Is Obama Punking Us?
He should know. Thursday was the eighth anniversary of “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.,” the President’s Daily Brief that his boss ignored while on vacation in Crawford. Aug. 29 marks the fourth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina’s strike on the Louisiana coast, which his boss also ignored while on vacation in Crawford.
So do have a blast in Martha’s Vineyard, President Obama.
Even as we wait for some unexpected disaster to strike, Beltway omens for the current White House are grim. Obama’s poll numbers are approaching free fall, we are told. If he fails on health care, he’s toast. Indeed, many of the bloviators who spot a fatal swoon in the Obama presidency are the same doomsayers who in August 2008 were predicting his Election Day defeat because he couldn’t “close the deal” and clear the 50 percent mark in matchups with John McCain.
Here are two not very daring predictions: Obama will get some kind of health care reform done come fall. His poll numbers will not crater any time soon.
Yet there is real reason for longer-term worry in the form of a persistent, anecdotal drift toward disillusionment among some of the president’s supporters. And not merely those on the left. This concern was perhaps best articulated by an Obama voter, a real estate agent in Virginia, featured on the front page of The Washington Post last week. “Nothing’s changed for the common guy,” she said. “I feel like I’ve been punked.” She cited in particular the billions of dollars in bailouts given to banks that still “act like they’re broke.”
But this mood isn’t just about the banks, Public Enemy No. 1. What the Great Recession has crystallized is a larger syndrome that Obama tapped into during the campaign. It’s the sinking sensation that the American game is rigged — that, as the president typically put it a month after his inauguration, the system is in hock to “the interests of powerful lobbyists or the wealthiest few” who have “run Washington far too long.” He promised to smite them.
No president can do that alone, let alone in six months. To make Obama’s goal more quixotic, the ailment that he diagnosed is far bigger than Washington and often beyond politics’ domain. What disturbs Americans of all ideological persuasions is the fear that almost everything, not just government, is fixed or manipulated by some powerful hidden hand, from commercial transactions as trivial as the sales of prime concert tickets to cultural forces as pervasive as the news media.
It’s a cynicism confirmed almost daily by events. Last week Brian Stelter of The Times reported that the corporate bosses of MSNBC and Fox News, Jeffrey Immelt of General Electric and Rupert Murdoch of News Corporation, had sanctioned their lieutenants to broker what a G.E. spokesman called a new “level of civility” between their brawling cable stars, Keith Olbermann and Bill O’Reilly. A Fox spokesman later confirmed to Howard Kurtz of The Post that “there was an agreement” at least at the corporate level. Olbermann said he was a “party to no deal,” and in any event what looked like a temporary truce ended after The Times article was published. But the whole scrape only fed legitimate suspicions on the right and left alike that even their loudest public voices can be silenced if the business interests of the real American elite decree it.
You might wonder whether networks could some day cut out the middlemen — anchors — and just put covert lobbyists and publicists on the air to deliver the news. Actually, that has already happened. The most notorious example was the flock of retired military officers who served as television “news analysts” during the Iraq war while clandestinely lobbying for defense contractors eager to sell their costly wares to the Pentagon.
The revelation of that scandal did not end the practice. Last week MSNBC had to apologize for deploying the former Newsweek writer Richard Wolffe as a substitute host for Olbermann without mentioning his new career as a corporate flack. Wolffe might still be anchoring on MSNBC if the blogger Glenn Greenwald hadn’t called attention to his day job. MSNBC assured its viewers that there were no conflicts of interest, but we must take that on faith, since we still don’t know which clients Wolffe represents as a senior strategist for his firm, Public Strategies, whose chief executive is the former Bush White House spin artist, Dan Bartlett.
Let’s presume that Wolffe’s clients do not include the corporate interests with billions at stake in MSNBC and Washington’s Topic A, the health care debate. If so, he’s about the only player in the political-corporate culture who’s not riding that gravy train.
As Democrats have pointed out, the angry hecklers disrupting town-hall meetings convened by members of Congress are not always ordinary citizens engaging in spontaneous grass-roots protests or even G.O.P. operatives, but proxies for corporate lobbyists. One group facilitating the screamers is FreedomWorks, which is run by the former Congressman Dick Armey, now a lobbyist at the DLA Piper law firm. Medicines Company, a global pharmaceutical business, has paid DLA Piper more than $6 million in lobbying fees in the five years Armey has worked there.
But the Democratic members of Congress those hecklers assailed can hardly claim the moral high ground. Their ties to health care interests are merely more discreet and insidious. As Congressional Quarterly reported last week, industry groups contributed almost $1.8 million in the first six months of 2009 alone to the 18 House members of both parties supervising health care reform, Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer among them.
Then there are the 52 conservative Blue Dog Democrats, who have balked at the public option for health insurance. Their cash intake from insurers and drug companies outpaces their Democratic peers by an average of 25 percent, according to The Post. And let’s not forget the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, which has raked in nearly $500,000 from a single doctor-owned hospital in McAllen, Tex. — the very one that Obama has cited as a symbol of runaway medical costs ever since it was profiled in The New Yorker this spring.
In this maze of powerful moneyed interests, it’s not clear who any American in either party should or could root for. The bipartisan nature of the beast can be encapsulated by the remarkable progress of Billy Tauzin, the former Louisiana congressman. Tauzin was a founding member of the Blue Dog Democrats in 1994. A year later, he bolted to the Republicans. Now he is chief of PhRMA, the biggest pharmaceutical trade group. In the 2008 campaign, Obama ran a television ad pillorying Tauzin for his role in preventing Medicare from negotiating for lower drug prices. Last week The Los Angeles Times reported — and The New York Times confirmed — that Tauzin, an active player in White House health care negotiations, had secured a behind-closed-doors flip-flop, enlisting the administration to push for continued protection of drug prices. Now we know why the president has ducked his campaign pledge to broadcast such negotiations on C-Span.
The making of legislative sausage is never pretty. The White House has to give to get. But the cynicism being whipped up among voters is justified. Unlike Hillary Clinton, whose chief presidential campaign strategist unapologetically did double duty as a high-powered corporate flack, Obama promised change we could actually believe in.
His first questionable post-victory step was to assemble an old boys’ club of Robert Rubin protégés and Goldman-Citi alumni as the White House economic team, including a Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, who failed in his watchdog role at the New York Fed as Wall Street’s latest bubble first inflated and then burst. The questions about Geithner’s role in adjudicating the subsequent bailouts aren’t going away, and neither is the angry public sense that the fix is still in. We just learned that nine of those bailed-out banks — which in total received $175 billion of taxpayers’ money, but as yet have repaid only $50 billion — are awarding a total of $32.6 billion in bonuses for 2009.
It’s in this context that Obama can’t afford a defeat on health care. A bill will pass in a Democrat-controlled Congress. What matters is what’s in it. The final result will be a CAT scan of those powerful Washington interests he campaigned against, revealing which have been removed from the body politic (or at least reduced) and which continue to metastasize. The Wall Street regulatory reform package Obama pushes through, or doesn’t, may render even more of a verdict on his success in changing the system he sought the White House to reform.
The best political news for the president remains the Republicans. It’s a measure of how out of touch G.O.P. leaders like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are that they keep trying to scare voters by calling Obama a socialist. They have it backward. The larger fear is that Obama might be just another corporatist, punking voters much as the Republicans do when they claim to be all for the common guy. If anything, the most unexpected — and challenging — event that could rock the White House this August would be if the opposition actually woke up.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
133 Comments so far
Show AllWhere is Leon Festinger when we need him? People are talking about his theory of cognitive dissonance and giving him no credit. Some people are punking Festinger, but yeah we all definitely been punked out by the current prez.
AD
Where is Leon Festinger when we need him? People are talking about his theory of cognitive dissonance and giving him no credit. Some people are punking Festinger, but yeah we all definitely been punked out by the current prez.
AD
"What disturbs Americans of all ideological persuasions is the fear that almost everything, not just government, is fixed or manipulated by some powerful hidden hand, from commercial transactions as trivial as the sales of prime concert tickets to cultural forces as pervasive as the news media."
Those paranoid sillies. I wonder where they got that idea.
Joe
It's the worldwide Zionist conspiracy!
Mwahahahaha!
But it's pretty simple...people with power and money are motivated by...more power and more money.
I've recently felt as if I'd woken up to wonder just what level of punking has been going on -- is it a mugging, an accidental homicide, or a deliberate mass murder? I'm always slow on the uptake when I'm being taken advantage of, but I've finally had one of those "hey.... wait a minute!" moments. I took stock: What has happened since Obama took office that benefits the everyday Joe and Jill? What has happened that benefits the fat cats? Now, could all that have happened so FAST if so many people hadn't been blissfully trusting Obama to do the opposite of business as usual? So -- was he guaranteed the White House for the sole purpose of punking the people?
"So -- was he guaranteed the White House for the sole purpose of punking the people?"
Yes. However, the miscalculation of the elite was the speed witth which the populace would catch on. They are now actively attempting to emphasize the "difference" beteen the "ugly, fascist" republicans and the "polite, gentile, practical" democrats. It's theater. It's contrived so we don't massively move to third party. But we are massively moving to third party because our trust in the mainstream parties is gone permanently.
So how does the elite deal with this problem?
Watch for ANOTHER third party with a very charismatic leader to attempt to split us into factions. This leader will, of course, be initially demonized by the media. But lo and behold, they will begin to show grudging respect while "admiring" his outsider credentials. The givaway is how much free time he or she gets in the media.
Watch for it. The elite has no heart but they do have money and brains.
The opposition is waking up.
I volunteered for Obama in the 2008 campaign and I have to say that I am quite disappointed by his efforts in regard to health care reform so far.
I sincerely hope that he understands that progressive will not unite behind him in 2012, as they did in 2008, if he fails to deliver on his campaign promises.
I, for one, supported Nader in 2000 and 2004 and thus I won't have any qualms in deserting the Democratic party in 2012 if Obama and the Democratic congress do not pass a strong health care bill that covers everyone and that makes it affordable for everyone.
I would also suggest that Democrats, and especially Rahm Emanuel, watch Keith Olbermann's Special Comment from Monday, August 3rd. That's, in a nutshell, where I and many other progressives stand.
I haven't completely lost hope yet, but if the moneyed and reactionary interests in Washington embodied by senators like Max Baucus and Dick Lugar are more powerful than the plight of the poor across the hemisphere, then the only solution is to create a true alternative to the left of the now centrist Democratic party in order to balance the extremely reactionary Republicans and level the playing field.
http://prickly-pears.blogspot.com/
I swear, some of you sound like birthers. "He promised we'd pull out of Iraq!" Umm, we're already doing exactly that. When the fuck do you think McCain would have gotten around to that one? Before or after the hundred year estimate he made during the campaign? And while I agree that the ball has been fumbled on health care reform, does anyone honestly think we'd even be talking about this under a Republican administration? Did any of you notice that there are some Dems for it, some Dems against it and pretty much ALL the Republicans against? How exactly does that equate to "the parties are identical" again? How about the reconciliatory tone towards the arab world and europe, or the harder line towards israel? Just to mention a few things that are better under Obama than Bush. But those get ignored by the turd party shills, who I often suspect of being Republican operatives.
Fact is, working for a third party in our political system is like trying to score a home run in football. The rules just aren't structured to let it happen. Anyone who says different is in denial or outright lying.
The right wing didn't take over the Republicans overnight. parties CAN be changed from within, but it takes time, effort, patience, money, and a little bit of luck. It can and has been done. Third parties have NEVER come up unless one of the existing parties fails. Which just might happen to the Republicans if trendlines continue... it's an historic opportunity. but it will be squandered if progressive activists don't play their cards right.
If those who call themselves progressive but are sitting out of political activism or squandering their resources on the greens would throw their support behind progressive democrats, that wing of the party would be stronger and better able to stand against both repukes and conservative DINOs. If every green party politician stood in democratic primaries and took their progressive ideals to washington when we can get them elected, we'd make progress.
Saying "I voted for Nader!" doesn't absolve you from blame. It just makes you a willing nonfactor, safely neutered and no threat to the conservative enemy. Congratulations.
Fact is, activists moved the Republican Party to the right by working outside the party. As Danny Schechter (progressive) said recently,
"A new movement has to develop outside the Democratic party in the same way that the right acts outside the GOP, and has built a capacity for independent action with echo chambers, message points and personalities."
Moreover, history shows that many outside groups have successfully moved major political parties to adopt their (the outside groups') positions.
It makes perfect sense to work for change both inside and outside the Democratic Party.
Since you voted for and supported Obama, kitty_tc, you did neither.
And what the fuck did you do? What exactly has a vote for Greens or Nader accomplished? Name one thing. I named some things Obama has done that McCain would not. There are more, for example a flawed but at least present climate change bill (good luck getting that from a Republican administration!), proposals for finance regulation, and support for unions. No, none of these are perfect or as strong as one might like, but they're measurably better than what one would get from McCain or what we got from Bush. Even if they're only marginally better, they remain in fact a measurable and provable improvement.
What have we gotten from Nader or the Greens? What policies have they enacted? What legislation have they gotten passed? And don't feed me any bullshit about "well if only" a miracle happened and they magically won public office, because anyone without their head firmly planted in their ass knows it's not gonna happen. So what good have they, or your votes for them, accomplished? You know damned well the answer is nothing.
No thanks to you, the Democrats took enough of a majority in Congress in 2006 to raise the minimum wage (which I live on) by close to two bucks an hour. That's a hundred and fifty dollars a month I didn't have before, and you did jack fucking shit to help me get. Thanks a lot for nothing! And as much as you whine about the Democrats, they put money in my pocket that I need, use, and enjoy. It's real money, a real effect on my life that you and your people did nothing to help me get.
Even if they did nothing else, that is a real positive effect directly on my life that your imaginary third-party windmill tilting has not and can not match. Other people have their own stories to tell, like the people who could not afford a new car without the CARS program putting $4500 dollars in their pocket, or the salesmen and auto workers who got recalled to work because of it. Or the people in Iraq who weren't killed by roadside bombs or mistakes at checkpoints because our troops have pulled back to base and are largely in the process of shipping out. Did the Greens or Nader do that? The Republicans sure as hell did not and would not. While we're at it, how about the people who didn't lose their jobs this month because the unemployment rate has begun to level off? Do you think that would have happened under McCain? What DO you think the economy would look like under a McCain administration? If you think things suck now, how bad do you think they'd be then?
Don't feed me bullshit about what a magical Nader administration would look like, because we might as well talk about how cool it would be for Superman to come down from Krypton and fix everything. Where would I be under McCain? If the Republicans had kept control of Congress? I wouldn't have my $150 a month raise the DEMOCRATS got for me. I wouldn't have as much sales in my tip-dependent service industry position, meaning less money in my pocket still. I might not have a job at all.
Those things are REAL. They made a DIRECT DIFFERENCE to me and MILLIONS of other people. You and your third parties have done NOTHING FOR ME AT ALL. My realism and willingness to sacrifice perfection to get small but real gains has paid off for me, even if only a little bit. Your idealism and refusal to face reality has gained me nothing at all.
The Republicans said "Screw you, you're not rich or christian enough and so we'll work against your interests". So they don't get my support.
Nader and the Greens said "We'll give you the moon and the stars if we make a billion-to-one lucky toss of the dice and get anywhere near the levers of power". So I took those odds and bought a lottery ticket instead. It's more direct that way.
The Democrats said "We can't get much for you, not near as much as we'd like, but it's better than nothing". They got my support.
Until you can match their offer, don't waste my time.
Not to interrupt your tirade, but
"Or the people in Iraq who weren't killed by roadside bombs or mistakes at checkpoints because our troops have pulled back to base and are largely in the process of shipping out. Did the Greens or Nader do that? The Republicans sure as hell did not and would not."
The Republicans did do that. The Status of Forces Agreement was signed by the Bush administration, and Obama is just abiding by its timetable for pulling out.
I honestly tend to doubt that "we'll be in Iraq a hundred years" McCain would have failed to find an excuse to stay. And don't get me started on where his "Bomb, bomb bomb Iran" policy would have gotten us.
I honestly tend to doubt that "we'll be in Iraq a hundred years" McCain would have failed to find an excuse to stay. And don't get me started on where his "Bomb, bomb bomb Iran" policy would have gotten us.
McCain needs to work on campaign finance reform and torture investigations and shut up about everything else, pretty much.
Getting out of Iraq? Good joke. Obama has never pledged to get completely out of Iraq--in the least-worst scenario, at least 50,000 troops and a dozen large military bases/compounds will remain there indefinitely. And how about that escalation in Afghanistan? Proud of that, too, Obama shill?
Obama hasn't "fumbled" health care--he has quite consciously and expressly joined with Republicans, Blue Dogs, and mainstream "liberal" Democrats to bury single payer and cynically contrive a nonreform "reform" that will retain the dysfunctional chokehold of HMOs and Big Pharma on the U.S. healthcare "system." The is the old bipartisan connivance to serve the agenda of the corporate paymasters that control BOTH parties. Obama took $19 million from the health lobby in 2008--more than all the other presidential candidates COMBINED, and nearly three times as much as McCain. So we're NOT talking about health-care reform--just another con job on the American people, courtesy of Barry O.
You don't write about issues. You don't think critically and independently. You don't directly answer your critics points. You just heap puerile ad hominem abuse and shopworn cliches.
As for your beloved corporate Democrats. You toss around the acronym DINO--implying that REAL Democrats would speak and act like true progressives.
But the problem is precisely that they ARE acting like Democrats--New Democrats, the kind that have completely taken over the party now. The Democratic Party has not passed any serious reform legislation since Medicare and the Civil Rights act, nearly a half century ago. Since then the Democratic Party has evolved in to a subsidiary of corporate America that is barely distinguishable from the Republicans on any major policy issue.
Let's take health care. Here are the contributions from the private health companies to both major parties in the 2008 election cycle: Party Split: Dems: $72,618,739 Repubs: $54,040,468 Other: $332,123 (http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=H&cycle=2010&recipdetail=A&sorthttp://www.opense...)
OK--clear enough? Get the picture? This is not your father's Democratic Party. They ARE acting like Democrats (i.e., Republicans)--the current sold-out, DLC, triangulating, pro-WTO/NAFTA, Iraq War-funding, Patriot-Act-approving, Alito/Roberts-confirming, Glass-Steagall-repealing DEMOCRATS.
Now . . . name a major national-security or economic issue on which the Democrats have any major differences with the Republicans.
Put up or shut up.
Inadvertent repeat reply deleted.
Name a single economic or national security issue--the key issues, after all--in which there is a significant difference IN PRACTICE (not campaign rhetoric) between the two major parties.
Nanoo
Your observation of how the Republicans vote united is true. Far too many politicians switch their party loyalty, and then is even questionable about where they really stand on anything. Examples, Lieberman and Coleman.
I did vote for Nader and it does absolve me from blame of foreign occupations and war. Just last month as a group of peace activists were getting ready to march in our local parade, an older woman was apologizing for voting for Obama. Nonfactor, hardly. Frankly, I agree with the conservatives on some issues, the bank bailouts was one.
Who is this "us"? If you supported Obama, he punked YOU. I voted for Nader, no punking here!
"As Democrats have pointed out, the angry hecklers disrupting town-hall meetings convened by members of Congress are not always ordinary citizens engaging in spontaneous grass-roots protests or even G.O.P. operatives, but proxies for corporate lobbyists. One group facilitating the screamers is FreedomWorks, which is run by the former Congressman Dick Armey, now a lobbyist at the DLA Piper law firm."
If Obama & the Dems aren't fighting to improve health care/insurance, why are the corporations sending their dogs out to the town hall meetings? If there is no negotiating going on, why are they trying to improve their negotiating position?
Why the industry-funded, Republican-controlled PR actions?
First, to bury any discussion of single-payer. Two-thirds of Americans want single-payer, and that's more than a landslide in American politics, it's earth shaking. If single-payer supporters were to show up at the recess rallies in mass, Congress could actually pass single-payer! In fact, it wouldn't have much choice!
Thus, fearing the loss of billions of dollars, the insurance oligarchs called in their PR hounds to manufacture the AstroTurf mobs and sabotage the meetings.
Second, it's a bit of the old Br'er Rabbit swindle. "Please don't throw me into the Briar Patch," pleaded Br'er Rabbit (the insurance oligarchs) to Br'er Fox (Obama). Of course, Obama is in on the swindle. When he throws the oligarchs into the Briar Patch (public option), they run away laughing.
http://www.americanfolklore.net/folktales/ga2.html
The optics play niceley . The example of the protests can be used by the Democrats to say that they responded to the demands of the people.
Oh, wow, good insight and question. I hadn't even thought of that. You are smart ctrl-z; like your screen name too - lol.
To scare them from the even most minimal reforms of how health insurance is run in this country. The few Democrats that do want actual reform are the most heavily targeted by these mobs.
Yes, Obama is punking anyone whose income is less than about $200,000 per year. And he is punking himself, too, because when all his lame policies amount to very little or nothing, he will lose in 2012, because not enough voters will be motivated to vote for him.
Flip a coin as to which needs massive reform / wholesale replacement more: the US economic system or the US political system. World experience outside of a few special cases, most notably China's "sometimes or perhaps often benevolent dictator system", has shown that a minimum of three parties are needed not only for a healthy political system, but also for a healthy economic system.
I agree and after going to gp.org (for the green party) as I told a previous poster I would, I think I've found my new political home. The issue is we need to put our $ and energy where our mouths are and support a strong third party. Funny, turns out I haven't been a Dem all my life, just bought into the label; after reading the Green Party's "10 Key Values," I now realize I'm a progressive Green, not a progressive Dem. Bye-bye Dems; Sayonara Rethugs - keep shooting yourselves in the foot if you must. But it would be nice to have some real choices from *three* strong and honest parties.
Every time I come here I remember why I stopped in the first place. How many of you would be happier with McCain? Anybody? Bueller? That was the choice. Yes it sucks but that's reality.
There is no third party viability in our system. We don't have a parliamentary system and we don't have proportional representation. We just don't. We don't even have a proper campaign finance law that would reduce the money influence in politics, as the health care debate lays bare.
The Republicans are not an option, and the Democratic party is clearly splitting between it's small but growing progressive wing and it's DINO, Repub-lite Blue Dog contingent.
The ONLY strategy that has any chance at all of getting anywhere is to support the hell out of the progressive Dems, keep up public pressure and keep our voices heard, and work to defeat every Blue Dog and Republican we can. Especially the Blue Dogs, since Democratic voters can eliminate them through the primary system and get more progressive Dems in to take their place.
One thing is very clear: the strategy of electing Blue Dog DINOs to replace Republicans has been a tragic waste of time, effort, and money as they are for all practical intents Republicans in disguise. It's literally worse than doing nothing as it takes resources away from better candidates and other strategies, as well as tarnishing the Democratic name with their right-wing bullshit. The Dogs need to be put down.
Any other "strategy" isn't a strategy at all, it's a waste of resources. There will never be a viable third party. It's just not possible under our system. However, if current trendlines continue the Republican party may well fade and the the Democrats split between their conservative and progressive wings to form the basis of a new two party status quo. And if that is indeed the future, progressives need to make the progressive Democrat wing as strong as possible.
Any other path is a road to nowhere.
How many of you would be happier with McCain?
That, Kitty, is a silly non-starter.
During the Bush 2 years the mantra would have been: How many of you would be happier with Kerry?
I agree with the "split" theory. I actually believe that in the near future, we may see the Republican party as an extreme right wing party, a centrist "corporate" Democratic party. This would be the right opportunity for progressive Democrats to create a truly progressive party.
Whom do you consider "progressive" Dems? The likes of Kennedy, Waxman, and Obama, who have connived with the Blue Dogs and Republicans to kill single payer and who have served up a joke of a public option in HR3200, a bill that will be WORSE than the status quo because it will mandate purchase of extortionate, crappy private insurance plans while failing to control costs or significantly expand coverage? Those "progressive" Dems? Are you quite serious?
Here is ample empirical evidence, just on health reform, that there are no progressives in the mainstream of the Democratic Party and that it is no better than the Republicans.
It is not the Blue Dogs who gave the game away to the health lobby--it is so-called liberal Democrats like Waxman, Kennedy, and Obama who trampled single payer underfoot and cynically crafted a shriveled, farcical public options that presents no challenge to the HMOs, that will not make a dent in spiralling costs, that will fail to significantly expand coverage, and that has the SUPPORT of the AMA, Big Pharma, and key sectors of the HMOs--that should tell you all you need to know about the "public option" scam. If you want to know more, read the following detailed analysis--"Bait and Switch: How the Public Option Was Sold":
http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/07/20/bait-and-switch-how-the-%E2%80%9Cpublic-option%E2%80%9D-was-sold/
Wait--but there's more. Even the putatively leftmost faction of the Congressional Democrats--the Congressional Progressive Caucus--has rolled over for the health lobby by endorsing this abysmal public option and suppressing single payer--just like the mainstream Dems, the Blue Dogs, and the Republicans, ALL of whom are paid employees of the HMOs and Big Pharma (check the campaign donation figures at opensecrets.org). Here's that story:
http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/07/28/does-the-congressional-progressive-caucus-care-about-its-public-option...
Stop recycling the same shopworn cliches and DNC talking points. Read these articles and beging to think and learn.
What of Pelosi's pledge to allow single-payer to come to the floor of the House later this year, to be debated and voted on as an alternative to a public-option bill. Will it happen? Should we be pressing our congress members to vote for single-payer or nothing?
Absolutely! We should be pelting them with calls, e-mail, faxes to support HR676 in the House and S703 in the Senate.
In those communiques, we should insist that they push the CBO to cost out HR676 so there is a basis for comparison to the crappy mainstream Democratic bills--to show that it will be both much more comprehensive and far less costly than the lobbyist-written farce of Obamacare.
Go to www.health-justice.org for some organizing tips.
Here's my theoretical refutation of your self-defeating lesser evilism; I will add an empirical one as well.
So you invested a lot of illusions in a Democrat and adopted the standard liberal "sky-is-falling" excuse toward the Republicans. These are the same lesser-evilism rationalizations we've been hearing from centrist liberals for several generations now.
There are two chronic mistakes people like you always make: (a) you overestimate the progressive potential of the Democrats and (b) overestimate how much worse the Republicans are going to be. Go back to 2006, when you were investing such fervent antiwar hopes in electing a Democratic Congress. The Democrats, of course, continued to vote to fund the war in Iraq, and you had to eat crow on your choice in that election, and your ilk issued thunderous post hoc denunciations of the Democrats' treacheries. But then you stepped right back into the same trap in 2008.
Here's the problem--your denunciations of the mainstream liberal Democrats are always POST HOC, always after the elections, when you protest how badly you've been betrayed and wounded by the Democrats' betrayals. But this breast-beating is the result of NEVER LEARNING from past EMPIRICAL REALITY, and always repeating the same mistake--as though your previous post hoc revelations evaporate by election day of the next election cycle. Normon Solomon and David Lindorff follow exactly the same pattern.
As for (b), overestimating the danger of the Republicans--or the Chicken Little argument for voting Democrat--the problem is this: any significant differences you posit between the mainstream elements of the two parties are always CONJECTURAL and COUNTERFACTUAL, based on what you expect the Republians would do once in office. But EMPIRICALLY, WHEN IN OFFICE, the Democrats ARE NEVER ANY DIFFERENT--on foreign or domestic policy. Yet you keep stubbornly expecting them to be so. This is simply an example of failing to learn from experience—the experience of what both major parties actually do while in office, which refutes both your chronic prospective illusions about the Democrats (always followed by retrospective sense of betrayal!) and your Chicken Little hyperbole about the Republicans (yes, Bush was bad news, but he did NOT instistute outright fascism, as you and other Chicken Littles predicted in 2004, and ALL of his policies were seconded and funded and authorized by the mainstream Democrats--all of them not just "Blue Dogs").
Is it possible that the country is a hair less dumb and more sane with Obama rather than McCain in the White House? Yes . . . but only by a hair, and only in ways that are mostly symbolic. Dem apologists like you always pose counterfactual hypotheses about extreme measures you expect the Republicans to make, or moderately progressive ones you expect from the Democrats; but neither imagined course ever comes to pass, and emprically, while in office, these knaves always follow pretty much the same policies in all the areas that matter. So your methodology of rationalizing your votes for Democrats is always nonempirical and always refuted by the facts of actual history.
Moreover, your approach guarantees that you and others will always be trapped by the duopoly shell game. If one group pretends--and I emphasize "pretends"-- to be so much worse than the other, then you and others can easily be scared into supporting the least worst, time after time, with the result that we always get some variant of "worst" and never any alternative. There has to be a decision, at some point, that the entire paradigm of financial fraud and imperial adventure will be repudiated, that people will begin devoting their energies to posing and building an alternative, rather than being bamboozled into settling for what will be at best a marginally-- and only marginally, if at all--less repugnant variant of the reigning barbarism. You have no business ever choosing barbarism--even barbarism with a "human" face--the human face of the focus-group marketers, of course.
If we are ever to break out of this closed paradigm, we must break with it decisively. Given the imminence of total economic collapse, brazen looting of the Treasury, and global-warming disaster, there is no longer any time to indulge in hair-splitting scholasticism over preferred variants of barbarism. We must act boldly to press for those measures that will challenge the barbaric paradigm once and for all. If those measures will not and cannot be taken up by any significant and influential sector of the Democrats--and we have seen over and over and over that this is the case--then we must stop playing their game and begin the hard work of saving this planet--for no less than that is at stake.
That means insisting on single-payer, nationalizing the banks, cutting military spending, and so on. The Democratic Party is a swamp where these demands sink into oblivion. THERE IS NO TIME TO PLAY THIS GAME ANY LONGER.
Will you stop playing it? If people as informed and enlightened as you keep playing this losing game, then all is lost.
Your assessment is frighteningly correct.
And one other part of the closed paradigm is the monetary system: Zeitgeist Addendum http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=895026537690187652
kitty_tc , you should be reminded that on many ISSUES the a majority of Americans agree with third parties. The California Legislature, for example, approved single payer health coverage only to have it vetoed by Schwarzenegger.
It's the fear of Republicans and the false hope that people place in Democrats that perpetuates our political duopoly (monopoly). But since we've reached a point where supposedly liberal Democrats like Obama support the same policies as radical right-wing Republicans like Bush - that should tell you that your fears should be directed at both parties. In fact, it should be proof that the parties fake opposition to each other while working towards the same agenda.
Since so many Democrats argue that their support for the party is mere pragmatism, because third parties aren't "viable", I invite them to consider which is a harder task, purging the Democrats of right-wing ideologues and corporate interests, or attracting people to a progressive third party?
My own feeling is that there is no way to reform the Democrats. But any attempt to establish a third party will be comstantly sabotaged, and most people won't be able to stomach losing to Republicans while the party takes time to grow.
Hey Hopedup: "My own feeling is that there is no way to reform the Democrats. But any attempt to establish a third party will be constantly sabotaged, and most people won't be able to stomach losing to Republicans while the party takes time to grow."
So what, do nothing?! Lose/Lose? Choose the lesser of two evils? I've had it with liars who demoralize us. Think outside the box. Find the Win/Win. We have freakin' got to. Tout fini.
"So what, do nothing?! "
Let's be realistic, after Gore lost in 2000 there was a constant blame game happening between Democrats and Greens. Most often, the Greens would defend themselves by saying (I think correctly) that either Gore won the election (which is why the recount was stopped), should have fought Bush in court, or that Gore lost on his own. But what if the Greens really did have to take responsibility for actually throwing election to a Republican? If people are going to support the Greens (and I hope they do) we have to be ready for that eventuality.
Mainly, we need to stop thinking that we can expect any short-term progress in the presidential arena. It trains us to think that the political aims of the US reset every 4 years when they actually adhere to a unchanging doctrine of support for hegemony and oligarchy. None of the elites are feeling particularly threatened by the Green party and why should they be? Isn't it remarkable that, in spite of the Bush years, the Greens have lost support since 2000?
Right now, there aren't any realistic ways to change the US system or the minds of heavily indoctrinated Americans (the average American). If you know of some method to do this, then let's hear it. But, regardless, I still say vote your conscience.
As far as sabotage is concerned, just ask Cindy Sheehan.
"Think outside the box."
"Find the Win/Win."
Hmmm...
http://www.tonyrobbins.com
or maybe
http://www.scientology.org/
kity_tc,
Here's the path we are on:
On my more cynical days, I see the inevitable result of all this (the appeance of change, rather than actual change) as the original intent of democrats all along. A 'public option' (if one arrives at all) so hobbled and inneffectual that only the poorest and most disenfranchised opt for it, leaving the rest of us stuck with the overpriced, swiss cheese 'illusion' of coverage that most of us have now.
I was living in Canada during the Harry and Louise debacle and was utterly baffled by it ("Oh god Harry, this used to be covered! What are we going to do?"). Having never had 'insurance' in the United States I thought it worked like what I had in Canada; you simply show up at the doctor or hospital, wave your card and they do their thing. End of story.
I now understand that this was projection on the part of private insurers, it's what THEY do. For instance last year my coverage with United went up $120 a month and a number of "in-office" procedures which were previously deductable-exempt have now magically become 'hospital procedures' which are not. Apparently it matters not a whit that they are actually done in my doctor's office, though it took me a morning of fruitless argument with an insurance weasel to establish this.
And therein, it seems to me, lies the reason why this 'reform' will ultimately fail. Americans, through a combination of willful ignorance (of how the rest of the world lives) and misinformation, simply cannot conceive of any other way of doing things but their own. Even progressives are wed to the notion that 'government insurance' will be more or less like private insurance, with it's byzantine maze of co-pays, deductables, and 'plans' to be 'tailored to your individual needs' (read: sift through pages of misleading boilerplate hoping to god you can find a 'tier' that is both affordable and won't bankrupt you if you fall seriously ill) all in the name of some entirely illusory 'choice.' The American brain is so accustomed to the idea of predatory health insurers that it thinks everybody in the world deals with a health care system that most closely resembles a shady used car dealership.
Imagine a health care system whose madate is to provide health care, not profits to stockholders. It's bureacrats are accountable to voters in a way no insurance executive is. In Canada, any screw up in the system, no matter how small, is front page news and politicians' feet are held to the fire for it. Here 18,000 people a year die, and the public just shrugs it off as layabouts who made 'bad choices.'
John Doheny 08.09.09 - 1:00 pm
I'm sorry Kitty, but the present path to NOWHERE FROM NOWHERE is not acceptable.
"Any other "strategy" isn't a strategy at all, it's a waste of resources. There will never be a viable third party"
If you accept this then you must accept that the split in the Democrat Party is permanent and will always "blue" dog them into insignificance and lack of will toward the change that is necessary.
If you accept this you accept the US as Empire paradigm that is a joint project of the Dems and the Repubs, with the Dems playing good cop to the Repubs bad cop.
If you accept this then you will continue to vote for the lesser of two evils, and that will continue to get us no where fast.
Good luck. I suppose I'll have to expect to have debates with the likes of you during every election season. Oh well, at least I can say I tried to make real change.
I see your point. I agree about replacing Rs with DINOs being a waste of time.
But as to reality, it is you that is in denial.
NOWHERE is where we are RIGHT NOW!
Wake up! McCain and Obama are on the same team!
kitty_tc August 9th, 2009 6:43 pm........Why come back if all you have to offer is same old, same old. True Progressives ARE the third party.
point well-taken. still we may all need to move over to the greens.
Folks, this article is fascinating. It says everything we are thinking and then shunts us into the wrong mindset.
Where?
Precisely at the point that Rich says voters are right ot be confused as to which of TWO PARTIES to root for. Amazing how even Frank Rich doesn't want us to escape the corporate matrix. Sorry Franky, we have one choice: Avoid the corporate professional wrestling doupoly (reptilian/dumocreep) party like the plague. Get Kucinich OUT of the Dems and have him join forces with Nader and Ron Paul. If they aren't assasinated, we could turn things around in this fascist pigsty.
Note: Read an interesting comment on Buzzflash. I like it even if it is pie in the sky.
In my fantasy, Congress comes back from recess P!SSED at PhArma over the TownHallPutsch and, in reconcile conference, Obama convinces them to sustitute 676 for the current bill and pass it with a simple majority as a show of force against the Lobbyists and the Republicans.written by CwV since 8 hours 52 minutes
And then. . . you woke up from your silly dream.
And then. . . you woke up from your silly dream.
Hey, you never know. I am sure Congress is pissed at them right now, for pretty much putting their lives in danger.
So the author finally gets it but he still sounds like he's pretending that the Democrats are poor little victims. No, they are not. Most of the Democrats are long trained to betray and pretend feelings. If I had to go back in time and judge Clinton's "I feel your pain", I'd tell him to kiss my butt. For this weasel, he's taken more from Dubya's playbook than he has from Clinton's. Obama can pretend that he's battling the GOP as if he's some brave knight but in reality, he and most of his party are cooperating with the monolithic GOP in selling us out. The author's last two paragraphs annoyed me the most and made me think that this author is comfy and rich where he's at that he has no idea just how angry we are to be having our feeling toyed with. Let this stupid healthcare package go down in defeat so that we can give single payer another try and hopefully get more people on board to pressure Congress.
JenniferBedingfield August 9th, 2009 5:44 pm..........It must fail. If not, we will be stuck with a worthless and more costly program for many years to come. W cannot let up the pressure for single payer. At the least it may put this current farce of a health care bill in the garbage where it belongs. At the most, it may gather some momentum.
Obama is already defeated. He has in a brief six short months demonstrated time after time after time that he is nothing but a shill, ultimately, to the interests of the top 1/4 of 1% and theirs are the interests of Slave Masters, and nothing else. Slave Masters like the seven or eight of the first nine presidents. Remember them? They were the kind of men who raped a 14 year old child in between verses of the Declaration of Independence.
Now, think about the white Americans you have known all your life from childhood till this moment. Now change the sentence to read, "...who raped a 14 year old black slave girl in between verses of the Declaration of Independence." Reflect for a moment and ask yourself a question, "In their eyes would the second statement diminish the impact of the crime that was done to that child, or diminish the core corruption of a man who could do that to a child?" Don't tell me she consented. Do not even attempt to tell me there was no violence or real tangible threat of violence. Don't tell me 'she wanted it'. Don't tell me he was a man of his times or that this was a 'forbidden' love between adults. Helsinki syndrome is not a defense. That says, "She got used to it and chose life over death."
All those people that you saw, their reactions to two very different sentences, that is the measure of our collective doom.
Peace.
ezeflyer you have been fooled again. he is having a nice
vacation at martha's vineyard working on the newest help
the corp. fund. just like detroit and wall st. we KNOW
we,ve been punkd feels like frank is rubbing some salt in
the wound.when when will you obamaites accept this
and help elect a real "change" candidate? frank s tou
missed the ah donations from ins. cos. hosp. and other
health care cos. 20 mil. that's a lot of cabbage!
and one rule remains constant- you get what you pay for.
the real tips program was homeland security agency
(stazi spy apparatus emphasis on rat) asking cops
fireman social workers etc to report anything out of
the ordinary back to them. this was done during
little georgie bush's reign of e and r thats error
and terror!
An analysis of the fate of the Obama administration without taking the AfPak war into account is hollow. Mr. Rich's analysis deserves to go right into the trash can.
Of course. However, you have to see this brazen attempt at belittling the importance of those brutal wars and budget breaking defense budgets as a PR exercise. I've seen this technique many times before in the news media. The purpose is to blunt the anger of the populace. The lead is the giveaway; i.e. he clearly states what we all believe or suspect. Then he proceeds to calmly inform us that we aren't the ones in real trouble, it's the president and political parties, you see. The world isn't coming to an end, we the people are still in the driver's seat and the press is like that crappy insurance company, Nationwide, ON YOUR SIDE. It's subtle and well written to defuse popular anger. It's still bullshit.
The only good news here is between the lines. When the New York Times publishes something like this, you know the media is being pressured to calm the restless natives down. Somebody important is sweating but it's not President Obama or the congress; it's the corporate assholes that buy them.
Wow, I can see you got to philosophy or logic class. Not me. Wish I had. What's the name of the method or technique or analysis you're using to dissect this. I'd like to study up on it. Thanks.
sheesh, that's harsh. yes, the wars are a HUGE part of the mess we continue to be in and i'm way tired of being part of a militarized culture and having my taxes pay for wars i don't support, but i don't think you can trash what rich is saying b/c he left that out. there's a hell of a lot that he included that no one else has. give him a break.
The inevitable end to all this corporate shenannigans will be to, rightly and legally so, enforce bribery and influence peddling laws on lobbyists to the point of shutting down that venue because if you or I cannot afford to go to our elected people in washington with a big sack full of cash, neither should any institution, most especially corporations.
Since corporations have proven themselves to be inherently corrupt and criminal, there needs to be a tight control and regulation of their doings and a transparency and supervision that is openly recorded to keep them in line, after all, there is little of the problems in this country and the world that is not a part of a corporate 'punking'.
It's hard to imagine the tiny crevice between that rock and that hard place where Obama has to live these days. I heard the man gets 30 death threats a day. And the people he has to listen to—some of whom he himself chose—are not people with much sense of public service.
Undoubtedly, Obama knows what he'd like to see, knows how it really should be: a government that no longer brings war to the world and instead brings good to the nation and the world. But the wealthy interests around him simply adhere to the status quo.
Ultimately, the levers of power rest in national consciousness, which has not only been conflicted, resigned, disillusioned, but also overwhelmingly silent. So what is really loudest is that desperate, powerless silence born of resignation. The resulting vacuum has been filled by the few with enough wealth to gain supreme access. This pay-to-play system has been years in the making. It will not be easily dismantled.
Other presidents have proven that it is easy for the man in that office to create enormous harm. It is far more difficult for him to create something good.
In order for something new to be created, whatever has been must be destroyed. It's only a matter of time. But let's hope not much more time.
In the meantime, engage in whatever you can to make your life happier and better, mindful, of course, that what the headlines reveal is sheer madness unworthy of your intellect. Take what constructive action you feel you should. But never stoop to the level of ignorance which fuels the inertia and inaction. Look after your own health and finances. Avoid the dysfunctional system at every turn if you can, for it is only meant to maintain low level of life...
" What disturbs most Americans is everything is fixed".U.S. foreign policy has been run by an international crime syndicate for many, many years that makes the mafia look like a cartoon. How many more innocent people must be wounded and killed before this evil empire is defeated? As long congress and the brainwashed American people remain their acolytes, I do not see much hope. At least not until the peacemakers are honored like the current day warriors and the warriors are demonized as evil. What is needed is a non-violent, total regime change in this country. O Bomb A is not punking us, he is just a small player to the international bankers and the punic,billionaire,elite. They say what goes around comes around and if karma is true, maybe some country will attack us someday---- to bring us freedom and democracy!
Yeah, that's it. Love the outta box thinking of last sentence.
Don't let the insurance oligarchs and Republicans hijack the agenda with their phony recess-rally PR events!
Pelosi pledged to allow single-payer to come to the House floor later this year, to be debated and voted on, as an ALTERNATIVE to a public-option duct-taped to for-profit-insurance bill.
Attend a recess meeting, call your congressperson. Progressives want single-payer or nothing!
Nobody likes to admit to themselves that they have been punked...
So the cognitive dissonance of internal contradictions and rhetorical hypocrisy is growing for whatever liberals that remain supportive of the Obama political machine...
Perhaps it would help if you would show us what you know about helping people kindly admitting to getting punked. You can't expect people to suddenly be aware of it by condescending and giving rude remarks.
The oligarchs and their conservative storm troopers made it clear to Obama that if he strayed too far from the path Bush set other than in lip service to progressive causes, they would not only make sure he was not re-elected, but would make him and his family regret they were ever born.
How else could you explain it? To believe he planned to fool his supporters before the election would be to believe in a conspiracy to commit one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated on the American electorate.
Nonsense. He's always been a Republican in Democrat's clothing. His record in the U.S. Senate and the Illinois legislature proves it. His progressive posture was always a facade.
I'm going by the Republican's election claims that he was the most liberal Senator of all.
Why in the hell would you believe Republican election claims?
ezeflyer August 9th, 2009 2:45 pm............And why not believe it......they pulled off 9/11. Do you seriously believe BHO would be there if TPTB did not want it? C'mon!
The power resides in a much privatized, authoritarian, conservative and mostly Republican military that any liberal defies at his peril. We witnessed a non-violent fascist coop in 2000. Their next one is likely to be bloody.
ezeflyer August 9th, 2009 6:26 pm.............You got it! Not too long ago, I doubted they would dare spill American civilian blood. Why kill the goose with the golden taxpayer egg. But, since then, an enormous theft of middle and upper middle class wealth has been pulled off with little blowback. Blood may be next since little is left to take.
My God. Has the smell of that coffee wafted clear to the Times?
We need to make publicly financed campaigns the law of the land, not an option for candidates.
We need to adopt term limits for Congress as well as the President. Two terms for Senate, one term House. This demands the politicians work from an actual platform, a political philosophy, and not from a cult of personality and "star power." It also promotes greater public involvement in the process.
We need to outlaw private lobbying, behind closed doors, by special interests. Bring the lobbyists and their corporate employers to congressional hearings to present their case openly, in the public eye and on the public record.
We need to end congressional investigations of ethics violations. That's like asking Charlie to investigate the murders he orchestrated. The House would investigate the Senate and vice versa, with minority and majority equally represented in a public forum. Ties to be broken by SCOTUS.
We need to severely limit the use of The Executive Order. This tool allows the Executive Branch to avoid Congressional oversight in exerting it's agendas.
We need to seriously investigate the influence organized religion exerts upon ourgovernment. Every entity seeking non-profit tax free status should be required to submit a Federal 990 report to the IRS, every year. Religious organizations currently do not. Are they churches or PACs? Let the law decide.
We need to vote out of office every incumbent at the very next opportunity. Regardless of Party affiliation or position.
Demand a platform from your party and send candidates to government with a clear public mandate to abide by its direction.
Demand single payer government health insurance. It's the only way to break the back of the criminals in control of our politicians.
Can't afford to fail at being punked?
The common talk sputtered out to the masses is "we can't fail" to get the health care bill passed! And the bozo committees go out to drum up "counter-offenses" to take on the "nazi, lynch mobs" at "town hall meet-ups"....
In general, who do you know who would like to fail at anything? The Obama Team intentionally paint "democrats" into a corner believing Axelrod's propaganda will pressure the country into a situation where "failure" will be unforgivable. This reminds me of the same propaganda used to hustle people to fight for wars we don't need to fight.
Rich states Obama can't afford to fail (fail how? Politically, when it's a self-designed tactic?). Yes he can. Even if his team are fools purposefully fumbling their political warfare to hustle us to carry their load and go to battle for insurance/pharma/corporatations, Obama can afford to fail. The country can afford not to pass insurance "reform".
And we can fight for a better plan: a single payer plan, a citizen-based plan. Now if all of those "troopers'" donations and resources solidified around a fight for single payer, rather than fight for the corporate insurance "reform" Obama panders (read Moveon and AFL-CIO), we could indeed educate our fellow citizens about single payer. But the resources handed out by the average citizen continue to be funneled into "The Party" line.
And we co-opt ourselves. That is to say, this is a self-serve "punking"....as we go out today, left mobilizes and troopers willfully fight not for legal documents securing citizen-based, BUT willfully fight for the "impression" that down the road the Health Insurance Reform of today will miraculously lead to single payer, citizen-based health care of tomorrow.
so quick to accept crumbs when so many of us fighting have never known starvation. So quickly we allow our ideals to be squandered for the impressions the grass will be greener. So cheaply politicians exploit our goodwill.
"What disturbs Americans of all ideological persuasions is the fear that almost everything, not just government, is fixed or manipulated by some powerful hidden hand, from commercial transactions as trivial as the sales of prime concert tickets to cultural forces as pervasive as the news media."
Isn't that called a "conspiracy theory?" Then he proceeds to show that it's true.
This from Frank Rich? Something's going on. Strong coffee, maybe.
I've rarely seen a better case for the Green Party. Even Rich, corporate liberal par excellence, sees that the game is rigged and both major parties are in on it, and is now willing to say so.
Of course we're being "punked". That's how the game is played. The only thing we can do is to step outside the game and at least try to start our own.
That's just a metaphor. To get concrete about it, visit www.gp.org.
thanks, i will go to the website; already wrote to obama to tell him i'm done. this is one progressive liberal who has definitely had it and most definitely feels punked and worse. and rich states things haven't gotten better for the little guy, well yeah, they've gotten worse. it s-u-c-k-s!
Good to hear from you! Nice to know I'm getting through to someone - & that people are catching on.
I might agree that greens would be an answer if we had a parliamentary system. The particular nature of the American system favors a two party arrangement. Third parties, if they succeed, become the second party. To win, this party has to play the middle, is coopted, and gets corporate sponsorship.
Being a spoiler is another option, but it's more likely that the greens would spoil progressive dems.
Alas.
What progressive Dems?
If there are some, we don't run against them. We ran against even Rep. Peter deFazio last year, and will run against Sen. Wyden next year.
It is true that the American system favors a two-party arrangement. However, Mexico, with the same system, now has 3 major parties. The current president got only 38% - and so did his chief rival, so they nearly had a war. Might still. IRV helps prevent this sort of thing.
Both Canada and Britain, using the same plurality voting but a parliamentary government, each have 3 major parties and a number of important minor ones. The Greens are now the 2nd party in Iceland, and half the government (I think Iceland has proportional representation.)
The real hurdle to change in this country is gutless voting: people being afraid that if they vote for someone they agree with, they'll get a big, bad Republican. It's always easy to find a Rethuglican who's even "worse" than a Dem, no matter how right-wing, so this fear moves us always to the Right - at least since McGovern lost, in 1972. (1968 was the first year I could vote, so I remember the whole process.)
"Faint heart ne'er won fair maiden" - nor a better world. It's time for a little courage when we vote. How many times do we have to learn this lesson?
How about a law requiring members of Congress to recuse themselves from negotiating on, writing, or introducing any amendments to any legislation concerning any of their campaign contributors?
Oh wait, then there would never be a Congressional bill again...hmm.
Rich: "It's the sinking sensation that the American game is rigged... the ailment... is far bigger than Washington and often beyond politics' domain. What disturbs Americans of all ideological persuasions is the fear that almost everything, not just government, is fixed or manipulated by some powerful hidden hand..."
I think it always was. Our economy is based on the premise: 'one dollar, one vote'. Democracy is touted as the antidote to that: 'one person, one vote'. But it isn't enough, money infects every decision made, political or not. THAT IS WHY progressive taxation and wealth redistribution is so important. Money infects government decisionmaking, but that decisionmaking can STILL represent the will of the people if the PEOPLE still own the money. In the last 30 years, the wealthiest 1% of the country have gone from owning 20% of America, to owning 40% of America. The wealthiest 10% of America now owns 75% of her. You can't have a functioning democracy in those conditions, you can't even have a functioning society. Take a look at Latin America for most of the 20th Century, to see what that kind of wealth concentration does to a society.
I believe that until we return to the wealth concentration levels of the 1950s, most Americans will keenly feel that the 'fix is in', because it is. Redistribution of wealth won't solve this problem outright, in fact, nothing will. But it'll give voice to voices now silenced, and turn the discussion in America back toward normalcy, and away from the awkward situation we have now. Now we have the situation in which the center right party gets called 'socialist' by the crazy right party, in which the healthcare option most polled Americans want to see implemented is never even discussed by any of their leaders or in any of their media, except for the rightwing station, which argues constantly that it constitutes a 'return to socialism', and in which 'mad as hell' Medicare recipients shout down town hall discussions out of fear that their healthcare might get extended to the rest of us.
Bring America Back !!!!.............!...If Frank Rich cannot answer his own rhetorical question with all the news that's fit to print, then he needs to be informed:
***We've been punked, junked, and skunked !!!!
**How many more failed campaign promises do we need to prove the point ?? Team Obama are bold faced liers who deserve only the one term of office we gave them !!
**Obama already lost the health care battle when he backed off the Single Payer Plan, all Americans want and deserve !
**Team Obama's opposition does not have to wake up===as His DoJ refuses to investigate Bush/Cheney crimes, and upholds Federal secrecy and corruption==he assures himself of many right wingnut votes in the next election circus.
**Six short months have proven without a doubt, when Democrats are in Power, they are just as Terrible as
Republicans.
***And, where does that leave us: Punked Progressives
Note the loaded phrasing of this sentence in the article's next-to-last paragraph:
"...The Wall Street regulatory reform package Obama pushes through, _or doesn’t_, may render even more of a verdict on his success in changing the system he sought the White House to reform..."
- In several different ways, this phrasing amounts to a subtle & unjustified defense of Obama, even while superficially adopting a judicious "skeptical" pose. On the surface, of course, the "_or doesn't_" part sounds skeptical, making it seem that Mr Rich is not convinced that Obama will get any such package passed. (Even that phrasing generously gives Obama the benefit of the doubt, since it implies that if the package fails, it might be due to Congressional opposition, rather than to Obama's own resistance to reforming Wall St.)
At a deeper level, though, Mr Rich is basically pretending here that we must still wait to see the promised "Wall St reform package" before it's fair to judge whether Obama has succeeded in "changing the system." And it claims Obama's real reason for seeking the White House was to "reform the system."
These ideas fly in the face of reality. Obama didn't seek the White House to "reform" anything. He's nothing but a slick lobbyist for Goldman Sachs & the health insurance industry (also very cozy with all sections of the military-industrial complex, & a reliable defender of Bush administration criminals). Obama was sent to Washington by these sponsors to PROTECT the status quo, not to challenge it.
It is not the case that we have to wait for any "Wall St reform package" to judge Obama. He has already proven himself to be far & away the best friend Wall St ever had. What other president ever gave Wall St $13 trillion in cash, cheap loans & guarantees, with no strings attached? Every single one of his appointments & pronouncements was made just as if the CEO of Goldman Sachs was literally making all the decisions in Manhattan & faxing them down to Washington.
Recall that the sole "official rationale" for the bailout was the idea that if the govt gave Wall St trillions of dollars, it would "get the banks lending again," and this would supposedly redound to the benefit of "Main Street." Unless it were conclusively shown that this dubious rationale holds water (or could reasonably be expected to hold water, by a good-faith analysis, including input from economists like Stiglitz who opposed the bailout), what we are left with is that the trillions were STOLEN from the public Treasury, & simply handed to the banks, to fatten the accounts of our financial overlords.
Mr Frank Rich is not prepared to consider such horrifying thoughts. They are not too far away from points he does explicitly raise, but clearly, as an NYT liberal, he is just "not going to go there." That's why he pretends Obama can't be judged yet. The truth, though, is that Obama's intentions were perfectly clear even before the election, when he was even quicker to support Henry Paulson's bailout than McCain was.
Please see my comment on the nature of this brilliant propaganda piece. I noticed all the incongruencies that you pointed out.
However, for me the most glaring attempt at manipulation was his alleged consternation about the people not knowing which of the TWO parties to root for. Get it?
Simple solution -> Stop voting for politicians who take corporate money. This eliminates most Democrats for me but I won't vote for someone who takes corporate money because I KNOW WHERE THEIR ALLEGIANCE RESTS.
Over, and over, and over again, the politicians who take corporate money work for corporate interests. Is there any reason to wonder why we have such a corporate government?
GreenCPA: I fundamentally agree with your point that politicians who stop accepting corporate money could come to prevail among our elected officials but only if their under-funded (not corporate funded) rivals make their acceptance of that money a PRIME issue in the campaign---as compared to the under-funded campaigns in which I have participated in which the candidates bemoan their lack of such funding and make every effort to secure a place for themselves at the corporate feeding trough.
Is it just Obama or is it us in general who just aren't happy but don't know what to do next? I voted for Obama because I was totally fed up with the Bush administration. I know that there are plenty of things to be disappointed in Obama about but I find the title a bit too demeaning. 53% of those who voted chose Obama vs 46% for Mccain. I would have thought that 46% who voted Mccain punked themselves yet my niece, JenniferBedingfield, always insists that both those who voted for Mccain and those who voted for Obama voted against their own interests. Maybe my working 11-13 hours a weekday for the past 15 years until just recently when I was unemployed has really put me way out of touch. Maybe being unemployed might turn out to be a blessing in addition to her bringing me to this site to learn. For so long, I couldn't understand why some were really unhappy with politics. I used to be able to help people including my niece out of their unhappiness in life as much as possible but now I'm afraid that I am denying that I could be politically unhappy and yet not know it. I don't know how good or bad Obama can get but it's my fear that the Republicans will be prepared to make it worse.
Why must you name-drop your niece everytime you write a comment...?
And why do you have the exact same writing style as JenniferBeddingfield...?
I don't believe your "personal story" any more than JenniferBeddingfield's & Carla Waters' stories about being "assaulted" by Obama supporters at political rallies... You all sound like pentagon trolls whose job is to clog up progressive comment boards with "personal accounts" to garner your trust, and inane statements about random violence at Obama rallies and health care town hall meetings...
JB's fake claims of some "illness"... And why would JWVerez's relative be using his screenname instead of their own...?
Are you supposed to be the "good cop"...?
I don't know who you are or what you are but your slanderous remarks are totally uncalled for. I didn't know that I have the exact same writing style as my niece. My niece introduced me here and so I feel that I owe her. I know nothing about JWVerez or Carla Waters except what JB told me about them. I never worked for the Pentagon and never will. I come here to learn and I don't take kindly to such personal attacks. If you want to get nasty and toot your golden horns, please go elsewhere. I am grateful that others on this site are more thoughtful and sensible to us average Joes and Janes who want to learn. I don't care what you want to believe but your personal attacks are totally out of line. If you don't like it, then please ignore and move along.
My apologies if you are an actual person with a genuine concern for "truth"...
However, I am not totally convinced...
How is your neice...? What was she hospitalized for?
Is she okay after being hit repeatedly in the face and chest by an Obama supporter?
So what did JB tell you about Carla Waters...?
Something smells really fishy about her claims of being assaulted by an anonymous Obama supporter at a rally recently...
And the other folks at the rally protected her assailant while verbally insulting JB...? I don't think so...
If a random guy came up from behind her, how could he hit her chest and face...?
be then the crowd protected the guy to prevent JB from hitting him back...? Really...?
Just for asking questions about health care reform...?
This is a variation of the same story that Carla Waters was trying to float here at CD a while ago...
When I asked JB about it in this forum the other day... both of our comments were deleted before I could read her reply...
Now why is that...? I bet that these comments will get deleted come Monday morning as well...
Perhaps I am wrong, and you are actually interested in knowing the truth...
Google & Read "Collateral Damage Pt 1 & 2" by EP Heidner...
I'll answer the assault part but briefly since Uncle Stan wasn't there and I didn't bother telling him. If you think Obama supporters aren't nasty in their assaulting ways, try to going to a pro-Obama rally and questioning his moving to the right on any of his policies and see how long you last. It's the real world and it's not pretty. The Obamabots are like desperadoes. I've had enough trouble putting up with the assault that day so I don't feel like going into the details. I tell the events as they come and if I feel that they're relevant to the topic and/or discussion, then I post them. Go out and see the real world and come back and relate. You'll be amazed at what you see. I could sue for assaults but knowing the justice system very well and this site discusses it a lot, I wouldn't bother. I have also been working out, have a black belt in karate, and know how to defend myself as best as I can. The surprise assault was a misfortune but surprises can happen too.
Perhaps I was out of line... But there are still things about your story that don't make sense...
Especially now knowing that you claim to be a black belt in karate... He may have been able to get a few punches in, but with that kind of martial arts training, you would have been able to defend yourself once turning to face him...
Maybe Obama supporters in St.Louis are different than the ones in Seattle...?
The folks I met at Obama rallies were kind, cordial... Maybe folks in St.Louis are more prone to committing random acts of violence?
Your portrayal of Obama supporters as a mob of violent robots is rather twisted... I argue with my friends about Obama all the time...
Folks are usually uninformed about the behind-the-scenes corporatist connections that dems and repubes have in common...
and they argue for slow change and "give him time"... Which is more like a "hope for the best" mentality than anything else...
I have been to dozens of protests and demonstrations and I have NEVER seen liberals or progressives act with violence...
Your story sounds like Carla Waters' story of being attacked by Obama supporters several months ago...
And it has the eerie feeling of that girl who carved "BO" backwards on her own face and blamed some black Obama supporters...
She was caught trying to perpetuate a fraud... And probably went to jail...
Even if you were assaulted by someone at a town hall meeting, and even if they were wearing an Obama/Biden'08 t-shirt... That doesn't mean they are even Pro-Obama... Maybe they are agent provacateurs...? How do you even know...?
From all acounts.... The violence has been perpetrated and instigated by right-wing hacks...
So your story seems to go against that trend...
I've met peaceful Obama supporters too but there are enough violent ones out there. There's enough racism out here in MO which may explain the violence. I don't know. I didn't expect to be assaulted. I just wanted to ask a question about what they knew about the plan and then try to explain. The guy who hit me threatened me not to joke Obama ever again after he hit me. I would like to see the Obama supporters actually be honest about his policies rather than act like Dubya's supporters. Things aren't always this way in St. Louis. I've come across African Americans who are equally disgusted with Obama for betraying them and a couple of them are my friends. Technically, you're right about karate but I didn't want to take chances since there were others. Plus, I was a bit too relaxed and fault my lack of being a little vigilant. He was not as severe as the carved one so I was able to avoid going to the hospital. He was also pulled back before he could hit again so I left it at that. As for Carla Waters, I'll have to go back and check the archives to see what you're referring to. I don't know her except for whatever she posts here so I won't be able to contact and ask her. Sioux Rose did calm me down over my fear, anxiety, and upset feeling from that assault. I guess the public will have to learn the difference between Obamacare and single payer the hard way.