I have to hand it to the GOP - its control of its members is awe-inspiring. Just an hour ago, 42 Senators voted for the Ryan Budget, which ends Medicare. Oh, and Rand Paul, the newly minted Senator from Kentucky voted against the budget because it wasn't draconian enough. So, 43 of the 47 U.S. Senators from the Republican Party are on record supporting the repeal of Medicare.
That's insane. Just yesterday, Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, became a new Congresswoman in a Republican District based on the Medicare issue. Oh, and the margin wasn't even close. Poll after poll shows the American people really, really, really concerned about Medicare. From what I could tell from the protesters outside my office building (where Senators Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer have their offices as well), many of the Tea Party protesters had signs that said "Hands Off My Medicare." Now the GOP wants to end Medicare?
And that's the difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party - Democrats would jump ship in such conditions, whereas Republicans would not. Why the hell would Republicans jump into the frying pan? I think it has to do with the Republican base, who have become more and more powerful over the years.
The more I look back at the Bush Administration, the more I have come to realize that Bush completely defanged the Republican Party establishment. All the Party grown-ups have either left the building, or lost all credibility because of TARP, etc. There's no one left to say, "Guys, this is a phenomenally dumb idea, and we'll get killed for it." Gingrich tried, but in usual Gingrich fashion, did it too late, and too publicly.
Well, enjoy the flavor-aid* fellas, I hope it goes done easily.
*The Jonestown folks drank Flavor-Aid, not Kool-Aid.
Showing posts with label Senate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Senate. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Thursday, June 24, 2010
How to deal with GOP Obstructionism - Open Letter to Harry Reid
Dear Senator Reid,
I realize that you and I aren't particularly close, but I am a long-time Democrat, and a watcher of all things political for a number of years. I'm not a blogger by trade, actually, I'm an attorney and prior to that I worked in politics for a few San Diego candidates you've never heard of. I also have lots of ideas that you probably disagree with - but that's a topic for another letter.
With that said, I am the kind of out-of-the-box thinker you need right now, because if the reports are right, if the current reports are correct, the Senate Republicans are about to filibuster the Senate jobs bill. Not having this bill pass would be a disaster. We all know people who are hurt by the "Great Recession" (or at this time, "The Less Than Ideal Recovery"), and they need help. Moreover, the loss of income would probably plunge the economy back into a recession. Given that the American people generally don't follow politics, and expect things to get done, the American people will blame the failure of doing something on the Democrats, and it is going to hurt the Democrats in November.
But there's a way out. Right now, not only does the Democratic Party have the Senate, but they hold the White House. So, in concert with President Obama, do the following:
1) Force a real filibuster - that is, if the GOP wants to filibuster the jobs bill, make them stand on the floor and debate the bill. Now, yes, this will stall the passage of the bill, but bear with me here, you actually want that. Shutdown all business in the Senate if you have to, but keep the GOP filibustering the bill.
2) While the GOP is filibustering, get every Senate Democrat possible on every news show possible, slamming the GOP for shutting down business in the Senate to deny jobless Americans their benefits.
3) Every week that the filibuster goes, have President Obama address the country from the Oval Office and criticize the GOP for the filibuster.
Now, the benefit of this approach is that the Republican Senators, most of whom have never actually filibustered anything, may end up folding. But even if they don't, you will have spent months demonstrating to the America people that the Republican Party is causing the double dip recession. Its a win-win communication strategy.
Thanks again,
Phat Jim
I realize that you and I aren't particularly close, but I am a long-time Democrat, and a watcher of all things political for a number of years. I'm not a blogger by trade, actually, I'm an attorney and prior to that I worked in politics for a few San Diego candidates you've never heard of. I also have lots of ideas that you probably disagree with - but that's a topic for another letter.
With that said, I am the kind of out-of-the-box thinker you need right now, because if the reports are right, if the current reports are correct, the Senate Republicans are about to filibuster the Senate jobs bill. Not having this bill pass would be a disaster. We all know people who are hurt by the "Great Recession" (or at this time, "The Less Than Ideal Recovery"), and they need help. Moreover, the loss of income would probably plunge the economy back into a recession. Given that the American people generally don't follow politics, and expect things to get done, the American people will blame the failure of doing something on the Democrats, and it is going to hurt the Democrats in November.
But there's a way out. Right now, not only does the Democratic Party have the Senate, but they hold the White House. So, in concert with President Obama, do the following:
1) Force a real filibuster - that is, if the GOP wants to filibuster the jobs bill, make them stand on the floor and debate the bill. Now, yes, this will stall the passage of the bill, but bear with me here, you actually want that. Shutdown all business in the Senate if you have to, but keep the GOP filibustering the bill.
2) While the GOP is filibustering, get every Senate Democrat possible on every news show possible, slamming the GOP for shutting down business in the Senate to deny jobless Americans their benefits.
3) Every week that the filibuster goes, have President Obama address the country from the Oval Office and criticize the GOP for the filibuster.
Now, the benefit of this approach is that the Republican Senators, most of whom have never actually filibustered anything, may end up folding. But even if they don't, you will have spent months demonstrating to the America people that the Republican Party is causing the double dip recession. Its a win-win communication strategy.
Thanks again,
Phat Jim
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
On Evan Bayh
I spent the last few days thinking about what to write on Valentine's Day, and came this close to posting some screed about my ex-fiancee, which would have been completely unproductive, whiny, and boring. Luckily, my fair reader, one of my favorite Senators (and I mean that in the most sarcastic way possible), announced he wasn't going to run for reelection. So without further ado, let me eulogize Evan Bayh.
In the past 10-15 years, there has never been a bigger waste of anyone's time like Evan Bayh. During his time in the Senate, Evan Bayh was a "leader" of the "Centrist" Democrats, who believed that the way to electoral success was to cave to the Republican Party at every possible moment. Shockingly, this strategy seemed to work for Indiana, but it didn't anywhere else (which isn't such a surprise - when given the choice between one candidate who espouses a coherent political ideology, and another who gives into the same ideology while whining about it, people tend to choose the former and not the later). So, Bayh tended to do what other Centrist Dems do - he went on "Meet the Press," complained about partisanship, and ignored the disasters his appeasement strategy caused.
Worst of all, for a guy who was relatively young, talented, and popular, Evan Bayh failed to lead, ever. For you political junkies out there, I ask you to name one, just one, policy initiative that Evan Bayh lead. Seriously, is there any? I checked out his Wikipedia entry, and found nothing. Now here's a guy who was seriously considered for Obama's VP, and in twelve years, he hasn't lead on anything.
So, I can't say its entirely shocking that Bayh decided, rather than trying to lead the Senate away from the hyperpartisanship he decried, to quit the Senate and whine about it. Naturally, all the blame will be on the dirty hippies like me (who, by the way, have been right about the following issues: Iraq, health care reform, the economic stimulus, Bush's tax cuts, torture, and education reform), rather than blaming Bayh for quitting a job he clearly never wanted.
One of the rumors floating out there is that Bayh is preparing to run against Obama in 2012, and that's why he's quitting the Senate. If that's true, then Bayh isn't just useless, but also insane. Primary challenges only work when the incumbent is viewed as moving too far from the Party line. Of the two, Obama is clearly more popular among Democrats than Bayh because he actually shares their political views. The Centrists that Bayh purports to represent don't vote in party primaries. See Joe Lieberman's 2004 Presidential Campaign.
So, I'm not exactly weeping over the loss of Bayh, per se. On the other hand, his timing pretty much fucked over the Dems, and gave Obama another week of bad press. Naturally, Bayh will be a hero of the DC press (the same people who cheered the invasion of Iraq, torture, and other atrocities), and my big prediction is that Bayh will be a big whiner for the rest of his term. Good times, good times.
See, this post was much better than whining about my ex.
In the past 10-15 years, there has never been a bigger waste of anyone's time like Evan Bayh. During his time in the Senate, Evan Bayh was a "leader" of the "Centrist" Democrats, who believed that the way to electoral success was to cave to the Republican Party at every possible moment. Shockingly, this strategy seemed to work for Indiana, but it didn't anywhere else (which isn't such a surprise - when given the choice between one candidate who espouses a coherent political ideology, and another who gives into the same ideology while whining about it, people tend to choose the former and not the later). So, Bayh tended to do what other Centrist Dems do - he went on "Meet the Press," complained about partisanship, and ignored the disasters his appeasement strategy caused.
Worst of all, for a guy who was relatively young, talented, and popular, Evan Bayh failed to lead, ever. For you political junkies out there, I ask you to name one, just one, policy initiative that Evan Bayh lead. Seriously, is there any? I checked out his Wikipedia entry, and found nothing. Now here's a guy who was seriously considered for Obama's VP, and in twelve years, he hasn't lead on anything.
So, I can't say its entirely shocking that Bayh decided, rather than trying to lead the Senate away from the hyperpartisanship he decried, to quit the Senate and whine about it. Naturally, all the blame will be on the dirty hippies like me (who, by the way, have been right about the following issues: Iraq, health care reform, the economic stimulus, Bush's tax cuts, torture, and education reform), rather than blaming Bayh for quitting a job he clearly never wanted.
One of the rumors floating out there is that Bayh is preparing to run against Obama in 2012, and that's why he's quitting the Senate. If that's true, then Bayh isn't just useless, but also insane. Primary challenges only work when the incumbent is viewed as moving too far from the Party line. Of the two, Obama is clearly more popular among Democrats than Bayh because he actually shares their political views. The Centrists that Bayh purports to represent don't vote in party primaries. See Joe Lieberman's 2004 Presidential Campaign.
So, I'm not exactly weeping over the loss of Bayh, per se. On the other hand, his timing pretty much fucked over the Dems, and gave Obama another week of bad press. Naturally, Bayh will be a hero of the DC press (the same people who cheered the invasion of Iraq, torture, and other atrocities), and my big prediction is that Bayh will be a big whiner for the rest of his term. Good times, good times.
See, this post was much better than whining about my ex.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
I think I have Obama figured out. . .
As I ride the train back to San Diego from Orange County (a great way to travel, by the way), I have had time to ponder about Obama during the past few weeks. I’ve often wondered: what the hell is this guy thinking? And I’ve filled this blog with discussions about the failures in health care, etc.
But after the State of the Union and the “question time” deals, I think I finally figured it out. Obama is, at heart, a classicist, and he wants to restore the Republic. Now, this might sound a bit out of “I, Claudius” but hear me out. For the past several decades, the power of the Federal Government has increasingly been concentrated in the hands of the Executive. Not only is the President the Commander in Chief, and running the operations of government, but he’s also pushing legislation, dictating budgets, and otherwise controlling Congress. This concentration of power was most evident under the Bush Administration which, under the theory of the unitary Executive, acted more or less with impunity, and Congress went along with it.
Obama’s actions have shown an interest in changing the dynamic to an earlier time when the Administration might set the agenda, but lets Congress legislate. Thus, to my great annoyance, Obama has left Congress up to its own devices on health care reform. Unfortunately, Democrats are by nature disorganized, and so this approach only makes things worse. But it appears that Obama is trying to strengthen Congress by purposely not stepping in. At least, I hope that’s what he’s doing.
This reestablishment of the Congressional independence also appears to be in line with Obama’s empowerment of the independent regulatory bodies. Under Bush, regulatory agencies were told, more or less, to fall in line with Bush’s conservative ideology. So the EPA refused to regulate Greenhouse gases, even after a conservative Supreme Court issued an order requiring it to do so. And that’s just one example of many. Anyway, Obama’s Administration has quietly gone about reestablishing the independence of these agencies.
Ironically, at the same time Obama is trying to devolve power from the Presidency, the power of the federal government is expanding due to the financial ruin of the economy. And typically, power is concentrated in the hands of an executive during moments of crisis. The takeaway here is that the whole thing is one big mess because Obama is trying to buck way too many trends at once.
Still, one can appreciate what he’s trying to do. When the U.S. government was perfected in the Constitution, there were three equal co-branches of government for a reason. It would be nice to go back to that.
But after the State of the Union and the “question time” deals, I think I finally figured it out. Obama is, at heart, a classicist, and he wants to restore the Republic. Now, this might sound a bit out of “I, Claudius” but hear me out. For the past several decades, the power of the Federal Government has increasingly been concentrated in the hands of the Executive. Not only is the President the Commander in Chief, and running the operations of government, but he’s also pushing legislation, dictating budgets, and otherwise controlling Congress. This concentration of power was most evident under the Bush Administration which, under the theory of the unitary Executive, acted more or less with impunity, and Congress went along with it.
Obama’s actions have shown an interest in changing the dynamic to an earlier time when the Administration might set the agenda, but lets Congress legislate. Thus, to my great annoyance, Obama has left Congress up to its own devices on health care reform. Unfortunately, Democrats are by nature disorganized, and so this approach only makes things worse. But it appears that Obama is trying to strengthen Congress by purposely not stepping in. At least, I hope that’s what he’s doing.
This reestablishment of the Congressional independence also appears to be in line with Obama’s empowerment of the independent regulatory bodies. Under Bush, regulatory agencies were told, more or less, to fall in line with Bush’s conservative ideology. So the EPA refused to regulate Greenhouse gases, even after a conservative Supreme Court issued an order requiring it to do so. And that’s just one example of many. Anyway, Obama’s Administration has quietly gone about reestablishing the independence of these agencies.
Ironically, at the same time Obama is trying to devolve power from the Presidency, the power of the federal government is expanding due to the financial ruin of the economy. And typically, power is concentrated in the hands of an executive during moments of crisis. The takeaway here is that the whole thing is one big mess because Obama is trying to buck way too many trends at once.
Still, one can appreciate what he’s trying to do. When the U.S. government was perfected in the Constitution, there were three equal co-branches of government for a reason. It would be nice to go back to that.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
On the State of the Union, and Deficit Spending
So, as a disaffected liberal, I had no real intention of watching the State of the Union. At least, not all the way through. But old habits die hard, and I turned on the State of the Union to catch a few minutes. Well, a few minutes turned into the full hour and ten minutes, plus the post-speech commentary. I did skip the Republican response, but it looked like it didn't suck, so the GOP has that going for it.
Anyway, my quick thought was similar to the iPad - if you're an Obama fan, there was a lot to be happy with. For the first time in a long time, I was reminded of why I voted for the guy. I loved that he told the Democrats to stop being pussies, that he told the GOP that they're going to own the obstructionism, and most of all, I loved that he chastised the Supreme Court for its decision. That Justice Alito reacted was all the better. If ever there was a President who would make a good Supreme Court Justice, it would be Obama.
Now, if you're not an Obama fan, this speech probably pissed you off. It was combative, and sarcastic, and worst of all, really, really good. Obama in a formal speech setting is like Peyton Manning just before the two minute warning: you know he's going the score, and there's not much you can do about it.
That said, I have a nit to pick with Obama - the budget freeze. Per everyone's macroeconomic course, we all know that the GDP is made of up three things: consumer spending, business spending, and government spending. Because of the current economic conditions, consumer spending and business spending is down. Also, local and state governments have cut back their spending as well. So, the only thing that can prop up the economy right now is the Federal Government, and increasing overall spending. Freezing domestic spending in this climate is dumb.
Now, I understand why the GOP wants to prevent any government spending - once the government starts spending money on something, its hard to stop. That's why the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress spent like crazy. And when asked what to cut, most Republicans sound like this.
So, what to do? I think rather dramatic spending on infrastructure is called for, but with clear sunset provisions. The beauty of infrastructure spending is that once the infrastructure is built, the spending stops. However, the benefits last for 10-20 years after. So, let's keep spending for a short period of time.
Anyway, my quick thought was similar to the iPad - if you're an Obama fan, there was a lot to be happy with. For the first time in a long time, I was reminded of why I voted for the guy. I loved that he told the Democrats to stop being pussies, that he told the GOP that they're going to own the obstructionism, and most of all, I loved that he chastised the Supreme Court for its decision. That Justice Alito reacted was all the better. If ever there was a President who would make a good Supreme Court Justice, it would be Obama.
Now, if you're not an Obama fan, this speech probably pissed you off. It was combative, and sarcastic, and worst of all, really, really good. Obama in a formal speech setting is like Peyton Manning just before the two minute warning: you know he's going the score, and there's not much you can do about it.
That said, I have a nit to pick with Obama - the budget freeze. Per everyone's macroeconomic course, we all know that the GDP is made of up three things: consumer spending, business spending, and government spending. Because of the current economic conditions, consumer spending and business spending is down. Also, local and state governments have cut back their spending as well. So, the only thing that can prop up the economy right now is the Federal Government, and increasing overall spending. Freezing domestic spending in this climate is dumb.
Now, I understand why the GOP wants to prevent any government spending - once the government starts spending money on something, its hard to stop. That's why the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress spent like crazy. And when asked what to cut, most Republicans sound like this.
So, what to do? I think rather dramatic spending on infrastructure is called for, but with clear sunset provisions. The beauty of infrastructure spending is that once the infrastructure is built, the spending stops. However, the benefits last for 10-20 years after. So, let's keep spending for a short period of time.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
About that Massachusetts Race and the Chargers. . .
I need to rant a little bit today, so forgive me. . .hey, wait, that's what this blog is for. Anyway, let's get this over with.
Massachusetts Senatorial Special Election: So today in Massachusetts, the voters are voting on Ted Kennedy's replacement (Massachusetts law allows the Governor to appoint an interim Senator until a Special Election can be held). And lo and behold, the Democrat, Martha Coakley (the current Attorney General) might just lose to Republican State Senator Scott Brown.
Now this is big news for two reasons: first, Massachusetts is a liberal state; and second, attorneys general are elected statewide, and state senators are not. In other words, Coakley was a known commodity to Massachusetts voters, whereas Brown was only known to a small group of them. Now, while I'm sure that Bogart has some other ideas, let me state why this is happening from my perspective:
1) Coakley is a bad candidate - Even though she was the AG, from what I can tell, Coakley has been a terrible candidate. She hasn't worked for it since the primary. Voters can tell when they're being ignored and that's dumb. A good campaign is like a good college football team - there's no such thing as overkill. Since Sunday, Brown has made 66 campaign stops, and Coakley 19. Are you kidding me?
2) National Dems are repeating past mistakes: Coakley is the classic "Law and Order" Democrat - the current AG and a former DA, she's more conservative than Kennedy was, and hasn't differentiated herself from Brown. But, you see, that's why she won the primary - the voters and the National Dems backed her because they thought she was going to win because she was a more conservative Democrat. And quite frankly, that's insane. Some strategic voting is okay, but as Truman used to say - when given the choice between a Republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, the voters will choose the real thing.
Moreover, the Dems are forgetting that in a special election, turnout is key. And the only way to turn out Democrats is to excite the base. Moderates are great, but they don't excite anyone. With the insanity of the health care reform bill, Coakley would be in a stronger place if she went Alan Grayson/Howard Dean.
Anyway, here's my point - the Democratic Party needs to understand that its base is the same size, if not larger, than the GOP base. Expanding to the independents is good, but having the base with you is equally important. The most successful Democrats are always presumed to be more liberal than they actually are. So, stop being afraid to be liberal.
The Chargers choke again -
As a Chargers fan, last Sunday's game was painful. Without question, the Chargers choked - and choked big time. Ten penalties, three missed field goals, a dumb interception, the Chargers just didn't play up to their ability. I blame Norv Turner - but at the same time, the offensive line and the defensive line are not what they should have been. The D-line is excusable from a coaching standpoint (although A.J. Smith better do something to upgrade the D-line), but the offensive line play has been atrocious for years. Yes, LT isn't the player he used to be, but he hasn't had any holes to go through.
Massachusetts Senatorial Special Election: So today in Massachusetts, the voters are voting on Ted Kennedy's replacement (Massachusetts law allows the Governor to appoint an interim Senator until a Special Election can be held). And lo and behold, the Democrat, Martha Coakley (the current Attorney General) might just lose to Republican State Senator Scott Brown.
Now this is big news for two reasons: first, Massachusetts is a liberal state; and second, attorneys general are elected statewide, and state senators are not. In other words, Coakley was a known commodity to Massachusetts voters, whereas Brown was only known to a small group of them. Now, while I'm sure that Bogart has some other ideas, let me state why this is happening from my perspective:
1) Coakley is a bad candidate - Even though she was the AG, from what I can tell, Coakley has been a terrible candidate. She hasn't worked for it since the primary. Voters can tell when they're being ignored and that's dumb. A good campaign is like a good college football team - there's no such thing as overkill. Since Sunday, Brown has made 66 campaign stops, and Coakley 19. Are you kidding me?
2) National Dems are repeating past mistakes: Coakley is the classic "Law and Order" Democrat - the current AG and a former DA, she's more conservative than Kennedy was, and hasn't differentiated herself from Brown. But, you see, that's why she won the primary - the voters and the National Dems backed her because they thought she was going to win because she was a more conservative Democrat. And quite frankly, that's insane. Some strategic voting is okay, but as Truman used to say - when given the choice between a Republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, the voters will choose the real thing.
Moreover, the Dems are forgetting that in a special election, turnout is key. And the only way to turn out Democrats is to excite the base. Moderates are great, but they don't excite anyone. With the insanity of the health care reform bill, Coakley would be in a stronger place if she went Alan Grayson/Howard Dean.
Anyway, here's my point - the Democratic Party needs to understand that its base is the same size, if not larger, than the GOP base. Expanding to the independents is good, but having the base with you is equally important. The most successful Democrats are always presumed to be more liberal than they actually are. So, stop being afraid to be liberal.
The Chargers choke again -
As a Chargers fan, last Sunday's game was painful. Without question, the Chargers choked - and choked big time. Ten penalties, three missed field goals, a dumb interception, the Chargers just didn't play up to their ability. I blame Norv Turner - but at the same time, the offensive line and the defensive line are not what they should have been. The D-line is excusable from a coaching standpoint (although A.J. Smith better do something to upgrade the D-line), but the offensive line play has been atrocious for years. Yes, LT isn't the player he used to be, but he hasn't had any holes to go through.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
What to do with the Health Care Bill
As a progressive. . .fuck that. I'm not a progressive, I'm a liberal. I believe that the free market/capitalism system is a good system, but the real world being what it is, we need government intervention when the market breaks down. I believe that women should have full autonomy over their own bodies, and that everyone should be free to spend their money on what they want, so long as it doesn't affect anyone else. My previous work in housing rights was primarily correcting the market inefficiency of housing discrimination.
Anyway, as a liberal, and someone who cares deeply about the status of health care in this country (which I've blogged about ad nauseum), I'm left to wonder what to do about the Senate Health Care Reform bill. Sure, there are a number of good things in the bill, but there are huge corporate giveaways. For instance, under this bill, everyone has to get health care insurance or face government sanction. But health insurance companies still get anti-trust exemptions, and can dump people for forgetting to disclose even the most trivial of medical issues. So, the bill guarantees corporate profit.
Moreover, the bill doesn't have a public option or a Medicare buy-in, both of which are critical to bringing down the cost of health care insurance. In the ideal world, people at risk - small business owners, people with preexisting conditions, kids out of college - would have a place to go for relatively inexpensive insurance. I believe the best provider of that kind of insurance is the government (I'll spare you the details as to why).
Without a public option, should liberals and progressives deep six the bill? If I had to guess, I'd say that they won't but strategically, maybe we should. The health care negotiations were largely made between moderate and conservative Democrats, with liberal/progressives left out in the cold. The reason for this is that the Democratic leadership assumed they'd have our vote. And traditionally, they would.
Here's the problem that the Democratic leadership doesn't get that Republicans do - its all about turnout. Right now, the parties are more or less balanced, with the Democrats doing better now. Independents swing back and forth based on the conditions of the day and based on the general enthusiasm of the two bases. The party that gets its base to turnout wins. And so while liberals might not vote for Republicans, they will simply not vote, and the GOP comes back into power. Of course, the Democratic leadership doesn't understand this because those voters have been so disaffected for so long that the Democratic leadership didn't believe these votes existed until Obama convinced them to vote.
To get the Democratic leadership to understand the importance of keeping their base happy, maybe its time to kill something big, like health care reform. Let me expand by drawing an analogy. Anyone who's listened to Jim Rome on the radio knows that, for the most part, he gives softball interviews. His guests are given plenty of latitude to speak their minds, and he doesn't go the jugular. At the same time, Jim Rome has the reputation of being a tough interviewer. Why? Because in 1994, Rome called quarterback Jim Everett, "Chris Everett," to Everett's face, and almost got his face punched in. That's all it took for Rome to be considered a tough interview, and guys still duck his show.
Maybe that's what we progressives should do with the health care bill. Kill it to make it clear to the Democratic Party leadership that we're no longer going to accept getting shit on.
Anyway, as a liberal, and someone who cares deeply about the status of health care in this country (which I've blogged about ad nauseum), I'm left to wonder what to do about the Senate Health Care Reform bill. Sure, there are a number of good things in the bill, but there are huge corporate giveaways. For instance, under this bill, everyone has to get health care insurance or face government sanction. But health insurance companies still get anti-trust exemptions, and can dump people for forgetting to disclose even the most trivial of medical issues. So, the bill guarantees corporate profit.
Moreover, the bill doesn't have a public option or a Medicare buy-in, both of which are critical to bringing down the cost of health care insurance. In the ideal world, people at risk - small business owners, people with preexisting conditions, kids out of college - would have a place to go for relatively inexpensive insurance. I believe the best provider of that kind of insurance is the government (I'll spare you the details as to why).
Without a public option, should liberals and progressives deep six the bill? If I had to guess, I'd say that they won't but strategically, maybe we should. The health care negotiations were largely made between moderate and conservative Democrats, with liberal/progressives left out in the cold. The reason for this is that the Democratic leadership assumed they'd have our vote. And traditionally, they would.
Here's the problem that the Democratic leadership doesn't get that Republicans do - its all about turnout. Right now, the parties are more or less balanced, with the Democrats doing better now. Independents swing back and forth based on the conditions of the day and based on the general enthusiasm of the two bases. The party that gets its base to turnout wins. And so while liberals might not vote for Republicans, they will simply not vote, and the GOP comes back into power. Of course, the Democratic leadership doesn't understand this because those voters have been so disaffected for so long that the Democratic leadership didn't believe these votes existed until Obama convinced them to vote.
To get the Democratic leadership to understand the importance of keeping their base happy, maybe its time to kill something big, like health care reform. Let me expand by drawing an analogy. Anyone who's listened to Jim Rome on the radio knows that, for the most part, he gives softball interviews. His guests are given plenty of latitude to speak their minds, and he doesn't go the jugular. At the same time, Jim Rome has the reputation of being a tough interviewer. Why? Because in 1994, Rome called quarterback Jim Everett, "Chris Everett," to Everett's face, and almost got his face punched in. That's all it took for Rome to be considered a tough interview, and guys still duck his show.
Maybe that's what we progressives should do with the health care bill. Kill it to make it clear to the Democratic Party leadership that we're no longer going to accept getting shit on.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Fuck You Joe Lieberman!
In wake of Lieberman's decision to filibuster the health care bill, allow me to point out a few things. First, prior to 2004/2006, Joe Lieberman was a known as a deficit hawk, very pro-Israel, and socially moderate with conservative leanings (hated Hollywood, supports abortion rights).
During the 2004 Presidential campaign, Lieberman was killed in the primaries due to his support of Iraq War. Worst of all, he was a pussy about it, and ducked out of speaking at the California Democratic Convention to avoid getting booed (ironically, John Edwards, who we now know to be a swarmy fuck, actually had the balls to show up and take his booing like a man). So he lost. Of course, he would've gotten his ass kicked by Bush in the general anyway.
In 2006, after seeing Lieberman act as a cheerleader for Bush for six years, the liberals of Connecticut (and there are a lot of them), decided to rally behind a political novice during the primary and Lieberman. And he lost on the issue of the day for Democrats - the Iraq War (damn, if it were only that easy now). But Lieberman managed to win in the General Election, thanks to Harry Reid and Barack Obama, who CAMPAIGNED FOR HIM.
To repay this debt, Lieberman has decided to rat fuck the Democratic Party by filibustering health care reform. And make no mistake, this is a rat fuck. Unlike the Republicans, who generally disagree with the proposed bill because it goes against their priniciples, Lieberman has promised to filibuster a bill because it lowers the deficit (the public option), and contains a provision he supported and campaigned for (the Medicare buy-in). Oh, and when the most recent compromise was worked out, Lieberman's people were at the table, and agreed with all the provisions.
According to the grape vine, the reason for the Lieberman's disapproval is because he wants to punish liberals for failing to back him in 2004 and 2006. Now its also possible that he wants to protect the health insurance industry of Connecticut, but the insurance industry has been in Connecticut a long time, and Lieberman is just changing his position.
So, what should the Democrats do with Lieberman? I think that anything, and everything has to be on the table. Lieberman should be stripped of everything possible - his Chair position, his committee assignments, his staff, his office, everything. His intransience on health care - which comes from a personal vendetta - will kill thousands of Americans. He is beneath my contempt. Now, will Reid do this? Of course not. If anything, Reid will cave to Lieberman's demands and set up another opportunity for Lieberman to rat fuck the Democrats again. And so begins my near daily ritual of banging my head against a wall.
A quick word on the Republicans and health care - I don't put the Republican Party in the same category as Joe Lieberman. Republicans oppose the current health care reform bill because they believe the bill will make bad policy and harm the country. Yes, there's political reasoning at play (no health care reform bill will hurt the Dems in 2010), but if politics was taken out the equation, these guys would still oppose health care reform. To that extent, they're honest. Wrong, but honest.
During the 2004 Presidential campaign, Lieberman was killed in the primaries due to his support of Iraq War. Worst of all, he was a pussy about it, and ducked out of speaking at the California Democratic Convention to avoid getting booed (ironically, John Edwards, who we now know to be a swarmy fuck, actually had the balls to show up and take his booing like a man). So he lost. Of course, he would've gotten his ass kicked by Bush in the general anyway.
In 2006, after seeing Lieberman act as a cheerleader for Bush for six years, the liberals of Connecticut (and there are a lot of them), decided to rally behind a political novice during the primary and Lieberman. And he lost on the issue of the day for Democrats - the Iraq War (damn, if it were only that easy now). But Lieberman managed to win in the General Election, thanks to Harry Reid and Barack Obama, who CAMPAIGNED FOR HIM.
To repay this debt, Lieberman has decided to rat fuck the Democratic Party by filibustering health care reform. And make no mistake, this is a rat fuck. Unlike the Republicans, who generally disagree with the proposed bill because it goes against their priniciples, Lieberman has promised to filibuster a bill because it lowers the deficit (the public option), and contains a provision he supported and campaigned for (the Medicare buy-in). Oh, and when the most recent compromise was worked out, Lieberman's people were at the table, and agreed with all the provisions.
According to the grape vine, the reason for the Lieberman's disapproval is because he wants to punish liberals for failing to back him in 2004 and 2006. Now its also possible that he wants to protect the health insurance industry of Connecticut, but the insurance industry has been in Connecticut a long time, and Lieberman is just changing his position.
So, what should the Democrats do with Lieberman? I think that anything, and everything has to be on the table. Lieberman should be stripped of everything possible - his Chair position, his committee assignments, his staff, his office, everything. His intransience on health care - which comes from a personal vendetta - will kill thousands of Americans. He is beneath my contempt. Now, will Reid do this? Of course not. If anything, Reid will cave to Lieberman's demands and set up another opportunity for Lieberman to rat fuck the Democrats again. And so begins my near daily ritual of banging my head against a wall.
A quick word on the Republicans and health care - I don't put the Republican Party in the same category as Joe Lieberman. Republicans oppose the current health care reform bill because they believe the bill will make bad policy and harm the country. Yes, there's political reasoning at play (no health care reform bill will hurt the Dems in 2010), but if politics was taken out the equation, these guys would still oppose health care reform. To that extent, they're honest. Wrong, but honest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)