Down payment on redemption

A couple of days ago, the New York Times made a small down payment on redeeming itself for its journalistic laxity about Iraq, dick cheney, and the bush administration in general.

In an editorial, they stated:

"The government owes Americans a full investigation into the order to approve torture, abuse and illegal secret detention, as well as the twisted legal briefs that justified these policies. . . .

Mr. Cheney was at the center of each of these insults to this country's Constitution, its judicial system and its bedrock democratic values. To defend himself, he offers a twisted version of history."

The editorial then proceeds to list Cheney's claims about torture, its authorization and effectiveness, followed by the contradictory reality of each that shows his lies and distortions. They then call for a fuller investigation than the one AG Holder has initiated:

"Americans need much more than glimpses of the truth. They should not have to decide whether to believe former interrogators, whom they do not know, or Mr. Cheney, who did not hesitate while in office to mislead them when it suited his political aims."

Good for the Times. I just wish they had showed up years ago, but better late than never.

Ralph

Obama needs to channel FDR

Signals coming out of the White House are that progressives should prepare to be disappointed after Obama's speech to Congress next Wednesday. In short, it sounds like he is ready to abandon the public option. One quote from an insider: "It's so important to get a deal that [Obama] will do almost anything it takes to get one."

Almost anything -- except fight for it. People are looking back at what FDR had to do to get all his reforms in place. He didn't try to get bipartisan support. He pushed ahead with his partisan majority and enjoyed doing it. He didn't try to be a consensus builder; he was divisive and pushed the entrenched conservatives out of the way -- in order to get the job done he had been elected to do.

I think it's just not in Obama's nature to do that. He does also have an obstacle that I don't think FDR had: the 60 votes required to move controversial legislation in the Senate.

It's not just that giving up the public option is bad policy because it removes one of the most important ways to control health care costs. It's giving in to the deplorable tactics the opponents have used to kill good legislation. Rewarding bad behavior is bad policy.

Yes, I will be greatly disappointed.

Ralph

Crazy becomes dangerous

The latest craze to infect the anti-Obama crowd is his planned address to the nation's school children -- billed as a talk to encourage hard work and responsibilty as the new school year gets underway.

But the wing-nuts (including Glenn Beck and his ilk) are trying to turn this into a dangerous event in which President Obama will be indoctrinating the nation's children in socialistic ideas.

I keep thinking they have reached the limit -- but there is no limit to their craziness and their determination to demonize Obama and destroy his presidency.

The scary thing is that -- keep this up -- and some real nut is going to hear it as a call to get rid of this "dangerous" man for the good of the nation.

I don't know how to put a stop to this craziness. I think it's up to the Republicans, but I don't know if there are enough responsible ones left.

Ralph

"Socialized medicine" for the elites; none for the little people

I should just accept as fact that Republican politicians either have no shame or else have no sense of the absurd -- when it comes to their own absurd statements, that is.

Yes, this is still about health care reform.

Leading Republican politicians are decrying those "government run health plans" as socialized medicine, where treatment "is either delayed or denied." And besides it's just plain bad for this country. It will change our whole way of life. It's unAmerican, by God! We're better off with the private sector handling our medical care. Yes, Sir, you'd better believe it.

Yet look where these same stalwarts go for their surgery:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell had coronary bypass surgery at the Bethesda Naval Hospital, which is the premier facility of the prestigious Naval Medical Services and where the elite of government, including presidents, are treated. Just to make no mistake: it is quintessentially a "government run medical center."

Senator John McCain had surgery there for his malignant melanoma in 2000 -- and, guess what? They seem to have kept him alive from this dreaded and deadly type of cancer for nine years now. Not bad.

Senator Kit Bond (R-Mo.), meanwhile, has warned of the rationing of care, expensive costs, and reduced quality that would come under a government-run health care plan. In April 2003, however, he had hip replacement surgery at Bethesda Naval Hospital. Apparently they did a pretty good job; he's been out there stomping on the trail, artificial hip and all, denouncing government run medical plans.

And, if I'm not mistaken, that's where the XVP goes for his numerous bypass surgeries, angioplasties, treatments for fibrillation, pacemaker inplants and reimplants. I guess, what with all the stents and pacemakers, you could rightly say his heart is now made of steel, thanks to a "government run health program."

So, Dear Leaders, if government run health care is good enough for you elites, why is it not good enough for us little people too?

Ralph

Time for Obama to take the lead on health care

Thanks to Mickey and Richard for their comments on the previous post. Here's my response: It's time for Obama to take the lead.

They're putting out trial balloons now to gauge the reaction to Obama's making a forceful push by coming out swinging and abandoning the pretense of bipartisanship. I hope that's what he does. It's not just the Repubs but the conservative Dems that also are getting in the way of meaningful reform.

I'd like to see him give one of his major addresses: frame this as a moral question -- call it a "right" to health care or not, but at least make it a moral question of the right thing to do and we must do it.

Then outline his plan for the best workable solution we can implement at this time, given all the forces against change. But it would have to include at least universal coverage and portability, no pre-existing conditions, no recission, and a public plan that would demonstrate how much can be saved without the profit motive and administrative costs to deny care and to advertise your plan.

And then insist on an up and down vote on his plan in both houses. I think the lesson in this is that you can't be a community organizer when you're the leader of the nation and major controversial issues are at stake. Sure, those skills are useful in many ways, especially when you are negotiating with people who have different agendas but are acting in good faith.

That's not the situation we're in now. Republicans are not acting in good faith; they're playing politics. When you have one party negotiating in good faith and the other playing gotcha, the good guys lose. And on top of that, add in the effect of money from the health care industry on both Repubs and Dems.

Now is the time for Obama to stand up and say: this is the way we're going, here's the plan; now follow me or get out of the way. And he needs to say that to the Democratic politicians as much as to the Republicans. Frame it so there are political consequences with the voters for those who oppose meaningful reform.

And don't be afraid of the label "socialism." The proper answer is "so what?" We have lots of government services paid for by tax money (schools, police, fire department, roads). Afraid we'll put insurance companies out of business? They'll adapt. Just ask the typewriter companies. We didn't try to forestall computer development because it would put them out of business.

Ralph

Interesting irony

I've become too discouraged, jaded, and cynical on the issue of health care reform to take much joy in this latest, but it does strike a note of delicious irony.

Ready to give up on trying to get even a sliver of bipartisan support, Democrats are beginning to think about going it alone and passing a bill under the reconciliation process, which requires only a simple majority in the Senate, not the 60 vote filibuster-proof majority.

Here's the irony: in order to justify it in a reconciliation bill (meaning it is substantively related to the budget and finances), the bill would have to be "more robust" in terms of saving money than what's been talked about. That is, the justification for this form of bill is that it will save lots of money -- meaning also that it would have to have more clout to change the for-profit balance of our current system of private insurance.

Hence, it could be that we get a more liberal, aka more progressive, public plan -- and perhaps something that actually does save money. The best that we can hope for otherwise is "reform" that primarily benefits insurance companies.

Stranger things have happened.

Ralph

Cheney manipulating the media

HuffingtonPost journalist Dan Froomkin is at least one who is not giving dick cheney a free pass to distort the news, unlike Chris Wallace who gave him a platform on Sunday morning tv with softball questions and no challenges.

Froomkin writes (at length but worth reading):

When he was vice president, Dick Cheney got his way by secretly wielding the instruments of power. Now that he's no longer in government, Cheney is still pulling levers and pushing buttons - he's just doing it in plain view. And it's the media that he's manipulating.

After years of speaking in whispers, operating by proxy, and leaving as few fingerprints as possible, Cheney has figured out that he can say pretty much anything he wants, the networks will show it on TV, and the newspapers will dutifully print it. And best of all, they will fail to put it in any context whatsoever.

The first bit of context for any Cheney comment, of course, is that he is a monstrous liar. News articles about Cheney should routinely reminded readers of some of the things he said in the run-up to war in Iraq. . . .

In an interview with beyond-obsequious Fox News anchor Chris Wallace that aired on Sunday, Cheney once again alleged that what he calls "enhanced interrogation tactics" saved "thousands of lives and let us defeat all further attacks against the United States."

It wouldn't have been hard for reporters to put that particular claim in its proper context. Just last week, the CIA released two documents that Cheney had been huffing and puffing (and bluffing) about for months, . . .But just as us critics expected, when those reports were released, they included no such proof -- just a lot of cover-your-ass language from the CIA . . .

In fact, after all these years, and despite a slew of selective leaks while Cheney was still in power, there remains not one iota of proof that torture accomplished much of anything . . . All we know for sure is that torture is still excellent at producing false confessions, just like it was designed to do.

Cheney also criticized Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to launch an extremely limited preliminary review into whether crimes were committed by the handful of interrogators who far exceeded even the Bush DOJ's patently illegal guidelines. . . . Cheney, in his Fox interview, said the review "offends the hell out of me, frankly." He explained: "[W]e had a track record now of eight years of defending the nation against any further mass casualty attacks from Al Qaeda. The approach of the Obama administration should be to come to those people who were involved in that policy and say, how did you do it? What were the keys to keeping this country safe over that period of time? "

Any normal person -- or reasonable journalist -- would gasp at Cheney's spectacular gall, and marvel at his absolutism. (He even went so far as to say that the conduct being investigated, which includes threatening detainees with a drill, a gun, and the rape of family members to be "OK" by him.) But instead, the coverage was restrained, if not respectful. . . .

My association to this leaves even me stunned. What popped into my mind in reading this was a scene from the HUAC Committee meeting when Army Attorney Joseph Welch finally said to Senator McCarthy: "You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

That is my association to the XVP -- the despicable and discredited Joseph McCarthy. When will some courageous journalist and pundit stand up to this man and call him on his lies and distortions?

Calling Jon Stewart. It seems only the humorists on tv do the real work of journalism these days.

Ralph

"Liberal"?

Among the articles about Ted Kennedy in recent days was one (I don't remember where I read it) that made the point of saying that he was perhaps the last major political figure who proudly wore the label of "liberal." For others, the word has become so tainted by the opposition as a terrible thing to be that its been replaced by "progressive."

Which is fine. That's what I have come to call myself. But Ted Kennedy embodied the old values that made us proud to be liberals, and for him the name still seemed appropriate.

Now comes news from Japan. Its ruling party of the past 50 years has just been given a resounding defeat in their election because, in the admission of their party leader, "We lost touch with the people." The name of that ruling party? The "Liberal Democrats."

Only in Japan: the "Liberal Democrats" are actually the conservative party, and they were defeated by the more liberal "Democratic Party."

Go figure. Words are just words unless you know how they're used.

Ralph

It just makes me sick

Friends, I had to take a couple of days off from the health care reform debate, because the whole thing is just making me sick. Despite Obama's devoting so much time to going out on the town hall circuit, he has lost control of the message, which the Republicans have dominated.

They have perfected the demonic art of killing good ideas with lies, distortion, and innuendos that generate fear and anger -- and then they sit back and gloat, as the hate-talk preachers and radio/tv blowhards finish the job.

Here's the latest, reported by HuffingtonPost:

The national Republican Party has mailed a fundraising appeal suggesting Democrats might use an overhaul of the health care system to deny medical treatment to Republicans.

A questionnaire accompanying the appeal says the government could check voting registration records, "prompting fears that GOP voters might be discriminated against for medical treatment in a Democrat-imposed health care rationing system."

It asks, "Does this possibility concern you?"

Katie Wright, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, said the question was "inartfully worded."

But she said people should worry because government officials would have access to personal financial and medical data.

"The RNC doesn't try to scare people," said Wright. "We're just trying to get the facts out on health care. And that's what we do every day."

Yeah, right. Like the "Republican Health Care Bill of Rights for Seniors" that they're advertising on the web. It is so full of distortions and fear-mongering it is just sickening: things like warning about cuts in Medicare, end of life scare tactics, etc.

And it's working. Polls are dropping, Obama is being painted as Hitler, Satan, and anything else bad the crazies can think of.

I'm discourged and enraged and feel helpless, sitting here watching it happen all over again. We, as a nation, are just stupid. And it is not going to change until we do something about the influence of money in our governing system. When george bush's term was over, I assumed I would no longer be thinking about moving to another country; but now I find those thoughts returning.

Ralph