am pleased by the strategic choices he has made and can see the fruits of that pragmatism growing over time. It may not be as quickly as we think we should get there and is also a course less direct than we would like, but it is required because he doesn't have a true mandate until Congress feels the fear that can only be generated by their constituents.
We won't see that happen until the 2010 primaries at the earliest.
by Jason Everett Miller (not verified) on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 9:35pm
Should read, "CT. Your reading - like your manners - is appalling." And, "I'm also glad you think the reps showing up gives you a chance to 'sharpen your skills. Other people's skills may not need sharpening up."
Damn Weasel-to-English software.
by quinn esq (not verified) on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 9:41pm
I think we should get the weasels to do special software for translation for CT. Or maybe they're flummoxed too!
Weasels, I salute you!
by TheraP (not verified) on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 9:49pm
TheraP wrote:
So while she said this comment to you, it was about her own feelings. In fact, the comment has nothing to do with you.
If you aren't Canadian, I stand corrected. However, you keep talking about being in Canada, Canucks, etc. I believe once you posted about a Canadian election and how it affected you. Do I know about your history, etc.? No, of course not. And frankly, it doesn't interest me except insofar as it might advance a discussion.
As for the bit about if the rest of my post was about you: of course not. It may have been addressed to you, but it didn't say you personally sang Kumbaya. Re-read if you like substituting "one" instead of "you". I hope that makes you feel better.
Of course, quinn, you are an absolute narcissist so it's hardly surprising you constantly try to bring it back to you. It also explains why you -- and this time I really mean you personally! -- must have the last word on every single subthread discussion you participate in (not just with me).
by clearthinker (not verified) on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 10:34pm
There are no machines anymore. Candidate centered politics has been the order of the day for decades now. You are wanting something that doesn't occur: action from the people without leadership. Unless and until their is identifiable, strong leadership nothing like what you suggest can or will occur. I agree that it should happen but it won't happen from the grassroots up spontaneously. Somebody is going to have to grow a pair and lead.
Howard Dean stood up and would have been our leader had they not sbotaged him. I still feel certain that Dean would have destroyed Bush at the polls in 2004. But that was the last thing the DC Democrats wanted. When he said he represented the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party the reaction amongst DC Dems was like the look on a vampire's face at dawn in the middle of an open field. Fear. Panic. Hate.
The center and conservative wings of the Democratic Party fear people like Howard Dean far more than they fear any Republican I can assure you. And if there's any group more afraid of a Dean-like leader than the centrist and conservative Dems it is the Republicans. Such a leader would spell the end of this idiotic game where the Republicans run the show no matter who is in the majority. That is why Dean was crucified and that is why they hate him to this day and resented every success he scored as chairman. I wish Leahy would retire so he could run for the Senate in Vermont. He and Sanders would be an awesome tag team!
Obama claimed to be such a leader on the campaign trail but it seems pretty clear to me that was all marketing and not intended to ever become a reality. The whole "movement" stuff was a means to propel his campaign mechanism, not to generate real change.
by oleeb (not verified) on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 11:17pm
Does this mean I get the last word? Cool!
Thera began her comment with "Quinn" & later wrote "... Your description of what happened in Britain confirms my reaction." Other than that, you are absolutely correct that "the comment has nothing to do with you."
Our family is tri-national, CT. I wasn't born in Canada & have spent half my adult life spread across the 3 nations. I have sibs who are US & UK citizens, and family roots going back 300+ years in the US. None of which is relevant here, other than that you've taken to harping on about me being on US political boards.
In closing, the Absolute Narcissist wishes the Utter Blowhard a wonderful evening. I'm off, to see if I can squeeze in the last word on all those other sub-threads.
by quinn esq (not verified) on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 11:26pm
And, er....
Also.
(buttseks!!!!!)
by Bwakfat (not verified) on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 11:32pm
First, there *are* machines, they just act more subtle than days of yore. There is definitely an in crowd and an out crowd.
As far as no action until there is a leader: well, that means nothing will be done. No leader will represent people when he doesn't have to. Much easier to have a few monied interests, kowtow to them, and let the people bicker and bellyache among themselves.
Howard Dean was not sabotaged. He came in third in Iowa which is why he was giving that speech. THIRD. That was after he was riding high. True, the scream didn't help, but he was already waning.
DC Dems would have increased their power with a Dem in the White House. Do you mean to imply that they would prefer a GOP in the White House? That honestly makes no sense. You write:
Please do!
by clearthinker (not verified) on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 11:49pm
Ack, ack, ack. I caught you again Bwak.
Tsk, Tsk, Tsk. What happened to all those years in finishing school?
by dickday (not verified) on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 12:06am
They're finished.
What is your excuse?
by Bwakfat (not verified) on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 12:10am
Dean came in third in Iowa as a result of a concerted effort on the part of the media and DC pols to scuttle his juggernaut of a campaign and throw the election to Kerry. Remember, the lead up to Iowa was a panic from the establishment about Dean. He had the Democrats on fire and then the drumbeat against him began. "He can't win." "He's too angry" "He's too liberal" and so it went for a pretty intense three months prior to Iowa. The centrists and corporate interests rallied to Kerry because he was the one who could win remember? He couln't be attacked because he was a war hero and Dean was skiing instead of being in the military during Vietnam. That's why Dean came in third in Iowa. It wasn't an accident or lots of horrible mistakes by Dean's campaign. It was an ambush and it worked. They took him down.
Any machines that still operate are based on personality and not anything resembling a political organization called a machine. Once a particular candidate is no longer on the scene any organization that was there previously disappears too. There are established interests and people with inordinate influence and they are mostly business people and the toadying pols who service their needs and call themselves centrists or belong to the DLC.
The point about leadership is that without it, the people cannot sustain spontaneous movement in a particular direction or initiative. Leaders do emerge to do this. Obama could be that kind of leader, but as I read on the home page of TPM that he's dining this evening with George Will, Bill Kristol and David Brooks I think we can pretty well forget about progressive leadership from our new President. It's corporate centrism all the way with the same folks who brought us the mortgage crisis, Iraq, and the exporting of good jobs in full command. Oy!
by oleeb (not verified) on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 1:41am
Great post Oleeb. Your disassembling of the all-too-familiar paradigm for Congressional "debate" on health care was both insightful and humorous.
The Dems continue to be complicit in the willful misrepresentation of this issue; carefully framing it in such a way that the pseudo "debate" is always kept well within the safe, pro-corporate parameters.
by icKx (not verified) on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 1:43am
Oh, almost forgot... the reason centrists and establishment DC Dems fear a guy like Dean more than the Republicans is because he would exclude them if he got to power and would instead put liberals in key positions of influence. The Republicans wouldn't depose them from their positions of influence in the Democratic establishment.
The Republicans also fear such a person because they know he won't play the game where they call all the shots and the Democrats dance to their tune even when the Dems hold all the real power.
by oleeb (not verified) on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 1:45am
Yes, a vast left wing conspiracy.
Why is it that when a person's candidate doesn't win, it never occurs to them that many people who voted didn't feel the way they did?
Dean apparently wasn't a leader by your definition since he couldn't summon the collective ire of the masses.
As far as your political machine idea: yes, of course, it's based on personality. It always is! Of course, what to say of the Kennedy machine in NY?
I'm sorry oleeb, you often make some good points but you aren't doing so here. It would be at least more honest if you said: "Dean didn't win because people weren't smart enough to elect him leader". (We can quibble about the level of smarts -- e.g. being duped by the press, whatever -- later.) That's the position you seem to be taking anyway.
by clearthinker (not verified) on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 2:08am
You're on a roll oleeb. Your premise makes perfect sense to me. It is also necessary that we keep this conversation going publicly if we stand any chance of getting the change we need. Where would we have been in the space/technological boom of the 60s and 70s had JFK not decided we were going to put a man on the moon? There was little popular support for such a massive investment prior to his decision to pursue it. Likewise with LBJ and the 'Great Society'. With the corporate interests working against us, it's almost a sure thing that by the time such change is instituted, it is or will be too late by the time a full blown popular movement is born. JEM and CT have a point though, and without a concerted grassroots movement, however small, we stand little chance of instituting the changes we need. It's time our progressive leaders grow some, and not just BHO.
by miguelitoh2o (not verified) on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 2:46am
I have news for you: corporate interests got us to the moon. Indeed, NASA is a welfare program for the aerospace industry.
And by May 1963, Kennedy told Jack Webb that once we got to the moon, that was it. It was over. That's May 1963. Go read THE MAN WHO RAN THE MOON.
You see, it's the fairy tales and the myths that cause the greatest problems. Because they prevent you from thinking clearly.
by clearthinker (not verified) on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 4:40am
PS: the popular support for the space program -- in terms of spending dollars -- ran out pretty quickly. Go read THE RIGHT STUFF by Tom Wolfe and note how Apollo 13, no one even cared about a live broadcast to the moon.
NASA's funding peaked in 1965... and it was hard to get it to grow that long.
Sure people enjoyed a single moon landing -- but for enduring interest? Forget it. Why do you think they nixed the last 3 scheduled lunar landings? No public support.
by clearthinker (not verified) on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 4:44am
Dude! Those corporations would not have undertaken the projects without the full support of the gov't. Popular support? My point was that the projects would not have been accomplished without leadership at the top of the pyramid. Do you work at being daft or were you born that way?
by miguelitoh2o (not verified) on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 6:55am
DUDE! Much of the space program (like the boosters) was ripped off wholesale from the DoD and the Air Force's efforts. These rockets existed before the space program.
True, the Saturn rockets did not. They were the only ones however. And by the way, we couldn't rebuild one of those now if we tried. That's because Apollo was more of an engineering feat than anything else. That's why the technology is "lost" -- it's not generally purposeful. The development of the integrated circuit and the microprocessor during that time -- which were not done for NASA -- is a more significant tech development. The government actually took leadership there, but you need to learn more about how industry and the government work together. I suggest you check out Noam Chomsky.
Dude: show a little humbleness if the level of your understanding is based on a few Discovery and History Channel programs.
Dude: go stick your snout in the book I showed you... You will enjoy it and learn something.
Dude: Ike didn't want to pull a stunt mission because he knew that it would eventually deflate under it's own weight -- which turned out to exactly be the case.
Dude: so sorry to shatter your myths, but you are in over your trotters on this one.
by clearthinker (not verified) on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 7:41am
Hilarious!
(From a finishing school dropout.)
(trucknutz!!)
by seashell (not verified) on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 9:44am
Hmmm - unless you count the leaders that actually got a second term when they made all the wrong decisions instead of no decisions.
It happened here in the US just recently.
by seashell (not verified) on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 9:48am
Considering what MY portfolio looks like, there couldn't be a better time to end profits from insurance stocks, since there aren't any right now anyway!
I have heard many arguments against ending multi-payer health insurance based on the premise that insurance jobs would be lost. I realize there would be some dislocation, and at a bad time in our economy, but it doesn't move me one inch. In the first place, the overwhelming good accomplished by having all health dollars going to delivery of health care is so obvious it hardly needs defending.
In the second place, many military jobs would be lost if we managed to achieve world peace, but you don't see people going out and starting wars just too keep..........ooops! Never mind!
by CVille Dem (not verified) on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 12:10pm
Brilliant and makes steam come out of my ears. So we should use this as a template for pushing back, starting now. We need the 350 billion in TARP for health care. End of discussion. Implement Medicare for All tomorrow.
by DKC/Feral Cat (not verified) on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 12:15pm
The man has not been inaugurated yet. You simply have nothing to base this on. Marketing vs Leadership? Already? In fact this was your opinion during the campaign if I remember. Give him a chance. I share your concerns about the health care issue, and I think this blog does a great service to highlight what HAS happened in the past and what COULD happen this time. But before you condemn him, let's see what he does.
by CVille Dem (not verified) on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 12:19pm
Exactly. I am beating the drum here in Montana because Baucus has decided to be a leader in Health care. We elected him. So we should have some say. He doesn't listen very well, but if it's overwhelming, it could help. Jon Tester does listen to the phone calls jamming his offices as in the recent bailout vote. He voted against it. His staffer told me that the phones never stopped ringing.
by DKC/Feral Cat (not verified) on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 12:20pm
One is even going to be Secretary of State. I do believe her vote was intended to show toughness for her future run for President, rather than a belief that Bush was right. No decision would have been better, in that case.
by CVille Dem (not verified) on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 12:24pm
Thanks to all of you for taking the time to read the post and for your comments!
by oleeb (not verified) on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 12:33pm
Dear CT, We could spend an inordinate amount of time running laps around the inside of your cranium, and we'd end up just where we started, inside your brain-pod. Try to keep focused on the original premise. We were talking about decision-making and leadership. Does it start from the top or from the bottom? Oleeb's post suggests it originates from the top. You and Jason posit it begins with the electorate. I use the example of the space program as a federal program that originated at the top. You focus on the technical accuracy of the part of my statement stating that there was a space/technological boom in the 60s/70s. Like a dog with a bone you seize on whatever inaccuracy your brouhaha elite scientist brain perceives in that part of my statement. We end off topic, with you referring me to a reading list, some of which I've read. I could choose to debate the accuracy of my statement, but to what end? I’m not really interested in conducting the circle jerk your comments too often lead to.
Clearthinker, I know you’ve heard this before, but add me to the list of those who think you flatter yourself with your chosen username. I’ve heard you accuse others here of wanting to ‘kill the messenger’ when they have taken umbrage with your comments. Let me give you a clue: Those posters probably never got as far as your ‘message’. Most are deflected by your condescending attitude long before they get that far. The dialectic style you employ while perhaps acceptable around the Clearthinker household, should be saved for the company of human beans raised by feral animals when outside the confines of your domicile. A few months ago I found a particular blog and comments of interest here at TPM and suggested a friend read it. At one point during her review of the comments, she looked up and asked who this “pompous asshole, Clearthinker” was. Now you may choose to discount that as another intellectually challenged humanoid incapable of understanding your uber intelligent prognostications, but I assure you she is way up there in terms of those things you hold dear, (IQ, level of education, etc). I know you are intelligent as well, or I give you that benefit of the doubt, but without your exercising some basic communication skills, I guess what I’m sayin’, is getting to the nugget of truth in your comments is not worth the effort for me. In that regard, I will respond to your comments henceforth if I find them possessing at minimum a tinge of intellectual curiosity to understand what it is I, or other posters here are trying to convey. If conversely I perceive you ‘acting out’ like an attention starved child seeking validation of your intellectual 'superiority via your well known pomposity and inclination to ‘lecture’, you can count me out. Cheers!
by miguelitoh2o (not verified) on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 1:29pm
I think there's been plenty of foreshadowing about what's going to go down. I hope I'm wrong but I doubt it.
It's DLC all the way and then some. Hanging out with Will, Kristol, and Brooks? Fashioning the stimulus to appease Republicans instead of invigorate our moribund economy? A health care proposal that is essentially a massive subsidy program for propping up the insurance interests? No investigations let alone prosecutions of the Bush regime's multiple, obvious, blatant and very serious criminal acts? What about any of this gives us hope for real change? All I see are signs pointing toward a minor tweaking of the status quo, pro-corporate, centrist policies that are unlikely to meet the challenges we face in adequate fashion. Maybe all these signs are wrong and don't mean what they appear to mean, but usually they do.
by oleeb (not verified) on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 1:38pm
DUDE!
Yes, because, unlike you, I want my understanding of the world to be accurate and based on facts.
Most people here like the "pile-on" method. When they see a bunch of other people doing something, they feel emboldened as well.
The bottom line is that the general level of sophistication of the TPM discussions has dropped steadily after the election (and I think has dropped since Obama beat Hillary in the primaries).
If you feel I have no respect for an argument that isn't cogent and factual -- you are correct. I have no sympathy when your house washes away after someone told you not to build it on the sand. Many on this thread and TheraP's Dean thread are not sure why Dean didn't move farther along. It's simple: he didn't have the appeal he needed. But you can talk to this group of "Deaniacs" about as easily as HillaryIs44 group. (The fact is, I, too, was intrigued by Howard Dean -- though not as much as many here -- and can deal with his loss not being a "conspiracy against him".) But instead of dealing with facts, they deal with myths, and instead of having a reasonable time explaining cause and effect, they have to go to conspiracy.
None of this serves the general electorate. As I mentioned to dikkday last night: everyone is entitled to an opinion, but that doesn't mean all opinions are equal or even worthy of discussion. The opinions not worthy of discussion aren't those contrary to mine -- they are those built on sand.
What's an example of a "dumb" opinion? On dikkday's thread on the constitutional thread, there were a group of people who wanted to think of the people as the "fourth branch" of government. Why? Perhaps because it gave them a theory that they could discuss and sound intelligent. Unfortunately, they showed a complete lack of understanding on the basis of the formation of our government. I was lambasted, of course, because I pointed out the error.
The thread became very quite however, without all the passive aggressive, pile-on comments once a few pointed out that I was correct.
Many of the people here are willfully ignorant. Your comment about tossing out the point that your "facts" -- on which you based your argument -- weren't facts, really surprised me. I suggest you tune your perception to reality rather than vice versa.
by clearthinker (not verified) on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 3:37pm
Once again, we stand facing each other stroking, stroking, stroking... And as I said above, I’m not really interested in conducting the circle jerk your comments so often lead to. I'm truly sorry I upset you so by calling you 'Dude". I know you're still reacting to being labeled 'daft' as well. Your continuance in maintaining, that I built my argument upon my throw away statement that there was a technological boom in the 60s/70s betrays your obtuseness. It does nothing to wipe the grime from the lens through which your 'clear' thoughts evaluate the world around you. I can only repeat, and hope some of this gets through. Other than that, I can only suggest, as you did so often on a recent thread, that you review my previous comment, and perhaps visit a power plant. Cheers!
by miguelitoh2o (not verified) on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 6:04pm
Really? Just another thing you got wrong.
Be well, my friend.
by clearthinker (not verified) on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 11:57pm