And the results?

We Democrats can take pride in the fact that the Democrats were the adults in the room, pointing out areas of agreement with the Republicans, correcting them with civility when they misstated facts, inviting them to offer alternatives that would work and to join them in improving the Obama plan.

Let's hope the 3.9 million webcast watchers realized that, instead of being duped by the Republicans false claims.

They had nothing to offer but their tired, discredited old hobby horses. Sam Stein summed it up on Huffington Post:

No matter how many times Obama pointed out that there are significant areas of overlap between his plan and the Republican Party's proposals, his opponents continued to express strong disagreement over such things as the government's role in expanding coverage (Obama's plan would cover 30 million uninsured, the Republicans would cover three million) or the design of insurance market reforms (Obama would prohibit discrimination against pre-existing conditions, Republicans would not), or the length of the bill.

Democrats forcefully resisted the Republican's main proposal -- which was to start over from scratch.

"Starting over in my mind is code for delay and obstruction," David Axelrod, the president's senior adviser, told CNN.

And so, by summit's end, nothing was resolved and everything was resolved.

Reconciliation seems the only immediate path forward even if it continues to make some lawmakers skittish.

At least it proved one thing: there's no point in talking about it any more. Nothing was resolved about the differences. But everything was resolved on the question of the only way forward. Leave the Republicans behind. Now is the time for taking action to get as much of the plan passed through the reconciliation process as possible.

Why is this considered so bad? This is a democracy -- or at least the shambles of one -- but at least we still usually go by majority vote, except where certain rights of the minority are protected by the Constitution.

The Republicans have been making the argument that there is no right to health care. So they can't very well argue that a constitutional right is being violated by passing health care legislation by a simple majority vote. The filibuster isn't in the constitution either.

Several of George Bush's major pieces of legislation were passed using the reconciliation process, including his big tax cuts for the wealthy, which enormously affected the health of our economy and the deficit. So they don't have much of a case to make against health care reform as a wrecker of the budget and deficit.

So now we can finish the job and get some essential things passed, even if it is far from what we wanted and what is needed. It is a start.

Ralph

Lobbyists galore

A small, interesting fact with gigantic implications:

A Center for Public Integrity analysis of Senate lobbying disclosure forms shows that more than 1,750 companies and organizations hired about 4,525 lobbyists — eight for each member of Congress — to influence health reform bills in 2009.

No wonder it's so hard to get a good bill passed.

Ralph

Health care summit - 2

Here are some reactions of observers of the summit.

Highly respected liberal blogger Digby:

As a good liberal political junkie I watched the summit today and saw Democrats staying within the bounds of reality in discussing the various ideas on the table and I saw the Republicans making things up. . . .

However, if I were to tune in to this summit without having a fairly good grasp of the politics in play, I'm afraid I might come away from it thinking that both sides are equally earnest in trying to fix the problems with our health care system and they both have equally good ideas. After all, they told us that all day . . . .

The fact remains that Republicans and certain conservative Democrats are bad faith players in this process. They have no serious plan to fix the health care system but this summit's optics may have led people to erroneously believe they do.

Ellen Shaffer, responding to two of the Republicans' chief ideas about health reform, health savings accounts and malpractice liability reform, pointed out:

Republicans argue that high deductible plans with health savings accounts makes people better shoppers for health care. President points out that these plans work best, if at all, for healthy people with high disposable income.

[Henry Waxman (D-CA) said] California already has implemented medical malpractice reforms. It hasn't reduced health care costs for Californians, who now face 39% increases in the individual market.

It remains to be seen how the MSM plays this, what they choose to highlight. Will they play it as everyone's ideas getting equal play or will they show Republicans repeatedly touting ideas that have already been discredited?

Ralph

Obama's summit

I have been able to watch about half of Obama's Health Care Summit meeting. I think it has been very worthwhile -- mostly because it showed what could be an effective process for making legislation.

All the central legislators of an issue sitting around a table with a moderator who keeps the discussion on topic, calls people out when they start reciting practiced talking points or going into campaign mode, tells people when their facts are wrong, and yet maintained a tone of civility in the proceedings.

I thought it was a masterful display of Obma's encyclopedic knowledge of the issue and his ability to keep a discussion on topic and -- amazingly with this many politicians -- to hold down the political rhetoric.

No doubt the Republicans would have a different evaluation, but I kept thinking: why can't our legislative process operate this way? They might actually get something done.

Obama was not a neutral moderator, of course. He had the opening and closing remarks, and he was obviously defending his bill. But he held to his offer: show me a good idea and, if it works better than what we have proposed, we'll include it. But he didn't let them get away with posturing or distorting the facts.

He had somewhat testy exchanges with both John McCain and John Boehner, when they presented a litany of talking points. Boehner kept talking about polls that show the American people don't want this legislation. Obama came back with something like: If I did nothing but listen to the way you have mischaracterized the bill, I wouldn't want it either. But if you ask the people whether they want the individual parts of what is actually in the bill, they are in favor of them. It's when you go on tv and call it a massive government takeover of health care and scare seniors into thinking we're taking away their Medicare, then we have a problem.

And then to McCain, he said:

Let me just make this point, John, because we are not campaigning anymore. We can spend the remainder of the time with our respective talking points going back and forth. We were supposed to be talking about insurance reform. Obviously I'm sure that Harry Reid and Chris Dodd and others who went through an exhaustive process through both the House and the Senate with the most hearings, the most debates on the floor, the longest markup in 22 years on each of these bills, will have a response for you. My concern is, if we do that, we are essentially back on Fox News and MSNBC on the split screen. My hope would be is that we can just focus on the issues about how we get a bill done.

I judge it another success for Obama's demonstrating his process. It may not get any Republican votes in Congress, but I think it will play well at home, for anyone watching.

Ralph

Robins of spring . . . ?

Four late-night news blurbs on Huffington Post tonight were all good news. How long has it been since we heard that? True, one robin does not spring make. But four . . . ? Here are the four headlines.

1. "America's Justice System Takes Down Another Terrorist." Last year our homeland defense system detected and averted a serious suicide bomber who had planned an attack on the New York City subway. He has pleaded guilty to conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction and conspiracy to commit murder. This should shut the Republicans up in their scare-mongering about Obama's weakening us and about trying terrorists in civilian courts rather than military tribunals.

2. "GOP Filibuster of Jobs Bill Fails." Newly elected Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) broke with his party and voted to end the filibuster against the jobs bill. He was joined by Maine's Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, as well as George Voinovich (R-OH) and Kit Bond (R-MO). Democrat Ben Nelson (D-NE) voted with the rest of the Republicans.

3. "New White House Health Care Proposal May Destroy PhRMA Deal." Obama apparently no longer feels obligated to stick with the deal he made with BigPharma. His proposal released today contains some things they had successfully lobbied against in the now-defunct secret deal.

4. "Dick Cheney Hospitalized, Resting Comfortably." Now, now. Don't paint me cynical. There is good news in that headline: he is resting comfortably. Let's just hope that he recovers and that his doctors insist that his health requires him not to speak, or even write, or think about public affairs for the next 10 years. The XVP deserves a good, long, very quiet rest, attended by his daughter Liz. Of course she might have to give up her job shilling for him on FoxNews. But that's ok. We can get spare her too.

Ralph

Perils of privatization

What commitment does the average American have to a war that is fought mostly by volunteer services members (meaning most families are spared the risk of losing their sons and daughters in an unnecessary war) and with more and more of the actual work of the military farmed out in lucrative contracts to private corporations? And not just for food services, transportation, and supplies, but increasingly for actual military duties themselves.

The latest way in which this is proven not to be a good idea is the news that the training of Afghan police to fight the Taliban is being held up in a contract dispute with the private contractor that was hired to do the training. It's part of the shift of oversight of the training of Afghan police from our State Department to our Defense Department. DynCorp International is protesting that shift.

What if we contract out everything, pay to have our war fought by private contractors, and they decide to go on strike?

Ralph

Broken

A CNN/Opinion Research survey released yesterday reveals that 86% of people say that our system of government is broken.

Listen up, you senators. The people agree with what I've been saying.

This is the kind of stat that you get when people at both ends of the spectrum agree on something, even if their beliefs on what should be done are diametrically opposed.

We haven't given up hope yet. Of the 86% who say it's broken, 81% say it is fixable, while only 5% say it is beyond repair.

So let's get to work and fix the damn thing. Starting with doing whatever can be done legislatively to rein in the recent Supreme Court decision that protects unlimited corporate campaign cash as free speech. And then adopt Sen. Tom Harkins' bill to put limits on the filibuster. Term limits? I am ambivalent about that. Think Ted Kennedy and the effectiveness he developed over his many years of service. On the other hand were Jesse Helms and Strom Thurman -- same longevity song, entirely different words.

Ralph

Is it a good idea?

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), better known derisively on this blog as HolyJoe, has announced that he will become the lead sponsor of the legislative push to repeal Don't Ask/Don't Tell.

Reportedly having been asked both by the Obama administration and by gay rights groups to take this role, he is saying all the right words: that unit cohesion is based on being a good soldier you can be depend on, not on your gender, race, or sexual orientation; that claiming it would cause havoc in the ranks "belittles the maturity of our soldiers;" and that artificially limiting the pool of people who can enlist diminishes military effectiveness.

It's probably a smart White House political move. Lieberman's hawkish credentials are well established, he is considered strong on military policy, and he has some connections across the aisle in the Senate. And he's certainly can't be dismissed as a wild-eyed liberal. Maybe he can even convince his Best Bud McCain to change his bellicose opposition.

It's also a smart political move for HolyJoe. His approval rating at home has plummeted, and he needs to shore up his more liberal support.

Still . . . I hate to see HolyJoe get credit for anything good. This man has so damaged my regard for him that I have relegated him to political purgatory -- and I'm not ready for him to be redeemed.

If he's successful at this, it might help . . . a little bit.

Ralph

Petraeus trumps Cheney

We have been needing someone to call Dick Cheney to account when he spouts off. A few pudits have begun doing so, usually not to his face however, because Cheney does most of his dissing before a friendly group (CPAP, Heritage Foundation, Fox News) or through daughter Liz as his mouthpiece.

Today, the perfect one came forward and trounced Cheney's position on torture and waterboarding.

Gen. David Petraeus appeared on Meet the Press and made a compelling case against torturing terrorists and advocated sticking to the methods authorized by the army field manual.

"I have always been on the record, in fact, since 2003, with the concept of living our values. And I think that whenever we've perhaps taken expedient measures, they've turned around and bitten us in the backside. We decided early on, in the 101st airborne division, we just said, we decided to obey the Geneva Conventions...

"In the cases where that is not true we end up paying a price for it, ultimately. . . .Abu Ghraib and other situations like that are non biodegradable. They don't go away. The enemy continues to beat you with them like a stick.

Petraeus also declared that the methods approved by army field manual, and now given the force of law by Congress, actually work. . As reported by Sam Stein on Huffington Post:

Petraeus wasn't done there. In another contrast with former Vice President Cheney -- as well as the vast majority of congressional Republicans -- he reiterated his support for closing Gitmo, albeit without a date-specific time frame. . . .

As he noted, Petraeus has held these views for some time, so it's not surprising to hear him say it again. What does stand out is how infrequently he is invoked in the political debate on torture and Gitmo. The Obama administration, after all, has the endorsement of one of the most respected military figures of the modern age on two key policy disputes. And rarely do they or others mention it.

Hmmm. That's true. Wonder why?

Ralph