Month: October 2008

Taken For A Ride

by tristero

Don’t miss Maeve Reston’s revolting hurl in the LA Times recalling the halcyon days when McCain pampered, flattered, and even healed his media entourage. It really can’t be excerpted, you need to experience the lurching contractions of the whole retch.

Many of you may be embarrassed, or even repelled, at Reston’s avid enthusiasm for exposing, for no reason whatsoever, her truly limitless narcissism and negative self-esteem. It really is quite remarkable: It’s all her fault, she informs us, that the Straight Talk Express derailed because she asked an awkward question of St. John McCain on video tape. It’s like reading the confession of one of those cultists in the homemade skirts married to that polygamist. Memo to Maeve: It’s not your fault. Trust me.

Reston’s personality type is ripe for exploitation by trained manipulators like politicians. Sure enough, during her embed with Papa John, me-obsessed Maeve regressed to the psychological state of a helpless child, clingingly dependent upon the good Daddy – the “other man” in her life – not to mention his generous supply of solicitious aides who provided her with band-aids for her boo-boos. (Think I”m making this up? Read the article.)

Even though you and I may perceive Reston’s “journalism” as shoddy to the point of corruption, I’m sure neither her nor her editors think of it that way. Her needy personality and ambition assured her access to one of the most powerful people in the world. And that provided her paper with close=up portraits of the Maverick straight-shooterer. Where’s the problem?

The problem is that this isn’t reporting as it is commonly understood, but merely rank publicity flacking. Those of us who couldn’t care less about McCain’s holiday jaunts in the rainforests of Costa Rica are being fed hagiographic bromides rather than facts. It is impossible to get a sense either of the issues or the temperament of the politician.

One can’t blame McCain for trying, I suppose, to seduce the press rather than answer questions; it is what powerful people do when questioned. And Reston herself comes across as so pitifully insecure it’s hard for me to get too angry at her, either. However, her bosses, who aided and abetted this abusive relationship – abusive, that is, to the readers of the Times who are looking to be informed about the powerful – have a heckuva lot to answer for.

UPDATE: Glenn has more.

Vote Flipping

by tristero

It’s not an urban myth:

Notice that after the machine gets calibrated, it still flipped a vote.

As I’ve mentioned several times, my elderly parents were victims of the infamous butterfly ballot down in Florida. We’re pretty sure that my mom ended up voting accidentally for Buchanan while my father probably voted for Gore. Both intended to vote for Gore but got confused. While both my parents were in full possession of their mental faculties, this was a highly disorienting experience for them.

The gadget in this video is no better. The out-of-calibration machine demonstrated on this video would, if used in the election, surely confuse many voters who wouldn’t think to inform an official, or might be too embarrassed to do so. Proofreading a long printout of voter choices also adds needless redundancy and complication. I don’t know what the solution is, but I do know that these machines are not it.

Meanwhile, it is important to stress what may seem obvious to many of us. Everyone who votes should check, and doublecheck, their ballot to make sure that the machine has properly registered their vote. And needless to say, clear, accurate voting technology should have a place of priority on all progressives’ long, long list of issues to address.

Together

by digby

…we did better

Acorn’s Bertha Lewis thanked the progressive movement for its help today:

That may be the first time that I’ve really felt that our budding progressive movement is real. Very, very nice.

*I do have to add another shout out to Brad Friedman, who is our resident blogospheric expert on all aspects of electoral integrity and is the ultimate repository of useful information on the subject.

.

Saddleback Wanker

by digby

Now that we’ve invited everyone into the big tent, it looks like some people aren’t going to be welcome anymore. At least if they want to get married.

Pastor Dan reports:

Rick Warren Endorses Proposition 8

I thought about giving Warren the nod for the coveted Wanker Of The Day Award. But then I realized that he’s just doing what comes naturally to him, even if, as Randall Balmer points out, it’s not true to his Baptist roots. The real problem here is the endless parade of Religious-Industrial Complex consultants and activists who tell us that Rick Warren is the epitome of the “moderate Evangelical” that Democrats should be working to attract. The only problem is, it doesn’t work. Cameron Strang – who was supposed to pray at the Democratic Convention in Denver – is now on the board of Oral Roberts University. Randy Brinson worked for Mike Huckabee this spring and runs what’s left of Alabama’s chapter of the Christian Coalition. Joel Hunter endorsed Huckabee in the primaries, and has pledged himself to “maintaining a socially conservative platform”. Even the venerable Jim Wallis won’t describe himself as part of a “religious left.” Moving away from strictly Evangelicals, Doug Kmiec is still an authoritarian Catholic.

You just wait. On the morning after the election we will see all these so-called Christians and their lobbyists rushing to take credit for the election and telling everyone that it proves America is basically socially conservative. That’s what they always do, whether Democrats or Republicans win the thing. All these alleged Republican apostates will make the case that they are right there with Obama on everything — except, you know,stuff like civil liberties and civil rights (Nobody wants any more of that, obviously.)

Pastor Dan gives the correct analysis of the problem:

So: while Rick Warren may be a useful ally on issues such as poverty, he is nothing like a progressive. Seeking to bring him or members of his congregation into the Democratic party only serves to drag the party rightward on social issues. Coalitions are fun and all, but sometimes they need to be built around issues, rather than elections.

Of course Democrats and liberals can work with these people on issues of common interest. What they cannot do is keep whittling away at their fundamental principles in a quixotic quest to bring these people into their electoral coalition. It won’t work.

Besides, it’s not like there aren’t plenty of religious leaders who are actually tolerant and compassionate toward their fellow man for the Democratic party to work with:

.

Charles Meets Barack

by digby

Just watch it.

.

A Democratic Era

by digby

All through this election cycle I’ve been featuring reports from an insider I call “Deep Insight.” This is the final one:

Democracy is coming to the USA
Leonard Cohen

With one week left to go before the election, it certainly looks like a greater measure of accountability will arrive soon. Of course after the last eight years of government by oligarchy, cronyism and rightwing ideology, any democratic accountability would be novel. George Bush is the proximate cause of a putative federal progressive majority after November 4th.

It is obvious the political landscape has been radically altered in the last month. The meltdown in the capital markets and the freeze of the credit markets has led a Republican Administration to nationalize a significant portion of the mortgage industry, a major insurer, and “invest” in the major banks. The explosion of unregulated portions of the capital markets was predicted years ago by major financial figures like Warren Buffett and George Soros, but the government waited until the unraveling was well underway. Alan Greenspan, the disciple of “philosopher” Ayn Rand, was “shocked” about problems with credit default swaps and the greed of Wall Street. Of course as Fed Chief, he fought vigorously against any new regulation of financial markets. The malfeasance and crime on Wall Street has claimed many innocent victims worldwide. The current blurred line between Goldman Sachs and the Treasury Department is also very unsettling.

The public is reacting in both disbelief and anger as retirement savings are washed away. Any economic progress over the past several years has been revealed as a Potemkin village. Median wages already lower than in 2000, will head lower. Five million more Americans are below the poverty line than in 2000. Real hardship is underway for many.

The economic upheaval has driven George Bush’s approval rating back into the 20s, far lower than even the number of Americans who believe the words in the Bible are literally true. The country wants him gone now. Nine percent of the public currently thinks the country is on the right track. Again this is an historic number.

Barack Obama is the obvious beneficiary of this shift in the political dynamic. His steady performance in the debates and on the stump has allowed him to pass the threshold for a President. He now easily trumps McCain not only on the “economy” but also on “leadership.” He surpasses the old taunt against FDR by possessing both a first class temperament and a first class mind. Despite all the smears from the GOP, Obama has increased his favorability rating during the course of the year. He is wearing well with the majority of the public.

The financial advantage enjoyed by the Obama campaign is evident both in an unprecedented Election Day operation and the massive communication campaign. At the end of the day, however, any ads pale in importance to the real world unraveling of the GOP ideology. Senator McCain has reaped the whirlwind of conservative economic policy.

McCain’s erratic behavior during the market meltdown raised new doubts about his competence and temperament. At that point, the Presidential race shifted inexorably. Not only did the atmosphere become more toxic for Republicans, but also McCain’s words and actions were somewhat inexplicable except as a media stunt. Karl Rove once remarked that modern politics is TV with the sound off. There is a kernel of truth in this cynical view, and John McCain was damaged both with the sound off and on in three debates. In the most recent New York Times poll, McCain had a 36/45-favorable/unfavorable rating. This judgment incorporates both the public’s consideration of Senator McCain’s temperament and his positions on the issues. He seems to be a very angry man.

Sarah Palin may have excited the evangelical base of the GOP, but her incompetence in answering simple questions from Katie Couric sent many swing voters running for the exits. She was clever to go on Saturday Night Live. She had totally lost control of her public image to Tina Fey, and at least she proved she could take a joke. Maybe she has a show business future, for as long as the teleprompter works, she is persuasive. She exaggerates effectively, in part to hide her extreme views. Her unfavorability rating is now 41%, and she has become a major drag on John McCain. With her pick, he threw the “experience” and “judgment” cards out the window. Some anonymous sources in the McCain camp have already thrown her under the bus. The GOP civil war has begun before a vote is counted.

She and McCain though tag team with their character assaults of Senator Obama. (The current theme is that Obama is a socialist with a history of bad associates and also one who loves welfare.) Some conservative members of Congress have reprised McCarthy era themes. No doubt, the smear campaign against Senator Obama has reinforced some wavering on the right but it has also caused a steady decline in McCain’s favorability ratings. In the Internet age, a lie can be fact checked and rebutted in minutes. The news cycle now is calculated in hours, not days.

Of course when your issue program consists of a continuation of very unpopular policies, one is hemmed in. McCain now makes the argument that only he can stop Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid from driving the nation over the cliff. Unfortunately for this argument, the GOP has already accomplished this plummet.

The Republicans are out of substantive arguments. Fear, lies and misplaced nostalgia are the only arrows left in their quiver. The GOP is now trying to limit the damage through voter suppression. Party operatives and officials are working full time to limit voter participation by Democratic constituencies. Their full tactical suppression arsenal is on display. This will also be the GOP strategy on November 4th, build long lines on Election Day through voter challenges. Democrats and progressive allies have to be prepared for chaos. Florida officials have managed to have 2-hour early voting lines, however early voting in several states has been very heavy and in the Democrats’ favor.

Hopefully more touch screen machines will soon be phased out, since they can be easily hacked. There are already reports of machines in West Virginia registering for McCain when voters are going for Obama. As far as I know, there have been no reports of anyone attempting to vote for a Republican and having the machine register for a Democrat. It certainly makes one wonder. Some day the U.S. may have a safe and convenient registration and election system, say like Canada.

Senator Obama’s showing in the polls has put him consistently near or over 50%. He has maintained a steady 4-6% lead for the last month. This is enough for a clear Electoral College victory. Some polls with the most accurate 2004 records (like Mason Dixon) have the race much closer. No doubt there will be surprises both in the turnout in under polled youth and minorities as well as the drag of those undecided who would not tell a pollster their true feelings about Obama’s race. There is historical evidence involving African American candidates that a large majority of the late undecided voters will likely stay home or vote for McCain. The National Republican Trust is bringing Reverend Wright back with an ad campaign in three swing states.

Down Ballot
Like 1980 this could be the realigning election, as Democrats sweep up and down the ballot. Conservative 527 organizations are outspending Democrats 10-1 in a furious attempt to limit the GOP damage in the House and Senate. The Chamber of Commerce is spending at least $35 million to help Republicans in the Senate. Democrats now appear to have a minimum of five seats in their column and a pick up of seven or eight is in sight.

Senate
In Virginia (Mark Warner) and New Mexico (Tom Udall), the races are over in favor of the Democrats. The Democrats hold single-digit leads in the races in New Hampshire (Shaheen), North Carolina (Kay Hagen, and early voting for Democrats has been very good), Colorado (Mark Udall, who has been subject to millions of negative ads), and Oregon (Jeff Merkley). A third-party candidate complicates Minnesota, but polling has Democrat Al Franken narrowly ahead within the margin of error. Alaska should also be over now that the guilty verdicts for incumbent Republican “Uncle” Ted Stevens are complete. Mississippi is within the margin of error for former Democratic governor Ronnie Musgrove. In Kentucky, Republican Mitch McConnell has plenty of money to hang on to his seat, but he has a spirited challenger. The polling shows only a narrow lead for McConnell. The surprise race is in Georgia where without significant national money Democratic challenger Jim Martin has moved within striking distance of incumbent Saxby Chambliss. Even if Martin falls short, it is forcing the GOP to spend scarce dollars. The only Democrat who was thought to have any difficulty – Mary Landrieu in Louisiana – has a comfortable lead. Obama helps turnout in all these races except possibly Kentucky and Alaska. There needs to be miracle finishes or unusually favorable events in Maine, Nebraska, Kansas or Oklahoma for the underdog Democrats to win there.

House
This is the opportunity to put as many progressives in Congress as possible. The underlying fundamentals have not been so favorable for the Democrats since 1974. Winning any open seats in 2010 will generally be more difficult and expensive. Protecting good incumbents during redistricting in 2012 will also be easier.

There are 50 Republican incumbent or open seats in play in all of which the Republican candidate is under 50%. In 1994, any Democrat who was under 50% after Labor Day lost in November, and the public mood is worse for the GOP now than it was for the Democrats in 1994.

It seems quite possible the Democrats will only lose a couple of their seats. A 25- seat pick up now seems reasonable, and 30 or so new seats are possible. At this point, the Democrats are reaching deep into suburbia and exurbia. Some of the new members may be moderates. But the Republicans these candidates would be replacing, a Robin Hayes in North Carolina or Michelle Bachman in Minnesota, are truly awful. There is real potential for the most liberal White House with the House and Senate since 1965.

The collapsing economy and exploding deficit will likely constrain expensive federal initiatives. There may be only a short window for the Democrats to produce real improvement and opportunity for the majority of the public. This means gains in both the job market and wages. As the remaining Republicans in the next Congress will be even more rightwing, there will be very little cooperation on policy. There will be constant attacks on Democrats as “tax-and-spend” liberals. Even before any potential Obama inaugural, the rightwing communications infrastructure will undermine him.

The Beltway elite however is issuing calls for bi-partisanship. Expect this to be a constant refrain from the Washington Post. This is rich, as the same group was silent as Bush and the rightwing in Congress ran wild for six years. Hopefully a President Obama and the Democrats will respectfully ignore their suggestions. This should be the start of a Democratic era.

Fingers crossed. Knocking on wood. Hoping against hope.

.

Feminists Of Gilead

by digby

Roger Simon says that Palin is going to run in 2012 and all this bad press will have been explained away as sexism. And here we have an alleged feminist making a similar case. You have to love the nasty opening:

It’s difficult not to froth when one reads, as I did again and again this week, doubts about Sarah Palin’s “intelligence,” coming especially from women such as PBS’s Bonnie Erbe, who, as near as I recall, has not herself heretofore been burdened with the Susan Sontag of Journalism moniker.

Nice. She goes on:

As Fred Barnes—God help me, I’m agreeing with Fred Barnes—suggests in the Weekly Standard, these high toned and authoritative dismissals come from people who have never met or spoken with Sarah Palin. Those who know her, love her or hate her, offer no such criticism. They know what I know, and I learned it from spending just a little time traveling on the cramped campaign plane this week: Sarah Palin is very smart.

Here’s the thing. There are probably many people who are smart once you know them personally, but politicians are supposed to be able to project their intelligence to the vast public. You shouldn’t have to share a beer (or a mooseburger) with them to know that when they say stupid things in public it’s not because they are stupid but rather … what? Completely uninterested in current events? Is that supposed to be something we should overlook?

Now, I’ll grant that George W. Bush gave the Republicans every reason to believe that appearing to be dumb as a post would be no detriment to winning national office. And he did get a freer pass than Palin. But I’m hard pressed to speak out for a female politician’s right to be as ignorant as George W. Bush. Palin was an unknown and the first woman on a Republican presidential ticket and it wasn’t very “smart” of her to not be prepared to even answer soft ball questions about what she reads or come up blank when asked about the Bush Doctrine. I’m sorry, it’s just not sexist to be unimpressed with a female politician who cannot demonstrate the most rudimentary knowledge of politics, government and current events. Indeed, it’s an embarrassment to women everywhere that she would put herself in that position and be seen byto represent the best and the brightest of women in the country. It makes it that much harder for the next one.

There have certainly been sexist smears against her. (Calling her a “Diva” for instance, rather than simply saying she’s “not a team player” — but that’s coming from the Republicans!) Frankly, they were nothing to what the press rolled out against Clinton in the primaries and I would guess that the feminist outcry against that behavior was largely what has kept Palin from getting much worse than she has. The criticisms of her have largely been substantive and reasonable. (There is no double standard on the wardrobe cost issue — ask John Edwards.)

But this is really delusional:

Last month a prominent feminist blogger, echoing that sensibility, declared that the media was wrongly buying into the false idea that Palin was a feminist. Why? Well, just because she said she was a feminist, because she supported women’s rights and opportunities, equal pay, Title IV—that was just “empty rhetoric,” they said. At least the blogger didn’t go as far as NOW’s Kim Gandy and declare that Palin was not a woman. Bottom line: you are not a feminist until we say you are. And there you have the formula for diminishing what was once a great and important mass social change movement to an exclusionary club that rejects women who sincerely want to join and, God forbid, grow to lead. But here is the good news: women, citizens of America’s high and low culture, the Economist and People magazine readers, will get it. They got it with Hillary even when feminist leaders were not supporting her or doing so half-heartedly. Yes, Palin is a harder sell, she looks and sounds different, and one can rightfully oppose her based on abortion policies. If you only vote on how a person personally feels about abortion, you will never want her to darken your door. If you care about anything else, she will continue to intrigue you. As Time’s Nancy Gibbs noted a few weeks ago, quoting bioethicist Tom Murray, “Sympathy and subtlety are seasonings rarely applied to political red meat.” Will Palin’s time come next week? I don’t know. But her time will come.

I don’t have any idea what she’s talking about with the sympathy and subtlety quip, but the rest is unadulterated bullshit. She only “intrigues” neanderthals. And there is no one more “exclusionary” than a right winger.

Palin is no feminist except to the extent that she is willing to walk through all the doors that feminists opened up before her and them slam them shut on the girls coming behind her. She is from the far right of the Republican party where they would see women as permanent second class citizens, at the mercy of their reproductive tracts and able to succeed only to the extent that some man “allows” them to. She caters to fundamentalist throwbacks whose adherence to their so-called traditional values always seems to result in women getting the shaft.

And it must have escaped this allegedly intelligent woman that Obama is getting far more of the female vote than Palin. The female Clinton voters were appalled that the Republicans thought for a moment that they would be appeased with someone who is a cipher compared to the competent and well-informed feminist Clinton:

McCain clearly hoped that having a woman on the ticket would sway Clinton voters. But Clinton voters here said Palin is beyond the pale. In many cases her very selection accelerated their support of Obama.Carol Kunz, a 42-year-old attorney from Manchester, said, “To compare the two women is insulting to women everywhere.”Christine Hines, a 43-year-old homemaker from North Andover, said, “Palin’s right-wing politics curl my hair. How could any Hillary voter align herself with Palin?”Carol Crowell of Haverhill, a 46-year-old executive editor in educational publishing, said, “My husband voted for Hillary too. But the idea that Hillary supporters would support someone the political polar opposite from Hillary on healthcare, education, and ending the war just because they’re women is crazy.

Just being a woman who made it in a man’s world doesn’t make you a feminist. (Some of the worst anti-feminists I’ve ever known were women I worked for — and one of the most committed feminists was a man.) Being a feminist is not determined by what genitalia you have but rather the principles for which you fight. Palin’s priorities are obvious. She’s more interested aerial wolf hunting than she is in woman’s equality.

I don’t know if she will flame out or if she will end up being the second coming of Abraham Lincoln. But whatever happens, the fact remains that she got to where she was because of feminism but not because she was a feminist. She walked on all our backs so she could step on our throats. She’s a typical right wing Republican.

.

Why Obama Must Win, Chapter 1,000,000: The Judiciary

by tristero

This should scare you:

Earlier this month, Mr. Bush pointed with pride to his record at a conference sponsored by the Cincinnati chapter of the Federalist Society, the elite network for the conservative legal movement. He noted that he had appointed more than a third of the federal judiciary expected to be serving when he leaves office, a lifetime-tenured force that will influence society for decades and represents one of his most enduring accomplishments. While a two-term president typically leaves his stamp on the appeals courts — Bill Clinton appointed 65 judges, Mr. Bush 61 — Mr. Bush’s judges were among the youngest ever nominated and are poised to have an unusually strong impact.

They have arrived at a time when the appeals courts, which decide tens of thousands of cases a year, are increasingly getting the last word. While the Supreme Court gets far more attention, in recent terms it has reviewed only about 75 cases a year—half what it considered a generation ago. And Mr. Bush’s appointees have found allies in likeminded judges named by Mr. Bush’s father and Mr. Reagan.

Republican-appointed judges, most conservatives, now make up 61 percent of the bench, up from 50 percent when Mr. Bush took office. They control 10 of the 13 circuits, while Democrat-appointed judges have a dwindling majority on just one circuit.

David M. McIntosh, a co-founder and vice-chairman of the Federalist Society, said the nation’s appeals courts are now more in line with a conservative judicial ideology than at any other time in memory.

Emphasis added.

Good Time For An Enormous Gaffe On Health Care

by dday

Douglas Holtz-Eakin earned a reputation in the Congressional Budget Office as a fairly honest conservative economist. Today he told the truth about John McCain’s health care plan.

Experts, however, fear that eliminating the tax advantage of employer-based coverage would prompt younger, healthier workers to leave their office plans. If that happened, costs for the remaining workers could skyrocket. Companies may drop coverage altogether.

“If companies know their employees have the tax credit, it relieves them of the burden of providing coverage,” said Sara Collins, who directs a health insurance program at the Commonwealth Fund. McCain’s plan “moves people out of the employer system and to the individual market.” […]

McCain advisers counter these concerns. Changing the tax treatment wouldn’t hurt the employer-sponsored system and would allow more of the uninsured to buy their own coverage, they say. Also, his advisers say a McCain administration would keep an eye on the credit to make sure it didn’t lag behind the cost of coverage, while also working to lower the rate of medical inflation.

Younger, healthier workers likely wouldn’t abandon their company-sponsored plans, said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain’s senior economic policy adviser.

“Why would they leave?” said Holtz-Eakin. “What they are getting from their employer is way better than what they could get with the credit.”

Ay caramba.

Holtz-Eakin is basically saying that the individual health insurance market is crap and the employer market is more preferable because it provides more. That’s elementary, since it pools resources to get a better deal. But of course the entire McCain health care plan seeks to get people AWAY from the employer system and into the individual market. Jason Rosenbaum explains:

Of course, tying health care to employment is the way we’ve done things in America for generations, and it turns out it’s also pretty popular. (Not to mention that insurance companies have to cover you through an employer health care plan, while they can deny you for pre-existing conditions on the individual market.) And so, in the face of political pressure, you have Douglas Holtz-Eakin admitting the truth.

Faced with the fact that destroying our employer-based health care system isn’t exactly a priority for most Americans, he argues that the McCain plan wouldn’t actually destroy the employer-based system. Why? Because the tax credit McCain is offering wouldn’t buy a decent health care plan, even for the young and healthy!

Let’s unpack this a little bit more. According to Holtz-Eakin, John McCain doesn’t actually want to dismantle the employer-based health care system. But, McCain’s plan would tax any health benefits you’d get through work. So, if Holtz-Eakin is right in saying you’d get better coverage through work than you’d get with the tax credit on the individual market (and he probably is), and if he’s right in saying most workers won’t drop their employer-based insurance for the individual market because they’re getting a better deal at work, then John McCain is simply proposing a tax on your current health care benefits without giving you anything in return. That’s the worst kind of tax increase.

There’s also the issue of employers cutting out of the system because of the loss of incentives to provide health care, too.

The best part of this is how the Obama campaign is going after it:

“This morning, the McCain campaign’s top economic policy advisor unleashed an October Surprise of straight talk when he finally admitted that the health insurance people currently get from their employer is ‘way better’ than the health care they would get if John McCain becomes President. Independent studies have shown that under John McCain’s health care plan, at least 20 million Americans will lose the insurance they rely on and be forced to buy health care coverage on the individual market that costs more than $12,000 with a tax credit of just $5,000. Senator McCain has been trying to cover this up for months, but his advisor’s brutal honesty today is certainly better late than never, and it should give every American pause about electing a candidate who has proposed such radical and dangerous changes to our health care system,” said Obama-Biden Spokesman Bill Burton.

Obama has put a significant amount of money into talking about health care, with a whopping 68% of his TV ads devoted at least in part to the issue, including 86% in October. That shows you that the potential is there to make reform an urgent priority. Our health care crisis is tied to the economic woes of the country – US companies are less competitive than their counterparts abroad because they have to also be a giant HMO, skyrocketing costs are putting a giant hole in the federal budget, and treating the uninsured costs everyone in increased premiums.

So far Obama’s spent lots of time defining McCain’s dangerous health care plan but less on his own. After the election, there needs to be massive education around this issue. McCain has steered the election to ground where it really has become a referendum on progressive policies – progressive taxation, government investment in energy and infrastructure, diplomacy versus militarism, and the need to rein in the free market. This mandate needs to carry into health care policy as well. The Republicans know that a Democratic Party giving Americans universal health care would be strong for decades, and will stop at nothing to block it. Even some employers are willing to fight against it even though it’s not in their economic interest. We have a responsibility on many fronts, but especially on health care, to steer the argument and make sure that we meet progressive policy goals and not just cheer because our home team makes it into the White House.

.

All The Way To The Top

by digby

This statement should be the basis for serious congressional investigations:

The overblown histrionics about ACORN do not surprise those of us who have been watching the RNC’s election manipulation antics. For eight years White House operatives have been trying to gin up press stories about voter fraud. David Iglesias of New Mexico was one of seven U.S. Attorneys fired by the White House for their refusal to bring voter fraud prosecutions. “We took over 100 complaints,” from the GOP, he told us, “We investigated for almost 2 years, I didn’t find one prosecutable voter fraud case in the entire state of New Mexico.”

Iglesias, a McCain supporter, has, for the first time, leveled a new and serious charge: Despite finding none of the 200 voters guilty, he says the White House nevertheless ordered him to illegally prosecute baseless cases against innocent citizens, just to gin up voter fraud publicity. His refusal, he says, cost him his job. “They were looking for politicized — for improperly politicized US attorneys to file bogus voter fraud cases.”

There will never be a better opening for the Democrats to fix the electoral system and expose the sophisticated GOP vote suppression and propaganda program than now. The US Attorney scandal was never fully dealt with and it needs to be if we hope to have fair elections in the future.

The Republicans have a very well funded, professional operation, developed over years, to keep Democrats from voting and to brainwash local election officials. If the race isn’t close enough to win it by vote suppression and intimidation, they will have laid the groundwork to call the legitimacy of the outcome into question to justify total obstruction of the mandate. (And they have the nerve to say that ACORN is destroying the fabric of democracy.)

One of the purposes of having political power is to use it to ensure your future political survival. It doesn’t have to be underhanded or illegal — indeed, in this case protecting the franchise protects the Democratic Party. If that weren’t true, the conservatives wouldn’t work so hard to keeping people from voting. The Democrats are suckers if they don’t take the opportunity of an historic win, with no sour grapes involved, to clean this up. This meme about “voter fraud” is taking hold and if they don’t put a stop to it right now they will regret it.

.