Rahm Emmanuel - Wormtongue

Senator Scott Brown -- get used to it

No doubt Coakley ran a bad campaign, apparently thought she had it in the bag. And the people of Massachusetts found her cold, unlikeable, and unenthusiastic.

That’s one of the two main factors that could have changed the outcome. The other is the way Obama has run his presidency. Obama’s failure of leadership brought out Republicans and people who oppose the health care bills, running up Brown’s totals, and discouraged progressive voters who otherwise would have turned out for Coakley.

And among people who always vote, it pushed them toward Brown.

Obama laid the groundwork with his anti-populist approach to the financial crisis, which showed people that he is not on their side (something that he came into office with). Not one of us. He squandered his political capital.

Then his administration made health care a partisan fight over legislative vote counting instead of a battle to get what just about everyone wants, which is good quality, worry-free access to health care.

He came out of the gate saying “I’ll do whatever it takes to get 60 votes for any kind of health care bill” instead of saying “I’ll get every single American good quality, worry-free access to health care and I won’t sign a bill that fails to do that. Don’t even bother putting it on my desk.”

Not only did he drain the populist excitement out of his presidency, but he framed the whole effort in terms of vote-counting, as opposed to principled populism. The appointment of Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff cemented this suicidal approach to leadership.

Voters in Massachusetts were keenly aware that this election was being treated as a referendum on the health care proposal such as it is — and Obama hasn’t sold it. Who could? It’s got the fuel efficiency of an Edsel, combined with the safety of a Pinto. People on the right think it’s a government intrusion and people on the left see it for the sellout that it is. And people in the center are more or less indifferent to it.

Unfortunately for Obama and the Democratic Party, all of them are correct.

Kirk, the man for the job...but what job?

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick has passed over the leading candidate, former governor and presidential candidate Mike Dukakis, and handed the vacant US Senate seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy to Paul Kirk instead. As the ship of state sailed into the treacherous straits of the health care financing debate, Kennedy had urged Patrick not to let his seat remain empty.

Perhaps it was because Vicki Kennedy was pushing him, but let’s see if the citizen-viewer can develop an alternate theory on why he was chosen over Dukakis. The smart money says he can.

From The Boston Globe:

“Kirk was registered as a lobbyist a decade ago. He was paid $35,000 to represent the pharmaceutical company Hoechst Marion Roussel on legislation before the US Senate in 1999, according to federal disclosure records. He is currently on the board of directors of the Hartford Insurance Group. …

The Globe article concludes:

“…Some Kennedy insiders who support Kirk’s appointment, though, have argued that Dukakis is too outspoken on health care issues, espousing liberal positions that could complicate Democrats’ attempts in Washington to moderate their approach on the legislation.”

And let’s not forget that Kirk, as co-chair of the Commission on Presidential Debates with his counterpart, former RNC chair Frank Fahrenkopf, led the successful effort to take control of the debates from the League of Women Voters, turn them over to corporate sponsorship and systematically exclude 3rd party candidates.

The Globe fawningly describes this as “an effort to bring civil discourse to national campaigns.”

Governor Patrick and President Obama are close. If we can look past the cover provided by Mrs. Kennedy, the fingerprints of the White House are surely all over this.

McNamara's war

Robert S. McNamara: 1916 - 2009

Robert McNamara was the architect of a policy that directly killed many hundreds of thousands of human beings, and led to the deaths of millions more. Late in life he tried to resuscitate his image, saying that he and the other principals in the American war in Vietnam were wrong.

Not wrong in the sense of immoral or criminal, but in the sense of erroneous. In 1995 account, In Retrospect, one reads his account of error after error—erring always in the same direction: more war, more killing. To his credit, he didn’t apologize. To his discredit, he did not admit error at the time, but only error in hindsight, accompanied by a multitude of reasons those errors had been unavoidable. After all, the smartest man in the world can’t really make errors. He can, however, look back and realize that a different course of action would have been better.

It’s a work of extraordinary narcissism. McNamara at once took credit for realizing this grand mistake early, and therefore resigning (with a push) as Defense Secretary. However, he wrote, he felt it would have been improper for him as ex-Secretary to criticize the policy, even when he knew was wrong. While he kept his silence for sake of propriety, human beings continued to be slaughtered, bombed, poisoned, and sent to their deaths by the tens and hundreds of thousands.

Had he spoken out, perhaps it would have done nothing to end that war sooner. Perhaps it would have done nothing to prevent more recent wars, wars that like the American war in Vietnam were built on lies and sustained on false promises. He should have done it anyway.

Robert McNamara, your admissions were far too little and far too late. And far too self-serving.

best 'Marmaduke' ever

accountability

let's get it on

A decade and a half ago when the Clinton health care plan thumped down on this citizen-viewer’s desk in its thousand-page majesty, the c-v pronounced it dead on arrival. Not to brag, but the c-v added that it would kill any future reform efforts for at least ten years, and it did.

Like one of Dr. Moreau’s hideous experiments, the Clinton plan was doomed not only by its irrationality but by its complexity. This complexity was built into its genetic code by the major private insurers that fathered it.

President Obama’s health care plan is strategically vague and thus not subject, yet, to the range of specific attacks that killed the Clinton plan. It is not a Maginot Line but a submarine, lurking in the deep.

At this point its most visible feature, and the one getting the most attention, like a conning tower above the waves, is that a public option be available to compete with private insurance for the loyalty of the customer base (that’s us, citizen-viewers).

The thinking here seems to be that a properly run, publicly financed system can compete well on a level playing field against private insurance.

However, the fact is that on a level playing field, public financing of health care would cream private financing every time, and by a wide margin. That’s been proven by variations on public financing all over the world. It’s proven by economics, by mathematics, by logic and by experience.

The problem is that the private health care financing industry doesn’t want a level playing field any more than it wants a publicly financed universal health care system from the get-go. The industry will fight to the death to cripple any public plan. Its very existence is at stake.

So there’s an inherent contradiction in the concept: For private plans to be viable, the public plan must be cut off at the knees. (And by the way, putting a public plan into a private marketplace is to cut it off at the knees. As long as we are customers for insurance, rather than citizens choosing health care providers, we’re toast.)

The possible outcomes of the Obama approach are basically two:
1. The industry wins the political fight, and we see an unfair but ‘equal’ competition, or
2. The industry’s back is broken and we see a competition in which the public option is so obviously better that the private options wither away and die the deaths they deserve.

Believe it or not, some health care advocates appear to be fighting for option 1.

We deserve better. For the vast majority of citizen-viewers—those who aren’t health insurance executives or major stockholders, only outcome 2 can be acceptable. Yet the industry will fight to the death to avoid outcome 2.

The central fact of the health care financing issue is that quality, efficient, cost-contained health care for all on the one hand, and private insurance on the other, are mutually exclusive. The private health insurance industry has to die.

There’s only one way to win this fight. We citizen-viewers must break the back of the health care finance industry, and we must break it now.

frightened rabbits

Even Amnesty International is excited about Senator Patrick Leahy’s proposal to create a truth commission to investigate rights abuses during the last administration, or claims to be. Reading between the lines of their announcement (which seems to be on e-mail only), what’s missing is an endorsement of his plan.

And there’s good reason to withhold it.

Before you sign Leahy’s petition, take a close look. He proposes, in vague terms, “a truth and reconciliation commission, to investigate the Bush-Cheney Administration’s constitutional abuses so we make sure they never happen again.”

Missing from his language is any mention of the possibility of prosecution. And in fact, truth commissions in other countries and similar inquiries in the US have typically foreclosed or severely limited future prosecutions — essentially trading away justice to get some of the truth as a consolation prize.

This approach may be appropriate in countries that are emerging from civil conflict, delicately trying to rebuild a peaceful society and desperate to avoid renewed war. In these cases, justice may be out of reach, and a bit of truth might be as much as one could hope for.

But it’s not appropriate in a country with well-developed legal structures and an operational judiciary, where all the tools exist to conduct criminal investigations, to indict those with substantial evidence of criminal activity against them, and to put them in the dock to face their accusers.

Assuming we live in the latter kind of country, Leahy’s proposal seems to be designed to put perpetrators of the most serious crimes of our time into a special category: above the law. After all, the rest of us don’t get to face a truth commission if we’re accused of a crime. We face a court of law, and the possibility of prison. Even death.

Are our institutions so weak that we must compromise justice in hope of escaping civil conflict? Senator Leahy seems to think so. If he is right, then as a senator he shares responsibility for the collapse of our civil society.

Too many times, we’ve seen the frightened rabbits in Congress join with their collegial collaborators to create mechanisms that gives us half-truths instead of justice. Like the Iran-Contra hearings, these mechanisms allow privileged criminals to go free, and to join future adminstrations. And kill again.

number 11 is pissed off

The Greatest Americans web site now features TOP TEN COMBAT ROBOTS.

gonna miss these folks...

and happy Thanksgiving to you too

Sure, I’d love some guilt and culpability with my mashed potatoes!

One indication of moral progress in the United States would be the replacement of Thanksgiving Day and its self-indulgent family feasting with a National Day of Atonement accompanied by a self-reflective collective fasting.

Mmm, that was tasty! I think I’ll just have a little more…

DSM: thinking outside the bun

Watching the last week of political news, I realize a new approach is needed post-2008 election.

Obama and the Democrats seem to be showing us that this election drove out the far right and reinstated the center-right establishment, even if the people voted for something else.

One could document the atrocities, but that takes work, and others are better at it than I. See OpenLeft for example.

Instead it’s probably a good time to shift gears and think about the big picture, outside the box (or is bun?), beyond the fringe, one step ahead, macro …

Click to read more ...

challenged ballots - even more bizarre!

In the contested Minnesota recount of the Norm Coleman (R-MN) vs Al Franken (D) race for US Senate, Coleman’s people are apparently challenging ballots for the simple reason that some citizen-viewers who marked their ballots for Franken for Senate must have intended to vote for Coleman, simply because they voted for McCain in the presidental race.

deciphering challenged ballots

This is interesting: from the Minnesota contested Senate race.

DSM: A method to the Joe-madness?

Today the House Democrats narrowly voted to replace John Dingell with Henry Waxman as chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

I know, you probably had to step back from the computer just now to fight off the vapors.

But seriously, this is news.

Click to read more ...