220 to 215

The House health care reform bill passed with a 5 vote margin. It's public plan is weaker than I would like, but it does have a public option.

The restrictive anti-abortion amendment that was introduced by a Blue-Dog Democrat passed, so it is in the bill. But many, including Republicans who tried to get assurances that it would be in the final reconciliation bill, think it will not survive the conference committee.

Nevertheless, it allowed some conservative Democracts to vote for the bill that might not otherwise. And, bad as it is, it has no power to stop abortions; it simply forbids insurance plans in the public option to pay for them.

Now, on to the senate. It might just come together and give Obama and the Democrats a huge boost, in addition to giving American citizens a bold first step toward a health care system that is better for all.

Ralph

Bum rap

Who would expect otherwise from the Republicans? They are predictably trying to exploit the delay in manufacturing enough H1N1 vaccine in order to slam Obama, saying this is his "Katrina moment."

That is a false parallel on so many counts.

Katrina was a failure because Bush had put an incompetent crony in charge, and because of the widespread lack of planning and coordination at all levels of government. They had the resources, they just didn't do what needed to be done.

With the flu vaccine, it is an entirely different problem and certainly not Obama's fault.

According to Barbara Ehrenreich's article in The Nation, the delay in vaccine production is almost entirely the fault of the private pharmaceutical companies who were given big government contracts to produce the vaccine and have not delivered.

The New York Times also says that it is primarily a problem in the private pharmaceutical companies, not the government. It seems to be a combination of problems: vaccine production is not very profitable for drug companies, so they don't push it and most of the U.S. companies don't do it at all, so the government has to rely on overseas companies, with less ability to influence them; the H1N1 virus apparently grows more slowly in the lab than was anticipated, adding to the delay; and one of the manufacturers in Australia was ordered by their government to keep its output for domestic use rather than fulfilling its U.S. contracts.

BigPharma also apparently misled the government in its overly optimistic estimates of how soon it could produce the vaccine, leading the government to promise it would have 160 million doses by the end of October. Instead, they had only 28 million doses ready. But the problem is getting the vaccine from the private sector.

The Republican mantra, however, is: "If the government can't get this right, how can you trust them with health care reform?" Our rebuttal should be: "If the private sector can't get this right, why do you want to keep the same system?"

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091116/ehrenreich

Ralph

Why we will not leave Afghanistan

Writing in Foreign Policy, John Mearsheimer argues that we cannot win in Afghanistan, just as we could not win in Viet Nam, and that Obama will decide to escalate instead of withdraw for political reasons, just as Lyndon Johnson did in 1965.

As he says, Republicans claimed that we were on the verge of victory in Viet Nam when the Democrats in Congress bowed to the anti-war sentiment in the country and undermined the almost certain victory. However, Mearsheimer disputes that, saying that even with massive escalation of U.S. air power, at best we might have continued indefinitely in a stalemate.

Further, he argues, that

But even if success was at hand in Vietnam and the United States could in the near future win quickly in Afghanistan, there is a second and more important flaw in the Republican narrative: Victory is inconsequential. . . . The United States suffered a clear defeat when South Vietnam collapsed in 1975, but it hardly affected America's position in the global balance of power.
. . . .
In Afghanistan, as in Vietnam, it simply does not matter whether the United States wins or loses. It makes no sense for the Obama administration to expend more blood and treasure to vanquish the Taliban. The United States should accept defeat and immediately begin to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan.

Of course, President Obama will never do such a thing. Instead, he will increase the American commitment to Afghanistan, just as Lyndon Johnson did in Vietnam in 1965. The driving force in both cases is domestic politics. Johnson felt that he had to escalate the fight in Vietnam because otherwise the Republicans would lambaste him for "losing Vietnam," the same way they accused President Harry Truman of "losing China" in the late 1940s.

Obama and his fellow Democrats know full well that if the United States walks away from Afghanistan now, the Republicans will accuse them of capitulating to terrorism and undermining our security. And this charge will be leveled at them for decades to come, harming Democrats at the polls come election time. The Democrats have no intention of letting that happen.

The United States is in Afghanistan for the long haul. As was the case in Vietnam, more American soldiers and many more civilians are going to die in Afghanistan. And for no good reason.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/node/68820?page=0,0

I believe Mearsheimer is right on all counts. It is a terrible dilemma, and I am glad that Barack Obama is the one making the decision, not me. Although I want us to get out, it is not dishonorable to consider the political angle. Republicans would use it against the Democrats, and they probably would take back Congress in 2010 and the White House in 2012. And look who we might then have in charge.

If it were an Eisenhower or even a Nixon (when he was not being a crook) that might be preferable to the continued bloodshed. But do we really want to risk turning over government to the right wing fringe?

Everything in me wants to cry out: no more war! But my head also says: it would be a disaster for the current Republican party to be back in control. Could Obama, with his great oratorical skills, convince the American people that getting out is the better course? Would they listen to him more than to Beck and Limbaugh?

Perhaps he could have done it last spring; but now, on the ropes over health care and the economy, he could not survive charges of "surrendering to the terrorists." It's not just Obama's political survival; it would mean putting the Republicans back in charge.

And that could be worse than staying in Afghanistan.

Ralph

Losing Maine

Maine's legislature initiated, without court order, the right for same-sex couples to marry. Before the law's effective date, opponents got an injunction and filed petitions to put it to a voter referendum.

On Tuesday, that law was overturned by 53% of the voters. It would have been the first state in which voters approved gay marriage without a prior court order, and it would have completed the New England sweep of states that allow it, with New York and New Jersey likely to follow soon.

Unfortunately, out of state opponents, including the Catholic church and Maggie Gallagher's National Organization for Marriage, poured money into the state along with local organizations that mounted the usual disinformation and scare campaign ("teaching gay marriage to school children" was their scare tactic).

It is a set-back, but who would have ever thought, just a few years ago, that we would have even considered it had a chance? And here we almost won. Changing attitudes is hard, and it is an evolving process that takes time. This is but a blip.

Ralph

Another reading of results

From DailyKos blog:

There will be much number-crunching tomorrow, but preliminary numbers (at least in Virginia) show that GOP turnout remained the same as last year, but Democratic turnout collapsed. This is a base problem, and this is what Democrats better take from tonight:

1. If you abandon Democratic principles in a bid for unnecessary "bipartisanship", you will lose votes.

2. If you water down reform in favor of Blue Dogs and their corporate benefactors, you will lose votes.

3. If you forget why you were elected -- health care, financial services, energy policy and immigration reform -- you will lose votes.

Tonight proved conclusively that we're not going to turn out just because you have a (D) next to your name, or because Obama tells us to. We'll turn out if we feel it's worth our time and effort to vote, and we'll work hard to make sure others turn out if you inspire us with bold and decisive action.

The choice is yours. Give us a reason to vote for you, or we sit home. And you aren't going to make up the margins with conservative voters. They already know exactly who they're voting for, and it ain't you.

That's the other side of it: the lesson for Democrats. And we definitely should pay attention. The progressives are pretty disspirited at this point -- too many disppointments so far. Some of that should be repaired by next year, but it is a somber warning for us too.

Ralph

Reading the results

My early take on the results of yesterday's voting is that, despite winning the governor's races in both Virginia and New Jersey, the message for Republicans is clear: do not let your right wing take over the party.

The Va and NJ voters in exit polls indicated that it was the economy, more than political ideology, that swayed independent voters and determined the outcome. Many who voted for the Republican still had a favorable opinion of Obama and what he is trying to do. Most said that Obama was not a factor in their vote for governor.

The economy may, however, be a big factor in 2010. Voters who were most unhappy about the economy voted strongly for the Republican in both VA and NJ. So, if the economy does not improve significantly -- and that probably means jobs more than any other measure -- the Democrats could be in trouble in 2010.

More predictive than the governors' races, I think, is the NY House District 23, in which a 3-way race between a moderate Republican, a Democrat, and a right-wing conservative running as the Conservative Party candidate ended in the Democrat's win in a solid Republican district.

Here's how it happened: conservative Republicans decided to back the Conservative Party candidate instead of their own moderate Republican. Big names like Palin and Pawlenty endorsed him, money flowed -- and the moderate Republican's chances of winning in a Republican district were so slim that she dropped out, as they hoped she would.

But then she turned around and endorsed the Democratic candidate. And he won, 49%-45%.

That should be a warning to the RNC not to let the right wing take over in 2010. And I hope that the erratic Michael Steele, RNC Chair, ignores my advice.

Ralph

Republicans race to the bottom in NY

New York's 23rd Congressional District, a safe Republican seat, became vacant when Obama appointed their Congressman to be Secretary of the Army. Now a special election to fill his seat is underway.

It had been a three-way race between a moderate Republican, Dede Scozzafava, who was picked by the Republican establishment; the ultra conservative Doug Hoffman, running as the Conservative Party candidate; and Bill Owens, a Democrat.

An all out campaign has been waged by right-wingers, including Sarah Palin, to support Hoffman over Scozzafava -- so much so and so well financed, that Scozzafava announced that she was dropping out of the race, after assessing her chances of winning as slim.

Democrats were hoping that Scozzafava and Hoffman would divide the Republican vote, letting Owens take the seat that was once a safe Republican one. Then it looked like that hope vanished when Scozzafava dropped out. But wait !!! There's another act. Today Scozzafava, the moderate Republican, endorsed Owens, the Democrat. Stay tuned.

But what makes this so interesting is that it may portend the race to the bottom that will destroy the Repubs chance for a come-back in 2010. If the right-wing of the Repubs take control, it may drive the moderates to the Democrats, further anchoring the GOP as a minority party for a long time to come. It's beginning to dawn on many of them: moderate Republicans have more in common with Democrats than they do with the hard, right-wing of their own party.

Let's hope so.

Ralph

A little clarity, please

HolyJoe's stated reasons for opposing the public option plan, and therefore his reason for joining the Repubs in a filibuster, are just plain bogus. They don't make sense, even if you think that health care reform is a terrible idea.

HolyJoe's kewpie-doll jowls flutter as he bares his bottom teeth in that precious way he holds his mouth when he's being sanctimonious -- and he prattles about a new entitlement and run-away costs.

The fact is that the public option will save money and it is not an entitlement.

The stronger the public option, the more money it will save. Yet HolyJoe wants to do away with it because it will cost too much money.

Matt Iglesias distills it down to this:

He's talking about filibustering a deficit-reducing bill in order to try to remove a cost-reducing provision, and doing so on grounds of fiscal probity. It's ludicrous, and the political reporters covering him need to point this out.

Come on, people. Don't let this happen. Progressives have already seen their desire -- and what would really save money -- hardly even be considered at all. Instead of starting with that and letting public option be the compromise, Dems started with a weak public option and then negotiated that away -- almost, until public pressure forced an opt-out public option back onto the table. Even that was way too little, but at least it was something. Now HolyJoe thinks he holds the key to doing away with that too.

The compromise has been compromised to the 4th power already. Stop acting like it is something to negotiate on to reach some mythical compromise that will appeal to conservatives. They just don't want it, will never vote for it; but the people do, and liberal Democrats do, and we have the votes, if the leadership will push for it.

Ralph

Schools, not troops

Nicholas Kristoff asks the same question I raised in October 2001: what if we dropped humanitarian aid instead of bombs in Afghanistan? He asks: what if we built schools instead of sending fighting troops? Well, for starters, the hawks will say it's useless; the Taliban would simply destroy the schools.

Not so, says Kristoff, as he describes the work done by Greg Mortenson. Mortenson, co-founder of the nonprofit Central Asia Institute, has dedicated his life to promoting community-based education and literacy programs, especially for girls, in remote mountain regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Author of the best-seller, Three Cups of Tea: One Man’s Mission to Promote Peace…One School At A Time, and of: Stones into Schools: Promoting Peace with Books, Not Bombs, in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

He has now built 39 schools in Afghanistan and 92 in Pakistan, and not a single one has been destroyed or closed -- because he makes the school an indigenous project involving the people. In addition CARE has 209 schools educating 50,000 girls in Afghanistan, none of which has been closed or burned by the Taliban. One of our supposed motives in trying to liberate the Afghans was the Taliban's draconian restrictions on the rights of women and their refusal to let girls be educated.

Kristoff describes the difference between Pakistan and Bangladesh: Since 9/11, we've given Pakistan more than $15 billion, mostly for military support; and today it's more unstable than even. In contrast, Bangladesh has focused on education and now has an educated women's labor force, which has led to a spiral of economic development.

But here's Kristoff's zinger:

"For the cost of a single additional soldier stationed in Afghanistan for one year, we could build roughly 20 schools there."

And he adds:

"For roughly the same cost as stationing 40,000 troops in Afghanistan for one year, we could educate the great majority of the 75 million children worldwide who, according to Unicef, are not getting even a primary education . . . . Such a vast global education campaign would reduce poverty, cut birth rates, improve America's image in the world, promote stability and chip away at extremism."

Wow !!! That sounds worth doing. Even Republicans would be hard put to oppose that.

But what about all those defense contractors? Can't let them down, can we? I guess refitting their factories to make desks and chalk boards just wouldn't be as lucrative as B-22's and Predator drones. There's not as much profit in books as in bombs.

Oh, well . . . never mind.

Ralph

Chipping away at the mess

There are so many big messes that resist change that we tend to overlook the many, smaller ways in which Obama is making a difference.

For the past 22 years, the U.S. has been one of a handful of countries that bar HIV+ visitors and immigrants from entering the country. Monday, President Obama will announce his order to overturn that ban.

It was originated in 1987 at the height of the AIDS scare. HHS tried to reverse it in 1991; but Congress opposed it and, in 1993, made it worse by making HIV+ status the only medical condition that is explicitly listed under immigration law as grounds for inadmissibility to the U.S.

No major international AIDS conference has been held in the U.S. since 1993, because HIV-positive activists and researchers cannot enter the country.

We Americans are so petty, ignorant, and illogical and so motivated by fear, greed, and paranoia. Obama brings wisdom, intelligence, and common sense. He's letting a little sunshine in, ray by ray.

Ralph