"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
-- Sinclair Lewis
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Barney Frank Knows Wing Nuts Will Never Vote For Him Or Like Him
Tonight Barney Frank conducted a health care town hall in his Massachusetts district and, needless to say, crazed birthers and deathers and every variety of wingnut came crawling out of the muck. I wish Barney could explain to President Obama that this hard core 30% of kooks or so-- across the country, who spend their time listening to Limbaugh and watching Beck and O'Reilly-- will never like him and he might as well give up trying to persuade them. Most members of Congress kiss ass to even the craziest of constituents. Watch how Barney Frank, year after year voted the smartest man in Congress, handled the craziest of his constituents. And if you like... come over and let him know.
So Bob Novak has gone to his reward -- presumably, the torments of hell for all eternity. (Could we maybe make it two eternities?)
Good riddance. Novak was an ideological zealot of the Far Right masquerading as a journalist. He was a bully, a thug, and a serial liar whose agenda was built on a volcano of (well-earned) self-loathing -- he seems just naturally to have assumed that the world at large was as irredeemably savage and hateful as the heap of toxic sludge he saw whenever he looked in a mirror.
And that has nothing to do with his outing of Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA agent -- except insofar as his entire career establishes him as just the sort of sleazeball who would commit an act of treason for the sake of punishing Joe and Valerie Wilson, two people who had served their country honestly and admirably while he struggled with the torments of his ideological delusions and vendettas.
Right-wing campground HumanEvents.com has a tribute to this cancer by Karl Rove crony Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, the former Reader's Digest editor who was unleashed on the Voice of America and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting by the Bush regime, with a mandate to transform them into puppet propaganda outlets for the Far Right. That's right, he's the genius who on his own say-so, and without even disclosing it to his board, spent $10K of CPB money to get the goods on that scourge of the hate-mongering right-wing loons Bill Moyers, the fairest and least corruptible soul in the journalism racket.
Of course for people like Tomlinson and Rove and Novak, concepts like truth, fairness, and incorruptibility appear literally beyond the capacity to comprehend. I begin to wonder, could it be an actual defect in the brain architecture?
Here are some of the comments added to the Tomlinson blowjob of Novak:
"Wow, this is sad news indeed. American journalism has lost one of its giants."
"RIP Bob: You are home with Jesus. What a wonderful and honest reporter. He lived the words. The truth will set you free."
"We lost a giant in political journalism today and a proud Fighting Illini! Rest in peace, Bob."
In fairness, a saner commenter notes: "He stopped being a journalist when he outted a undercover CIA agent for political reasons. Journalism lost nothing today." In truth, any journalistic impulse Novak ever possessed had long since been subordinated to his ideological zealotry and hooliganism.
With the following comment, however, I can at most quibble:
"One of the great conservative voices is gone. Requiescat in pace."
A "great conservative voice"? Yes, I'll buy that. (If I were a conservative I would be offended, on the ground that surely somewhere there must be a "voice" speaking from reason and a quest for truth. But by the standard of available conservative voices, yeah, our Bob was aces.) Just understand that this is rather a different thing from journalistic greatness or journalistic integrity. But this commenter makes no such claim.
The one thing I would have to quibble with in this comment is the R.I.P. crap.
*I say R.I.H.: Rot in hell.
OUR BOB'S, UM . . . NO, NOT FINEST . . . ER, MOST NOVAKIAN MOMENT?
To this day, I can't begin to guess what was going on in our Bob's head at that moment. But then, that was -- as I just wrote to Howie, who dug this clip out -- a very strange head.
The Deep Pocket Republican Attack On Ohio Corporate Shill Rob Portman
One of the Cleveland area's biggest car sellers, Tom Granley, is a very, very wealthy Republican-- but he's always been kind of stingy with his campaign donations to his political party. In the past 10 years he's given a couple of hundred dollars to a few candidates each, like Steven LaTourette, Mike DeWine, a bit more to Voinovich and a few hundred bucks to some GOP committees. One good day at Blue America funnels far more money into candidates' coffers than a decade from this multimillionaire. But all that's changed now. Granley is about to open up his wallet... wide. He's promised as much as $7 million... to defeat the Bush clone that the Republican Party Establishment is determined to hand their party's nomination for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by George Voinovich. Why the sudden interest in defeating Rob Portman? Well, Granley think's he's found a better candidate: Tom Granley.
"The government is trying to control everything, from the car you drive to the doctor you visit from where you work to where your children go to school," he babbled, sounding more like a Rush Limbaugh listener and teabagger than like someone from your father's staid GOP. "I am a businessman, not someone who ever thought about being a professional politician," a slap in the face of political hack Portman, who's been nothing but a politician, first working for George Bush, Sr., then doing a stint as the congressman from the district now represented by Mean Jean Schmidt, and then going to work for Bush, Jr as the person in charge of dismantling American manufacturing jobs-- Trade Rep, they call in-- and ultimately as the Director of the OMB, where he had a major role in the Bush Economic Miracle. "But maybe that's what's needed in Washington now," he continued, "someone who understands financial responsibility and what it takes for a business and a country to be competitive. Someone who has built a business from scratch. Someone who knows how to create jobs. Someone who has met a payroll and knows his employees are dependent on him." Sounds familiar. The last time we elected someone singing that song, he drove the country close to bankruptcy and the economy to the edge of Depression.
The best thing Granley will accomplish is draining a huge amount of money that Portman would otherwise use against Ohio's spectacular Secretary of State, progressive Jennifer Brunner, the woman we've endorsed for the Democratic nomination for the Ohio Senate seat. So teabagger or not, and regardless of the fact that he has other intentions entirely, Tom Granley might actually be doing something right for America and Ohio. I might add, however, that polls show Brunner running ahead of Portman anyway. The most recent Public Policy poll shows her beating Portman 40-32% with 29% undecided. It's a great thing that Granley will force Portman to redeploy at least $5 million that he was hoping to use to smear Brunner into defending himself against charges from a fellow Republican that he bares a good deal of responsibility for the horrendous job losses in Ohio and for the severe downturn in that state's economy.
No matter which of the two cloddish Republicans wins, you will never hear anything from either one of them remotely like what Jennifer Brunner wrote at Daily Kos today about the healthcare crisis that is having such a gigantic impact on Ohioans:
A public option is essential because it is the surest way to quickly provide access to health insurance benefits to the more than 47 million Americans without health coverage at the lower cost and high quality of care now enjoyed by millions of older Americans who are insured through the government’s Medicare program. With the exception of Medicaid and Social Security benefit provided care, access to affordable and quality health care by Americans under the age of 65 has deteriorated under a completely privatized system that is motivated by making a profit for shareholders of the companies that pay for the services. That system has rewarded exclusion of Americans in need, the proliferation and duplication of tests and procedures, and the "silo-ing" of care that has affected its quality. Thousands of Americans have been pushed into bankruptcy, while our hospitals have been forced to provide uncompensated care that has driven up costs of services to those who are insured, increasing premiums and further exclusions to the point that it will break very soon.
...There is no benefit either for the American people or for the Democratic Party in surrendering the public option in return for the scarcely formed alternative of health-care cooperatives (billed to be like rural electric cooperatives that would be seeded with federal dollars). These health care cooperatives are unlikely to compete effectively any time soon with private insurers. They will need to be assigned to an agency for accountability and regulation, which, if not already formed, will face startup and rulemaking delays that will further exacerbate the problem. Why not provide a safety valve to relieve the stress on the health care system with a model that we know has worked for years? The public option has a sound, popular, and enduring foundation in the success of Medicare, a tested system that has covered older Americans for more than forty years and successfully provided decent health care to millions. Extending this type of model as a choice of coverage to the more than 47 million Americans without health coverage is not earth shattering-- it’s a choice and one we’ve been handling with success for decades.
The compelling need to retain a public option was brought into sharp focus for me at a public forum for seniors I attended near Cleveland last week, just before driving to Pittsburgh for the opening day of Netroots Nation. At the forum, 90-year-old retiree Belle Likover spoke of how she had studied the issue of universal health care in her high school debate class in 1936. The arguments she and her classmates used against it in class debates were the same as she hears today. When Medicare passed in 1965, as Ms. Likover pointed out, it required stout courage on the part of Democrats, because the same misleading scare tactics we see today were used then, and Medicare was passed without Republican support. Then as now, the Democratic Party needed to persevere in doing what was right, putting aside all criticism and misinformation, and the result was one of the most important and successful government programs ever established.
Last night Rachel Maddow kicked off her show with a talk about the collapse of ambition-- the Obama Administration and corporate Democrats throwing in the towel on health care reform. The video-- after the first minute or so-- is incredibly compelling and I recommend you watch it if you didn't see it yet. This morning several bloggers have kicked off an effort to thank the House Democrats who have drawn a line in the sand and say they will stand up against the corporate shills in the Senate and the Administration are defeat any bogus health care bill that doesn't include-- at the minimum-- a robust public option. You may remember that a few days ago I included all the names and phone numbers in a post and I want to encourage all DWT readers to call up congressmembers on the list and thank them. Thereisnospoon at Daily Kos explained the thinking behind whole campaign this morning. And Blue America is hosting an ActBlue page for people who would like to give any of the congressmembers who are standing up for the public option a dollar or two.
“A bill without a public option won’t pass the House,” said Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), a member of Energy & Commerce Health subcommittee. “Not only are they weakening their proposal, but they are also weakening their hand. This is legislative subtraction by subtraction.”
Privately, the leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and Congressional Black Caucus sent the same message to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who said Sunday that a public plan is “not the essential element” of comprehensive reform.
“To take the public option off the table would be a grave error; passage in the House of Representatives depends upon inclusion of it,” wrote Reps. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) in a letter to Sebelius Monday.
Along with their sharply worded letter, the three House members sent an attachment listing the “60 Members of Congress who are firm in their position that any legislation that moves forward through both chambers, and into a final proposal for the president's signature, MUST contain a public option.”
Even if top aides didn’t intend to do it, the White House got a glimpse of what may well happen-- a Democratic civil war-- if President Barack Obama does indeed give up on the public option.
...Democracy for America honed in on the 60 House members who have pledged not to vote for a bill without the public option, and asked supporters to remind them to hold firm. Health Care for America Now urged its network to contact senators. And the Progressive Change Campaign Committee promised a new round of TV ads targeting undecided senators and highlighting their contributions from health and insurance interests.
"There is zero retreat on the grassroots level for the public option. We are all in, and we're staying all in, because the public option is the compromise,” said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change committee, one of the most aggressive defenders of the public option.
“If Kathleen Sebelius, Rahm Emanuel, or anyone else thinks the grassroots will rally behind anything short of a strong public option, that would be a serious miscalculation,” Green said.
Although all the congressmembers have been getting contributions from appreciative blog readers, the dozen who had benefited most when I woke up this morning were Sheila Jackson Lee (TX), Earl Blumenauer (OR), Lloyd Doggett (TX), Emanuel Cleaver (MO), Carolyn Maloney (NY), Barbara Lee (CA), Bill Delahunt (MA), Andre Carson (IN), Luis Gutierrez (IL), Donna Edwards (MD), Michael Capuano (MA), and Pete DeFazio (OR). Please make your voice heard too.
Will Glenn Beck's Hate Rant Show Be Non-Commercial?
The heroic Color of Change effort to get advertisers to back away from underwriting the venomous racism of Fox News' worst inciter, Glenn Beck, is really bearing fruit. Yesterday Wal-Mart, Best Buy, CVS and 5 other mainstream advertisers asked that their ads no longer by run on his program. That brings the total to twenty national advertisers who have now dumped Beck. No wonder he's weeping on the air all the time!
“We are heartened to see so many corporate citizens step up in support of our campaign against Glenn Beck,” said James Rucker, executive director of ColorOfChange.org. “Their action sends a clear a message to Glenn Beck: Broadcasters shouldn’t abuse the privilege they enjoy by spewing dangerous and racially charged hate language over the air. No matter their political affiliation, hate language doesn’t belong in our national dialogue.”
“Walmart [sic] today confirmed the retailer pulled ads from the Glenn Beck show on August 3rd,” said David Tovar, a spokesperson for Wal-Mart, in an email to ColorOfChange.org. “While advertising on Fox is part of our communication plan, we had not requested time on Glenn Beck’s show specifically,” said Carolyn Castel, Vice President of Corporate Communications for CVS Caremark, in an email to ColorOfChange.org. “We have instructed our advertising agency to inform Fox to ensure Glenn Beck’s program is not part of our advertising plan.”
“Our position is simple,” Castel continued. “We support vigorous debate, especially around policy issues that affect millions of Americans, but we expect it to be informed, inclusive and respectful, in keeping with our company’s core values and commitment to diversity.”
In an email exchange with ColorOfChange.org, Lisa Svac Hawks, Director of Public Relations for Best Buy, stated that any advertisements for Best Buy that were placed on Glenn Beck’s show were done so in error. Svac Hawks pledged that Best Buy will correct any mistakes made.
“We did not specifically place our ad on the show,” said Amanda Borichevsky, a spokesperson for Travelocity in an email to ColorOfChange.org. “We buy ads in bulk and then they are placed somewhat randomly. However, we have now specifically asked that our ads do not appear during this show.”
“We reviewed our commercial schedule, and based on your feedback, we’ve put any programming featuring Glenn Beck on our “do not air” list,” said Aziz Mottiwala, Senior Marketing Manager for Allergan, in an email to ColorOfChange.org. “This means that you will no longer see any Restasis ads during programming featuring Glenn Beck. Thanks again for bringing this to our attention.”
“Ally advertises on a broad spectrum of programs to reach our potential customers,” said a Customer Care Representative for Ally Bank. “Our advertising is not an endorsement of editorial content on any program. We have ceased to advertise on the Glenn Beck program.”
In a phone conversation with Dwayne Sigler, Senior Vice President of Marketing for Broadview Security Systems, Sigler told ColorOfChange.org that Broadview’s advertising is bought based on network, not particular programs, but that “given the considerations, we have requested of Fox News not to include us in the rotation that would have our commercials running on Glenn Beck’s show.”
“…We are no longer airing our commercials on the Glenn Beck Show…” said Mary Beth Mayer, spokesperson for Re-Bath, in a phone message to ColorOfChange.org.
Progressives Push Back Against Attacks On Health Care Reform
This morning Howard Dean was on MSNBC explaining why Insurance Industry shill Kent Conrad's (D-MT-$828,787) coops won't work-- and then taught the media a lesson about buying into right-wing/corporate talking points-- i.e, that the "public option" is a "dirty word." He also brought up the specter of primaries against corporate shills passing themselves off as Democrats who oppose the public option. Take a look at the video at the bottom of the post. Dean did a good job but it's a complex issue and not one that sounds good as a slogan or works on a bumper sticker. Sam Stein over at HuffPo, on the other hand, nails it so that even the weakest members of the Democratic herd, your Blanche Lincolns, Richard Pryors and Kent Conrads-- will understand why coops won't lower costs.
The U.S. General Accounting Office produced a report on cooperatives in March 2000 that was mostly sour on the idea. Using five different co-ops as examples, the study concluded that on the key function-- lowering the cost of insurance-- these non-profit insurance pools came up well short.
"The cooperatives' potential to reduce overall premiums is limited because (1) they lack sufficient leverage as a result of their limited market share; (2) the cooperatives have not been able to produce administrative cost savings for insurers; or (3) their state laws and regulations already restrict to differing degrees the amount insurers can vary the premiums charged different groups purchasing the same health plan."
Part of the problem was availability. While cooperatives sought to provide more choice of insurance to participants, oftentimes they failed to get consumers a broader range of options. "Not all plans are available in all areas served by each cooperative, and individual employers using some cooperatives may limit the choice of plans their employees can select," the study concluded.
And without a large number of participants, co-ops essentially were subject to the whims of the insurance market, unable to use market influence to get consumers better deals on coverage. "None of the purchasing cooperatives we reviewed had a large enough market share to create bargaining leverage and therefore had a limited ability to significantly increase the percentage of small employers offering coverage in their state," the study found.
Like we pointed out yesterday, over 60 progressives have said they will not vote for a bill that doesn't include the public option. Today more members of Congress started speaking out against the attempt by the Insurance Industry and their right-wing, Limbaugh/Fox-fueled screaming wind-up soldiers to turn back the clock again. Speaker Pelosi has reiterated that even if Obama and the shills in the House of Lords cave to the Insurance Industry, the bill that comes out of the House will have a public option.
As the President stated in March, ‘The thinking on the public option has been that it gives consumers more choices and it helps keep the private sector honest, because there’s some competition out there.’
We agree with the President that a public option will keep insurance companies honest and increase competition.
There is strong support in the House for a public option. In the House, all three of our bills contain a public option, as does the bill from the Senate HELP Committee.
A public option is the best option to lower costs, improve the quality of health care, ensure choice and expand coverage.
The public option brings real reform to lower costs over the 10-year period of the bill.
Anthony Weiner (D-NY) wasn't one of the 60-some-odd signers of the various pledges to kill any bill without a public option. But, in an interview on CNBC this morning, he made it clear that he and many other Democrats who didn't take the pledge feel just as strongly as those who did. He said there are around 100 members of Congress who will oppose a bill written by Insurance Industry lobbyists for the Senate Finance Committee. "There are just too many people in Washington who believe that the public plan was the only way that you effectively bring some downward pressure on prices, and if he [Obama] says well we're not going to have that, then I'm not really quite sure what we're doing here."
One of the members who organized the original letter to Pelosi saying that progressives would not accept a shill bill without a robust public option was Arizona Congressman Raúl Grijalva, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Is issued a statement today that made it clear that he doesn't give a hoot what Wall Street wheeler dealer Rahm Emanuel is doing to appease political donors with a meaningless bill.
The public option is central to healthcare reform. Real reform, which lowers costs and ensures all Americans get the quality, affordable healthcare that they deserve, cannot be accomplished without a robust public option. As we have stated repeatedly for months now, a majority of the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus will oppose any healthcare reform legislation that does not include a robust public option. Our position has not, and will not, change. As Co-Chair of the Progressive Caucus, I look forward to working with my colleagues to develop comprehensive legislation that allows all Americans to choose the healthcare plan that’s right for them and their families. But I will not support any bill that does not include a public option.
Pretty clear! And so was Barbara Lee (D-CA), Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, which has tended to give Obama a great deal of leeway. Rep Lee just drew a line in the sand" “Recent comments by Obama Administration officials regarding the public option and health reform are deeply troubling. Any bill without a public health insurance plan like Medicare is not health reform. Without a public option there will be no way to keep insurance companies honest and their rates down. A public health option that competes with private insurers will set standards that could help lower costs and improve access. The Congressional Black Caucus remains committed to ensuring that health reform is meaningful and that means making sure the a public option is part of the package.”
Jerry Nadler (D-NY), one of health care reform's most devoted champions, was on NPR this morning with Katherine Lanpher and he didn't shy away from reminding his listeners/constituents that insurance companies are "basically the most profitable industry in the country because they are skimming so much off the top," before pledging again that he'll vote against any bill without a robust public option.
Its even more difficult for members of the House of Lords to take these kinds of strong statements against the Insurance Industry and their colleagues who are in the lobbyists' pockets. Over the past couple of weeks we've watched admiringly as the Senate's two most courageous and independent-minded members, Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR), have done just that. Today Russ Feingold also stepped forward on behalf of working families. “A public option," he told his Wisconsin constituents, "is a fundamental part of ensuring health care reform brings about real change. Opposing the public plan is an endorsement of the status quo in this country that has left tens of millions of Americans uninsured or underinsured and put massive burdens on employers. I have heard too many horror stories from my constituents about how the so-called competitive marketplace has denied them coverage from the outset, offered a benefit plan that covers everything but what they need or failed them some other way. A strong public option would ensure competition in the industry to provide the best, most affordable insurance for Americans and bring down the skyrocketing health care costs that are the biggest contributor to our long-term budget deficits. I am not interested in passing health care reform in name only. Without a public option, I don’t see how we will bring real change to a system that has made good health care a privilege for those who can afford it.”
Almost time to watch the Howard Dean video I promised. But first let me implore you again to thank the members of Congress who are standing up the Obama and standing up to the threats and wrath of the big corporations and, worse, Rahm Emanuel. You can do what they did-- stand up for the public option. Even a one dollar symbolic donation will let these members of Congress know you appreciate their stand.
UPDATE: Obama Better Wake Up... Fast
Even Bob Herbert at the NY Times and Eugene Robinson at the Washington Post are starting to wonder what has happened to the agent of Change and Hope we elected a few months ago. Has Rahm Emanuel had this much of an impact on him already?
No one is surprised, of course, that thoroughly conservative Kay Bailey Hutchison, has officially entered the Texas gubernatorial race against far right extremist and secessionist incumbent Republican Governor Rick Perry. This morning she was out for blood.
“Now he's trying to stay too long-- 14 years, maybe longer,” Hutchison said. She accused Perry of leaving the state with record-high property taxes, spiraling debt, excessive school tuition and dropout rates and the largest number of uninsured children in the nation. “Ten years is enough. We can do better."
“We need results, not politics. And that starts with term limits for Texas governor. For any governor, eight years is enough,” Hutchison said. “We can’t afford 14 years of one person appointing every state board, agency and commission. It invites patronage. It tempts cronyism. And it has to stop, now.”
Hutchison, who has served Texas in the Senate since 1993, promised “a clear, conservative vision for the future of Texas,” focusing on fiscal discipline, education, transportation, healthcare and government reform.
The three-term Republican also promised her party would change its ways under her guidance, growing instead of shrinking.
“For the last decade, the Republican Party in Texas has been shrinking. We’re losing elections we used to win easily,” she said. “As Republicans, we can continue down the road of shrinking majorities. Or we can inspire, unite, and grow our party.”
Texas has no campaign finance rules and this contest is likely to be one of the most expensive non-presidential primaries ever fought in history, eating up tens of millions of dollars in right-wing money that would otherwise be deployed against Democrats. Hutchison's pending resignation from the Senate will also kick off a vicious battle for the special election to fill that seat.
Saturday Jim McKinley took a look at the GOP rifts in Texas at the NY Times. He reminds his readers that Perry is an "ideologue whose recent flourishes include expressing sympathy for secessionists and supporting a failed effort to add a 'choose life' logo to license plates. Perry himself calls the battle against Hutchison "a civil war-- brother against brother."
Mr. Perry’s opponent is Kay Bailey Hutchison, the state’s senior senator. On most issues, Ms. Hutchison is also a steady conservative hand, but her tone is more moderate, her positions on social issues are more nuanced, her votes on government spending are more pragmatic.
...“I do not want a governor who is going to narrow our base, make it dwindle,” Ms. Hutchison said in a speech this week. “That is what has happened at the national level, and that is not going to happen in Texas.”
“I will work to build the Republican Party,” she added, “not make it narrower. I am for Ronald Reagan’s big tent.”
Elected to the Senate 16 years ago, Ms. Hutchison, now 66, has wanted for a long time to be governor. She pulled out of the governor’s race in 2006 only after several major Republican donors persuaded her that Mr. Perry would not run for a third term.
Mr. Perry, 59, denies he ever made such a promise, though some Republican donors now supporting Ms. Hutchison insist he did. In any event, the bad blood has made it impossible for party leaders to head off a primary fight this time around, several prominent Republicans said.
Ms. Hutchison argues that Mr. Perry’s aggressive courtship of conservatives has alienated moderates, independents and minorities. The party lost all the state’s major metropolitan counties in the presidential election last year, an ill omen for the future, and its majority in the Texas House has shrunk to a single seat.
The senator has the support of a handful of people who helped put George W. Bush in the White House. She has also attracted the support of Republicans with deep pockets from Dallas and Houston who backed Mr. Perry in the last two elections.
Some of those people fear that the rightward tilt of the state party organization leaves an opening for a Democrat to win back the governorship for the first time since Ann Richards captured it 19 years ago. Others say Mr. Perry has not done enough to cut taxes on property and businesses.
Mr. Perry, on the other hand, enjoys strong support from evangelical leaders and the voters who usually turn out heavily in the primaries: members of antitax groups, religious conservatives, creationists, foes of abortion and a variety of other Texans opposed to big government.
Kinky Friedman, who ran as an independent last time, is running as a Democrat this time. It's likely that other Democrats will jump into the race as well. Meanwhile, did you know that red, red Texas has the highest property taxes in the whole US? I wonder how long it would take for them to quintuple if the state actually goes ahead and secedes.
And so many of her constituents would like a word with her
Yesterday Arkansas corporate shill Blanche Lincoln got into the NY Times without just being a name in a list of conservative Democrats joining with the GOP to thwart progressive solutions to the problems that plague ordinary working families. She works for WalMart and the other major corporations that have funded her disgraceful career, not for Arkansas voters-- and she's well paid. And no one who's ever paid off Blanche Lincoln has ever complained that she didn't deliver the goods for them-- the way she is now by working diligently from her position on the Senate Finance Committee to undermine health care reform and pass a bogus bill that will enrich her Insurance Industry donors and further impoverish Arkansas families. But it isn't just her current work against climate legislation, against Employee Free Choice and against health care reform that has helped give Blanche Lincoln the reputation of being among the worst Democrats in the Senate, and one who is always most willing to cross the aisle and make common cause with conservative Republicans.
While Bush was president she often was one of the few Democrats to vote to confirm his completely unqualified and extreme right nominations to the judiciary. Overall, her voting record is abysmal no matter what issues you look at. Lincoln supported Bush's unprovoked attack on Iraq in 2002 and kept right on supporting the war as more and more of her colleagues wised up. She's either the worst Democrat in the Senate or among the 3 worst on a whole host of issues from wasting tax dollars on corporate subsidies and preventing adequate checks on corporate power, to undermining American workers, opposing equal justice, working against fair taxation and against a clean environment (where she's even worse than many Republicans!).
One of her colleagues told me, off the record of course, that it probably wouldn't matter if she was defeated and replaced by a Republican next year since on all the most important matters that come before the Senate she's "more than likely to vote with the GOP than stick with us anyway."
Yesterday's Times however, carried a poorly researched bit of flackery by Kevin Sack about how she has been able to avoid her constituents during the August break. She's been especially careful to stay away from any situation that could expose her to ordinary working Arkansans who have been most victimized by her political maneuverings over the years.
While her colleagues subjected themselves to brickbats at town-hall-style meetings, Ms. Lincoln filled the first week of the Senate recess with controlled events before respectful crowds, like business forums and civic club luncheons. The closest demonstrators got to Arkansas’s senior senator were the clusters of people who waved placards from roadsides as her car zipped by.
...Ms. Lincoln, a rice farmer’s daughter, has already broken with her party on several important measures. While she voted for the stimulus package and the rescue of the financial system, she opposed the reauthorization of the banking infusion and the carmakers’ bailout. She also opposes a Democratic initiative to help workers unionize and the House’s cap-and-trade legislation to reduce industrial emissions.
But her stand on health care could prove even more defining. Her office phones are ringing off the hook, with most callers expressing displeasure. Even at her well-mannered events, angst was evident.
At a Lions Club lunch in Malvern last week, Barry Ballard, 64, told Ms. Lincoln that his doctor was dropping him when he turned 65 because Medicare did not pay enough. “Are we going to run into another government-operated program that the doctors won’t support?” Mr. Ballard asked.
At the moment, Ms. Lincoln does not seem to be in serious political trouble in seeking a third term.
An interesting way of characterizing a disapproval rate so high that 60% of her constituents in a recent poll said they would not vote to re-elect her if the election were held today. I guess Sack must have figured that the 27% who say they would vote to re-elect her are the only ones likely to turn up on election day. Sack probably thinks she's safe because the GOP hasn't put up a credible opponent, although we're hearing that they may yet dig one up. Were Huckabee to take her on, she'd be lucky to get 40% of the vote. Recently, however, there has been an under the radar movement in several states among people sick and tired of corrupt politicians from both parties. People are thinking about supporting independents who are neither corrupt Democrats not corrupt Republicans, And Arkansas has one of the most plausible independents running for the Senate in any state, Trevor Drown. Last night I asked him why he thought Lincoln was avoiding speaking with voters the way other members of Congress are-- and the way he has been doing since expressing interest in challenging her.
I find it disturbing Senator Lincoln, the wife of a doctor is allowing her need to support the special interest groups who have put millions into her campaign accounts over the medical care of so many Arkansans and Americans who cannot afford it.
Senator Lincoln, needs to firmly establish now, who she works for; the people of the State of Arkansas or the Corporate Cash Cows, who appears to have bought her influence.
As a veteran and a son, I owe a debt of gratitude to those that came before me, raised me and made this country what it is. I will not turn my back on the elderly or those unfortunate enough to not have affordable health care.
Senator Lincoln’s failure to hold town hall meetings to allow Arkansans to express their opinions, regardless of the reasons, is indicative that she is out of touch with the people of this state or that her staff has insulated her from what is going on. This is an example of poor leadership.
In Washington D.C. poor leadership costs hard-working Americans money they don’t have. In combat, poor leadership, can result in someone dying.
I have been a member of the Teamster for 20 years and their support of my family while working at UPS and while I was deployed in Afghanistan is something I will always appreciate.
If nothing else, a leader is a listener. He listens to those he is responsible for or those he represents. When you fail to listen you lose the confidence of the people followed by their support. A leader is also a buffer, he shelters those that he represents and leads from those who are attempting to do something that is not helpful. Finally a leader is a fighter, one who fights for those that he leads or represents to ensure they get taken care of and their needs are met. Senator Lincoln has failed in all aspect of this.
Kevin Sack at the NY Times may think Blanche Lincoln is "safe" in her re-election efforts but people in Arkansas know better. Watch the ad Blue America ran in all the towns she visited in her off-limits-to-regular-people tour of the state last week-- and if you can, please chip in so we can keep it-- and two others from the same series-- on the air:
Why Isn't The Foreclosure Crisis Getting Any Better? Is Bush Still In Office?
What would FDR & a more robust breed of Democrats have done?
Careful DWT readers may recall me talking about spending months looking at financially distressed properties with my pal Roland, a public school teacher in Compton who thought he could possibly make the leap from apartment renting to home owning. We found a great house in an upcoming L.A. neighborhood.
My friend found a house in the Glassell Park neighborhood of L.A.-- a changing neighborhood-- that has been hard hit by the foreclosure mania. A hard working man who speaks little English had literally been tricked into a complex variable rate mortgage that he was assured was safe for his family of six. The house is beautiful and he got it for around $500,000 with 5% down (around $25 grand). It was a stretch but he was able to make all ends meet for two years, in the meantime upgrading everything in the house-- electric, plumbing, a guest cottage, a gorgeous garden... And then the full force of Bush's Republican Economic Miracle hit. His mortgage payments more than doubled. He had just been able to make things work before this inexplicable rise in his payments. Now he couldn't. The bank was willing to renegotiate, but not substantially. He faced foreclosure and the complete destruction of his credit-- let's hope Vice President Biden takes an active role in reforming the disgraceful bankruptcy law he helped Bush shove through Congress for his pals in the banking community now that he's in charge of that middle class task force-- and he realized he'd have to sell the house. Unfortunately, houses aren't selling-- at least not at the prices people paid in the last 15 years.
He put his house on the market as a potential short sale for $250,000, half what it was valued at when he bought it. If the bank approved-- and ate the loss-- he would be able to save his credit. My friend the school teacher saw the house and offered $270,000 in cash (borrowing money not from a bank but from a friend). The deal was approved by the homeowner's bank. But then the homeowner realized he had nowhere to go with his family. After spending months looking for a place to relocate-- even out in the dreary desert communities between L.A. and Las Vegas-- he realized that unless he was willing to split his children up among relatives, he couldn't leave the home he could no longer afford to pay for.
Legally, my friend the school teacher could have forced him out at this point. Escrow was about to close and he was entitled to pay the agreed amount and take possession. Ethically... well, how do you evict a family from their home? Instead, we found him another home (in Hollywood), and we suggested the Glassell Park guy follow the advice being offered by Ohio Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur, the longest serving Democratic woman in the House: squat in his own home.
Last week we drove over to visit the family and see how they had made out. They hadn't. They were evicted and had moved to Bakersfield, we were told by some neighbors. The house is empty... sitting and rotting, falling apart; losing value. Tragic-- and a story all too familiar across the country, especially here in California, as well as other bubble growth states like Florida, Nevada, Arizona, Texas, Georgia, Ohio and Illinois. The problem, as Kevin Hall reported in the McClatchy papers yesterday, is that the voluntary loans modifications that lenders were "supposed" to make just are not happening.
Remember when progressives tried making it not voluntary? When they thought all those billions and billions, hundred of billions, of dollars in taxpayer money gave the government the right-- and the obligation-- to force the greedy and stupid, failed banksters to make the loan modifications? We can thank the same crooked reactionary politicians who are busy gutting health care reform for that not happening, basically the entire GOP congressional caucus plus a handful of Blue Dogs in the House and corporate shill Democrats, in this case led by Evan Bayh and his anti-Obama bloc of ConservaDems, in the Senate.
The Obama administration has stepped up pressure on lenders and their mortgage servicers, who act as bill collectors on behalf of investors who own mortgage bonds. The administration on Aug. 4 unveiled the first of what will be monthly "name and shame" exercises, publishing data on the loan-modification efforts of about three dozen companies.
The administration thinks that about 2.7 million U.S. homeowners are at least two months behind on their mortgage payments, roughly equal to the population of Kansas. Yet only 9 percent of eligible borrowers had been offered trial loan modifications through June.
McClatchy's Washington Bureau received calls and e-mails from borrowers across the nation in response to a recent story about the "name and shame" effort. In subsequent interviews with them, a common theme emerged: Virtually all say they were encouraged, directly or indirectly, by their lenders to fall behind on their mortgage payments in order to qualify for loan modifications. Then the modifications never came, however.
These borrowers burned through retirement savings, destroyed their credit ratings and suffered mental and financial hardship.
And then got screwed by the lenders and evicted! Wells Fargo, for example, who has visited this nightmare on countless families has modified only 6% of eligible loans. Bank of America is just as bad.These banks are agents of social degeneration in neighborhoods across America and the government is remiss to not take action against them for the economic well being of the nation.
UPDATE... Hopelessness Is Never As Good As Hope
Looks like the talk this morning isn't about charging forward with an uplifting progressive agenda for helping the working families of America-- you remember... that HOPE thing-- but dialing back expectations. Democrats took the White House, the Senate and the House and they're not all that much better than the Republicans in keeping the special interests in check. Corporate power is too much for them. Maybe they should have started with real campaign finance laws that established more of a balance between normal Americans and corporate power. Oh well... at least McCain or Biden isn't president, I guess. The link above is to a long list of campaign promises-- like from revising No Child Left Behind, Rebuilding the Gulf Coast and funding veterans' programs to allowing consumers to import pharmaceuticals-- that will just have to, at best, wait-- probably a really long time (like for a president whose first instinct isn't to pick a corrupt Wall Street shill as his chief of staff).
On the brighter side, the White House now claims Sebelius misspoke yesterday when she threw health care reform under the corporate bus. Yeah? Prove it with some real CHANGE by firing her and replacing her with someone who wants real reform, like Howard Dean. Better yet, get rid of Emanuel before it's too late.
Is It Too Late To Rescue Health Insurance Reform From The Corporate Shills In Washington?
Listen to Obama being applauded when he was running for office; it can't be denied that the prolonged applause wasn't sparked by his charisma and charm but by his words: "I happen to be a supporter of single player universal health care." Perhaps he believes that his cult of personality is bigger than the ideas that propelled his popularity. If he does, he's in for quite the shock.
It was lovely when Bill Clinton rescued those two American journalists from the clutches of North Korea and when last week 4 European and 2 Kenyan hostages were released after 9 miserable months in Somalia, but the insurance companies have been holding health care hostage for decades, not months. And it was nice when President Obama seemed to promise a crowd in Montana a couple days ago that he intends to rescue the long-held hostage and succeed where Democratic presidents since FDR and Harry Truman have failed.
There was a lot to recommend Rick Perlstein's piece in today's Washington Post, In America, Crazy Is A Preexisting Condition about birthers, town hall hecklers and the return of right-wing rage. But one section that has really stood out in my mind implies a comparison between Obama and his compromised administration and an earlier Democratic president who faced mobs of hysterical white conservatives and racists screeching-- and fully believing their own screeches-- how passing Civil Rights legislation would lead to the enslavement of the white race: "Good thing our leaders weren't so cowardly in 1964, or we would never have passed a civil rights bill-- because of complaints over the provisions in it that would enslave whites... The tree of crazy is an ever-present aspect of America's flora. Only now, it's being watered by misguided he-said-she-said reporting and taking over the forest."
That and lots of suckers eating up the Fox/Hate Talk Radio disseminated Insurance Industry distortions and then running wild with them. Even the fake "Christians" have an angle.
When Obama passed over credible health care reform advocate Howard Dean and picked a suspiciously conservative Democrat, Kathleen Sebelius, to be his Health Secretary-- after his first choice, a blatant corporate shill tainted by years of K Street connections, was proven to be too corrupt for confirmation-- many people realized the game was being thrown. This morning Ms. Sebelius confirmed that they were correct in an interview on CNN's State of the Union.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius says Obama still believes there should be "choice and competition" in the health insurance market-- but that a public option is "not the essential element."
Obama has been pressing for the government to run a health insurance organization to help cover the nation's nearly 50 million uninsured. But he had not seen a not-for-profit co-op as sufficient to offer consumers choice and competition that would bring down the costs of private insurance.
With half the teabaggers claiming they've personally lived in Canada or the U.K. and can absolutely attest to the horrors of health care in those downtrodden countries, today's Independentweighed in from the UK. They recognize that the teabaggers aren't about debate but about shilling and psychosis.
Although the Americans spend more on medicine than any nation on earth, there are an estimated 50 million with no health insurance at all. Many of those who have jobs can't afford coverage, and even those with standard policies often find it doesn't cover commonplace procedures. California's unemployed-- who rely on Medicaid-- had their dental care axed last month.
...President Obama's healthcare plans had been a central plank of his first-term programme, but his reform package has taken a battering at the hands of Republican opponents in recent weeks. As the Democrats have failed to coalesce around a single, straightforward proposal, their rivals have seized on public hesitancy over "socialised medicine" and now the chance of far-reaching reform is in doubt.
Most damaging of all has been the tide of vociferous right-wing opponents whipping up scepticism at town hall meetings that were supposed to soothe doubts. In Pennsylvania this week, Senator Arlen Specter was greeted by a crowd of 1,000 at a venue designed to accommodate only 250, and of the 30 selected speakers at the event, almost all were hostile.
Healthcare compared
Health spending as a share of GDP US 16% UK 8.4%
Public spending on healthcare (% of total spending on healthcare) US 45% UK 82%
Health spending per head US $7,290 UK $2,992
Practising physicians (per 1,000 people) US 2.4 UK 2.5
Nurses (per 1,000 people) US 10.6 UK 10.0
Acute care hospital beds (per 1,000 people) US 2.7 UK 2.6
Life expectancy: US 78 UK 80
Infant mortality (per 1,000 live births) US 6.7 UK 4.8
Meanwhile over at the Republican Party propaganda station, Kent Conrad (DLC-ND), a notorious insurance industry whore ($828,787) further bashed the public option, using lobbyist-prepared GOP talking points. “Look, the fact of the matter is there are not the votes in the U.S. Senate for the public option, there never have been. So to continue to chase that rabbit is, I think, a wasted effort.”
Not all Democrats have given in yet, though. Democrats more concerned with ordinary working families than with the viability of the utterly useless and no-value-added insurance companies have taken a pledge to vote against any health care bill Insurance Business "allies" try shoving down Congress' throat. With sleazy ex-congressional wheeler dealers Rahm Emanuel, now White House chief of staff, and Bill Tauzin, now head of Big Pharma's lobby, working together with some of the insurance CEOs to do a Bush-like deal to enrich the insurance companies and pharmaceutical giants at the expense of the public, it will be the ultimate act of political courage for the Progressive Caucus to stand up and just say no. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) says progressives aren't about to give in to Emanuel's threats. "We signed a pledge to reject any plan that doesn't include a robust public option, and this plan doesn't have a robust public option."
And it isn't just Nadler who's standing up against the Insurance Industry, Big Pharma and the corrupt wheeler dealers who would sacrifice the HOPE of the millions of Americans who believed in Barack Obama when he was running for president. 57 dedicated progressives signed a letter to Nancy Pelosi pledging to oppose any health care legislation that doesn't include a robust public option now being bad-mouthed by Emanuel's team inside and outside the administration. 18 members have also signed onto the FDL pledge to only support a bill that includes a public option. This afternoon Jane explained the strategy of how this could work to prevent the Insurance Industry from running away with the reform package. These are the heroes of American families who refuse to be cowed by corporate America or by the political hacks who enable corporate America (phone numbers are included so you can call and say thanks; they deserve a thanks):
First, the members who signed the letter to Speaker Pelosi:
Earl Blumenauer (D-OR)- 202-225-4811 Corrine Brown (D-FL)- 202-225-0123 Michael Capuano (D-MA)- 202-225-5111 André Carson (D-IN)- 202-225-4011 Judy Chu (D-CA)- 202-225-5467 Yvette Clarke (D-NY)- 202-225-6231 William “Lacy” Clay (D-MO)- 202-225-2406 John Conyers (D-MI)- 202-225-5126 Elijah Cummings (D-MD)- 202-225-4741 Bill Delahunt (D-MA)- 202-225-3111 Lloyd Doggett (D-TX)- 202-225- 4865 Donna Edwards (D-MD)- 202-225-8699 Keith Ellison (D-MN)- 202-225-4755 Sam Farr (D-CA)- 202-225-2861 Chaka Fattah (D-PA)- 202-225-4001 Bob Filner (D-CA)- 202-225-8045 Marcia Fudge (D-OH1)- 202-225-7032 Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ)- 202-225-2435 Luis Gutierrez (D-IL)- 202-225-8203 Phil Hare (D-IL)- 202-225-5905 Alcee Hastings (D-FL)- 202-225-1313 Maurice Hinchey (D-NY)- 202-225-6335 Mazie Hirono (D-HI)- 202-225-4906 Michael Honda (D-CA)- 202-225-2631 Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL)- 202-225-3816 Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX)- 202-225-8885 Hank Johnson (D-GA)- 202-225-1605 Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)- 202-225-4146 Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-MI)- 202-225-2261 Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)- 202-225-5871 Barbara Lee (D-CA)- 202-225-2661 Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX)- 202-225-3816 Eric Massa (D-NY)- 202-225-3161 Jim McDermott (D-WA)- 202-225-3106 James McGovern (D-MA)- 202-225-6101 Gwen Moore (D-WI)- 202-225-4572 Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)- 202-225-5635 Grace Napolitano (D-CA)- 202-225-5256 John Olver (D-MA)- 202-225-5335 Bill Pascrell (D-NJ)- 202-225-5751 Donald Payne (D-NJ)- 202-225-3436 Chellie Pingree (D-ME)- 202-225-6116 Laura Richarson (D-CA)- 202-225-7924 Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA)- 202-225-1766 Linda Sánchez (D-CA)- 202-225-6676 José Serrano (D-NY)- 202-225-4361 Albio Sires (D-NJ)- 202-225-7919 Jackie Speier (D-CA)- 202-225-3531 Pete Stark (D-CA)- 202-225-5065 Bennie Thompson (D-MS)- 202-225-5876 John Tierney (D-MA)- 202-225-8020 Ed Towns (D-NY)- 202-225-5936 Nydia Velazquez (D-NY)- 202-225-2361 Maxine Waters (D-CA)- 202-225-2201 Diane Watson (D-CA)- 202-225-7084 Mel Watt (D-NC)- 202-225-1510 Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)- 202-225-5161
And these are the members who are credibly onboard with the FDL Pledge:
Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO)- 202-225-4535 Pete DeFazio (D-OR)- 202-225-6416 Lloyd Doggett (D-TX)- 202-225- 4865 Donna Edwards (D-MD)- 202-225-8699 Keith Ellison (D-MN)- 202-225-4755 Bob Filner (D-CA)- 202-225-8045 Barney Frank (D-MA)- 202-225-5931 Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ)- 202-225-2435 Phil Hare (D-IL)- 202-225-5905 Rush Holt (D-NJ)- 202-225-5801 Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)- 202-225-7944 Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)- 202-225-5635 Chellie Pingree (D-ME)- 202-225-6116 Maxine Waters (D-CA)- 202-225-2201 Robert Wexler (D-FL)-202-225-3001 Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)- 202-225-5161 John Yarmuth (D-KY)- 202-225-5401
Another way to say thanks might be to stop by a brand new ActBlue page: Standing Up For The Public Option and leaving a little something for the members you want to thank.
Insurance Industry Still Holding Health Care Reform Hostage
But Jim Webb (D-VA) persuaded the Myanmar dictatorship to free John Yettaw, an American being held there. Something tells me FDR and a more robust kind of Democrat would have freed health care reform by now as well. Obama's a big disappointment. "Better than Bush or McCain" isn't enough, not even close.
