Commenting on the rather breathless description of Rahm in TNR’s obligatory fluff piece (“At 50, Emanuel has the lean, taut look of a lifelong swimmer, with broad shoulders and distractingly prominent quadriceps.”) Aravosis quips:
The new art form of pro-Rahm suck up pieces enters its homoerotic phase. I’m disgusted yet titillated at the same time. This must be how Sarah Palin supporters feel.
Haha. We’ve all been there. I just have to run this more more time:
LIDDY: Well, I—in the first place, I think it’s envy. I mean, after all, Al Gore had to go get some woman to tell him how to be a man. And here comes George Bush. You know, he’s in his flight suit, he’s striding across the deck, and he’s wearing his parachute harness, you know—and I’ve worn those because I parachute—and it makes the best of his manly characteristic. You go run those, run that stuff again of him walking across there with the parachute. He has just won every woman’s vote in the United States of America. You know, all those women who say size doesn’t count—they’re all liars. Check that out. I hope the Democrats keep ratting on him and all of this stuff so that they keep showing that tape.
Bush wasn’t actually all that impressive, but Liddy’s hot and bothered reaction was more than a little disturbing. The strong element of loathing in the political establishment’s idea of the sexy is very weird.
Somehow, I don’t think this is going to be the Lincoln-Douglass debate.
Rep. Michele Bachmann, the darling of the Tea Party right, will square off in a debate tonight with Florida liberal stalwart Rep. Alan Grayson over health care.
The two will be guests on Larry King Live, which airs tonight at 9 p.m. Eastern (8 Central) on CNN. Both Bachmann and Grayson’s offices confirmed their appearances to me this morning. It’s an interesting pairing, given that though the two agree on very little from a policy standpoint, they’ve often been linked in the media for their similar rising-star status in their respective parties.
That’s about where the similarities end, I’m afraid. This will be as if Lincoln had to debate Britney Spears. I can’t wait.
I don’t know if he said this with a wink and a nod or not, but it’s interesting anyway:
Top White House economic adviser Lawrence Summers on Tuesday urged businesses to embrace financial regulatory reform to prevent another severe economic crisis and ensure long-term health of their companies.
Summers, director of the White House National Economic Council, reiterated President Barack Obama’s call for stronger financial regulation, including giving regulators the power to properly address the failures of large institutions and protect their customers.
He asked leaders of business and public policy at the Citizens Budget Commission’s fundraiser in New York to accept the role of government in preparing for and responding to crisis. Business should support, rather than thwart the government in its efforts, he said.
“A strong government (that) responds to market failures, provides social protection regulates potential abuses and supports economic conditions is undeniably in the long-run interest of business,” he said.
While Summers said he understood business antipathy, “history teaches us that active government is a necessary force,” he added.
His pleas came as negotiations over financial reform dragged on in Washington, with strong disagreements on creation of a new government watchdog for financial consumers. Senate Banking Committee Christopher Dodd has been trying to bridge a gap with Republicans, who oppose an independent consumer protection agency, and discussed with Republican Senator Bob Corker the possibility of making the agency a division of the Federal Reserve.
I have almost zero faith that the financial reform that Summers is talking about will amount to much. But I do like the rhetoric, which is something I don’t hear enough of from these Big Finance Boys in the government. He at least makes the case for government involvement actually being good for business in the wake of the destruction of the last two years, which is the least we can expect from someone who represents The Department of the Treasury.
Baby steps.
Meanwhile, this is only mildly funny. But I’m linking it solely because of Darryl Hammond’s impression of Bill Clinton which always cracks me up:
Barack Obama gets a surprise visit in the night from ex-Presidents Bush Sr., Bush Jr., Clinton, Ford, Reagan and Carter to get a few pointers about the Consumer Financial Protection Agency and why it’s so important.
There’s a lot of despair over the decision by the Catholic Church to drop all coverage for spouses in Washington DC because one of the spouses somewhere might be gay. They’ve been doing this all over the country wherever LGBT Americans have been able to secure equality. Evidently, the Church is so adamant about gay people not receiving health care that they re willing to deny it to the families of all their workers. It’s hard for me to imagine that Jesus would approve, but then I’ve long felt that his teachings don’t have a whole lot to do with much of Christianity anymore.
In researching this issue I came across this story as well, which also illustrates how deeply conservative the Catholic hierarchy has become:
It might be the tip of an iceberg. Repeated ethical violations at an Oregon hospital led its bishop to revoke the hospital’s privilege to call itself “Catholic” and to warn that the same moral error could already have infected Catholic health-care systems nationwide.
St. Charles Medical Center in Bend lost the title “Catholic” on Feb. 15 due to its refusal to stop doing tubal ligations to sterilize women. Founded by the Sisters of St. Joseph in 1918 but no longer run by them, St. Charles is Oregon’s only Level II trauma center in the central and eastern part of the state.
“The crux of the conflict was the hospital and ethics board’s intentional misinterpretation of ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ sterilizations,” said Diocese of Baker Bishop Robert Vasa. After several years of negotiations with St. Charles, Bishop Vasa made the difficult decision to strip the hospital of its “Catholic” status.
Tubal ligation, informally known as “getting one’s tubes tied,” is always a direct form of female sterilization not permitted in Catholic health-care institutions. But, based on the Catholic principle of double effect, other procedures that indirectly induce sterility — the removal of cancerous fallopian tubes or ovaries, for example — are permitted in situations where no simpler remedy is available.
“The heart of my conflict here is that the hospital and the ethics board identified all of these 200 to 250 sterilizations they do a year as indirect,” Bishop Vasa said.
A typical case at issue would be that of a mother with three children. A doctor may decide it could be “dangerous” for her to get pregnant again. In such a circumstance, St. Charles’ hospital and ethics board claimed it was permissible under the directives for a surgeon to sterilize the mother with the “indirect” intention of keeping her healthy.
“Clearly, that’s a direct sterilization with the secondary hope of preserving her health,” Bishop Vasa said. “So it was in my mind an intentional misrepresentation and misinterpretation of that teaching.”
Right. A celibate man who doesn’t even know any of the people involved is the best person to make that sort of decision.
I have found it quite odd that the Bishops have been so reluctant to enthusiastically sign on to health insurance reform, particularly when they got their way on abortion. After all, the Catholic Church has long been deeply involved in the American health care system, still owns many hospitals and has a mission to cater to the poor. From their perspective, what’s not to like about a big expansion of Medicaid or insurance reforms that allow people to keep their coverage?
I’m guessing it’s this sort of thing. Abortion, after all, is far from their only beef. It’s really about women’s reproductive freedom in general and if the government is funding health care for more people, they will come increasingly under fire — not to mention lose market share — if they refuse to provide these services. (They would be legally allowed to refuse under the conscience clause.)
As they have shown in the decisions around gay marriage, they are perfectly willing to let people go uncovered rather than even take a chance that they might have to provide services they have determined are religiously improper. That’s the moral deal they make. So, it’s not surprising in the least that they would be willing to continue the uninsured status quo for similar reasons. (And needless to say, they may want to keep the competition to a minimum. They aren’t financially naive.)
I suspect that’s really why Bart Stupak will vote against health care reform even if they adopt his abortion amendment. The Bishops and the forced childbirth lobby are his masters and their agenda stretches far beyond abortion.
“My first choice is a strong consumer agency,” the Harvard Law professor and federal bailout watchdog said in an interview with the Huffington Post. “My second choice is no agency at all and plenty of blood and teeth left on the floor.”
There’s been a steady leak of Senate proposals to fix the dysfunctional way federal regulators protect consumers from abusive lenders. One was an independent unit housed within the Treasury Department; another was a new entity, housed in the Federal Reserve, with little independence or power.
The Senate shouldn’t waste its time, asserts Warren, explaining that current proposals fail to address some of her key priorities such as arming the proposed agency with independent rule-making authority, without interference by bank regulators.
“My 99th choice is some mouthful of mush that doesn’t get the job done,” Warren said.
Damn. Now that’s how you negotiate.
Of course Warren isn’t a member of the club, so she doesn’t feel obliged to maintain “comity.” But then, neither do the Republicans.
She also isn’t beholden to Wall Street because she isn’t part of that world and so can take a strong adversarial stance. The problem with our system is that there are so few in her position who are willing or able to wade into the public debate. (Almost none of them, unfortunately, have a vote in the Senate.) This is why Wall Street holds so much more sway than it ought to.
I’m sure she’s thought of in the same way Brooksley Born was — “not a team player.” It’s a thankless position to be in but she’s doing it anyway. Good for her.
WASHINGTON — It was cold and drizzling outside the City Courthouse just after 6 a.m. on Wednesday, but no one seemed to mind among the same-sex couples waiting excitedly for the chance to apply for a marriage license.
“This is a dream come true,” said Sinjoyla Townsend, 41, as she smiled ear to ear and held up her ticket indicating she was first in line with her partner of 12 years, Angelisa Young, 47. “We wanted it so bad.”
Gay-rights advocates hailed the day as a milestone for equal rights and a symbolic victory as same-sex marriage became legal in the nation’s capital.
Washington is now the sixth place in the nation where same-sex marriages can take place. Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont also issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
I posted the Mike Stark interview with Andrew Breitbart the other day but didn’t notice the key admission within the raving lunacy. But Boehlert did:
It turns out that Andrew Breitbart didn’t actually know what was on the ACORN tapes when he helped launch them on his website last year, and used the videos to fuel his oddly personal crusade against the low-income advocacy organization.
That’s right — Breitbart didn’t know what was on the tapes. Take a few seconds to let the implications of that confession sink in, and what it means to Breitbart’s already dented credibility.
Recall that for months Breitbart personally vouched for the ACORN videos, braying loudly that they could not be ignored and that they represented the unvarnished truth. Breitbart claimed he had told “the truth” every step of the way about the controversial ACORN clips and bragged that “[t]hroughout the ACORN story I applied my conscience to the material.”
But now it turns out that Breitbart was fooled by the ACORN pimp hoax and mistakenly assumed, after watching deceptively edited clips from his protégé James O’Keefe, that O’Keefe strolled into ACORN offices wearing the outlandish pimp outfit.
Now Breitbart, the chief promoter of the ACORN sting, claims he “didn’t know” the truth about the tapes. Although he’s quick to insist it doesn’t really matter anyway.
And yes, that sound you hear is Breitbart throwing O’Keefe under the bus.
I suspect that Andrew Breitbart knew very well what they had done. This sort of thing is right in his wheelhouse. But the fact that he’s now saying that he didn’t know and that it doesn’t matter anyway means that he has realized that this aspect of the hoax exposes them to further scrutiny, which isn’t likely to help their credibility, particularly since their gonzo-bozo also got caught doing something exceedingly stupid down in New Orleans. Those guys aren’t as slick as everyone they thought they were. And Breitbart’s the one with something to lose.
COHEN: Here in Concord, New Hampshire, like any place, when you go shopping, you can do price comparison whether you’re looking for a car or a pair of shoes. But what I think people here or anywhere else fail to realize is that you can also go comparison shopping for health care services and save yourself thousands of dollars. So come on, let’s go bargain shopping for a colonoscopy.
Our first stop is the Southern New Hampshire Medical Center. They charge nearly $5,000 for a colonoscopy. Let’s see if we can get a better deal. Come on.
Here at the Concord Ambulatory Surgery Center, a colonoscopy would only cost me about $2,800. Now remember, the most expensive place to get a colonoscopy would set me back nearly $5,000. So coming here, I save more than $2,000. See, it pays to bargain shop.
I’m so excited about how well I did with the colonoscopies, that now I’m going to bargain shopping for a hernia surgery.
Here at St. Joseph’s Hospital, they charge $13,400 to repair a hernia. That is so expensive I’m not even getting out of the car. I’m going to try to find something cheaper.
At Elliott Hospital, they only charge about $4,500 to do a hernia repair. It’s the exact same procedure. Why does it cost $9,000 less here? I’m going to call these high-priced hospitals and ask them, why do you charge so much?
Hi, this is Elizabeth Cohen calling from CNN.
(voice-over): The hospitals wouldn’t comment.
(on camera): So I found someone who can explain these crazy health care prices to us. Her name is Heather Staples and she analyzes prices of health care for large employers in New Hampshire.
I go shopping for a gallon of milk and there’s a huge price difference. I’m going to see it right there on the shelf. But with medical services, people don’t know. There’s no price tag.
HEATHER STAPLES, ANALYSES PRICES OF HEALTH CARE: That’s correct. And it’s even difficult for consumers to call a facility and ask for the price of services.
COHEN: So it’s actually, the reason for these discrepancies is some ways is pretty simple, which is that when you go buy a colonoscopy, there’s no price tag on it.
STAPLES: That’s correct.
COHEN: Give me another example of a procedure where there’s wild differences all in the same city.
STAPLES: Sure. Knee scope. At Dartmouth South, it’s about $5,300. In the same region at St. Joseph’s Hospital, it’s about $10,500.
COHEN: So we all bargain shop for cars and things like that. Does it pay to bargain shop for medical services?
STAPLES: Oh, it absolutely does. I mean, we’re talking about a $5,000 difference. It absolutely makes a lot of sense to do it. (END VIDEOTAPE)
Now, the first thing you might ask is where people who can’t afford insurance are supposed to get the money for this even at the “bargain prices,” but that didn’t come up. And any of you who belong to HMOs or PPOs or even who have doctors who are contracted with particular hospitals (most of you) know very well that you don’t have a lot of choice about where you get your hernia operation. You go where your doctor and insurance company tell you to go.
So basically we have a news report that is telling either independently wealthy people who don’t need insurance or those with cadillac plans, like Wolf and Candy, that they can bargain hunt for their surgical procedures. How useful. Either way, it’s a completely ridiculous story that does nothing more than advance the GOP’s talking points that it’s the public’s fault that costs are too high so they need to be more “responsible.” I’m sure the Republicans are very pleased.
Costs are too high. But the problem is not going to be solved by forcing people to second guess their doctors and telling their insurance companies that they are paying too much on their behalf. This is a problem of scale that can only be dealt with through comprehensive reform. Otherwise, what you end up with are scenes like this, from Sicko:
(VO) This is Rick.
Rick:I was gripping a piece of wood and I grabbed it here and it hit a knot…
(VO) He sawed off the tops of two of his fingers.
Rick:…and it was that quick.
(VO) His first thought?
Rick:I don’t have insurance. Am I gonna have to pay cash for this? $ 2,000, $3,000 or more? Does that mean we’re not gonna get a car?
(VO) Rick also doesn’t have health coverage. So the hospital gave him a choice. Reattach the middle finger for $60.000. Or do the ring finger for 12.000.
Rick: It’s an awful feeling to just try to put a value on your body.
(VO) Being a hopeless romantic, Rick chose the ring finger. For the bargain price of 12 grand.
Maybe they could have put the finger in the freezer while he comparison shopped around the country for a better deal.
Yesterday, I wrote about a fascinating article on Huff Po regarding the revolving door between government and the financial industry. But that’s not the only revolving door that devastates our democratic system. That door between the Treasury and Wall Street works congress. The other one works us.
The following excerpt is from a great article in The Nation by Sebastian Jones called The Media-Lobbying Complex:
For lobbyists, PR firms and corporate officials, going on cable television is a chance to promote clients and their interests on the most widely cited source of news in the United States. These appearances also generate good will and access to major players inside the Democratic and Republican parties. For their part, the cable networks, eager to fill time and afraid of upsetting the political elite, have often looked the other way. At times, the networks have even disregarded their own written ethics guidelines. Just about everyone involved is heavily invested in maintaining the current system, with the exception of the viewer.
While lobbyists and PR flacks have long tried to spin the press, the launch of Fox News and MSNBC in 1996 and the Clinton impeachment saga that followed helped create the caldron of twenty-four-hour political analysis that so many influence peddlers call home. Since then, guests with serious conflicts of interest have popped up with alarming regularity on every network. Just examine their presence in coverage of the economic crash and the healthcare reform debate, two recent issues that have engendered massive cable coverage.
As the recession slammed the country in late 2008 and government bailouts followed, lobbyists and PR flacks took to the air with troubling regularity, advocating on behalf of clients and their interests while masquerading as neutral analysts. One was Bernard Whitman, president of Whitman Insight Strategies, a communications firm that specializes in helping “guide successful lobbying, communications and information campaigns through targeted research.” Whitman’s clients have included lobbying firms like BGR Group and marketing/PR firms like Ogilvy & Mather, which in turn have numerous corporate clients with a vested interest in shaping federal policies. Whitman is a veteran of the Clinton era and when making television appearances continues to be identified for work he did almost a decade earlier.
According to its website, Whitman Insight Strategies has worked for AIG to “develop, test, launch, and enhance their consumer brand,” and continues to assist the insurance giant “as it responds to ongoing marketplace developments.” Whitman Strategies has also posted more than 100 clips of Bernard Whitman’s television appearances on a YouTube account. During a September 18, 2008, Fox News appearance to discuss Sarah Palin, Whitman proceeded to lambaste John McCain for proposing to “let AIG fail,” saying that this demonstrated “just how little he understands the global economy today.”
On March 25, 2009, in the midst of a scandal over AIG’s executive bonuses, Whitman appeared on Fox News again. “The American people were understandably outraged about AIG,” he began. “Having said that, we need to move beyond anger, frustration and hysteria to really get down to the brass tacks of solving this economy,” he advised the public. In neither instance was Whitman’s ongoing work for AIG mentioned.
This is how “conventional wisdom” and village talking points are formed.
The business community, for whom so many of these people work, will work or have worked, needs to market its agenda to the people so that they will accept what the politicians they have in their pockets are selling and keep them in office. They use the credibility of those who’ve worked in government to do it. So, business and financial interests give huge contributions to politicians, hire the people who work in the government to lobby those politicians and provides the 24/7 cable media with PR people who pretend to be Republican or Democratic partisans to sell business friendly policies to the public.
One once would have expected the press to take up the slack for the people, but nowadays most people get their news from TV, much of which is presented in a he said/she said format by these same PR pros — or people who someday hope to be hired into those jobs. It’s a feedback loop that creates fake partisan battles and faux hissy fits, but never delves too deeply into the real problems.
It’s quite a racket. And it’s a bargain compared to what the Big Money Boyz spend on direct advertising.