Month: October 2009

Go Colorado

by digby

I like it:

On behalf of the people of Colorado, we’ve written an open letter to all United States Senators asking them to stand up for people and not the profits of the insurance industry. If you agree that the public option deserves an up-or-down vote in the Senate, then please take a moment to sign our letter below calling on members of the Senate to refrain from filibustering.

In a speech before Congress on the issue of health care reform just over a month ago, President Obama asserted that “I am not the first president to take up this cause — but I am determined to be the last.”

There is no doubt that we have an historic opportunity to reform our health care system, once and for all. We believe the public option is a crucial part of any real reform of the health care system.

But with powerful special interests determined to halt reform, the specter of the filibuster is set to derail our efforts.

Here is a copy of the letter:

Dear United States Senators,

As Colorado’s elected officials and concerned Americans, we urge you not to filibuster the public option.

A public option is a crucial part of real reform. It would inject choice and competition into our health care system, both of which are lacking now. Moreover, it is backed by a majority of Senators, Representatives, and the American people.

Even if you oppose a public option, we urge you not to hold it hostage with the threat of the filibuster. Stand up for the people, not the insurance industry, and give the public option the up-or-down vote it deserves.

Sincerely,

Sen. Michael Bennet, Gov. Bill Ritter, Sen. Mark Udall and the Undersigned

By signing our open letter, you can send a strong message to the Senate: Some of you may oppose reform, but don’t hold the public option — and the will of the American people — hostage through the threat of the filibuster.

It can’t hurt to sign it and maybe it will help.

Remember, as your old country blogger has been saying for months now — it’s all about cloture.

,

Circling The Wagons

by digby

It’s all very heartwarming to see all the little media Villagers gather around their wealthy potential future employer, Fox News, and defend it from the big bad White House, but seriously, is there any real doubt that Fox News (not the gasbags —but Fox News itself) is biased? (As Boehlert asks here — has Ruth Marcus ever watched Fox News?) There are so many examples that it seems ridiculous to have to make the case, but evidently the villagers are so brainwashed they can’t even see what’s before their very eyes.

Yesterday, a “concerned parent” appeared on Fox News to complain about Anita Dunn. As Aravosis pointed out, the silhouette looked suspiciously like Chris Wallace (and, it must be admitted, any member of DEVO) and Richard Wolfe continued the speculation (about Wallace, not DEVO) on Countdown last night:

Wolffe: Look at how this video has just popped up about Anita Dunn and her graduation ceremony of her own son. You know, this video, which was not available for public record, happened to pop up on the Glenn Beck show. And it’s the same school where Chris Wallace spoke the year before because his kids also went there. Was that coincidence, or is Fox determined to take this to another level? That’s not about news, it’s about personal attacks. Look, they may enjoy it for all sorts of commercial reasons. But it goes way beyond the commercial aspect here. There is an unholy jihad going on.

I don’t know what he knows or whether there’s any truth at all to this rumor. but I do know that anyone who thinks Chris Wallace is some kind of objective journalist (not to mention decent human being) is out of his mind. Remember this?

“Fox News Sunday” anchorman Chris Wallace says father Mike Wallace has “lost it” – after the legendary CBS newsman told the Boston Globe last week that the fact George Bush had been elected president shows America is “[expletive]-up.” “He’s lost it. The man has lost it. What can I say,” the younger Wallace lamented to WRKO Boston radio host Howie Carr on Friday. “He’s 87-years old and things have set in,” the Fox anchor continued. “I mean, we’re going to have a competence hearing pretty soon.” Wallace Jr. quickly dispelled any notion that he was joking. When Carr suggested that his comments were likely to be covered by NewsMax, he responded: “You know what? Fine. Go ahead. Call them. That’s fine. I’ll stand by that.” Returning to the topic of his father’s competence, Wallace Jr. explained: “He’s checked out. I don’t understand it,” beyond the fact that Wallace Sr. has “problems with the war.” “I don’t know why he said what he said,” he added.[…]Asked about DNC chair Howard Dean’s recent prediction that the U.S. would lose the war in Iraq, Wallace told Carr: “We are in a war. We do have 150,000-plus American soldiers over there. I mean, it’s Tokyo Rose, for God sakes, going on radio saying we can’t win the war.”

One only hopes that this “concerned parent” isn’t a much of an ass to his kids as he is to his father — without whom he’d be lucky to be a week-end weatherman in Butte Montana.

But Wallace isn’t the only wingnut jackass pretending to be a “straight” newsman. Remember this?

Plenty of news media analysts thought Senator John Kerry looked good at Thursday night’s presidential debate, but Fox News went a step further, posting a made-up news article on its Web site that quoted Mr. Kerry as gloating about his fine manicure and his “metrosexual” appearance.Fox News quickly retracted the article, saying in an editor’s note on its Web site that the article “was written in jest and should not have been posted or broadcast.” It said, “We regret the error, which occurred because of fatigue and bad judgment, not malice.”The article, posted on Friday on foxnews.com, was written by Carl Cameron, the chief political correspondent for Fox News, and included several bogus quotes from Mr. Kerry, supposedly assessing his performance in the debate. “Didn’t my nails and cuticles look great? What a good debate!” the article quoted Mr. Kerry, the Democratic candidate, as telling his supporters in Florida after the event.

Right, there was no malice. The fact that it happened to validate the Republicans’ entire campaign narrative about Kerry being an effete, gay “flip-flopper” was entirely coincidence.

How about the “professional” newsman, Brit Hume, talking about the notorious Karl Rove statement that Democrats wanted to offer bin Laden therapy:

HUME (6/23/05): Now, it’s probably worth noting at the outset here that Rove directed his criticism and his comparison at Democrats as—I mean, at liberals as opposed to conservatives. He never did say “Democrats. Democrats seem to have rushed to make themselves the targets of this attack by Rove and to claim outrage. What’s going on?

See there? Karl hadn’t talked about Dems at all! Why were the Dems in such a tizzy? But uh-oh! Next, Kondracke started parsing. And Brit quickly self-contradicted:

KONDRACKE: Look, Karl Rove went over the top, even on the basis of what he said. He should have said “some” liberals. He was referring to Moveon.org, which passed a petition around and is a far-left organization, passed a petition—

HUME: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa! Moveon.org lies at the heart of the Democratic Party nowadays, doesn’t it, Mort?

Uh-oh! First, Karl wasn’t discussing Dems at all. Moments later, just like that, he’d been discussing “the heart of the party!”

Media Matters and Brave New Films could go on forever with this. It isn’t news, it shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. But just as it took nearly 25 years for the villagers to grok that even though he was invited to dinner parties by important people, Rush Limbaugh is actually a malignant blight on humanity, those who don’t watch Fox News (and therefore agree with it) simply assume they must be ok because they hire lots of credentialed journalists and are invited to all the important social events. It would be downright unseemly if it turns out that right wing fascists are walking among them.

And among the more aware members of the group, there is the thug factor. There’s not a lot to be gained by taking on Fox and a whole lot to lose. Old Rog has shown that even making fun of the fatuous gasbags on the network can open a whole can of worms that’s not necessarily worth opening. Going after their legitimacy as a news organization could lead to … well, use your imagination.

I’m actually fairly astonished that the Obama administration has decided to do this. The village CW is that they think they can “peel off” all those independents who watch FOX, which is completely absurd. If you watch Fox, you are undoubtedly a conservative and most likely a Republican. None of that audience is gettable. And they know it.

So they must have another reason. The cynic in me says it’s a bone to the left, a way to appear to be fighting the good fight while giving away far too much to the ruling class in legislation and regulation. And the truth is that taking on Fox is the good fight, at least in terms of changing the playing field, which I do think is important. So, I don’t denigrate the effort, no matter what the motivation.

The less cynical part of me hopes that Obama and Co. are just sick of being called Hitler and worry about how that affects the social fabric of our nation. After all, this stuff is not benign, no matter what the cozy beltway club believes. Here’s where this leads:

The unprecedented number of death threats against President Obama, a rise in racist hate groups, and a new wave of antigovernment fervor threaten to overwhelm the US Secret Service, according to government officials and reports, raising new questions about the 144-year-old agency’s overall mission.

The Secret Service is tracking a far broader range of possible threats to the nation’s leaders, the officials said, even as it also investigates financial crimes such as counterfeiting as part of its original mandate.

[…]

The domestic threat is also growing, fueled in part by Obama’s election as the nation’s first black president, according to specialists who study homegrown radical movements.

Obama, who was given Secret Service protection 18 months before the election – the earliest ever for a presidential candidate – has been the target of more threats since his inauguration than his predecessors.

Two days before Obama’s appearance at San Francisco fund-raisers on Thursday, a 59-year-old Northern California man was indicted on charges of sending a racist, profanity-filled e-mail threatening to kill Obama and his family. The rambling e-mail included specific references to Michelle Obama and the phrase, “do it to his children and family first in front of him,’’ according to the indictment.

The Southern Poverty Law Center says that antigovernment militias and white supremacist groups have strengthened in recent years, responding to an increasingly diverse population and what they see as an expanding government…

“A key difference this time is that the federal government – the entity that almost the entire radical right views as its primary enemy – is headed by a black man,’’ the report said. “One result has been a remarkable rash of domestic terror incidents since the presidential campaign, most of them related to anger over the election of Barack Obama.’’

Threatening language has also found its way into talk radio broadcasts and social networking websites, raising fears that individuals not normally considered threats to the president could be incited to violence.

For example, the Secret Service in recent months has investigated a poll posted on Facebook about whether Obama should be killed. It has interviewed a Florida radio talk show host after a caller mentioned ammunition, target practice, and the president, and federal officials have raised concerns about several instances in which protesters carrying weapons showed up at Obama events, including a man at an August town hall in New Hampshire.

“The racist extremist fringe is exploiting themes that strike a chord in the mainstream more than we have seen in the recent past,’’ said Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University-San Bernardino, citing several elected leaders who have questioned whether Obama is a US citizen eligible to be president.

Maybe Barack Obama simply feels he has to literally protect himself against Fox News’ toxic spew. I certainly couldn’t blame him.

Update: More evidence of skewed news, here … and here:

.

Little John Galt’s Tantrums

by digby

Susie captures my feelings exactly:

Amazing. They don’t know why people are angry – and their feelings are hurt. All over the country, people are losing their homes, their life savings and their jobs – and they’re upset that the Obama administration is criticizing them over the latest round of million-dollar bonuses. I think the word I’m groping for here is “narcissists”:

WASHINGTON — The Wall Street giants that received a financial lifeline from Washington may have no compunction about paying big bonuses to their dealmakers and traders. But their willingness to deliver “thank you” gifts to President Obama and the Democrats is another question altogether.[…]
Part of the reason, several Democratic fund-raisers and executives said, is a fear of getting caught in the public rage over the perception that Wall Street titans profiting from their government bailout may use their winnings to give back to Washington in return. And the timing of the event, as the industry lobbies against proposals for tighter regulations to address the underlying causes of last year’s meltdown on Wall Street, has only added to the worry over public appearances. “There are sensitivities there,” said Scott Talbot, a lobbyist for the industry’s Financial Services Roundtable. Political contributions “can make a donor a target,” Mr. Talbot said. Many involved, though, say the low attendance from those Wall Street giants also reflected a broader disenchantment with Mr. Obama over the angry language emanating from the White House over the million-dollar bonuses and anti-regulatory lobbying.

They’re are very sensitive. After all, they are the most productive people in the world, right?

The funny thing is that for whatever “angry language” they perceive emanating from the White House, the White House and the congress are going remarkably easy on them in terms of actual regulation. And the White House isn’t exactly suffering a lack of grateful financial contributions either, despite what this article implies.

The truth is that it is more than a little bit unseemly for the White House to be holiding fundraisers with the industry they are supposed to be cracking down on in the first place. In fact, it’s shockingly obtuse of all of them, but it’s so common that nobody even thinks to question it. (Well, maybe the Republicans will …. after all, the article says that Wall Street is giving even less to them these days than they are to Democrats.)

But regardless of whether or not they are giving money, I do think they are genuinely upset at anyone thinking they are responsible for what’s happened. They see themselves as Good People who work hard and follow the rules and are well rewarded because of their greater productivity. The fact that they are basically gambling with other people’s money, skimming off the profits and laying the losses off on to their customers (and lately, the taxpayers) is actually considered “entrepreneurial” in this sick, gilded environment. In other words, they truly believe, deep down, that they deserve their ridiculous, outsized, gluttonous rewards. For someone to question their integrity goes to the very heart of their belief system.

This petulant behavior among the Masters of the Universe is one of the most distasteful displays of spoiled, immature frat boy privilege I’ve ever had the misfortune to watch. But you’ll notice that their “sensitivity” hasn’t stopped them from once more uncorking the Keg ‘O Money and opening their greedy little mouths up wide. After all, they need something to comfort them when they see the President saying mean things about them. It’s remarkable how a record bonus helps you forget.

.

This Is What It Comes To

by digby

A federal judge Monday blocked California from cutting in-home care for 130,000 elderly and disabled state residents whose services would have been reduced or eliminated Nov. 1.

[..]

The state pays for aides to cook, clean, shop and perform other services to assist the elderly or infirm so they can remain in their homes rather than be forced into nursing homes or other facilities. The Legislature and governor cut $263.5 million in such services from the state budget in July.

[…]

Before Monday’s court ruling, an estimated 36,000 were to have their home services eliminated. Another 97,000 would have had them reduced. The program serves approximately 462,000 Californians.

At least they haven’t started talking about raising taxes on millionaires or anything. Now that would be really tragic.

.

Crazy Fatigue

by digby

The other day I wrote about the power of the right’s relentless scandal mongering and how it causes the public to just want the victim to go away and make it stop. Tom Tomorrow observes the same thing — and gives it a name.

Here’s a good example of the frenzy:

Beck’s stated goal: Get administration officials fired, “take down this administration”

In recent days, Glenn Beck has said that something he is “working on” will “take the administration down” and that White House interim communications director Anita Dunn “will have to go away” after “what we show you tonight.” Beck and his fellow Fox News personalities have repeatedly called for Obama administration officials to be fired, asked people to dig up information on administration officials, and fearmongered about President Obama, his advisers, and his policies.

Now imagine if the Republicans had subpoena power.

h/t to bb

Pounding The Message

by digby

Dday reports:

I mentioned last week that Blanche Lincoln was holding an online chat on health care Saturday. You can watch a replay of the event at this link. And you can see several Arkansans pointedly question the Senator about her opposition to a public option in health care.

Here are some sample comments, taken from the chat:

[Comment From Ray and Judy ]
We are terribly disappointed that you have caved in to the insurance industry and failed to support the public option for health care. It may very well affect our vote for you in the next election.

[Comment From Nathan – Rogers ]
As long as hospitals and insurance company executive are paid based on the profits their comapnies make, how can we expect the focus to be on the patient without a public option?

[Comment From Jesse Barr, Winslow, AR ]
Changing the rules will not work! The insurance companies will stall and obfuscate and pay any fines as a cost of doing business! Competition is the ONLY way to make the insurance corporations change their behavior!

[Comment From Shannon, Little Rock ]
Did the bill you supported in the Finance Committee have a public option?

[Comment From “Doc” – Fayetteville ]
It seems to me that you are more inclined to keep insurance companies in the health care business than you are to see people provided health care… Please comment. Do insurance companies NEED to sell health care policies to survive?

[Comment From Stan Wilson ]
Again why are you opposed to a public option or everyone having the same health care options that you have?

Dday writes that over half of the questions were along these lines and that Lincoln’s staff chose the questions, which indicates to me that these were all they had to choose from. After all, Lincoln dodged and weaved like Mohammed Ali trying no to answer them.

I have to think it may have helped that there were some TV ads playing all over the state for the past three months — thanks to you — asking those same questions.

.

Chopped Liver?

by digby

I know that public opinion polls are only relevant when they validate conventional wisdom, but just for giggles you might find this interesting:

President Obama’s holding the line at an even division in public views on health care reform, boosted by support for two key elements — a personal mandate and a public option — and aided by continued weakness in the opposition party.

Americans divide about evenly on the reform plan and Obama’s handling of health care alike neither better nor worse for him since summer. But 57 percent support one of the plan’s most contentious elements, a government-sponsored insurance option, and that soars to 76 percent if it’s limited to those who can’t get affordable private insurance.

Indeed, Americans by 51-37 percent in this latest ABC News/Washington Post poll say they’d rather see a plan pass Congress without Republican support, if it includes a public option based on affordability, than with Republican backing but no such element.

Again, completely irrelevant swince the Villagers have decreed that health care reform must no contain a public option lest the DFH contingent be seen to have prevailed. Simply isn’t done.

But, this should make somebody at least swallow hard:

Only 20 percent of Americans now identify themselves as Republicans, the fewest in 26 years. Just 19 percent, similarly, trust the Republicans in Congress to make the right decisions for the country’s future; even among Republicans themselves just four in 10 are confident in their own party. For comparison, 49 percent overall express this confidence in Obama, steady since August albeit well below its peak.

The Republican Party’s difficulties are shown in another result as well; in an early assessment of preference for congressional candidates in 2010, the Democrats lead by 51-39 percent.

Not that it matters because as we all know, this is ultimately good for Republicans as all things are. Real American teabaggers are angry at town halls so that means that the Republicans are going to sweep to victory in the next election. Still, it’s kind of interesting.

.

You’ve Got To Be Kidding Me

by digby

This is unbelievable. Apparently the Democrats not only can’t break a filibuster on the new school loan bill, they may not even have 50 votes. What is going on here?

Harkin said he will attempt to use special budget rules that only require a simple majority vote to advance a bill that would end the Federal Family Education Loan program, which would free up money for other education programs.

But centrist Democrats are blanching at Harkin’s move to use the reconciliation process for an education bill that includes major policy reforms, echoing concerns they raised over using those rules for healthcare legislation.

It’s unclear whether the bill has even the 51 votes it would need to advance under reconciliation. While the legislation has strong backing from the Obama administration, which predicts that it could save the government more than $87 billion over 10 years, Republicans oppose it and enough centrist Democrats have yet to get on board. The bill has already passed the House on a largely party-line vote.

This legislation is not only badly needed, it’s incredibly popular. The idea that bankers should be allowed to skim a percentage off these government insured loans is stupid to begin with. Now that college tuition has gone through the roof — especially for cash strapped state universities — it’s completely inane.

I don’t know which Democratic Senators are refusing to vote for this bill, but I would bet a pretty penny that they are from states where banking and borrowing are big business. This is nothing but a scam and it always has been. And it’s even more outrageous in this day and age of banking malfeasance a irresponsible loaning that this bill wouldn’t easily pass with a huge majority.

I’m becoming more convinced than ever that the founders were drunk when they conceived the Senate. What a mistake.

Update: Bowers discusses the fact that Harkin is ready to use reconciliation to pass it. Meaning he’s ready to use reconciliation

Update II: Jonathan Schwarz explains that the Senate knew exactly what they were doing when they created the Senate.

(Of course that doesn’t mean they weren’t also drunk …)

.

Be There Or Be Square

by digby

3pm today (6pm est) Crooks and Liars.

C&L is honored to have proud progressives Congressman Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania, and 2006 Democratic nominee for US Senate from Connecticut Ned Lamont, joining us for a live chat at 3 pm Pacific / 6 pm Eastern. The conversation will be wide-ranging, from health care and the economy to the upcoming 2010 mid-term elections. Ned Lamont endorsed Joe Sestak in the Pennsylvania Senate race earlier today. Everyone is invited; if you haven’t registered as a commenter here you will need to do that at this link in order to participate.

.

The Song Remains The Same

by digby

I generally agree with Matthew Yglesias that comparisons between Afghanistan and Vietnam aren’t particularly useful. But I do think it’s quite useful to note that the hawkish arguments for Afghanistan and Vietnam are the same. (Likewise Iraq, Bosnia, Lebanon, etc.)

The argument goes: If we fail in [fill in the blank), the world will stop taking us seriously and the bad guys will be empowered. If (fill in the blank) goes down, then the whole region will soon follow. We have to send a message that we are drawing the line at (fill in the blank.)

Since none of these predictions have ever come to pass, regardless of whether or not we stayed or left, I feel fairly confident that those particular reasons can be filtered out. Unfortunately, they are still the reasons being touted today for an escalation in Afghanistan. Therefore, I am very, very, very skeptical. Those who don’t learn from experience are … dumb. Vietnam was huge object lesson in the power of the superpower. Likewise Afghanistan for the USSR. There are lessons to be learned.

On the other hand, if what we want is to create a central Asian outpost for the American Empire, then I suppose it makes some sense. But let’s not kid ourselves about the reasons anymore. At my age, I’ve heard them so often that it actually embarrasses me to have to listen to them again.

Here’s Perlstein on the hawks and Vietnam. They were and are, as always, wrong.

.