Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiIn Praise of Joe Wilson
What's Wrong with Calling Out Liars in Congress?
Liberals are acting all righteous and offended that a member of the Republican opposition, Rep. "Joe" Wilson of South Carolina, would deign to besmirch the "dignity of the presidency" by calling out "Liar!" in the middle of President Obama's address to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday evening.
But what's wrong with that? Whatever the veracity of Obama's claim that his proposed health care "reform" would not pay for the health care of illegal immigrants residing in the US (and one can only hope that statement was fatuous, because at a minimum we would certainly want the government to pay for the care of an illegal immigrant in childbirth, or of an illegal immigrant who came down with a contagious disease), and even if Rep. Wilson is a racist bozo who wrongly thinks or wants to imply that Obama's plan would be out there enrolling undocumented workers in the millions at taxpayer expense, why shouldn't members of Congress call out a president if they think he's lying to them from the podium?
One of the big problems with American democracy is that the presidency has over the years been elevated to the level of a monarchy, with all the imperial trappings and pomposity formerly associated with royalty. Presidents surely should get no more respect than a prime minister, and look at the hoots and catcalls PMs have to endure when they address Parliament in the UK. That's a good thing.
Anyhow, it would have been far better if, instead of clapping wildly, liberal Democrats in Congress had hooted down some of the other whoppers and stretchers told by the president in his health care address.
Among them:
1. First and foremost, Obama's claim that he was "determined to be the last" president to have to deal with health care reform and that he didn't want to "kick the can" down the street for a future administration to deal with. In fact, that is just what he did with his proposal, which has left the basic untenable system of employee-financed healthcare in place, and which has left the private insurance industry in control of who gets treatment and how much they will have to pay for it. It's a sure bet that before very long-perhaps in just four more years-another president will face the same crisis. A boisterous cat-call of "Can Kicker!" here would have been in order.
2. Obama said that "nothing else even comes close" to health care expenditures in terms of causing the federal deficit. In fact, something does---the military budget-but that topic is off limits for both Republicans and Democrats. Why couldn't Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold have yelled out, "What about military spending!"
3. Perhaps one of the biggest lies of the night was the president's claim that while there are "arguments to be made" for single-payer systems like Canada's, switching to single-payer in the US would require building "an entirely new system from scratch." The truth: Medicare is already a successful single-payer system and in fact, it is bigger and older than Canada's own nation-wide system. Expanding it to cover every American would not be starting from scratch at all. It would be expanding something already proven. Where were the shouts of "What about Medicare!" from Rep. John Conyers (and his dozens of cosponsors), whose bill, HR 676, to expand Medicare to all has been barred from getting even a hearing by the House leadership with encouragement from the White House?
4. The president insisted that insurance executives don't "cherry-pick" profitable customers and push out those who are sickest, because they are "bad people." He said they are just doing it because it's profitable. It would have been nice if at least someone in the assembled throng of lobbiest-enthralled House and Senate members had shouted out something like "Just like bank robbers and drug dealers!" because the truth is that health insurance executives are bad people. They know that they are killing people every day through their ruthless policies, and they go right ahead and do it. Pursuit of profit does not, or at least should not, constitute a license to kill. (Just imagine a hit man, at his sentencing hearing, telling the judge, "I'm not a bad person, Your Honor. I just knock people off because it's profitable.")
5. The president said he was "not trying to put the insurance industry out of business," and added, "They provide a legitimate service." This line, not surprisingly, given the amount of money that industry has lavished on members of Congress and on the president himself, got what was probably the loudest bi-partisan applause of the night. But it surely led to a lot of groans and of coffee, tea or beer being spewed out involuntarily across carpets and upholstery in homes across America. Legitimate service? Insurance firms are nothing but vampires, or better, leeches on the health care system. They provide no service. Ask doctors, who have to fight to get permission to treat patients, and then fight to get reimbursed. Ask patients, who spend hours on the phone arguing with faceless drones, some probably in Bangalor or Manila, who are denying them coverage for needed medicines or procedures that are supposed to be covered. Listen to the testimony of whistle-blowers who have confirmed that those drones actually get paid bonuses based upon the number of claims they manage to deny. How satisfying it would have been if someone in Congress had yelled out, "Legitimate service my ass!"
6. Turning to the pathetically circumscribed and downsized "public option" in his "reform" plan, Obama declared that "a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option." Well that may be true, but it's not the whole truth. It would have been a great moment for Kucinich or Conyers or some other progressive member of Congress to shout out: "A majority also favors a single-payer plan!"
7. And where the defenders of women's rights, when Obama vowed that under his plan, "no federal funds would be used to fund abortions?" Couldn't someone have shouted out, "Women have rights too!" Is the president really saying that if a woman is raped, or a child gets pregnant through incest, or if a woman's life is at risk because of a pregnancy, that his public plan will not pay for her to obtain an abortion? Cries of "For shame!" should have been ringing through the hall!
8. Finally the president said that one reason the nation has such record deficits is that during the prior administration, so many initiatives, "including the Iraq War," were set in motion but "not paid for," and he vowed, "I will not make that same mistake with health care." But he is doing the same thing with supplemental war funding requests for his war in Afghanistan, and with the continued war and occupation in Iraq, and someone should have called him on that. Besides, there's no way that the program he is proposing will be paid for by current funding. It will add to the deficit and he should have the courage to admit it, or to call for more taxes on the wealthy to pay for it. A lusty "Tax the rich!" cry in unison from the progressive caucus would have been appreciated by viewers.
Whack-job or not, Rep. Wilson did the cause of democracy and honest discourse a favor when, faced with a statement he felt was clearly false, he found he couldn't repress the urge to call the president a "liar." In doing so, he put a much-needed ding in the wholly inappropriate and dangerous imperial aura of "respect" that has grown like lichens around the office of President. No more than anyone else in this nation, a president should have to earn the respect not just of the members of Congress, but of the broader public. He or she is another citizen, no more and no less, and when a president, like President Obama in this instance, dissembles, exaggerates or attempts to deceive or mislead, it is healthy for democracy if he is called out on it immediately and publicly.
We need more honesty in Washington, not more civility.
86 Comments so far
Show AllI cheered McKinney and Kuchinch. I only wished they had yelled FIRE! during the Bush/Cheney regime. They did enough, anyhow.
I agree: Mr. Wilson may very well be a racist or worse; but calling a liar a liar is exactly what is needed here in America.
Starting with the faux journalists who are given community air waves to spread lies, and ending in the white house. Lies and liars need to be called out and exposed.
Bush/Cheney/Limbaugh/Beck/Dobson/Obama----all of them. Liars.
I appreciate the spirit of Dave Lindorff's article. Though I think the Wilson outburst is just a tempest-in-a-teacup. Our "democracy" is not being limited by decorum; it totally corrupted by money.
If you support Joe Wilson yelling "Liar!", you are basically supporting a Bill O'reilly version of politics where you try to shout down anyone who disagrees with you and the loudest voices win. Contrast Wilson's heckling with Senator Byrd's speeches. (copied from wikipedia)
In a speech on March 13, 2002 he stated:
“ If the United States leads the charge to war in the Persian Gulf, we may get lucky and achieve a rapid victory. But then we will face a second war: a war to win the peace in Iraq. This war will last many years and will surely cost hundreds of billions of dollars. In light of this enormous task, it would be a great mistake to expect that this will be a replay of the 1991 war. The stakes are much higher in this conflict.[57] ”
On March 19, 2003, when Bush ordered the invasion after receiving U.S. Congress approval, Byrd stated:
“ Today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned. Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination.[58] ”
You can be civil without being overly deferential. We need both honesty AND civility in our politics.
To h double ll with civility - I am ready to donate money for rotten tomatoes & air fare to WA DC to any one with the time to travel and the patience to endure Homeland Security measures at our airports. Neither DemoCraps nor Repugnants should get away with selling us down the river for a trunk full of corporate bribes. I might be tempted to endorse tar and feathers if I weren't determined to put 99% of congress in an unemployment line. Please begin VOTING 3RD PARTY or please don't vote at all.
Patriot Acts = Fusion Cneters = Stazi Police State = Community watch spys = 1 government spy for every 25 Americans = No More Constitution.
They have had a 7 year head start due to War and Fear Mongering, billions of Dollars for Law Enforcement, first responders Fire Fighters and Ems ,Coast Gaurd, Military, Retired Military , Right Wing Chrisitan Lunatic Doctors ,Lawyers, Elected Officials - local- state- federal and a whole new group of warrantless surviellance private contracter infrastructure with immunity.Cameras,cell and internet, ground spying surveillance. WTF.
They are all tied at the hip , including immediate family members, and this gravy train will do anything to keep the status quo of money,jobs and power.
That includes unpatriotic, anti-constitutional, anti-American gang stalking stazi police tactis, Psychological and phyiscal torture with the use of Directed Energy Weapons.
I know, I have been of victim of this torture for 2.9 years, and these folks will use it on right wing tea baggers as fast as left wing activists, they dont care how there power grows, if there is a need for more control, they get funding.
Welcome to my world my right wing brothers, glad your speaking out, lets all get on lists, the faster we expose this unconstitutional evil, the better off all Americans will be.
Nanoo
The Wilson thing is a bit confusing. It's not what he said as this piece goes into detail showing where Obama is off the mark. I've watched a lot of c-span and committee meetings and such where code pink for example tries to display their truth, get removed and arrested. Even the docs who wanted single payer, payed a price for disrupting a meeting. So why did Wilson get off scott free? Fuck, I thought Obama looked weak, the half black pres. taking it by white boy. The whole thing only encourages more stupid shit by the far right in my opinion. Perhaps Obama likes the big divide, that way he can ligitamize his false compromise.
Yes Nanoo! "Perhaps Obama likes the big divide, that way he can ligitamize his false compromise." I call it "political theater" or the political version of pro-wrestling. I'm convinced that the Republicans have no real intention of interfering with this phony reform package which will make millions for the insurance industry; the GOP just as much as the Democrats rely upon health care industry bribes - er, campaign donations. HOWEVER - both wings of the 2 headed pro-war party have a vested interest in making it appear that this "reform legislation" is worth fighting over.
I am appalled. To hell with praising Joe Wilson. He has been at the forefront of flying the Confederate Flag on government buildings. I have no respect for him on that account. Point out flaws of the Obama health package but leave Wilson out of it. He wants to glorify the days of slavery? So be it, but I will in no way have any respect for him.
He was an army brigadier general. Do you think that garners any respect? Maybe he thought he served his country enough to speak out. Not condoning lack of decorum, only asking.
"He was an army brigadier general. Do you think that garners any respect?"
No. Why should it?
ddg716. Your question is a hard one for me to answer. Let me preface this by saying that my husband and I are seniors and my husband sustained injury that has left him disabled since he was a veteran in Vietnam. We have mixed feelings about military brass. For example on the one hand General and past President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us about the danger of a "military-industrial complex." Yet he did nothing to curb the HUAC McCarthy blacklisting that took place. Yet on the other hand he kept Roosevelt's safety net in place. Bottom line for us is that those who become part of the "Brass" of the military and keep their limbs and other parts unwounded are the lucky ones. But for the most part ordinary service personnel and their families are screwed should they be killed or wounded or suicidal.
Regardless of who he voted for before, I must say that after I read this article, this is a David Lindorff I have never seen before except on Alternet where he answered my question on labor unions and their support for centrist Democrats over Kucinich and even progressive independents like Nader and Mckinney. He pointed me to an article he wrote questioning who the unions and Democrats really support in the end. I'm happy that DL is getting to the heart of the issues and I look forward to seeing how he progresses in these next 3 years. Thank you David. :)
I, too, am a bit surprised by Dave, but very pleasantly surprised. I am someone who's finally seen that most candidates promoted by the RNC and the DLC are interchangeable actors upon the political stage, and their most heated opposition is nothing more than political drama that requires some figure to play the part of the protagonist. Much like pro-wrestlers' phony competition for increased house receipts - any two political protagonists promote the same policies. DemoCraps and Repugnants both sneer at any social program designed to help the American people but enthusiastically support corporate entitlements (the bail-outs, for instance) - but politicians of both parties smile all the way to the bank with their bribes (campaign donations).
The blind supporters who are remaining are getting very nasty these days even as support keeps dropping. Nowadays, there are some in the Obama camp who call anyone who disagrees with anything of Obama or the party as "Republicans" or worse "racists". Even on most progressive sites and blogs, what you described about both parties shows up in the comments. Thankfully, this site has more thoughtful people who show what they know and have learned. Welcome aboard by the way and pleased to meet you. :)
Yes the presidency is not a monarchy but the Preident still has a right to be listened to respectfully. If interrupting the President by shouting liar is the privilege of one why not the same privilege for the several hundred other members of Congress? A slippery slope toward chaos. Let those who didagree make heir own arguments afterwards.
Nobody who is lying has a right to be listened to respectfully.
The heckler called out "Liar!", not "Fire!".
Think about it.
Ever watch British Parliament?
"he put a much-needed ding in the wholly inappropriate and dangerous imperial aura of "respect" that has grown like lichens around the office of President. "
That might have been true if the president was white and powerful. But this is the first black president and it is obvious he is so nice and insisting on being bipartisan no matter how many insults are heaped on him.
May I say we are having a weak president.
I supported a white male (Dennis Kucinich) through most of last year's primary season but I ended up voting for a black female b/c I vote policy and I ignore a candidate's color and sex. I will continue to oppose Bush policies even if they are being promoted now by a black DemoCrap. (How the heck has Obama deviated an iota from any Bush policy?) I am very tired of those who use the fig leaf of "racism" to excuse the fact that Obama has put a black face on the white man's empire. - I will forever refuse to ignore or forgive Obama for doing that.
This is a spam that didn't get filtered! Have you had your Span today?
AD
This article makes a good point about a not so good politician giving actually a good example by not treating the president as a monarch of the Europe of the 18th or earlier Centuries with all the phony idea of that individual ruling by the grace of God. We all need to recognize this and act accordingly to hold our politicians no matter how high an office they hold accountable. That's what democracy should be about!
AD
This article makes a good point about a not so good politician giving actually a good example by not treating the president as a monarch of the Europe of the 18th or earlier Centuries with all the phony idea of that individual ruling by the grace of God. We all need to recognize this and act accordingly to hold our politicians no matter how high an office they hold accountable. That's what democracy should be about!
AD
This article makes a good point about a not so good politician giving actually a good example by not treating the president as a monarch of the Europe of the 18th or earlier Centuries with all the phony idea of that individual ruling by the grace of God. We all need to recognize this and act accordingly to hold our politicians no matter how high an office they hold accountable. That's what democracy should be about!
Also right along with this "civility" BS is the non sense about how wonderful bipartisan is. Bipartisanship and non partisanship in public policy throughout this country's history has largely been a failure and has allowed politicians to avoid accountability. Partisan is as American as Thomas Jefferson and others of the founding fathers and forces accountability on otherwise unaccountable politicians. We need to start see what a force for good partisanship. The Vietnam War, the Cold War, and the Iraq War are all examples of why bipartisan spells trouble. We got all these because we had presidents too concerned about not being partisan and continuing past policies when they should have been more concerned with carrying out good policies and if partisan so be it.
AD
Our political system is broken and dysfunctional. A good many of our politicians, whether Republican or Democratic, clearly represent, not the voters who elected them, but the donors who fund their political campaigns. These politicians are not deserving of protection from rudeness and incivility. Contempt should be heaped upon them until they are voted out of office; that's what highlights the message that they are betraying the electorate. It is altogether fitting that politicians should suffer the "respect" they deserve.
I disagree with Lindorff. If its OK to shout 'liar' when you think the Prez is lying, then it must be OK to shout 'liar' when you think the guy who shouted 'liar' is himself lying, as Wilson demonstrably WAS. Where, then, does the process end? The whole purpose of a rebuttal is to shout 'liar' once and for all, in a civil and organized fashion, and then let the pundits take out their knives and cleavers for the post-game.
No, Obama isn't going to insure illegals. He's going to give them amnesty and then insure them. Sounds like a disingenous statement to me.
Check out a speach to Parliament by a British prime minister sometime. There is a lot of heckling, and response heckling by the PM's backers, but somehow they get through it and managed to pass bills and budgets anyhow. I think congress and the president could survive the process. You could always throw someone out who become disruptive.
I mean there's a difference between shouting "Liar" or "What about Medicare?" and trying to prevent the president from speaking, and there is a Speaker who has the power to remove people.
The point is that just as members of Congress who say things that are patently false are called out by their colleagues on the floor, the President should have to face such comments. It's good for democracy to have a president be just another guy, not someone whose "office" has to be respected.
Dave
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
Absolutely. Great article, Dave.
What's bad for our so-called democracy is the brainless and utterly predictable applause every time the president says something that's coded to elicit that applause, invariably something maintaining the big lie that covers and obscures the sad truth.
Here's to many more "inappropriate" actions.
Regarding lie No.4 Those insurance execs can't be bad people because they funded my campaign, they are well dressed and their children go to school with my children and our wives go to the same clubs and parties. If they were bad than I would also be bad because I took their money and ran my campaign in a way that allowed me to prevail and do favors to them. But I am good. Can't you see how good and decent I am. I dress well. I speak well and I am Harvard educated. You wouldn't elect me if I were bad would you. Because you are good people also and you understand we have to build our health care on the foundation of what is good and helps to benefit good people. This is the uniquely American way.
As has already been pointed out, parliaments in countries like Canada and the UK are raucous, unbridled scrums. How ironic that the US, founded in opposition to monarchy, has adopted all the royal trappings, while the still extant real monarchies allow full body contact. Actually, the error the Founders made was to embody the head of government and the head of state in the same person. Constitutional monarchies, and many other democracies, separate them. So for instance, you can show unqualified devotion to the Queen, yet call the Prime Minister out for his BS, and still be considered patriotic.
.
The corruption of our current economic/ political system is roaring to a climax. A spiritual rebirth is required, and all the detris must be eliminated before humanity can rebuild a system that provides for the welfare of the people; a system where peace, abundance and service-to-others is valued.
Short-term loss; long-term, huge catharsis and renaissance for mankind!
YOU CHOOSE: either spiritual freedom or physical slavery, with attending consequences.
I agree with the prevailing sentiment in the comments, except that I'm not offended as Red Rum is by the yahoo congressman Lowering the Tone of the performance.
Insistence on decorum above all is one of those moderate liberal pseudo-values, like the putrefied nice-nelly "civility" peddled by corporate media and blogs, e.g. the Huffington Post.
Wilson isn't exactly the kid yelling, "But the Emperor has No Clothes!"; he was more like an irate moviegoer shouting, "This movie sucks!" and throwing his popcorn container at the screen.
And the movie really DOES suck, even if not for the reasons Wilson believes.
Also, In Praise of Dave Lindorff, I'm glad to see Appropriately Skeptical and Edgy Dave returning to form. There's a welcome difference from last year's Sensible Dave embracing the duopoly, however reluctantly, and trying to psyche himself (and us) up to be "half-full" when faced with the dismal lose-lose choice of supporting the least repugnant con artist for high office.
I encourage Dave to keep today's article under his desk blotter and re-read it during campaign season. Good work!
· Your Humble Narrator
· Yr Obd't Servant
Yes, Dave Lindorff does seem to be coming to his senses. If it holds through the next election is the big question.
-TIA
Hear, hear, Mr. Lindorff! I thought the same thing when I heard what Wilson said. Whether he did it because he couldn't contain himself or because he thought it would mightily please his constituents, either way it seemed like a breath of fresh air to me. It made me long for the days (though I DON'T actually remember them, since I guess it hasn't happened since the 1800s) when Americans could throw rotten tomatoes at phony politicians, or ride them out of tail on a rail. Lindorff is absolutely right that that the presidency has become far too similar to a monarchy, and our "representatives" would look quite at home in three-cornered hats and leggings, pinching snuff from little tins.
The republican party and the democratic party have become synonymous with protecting the corporate elite.
Some who doubted Ralph Nader (about the two parties)are starting to see the light. Both parties are lying to us. Understand that neither party wants to have honest discussion because they are both working to protect the lie. The lie is that 'what is good for big business is good for America.' The truth is that big business doesn't give a shit about America, the people, or the land. Otherwise they wouldn't be acting like they are.
And who are the people? They are sheep just wanting to be told that everything is alright so they can go to sleep.
Everything is not alright. Our planet is being destroyed, people are suffering and dying, and there is no correction to this course.
I'm glad that every senator and congressman that is refusing to talk about single payer health care is guaranteed complete health insurance for life.
The Public Option is just a red herring so we stop talking about what is really necessary, Single Payer Health care.
Without Single Payer Health Care there is no health care reform (and the corporate elite know that).
so it goes
"I'm glad that every senator and congressman that is refusing to talk about single payer health care is guaranteed complete health insurance for life." -- NotOneMore.US
And, our elected officials enjoy health insurance, pensions, as well as other benefits, not to mention their salaries, all courtesy of the taxpayers of this country -- "We the People!"
We deserve much more in return.
I agree with every point that Dave Lindorff outlined in his article. Where are the progressive challengers?
Kay, Lindorff here in this essay is coming back to critical thinking after abandoning it for fawning Dem Party support during the election. Progressives have always critiqued Lindorff here on his ideas - you shouldn't confuse that with partisanship. We have no party in power like the corporate-owned Democratic Party, so it's rather difficult for us to "partisans" in the first place.
-TIA
Give it a rest TIA. I did not show "fawning support" for Democrats. I wrote (as did the likes of Noam chomsky and Howard Zinn, incidentally, so I think I was in good company) that progressives should support Obama in the general election because there was a chance he could be pressed to do the right thing if a movement arose to press him to do so. I think that was a correct position. Unfortunately, there has been no such movement. The groups that should be doing that--that should be camped out in Washington as we speak--have been apologizing for Obama since he took office. I have definitively NOT been apologizing for Obama since he took office, if you bothered to read my work.
I don't mind your grousing, or even your saying I was wrong about Obama or the likelihood of a movement pressuring him from the left. But don't misrepresent my October position.
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
Though I am pleased that you see the need to resist Oh'Bomb'em's leadership (sic), I have to take issue with your belief that restricting our choice in '08 to a choice between 'really bad' and 'even worse' showed good judgment. The man who voted for all the Patriot Act renewals, who never saw a free trade agreement he didn't like, and who endorsed lying Lieberman over Ned Lamont was not a man to be trusted. Voting for what appeared to be the "lesser of two evils" is still evil, and ignored much better options: Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney. IF we all dared to desert any political party which does not truly represent our interests, no political party would dare to continue fielding mediocre candidates; every party would be forced to respect their own platform and field their very best candidates.
I am of the mind that we should never Never NEVER reward adolescents nor politicians for bad behavior just because they can point to someone else whose behavior is even worse than their own - you will either raise felons or put them in office. - me
I don't think I was clear with my statement about progressive challengers -- I didn't mean us, "we the people," I meant those who call themselves progressive and are our elected officials.
Thanks for making me clarify.
Oh, sorry, Kay. Didn't get that nuance. Well, John Conyers has a resolution for single-payer healthcare, if that's what you mean. Dennis Kucinich has a states rights single-payer resolution. I haven't heard any comments about Wilson's behavior from "progressive" Congressional representatives, if that's what you mean, but there aren't that many of them. Maybe just a handful.
I'll just say that I am truly impressed by Dave Lindorff here in this article. I still object that this isn't the same Dave Lindorff we saw during the last Presidential election. So, no offense meant to Dave Lindorff but if he's still sticking with the Dems (and I think he is from his response above), then this is only a temporary return to reason for him. He'll be back to saying we have no choice next election. And if we really do have no choice, then why bother?
Maybe "fawning support" exaggerates Lindorff's position on the Dems. Let's just say that he felt there were no other alternatives (not true) and he would not listen to reasoned arguments to the contrary. Losing an election is bad, but losing the battle over the long term by not being represented by your party is far worse.
I hope people will withdraw from the Democratic Party, which has sold us down the river, and always will. You can't reason with a corporation. Let's at least be represented by a party (whichever third party that may be) that doesn't consider the insurance companies' interests as being more important than good public policy. Lindorff just thinks third parties can't win, but surely, we're losing big now with Dems in power, so what's the diff?
-TIA
Big Business can't care about people. It's against the law.
I'd like to see more disorder in Congress, more yelling, more shoe throwing, more anger. I'd like to see people emptying into the streets and demanding the end to the war profiteering, and demanding that their representatives act in the interests of the people as they are suppose to, not in corporate the interest. I want to see the whole mess thrown into turmoil. I'd like to see boycotts of irresponsible corporations, boycotts of the MIC, of Israel. I'd like to see a mass refusal to pay taxes, in protest of bank bailouts and war mongering.
Enough of the constant spoon fed lies of government. "You lie" could be addressed to just about every member of Congress and the President.
Too much is a stake to continue the phony "nice" behavior on the surface while the world is being brought to the edge of catastrophe by US militarism and irresponsibility.
I'm with you all the way! I'm all for more rotten tomatoes, more demonstrations, more boycotts and more general strikes. Most of all I think we should make a point of sending every corporate lackey in congress - 99.8% of congress - to an unemployment line, and continuing to do that every 2 to 6 years until we get a government which represents the people and not the international investment class who are without a shred of compassion for any nation or people under god's sun.
And miss Oprah?
We need a progressive Glenn Beck!
The article and many of the comments are right on (especially RichM and Ephraim). I myself could not help thinking that the Democrats should have been acting the same way as Wilson during the Bush Administration as Bush made the false case for the Iraq War at the January 2002 State of the Union (I would have been proud--I agree that there is too much faux civility and deference towards the presidency). The Dems just sat there and clapped like zombies. I think I am finally giving up expecting Obama to be the progressive president I knew he never was, but which I forced myself to believe he was so I could feel good about the government for the first time in a looong time (maybe the first time? I was sort of excited in 1992 when the Clintons won and they were dancing on stage like buffoons to "Don't Stop Thinkin' About Tomorrow").
I think for the moment politics in our country is really and truly dead, held too tightly in the grip of the 2 party system which are in turn held too tightly by the corporate interests. This is not a time for radical change. We are all sort of like Moses who has to die before we get to the Promised Land. It's just not gonna happen in our lifetimes. But we have to do what we can, fend for ourselves and loved ones, and do what we can to prepare the way for a truly progressive politics. Ralph Nader sort of articulated this, and he was well and duly chastised by so-called progressives who thought he would just cause the Democrat to lose. Why do the Dems deserve progressive support?
Pleasethink
Your last sentence is very well said and is the same point that Lance Selfa drives home in his most relevant book The Democrats: A Critical History.
Pleasethink, you have stated the problem well, "Why do the Democrats deserve our support?" I was a straight ticket Democratic voter until I finally woke to smell the coffee and re-registered as a Green in '08. I voted for Cynthia but I could just as easily have cast a vote for Ralph; I hope more voters will join me at the first opportunity and start replacing all those Democrats in congress who aren't representing us.
The problem is that our system is broken. The people don't have an opportunity to challenge the President and our elected officials in any kind of meaningful way. There is no transparency. All the deals are done behind closed doors with the public locked out but the corporations have a front row seat in the "negotiations". The frustration is on both the left and the right, the liberals and the conservatives. I find that I often agree with some of the arguments made by the right, usually for a completely different reason. The partisan bickering, name calling , and public outbursts are all theater used to divide the people so the corporations can continue raping us. The elected officials have no desire to actually debate anything because they like the broken system we have. It works just fine for them. I just watched a DVD of a Frontline show called "The Hugo Chavez Show". There was a scene where on his show Chavez questioned his cabinet members in public about why they were failing to do various things like why they were exporting so many beans etc... Frontline made it seem like it was a bad thing. I thought it was awesome. Calling your cabinet out in public and putting them on the spot for there failures is what we need here. Obama's should have called each Congressperson out like "Max Baucus why did you take single payer off the table from the start. Why have you accepted so much lobbyist money". Of course Obama couldn't do this because he is a part of this failed system so he would be calling himself out. He would have had to say "Obama why do you accept so much money from these predatory corporations that are destroying our country". Obama, why did you take single payer off the table".
AKmauler,
you're confusing the role of cabinet vs. legislature. By Constitution, US congress people are not responsible to president. Congress is not president's cabinet.
You know - three branches of government.
The President should still name names when the Congress is answering to the lobbyists instead of the people and the Congress should call out the President and his cabinet when they are beholden to the corporations. More importantly the people need to call them out but there is no way to do it. that's why we end up with the dysfunctional town halls and the tea parties where people are so misinformed they don't even know what they are protesting.
You have to give the Right some credit, they are at least trying to protest. Where are the Progressive protestors. I know we have had them before like the Iraq war but the media dismisses them. Maybe if the left protested more now with Obama in office at least he won't be hearing it from just one side. I think if the right and left could somehow find common ground on some issues then maybe some real change could occur. Maybe just wishful thinking.
Dave,
Outbursts like that do not belong in Congress. Regardless of political party, what Wilson did was uncivil and immature. Congress isn't perfect. I realize that. But if your idea of honesty, is to act like a petulant twit, then don't expect to win more people to your side... and the next thing you know, more members of Congress are going to do the same as Wilson and Congress will be the whole uncivil legislative body. Keep that genie in the bottle. I don't want our Congress ending up like Japan's, Russia's, or Taiwain's, where people end up throwing punches and it's caught on tape. We can act better than that.
There are more effective means of getting out the message that Obama's "lying." Getting it out in the media is a perfect means for members of Congress and for the public. In fact, you're doing it right now on Commons Dreams. There are more appropriate ways of expression frustration, disgust, and honesty. Doing what Wilson did in the Senate was not the right thing, nor should it be recommended. Whoever would've said this, regardless of political party, would only embarrass themselves and the party they represent and is a disservice to their cause.
Dave,
Outbursts like that do not belong in Congress. Regardless of political party, what Wilson did was uncivil and immature. Congress isn't perfect. I realize that. But if your idea of honesty, is to act like a petulant twit, then don't expect to win more people to your side... and the next thing you know, more members of Congress are going to do the same as Wilson and Congress will be the whole uncivil legislative body. Keep that genie in the bottle. I don't want our Congress ending up like Japan's, Russia's, or Taiwain's, where people end up throwing punches and it's caught on tape. We can act better than that.
There are more effective means of getting out the message that Obama's "lying." Getting it out in the media is a perfect means for members of Congress and for the public. In fact, you're doing it right now on Commons Dreams. There are more appropriate ways of expression frustration, disgust, and honesty. Doing what Wilson did in the Senate was not the right thing, nor should it be recommended. Whoever would've said this, regardless of political party, would only embarrass themselves and the party they represent and is a disservice to their cause.
Dave,
Reactions like that, regardless of political party, is not appropriate in places like the House & Senate. There are more appropriate outlets to react like that. The House & Senate should be off limits. Next thing you know people are going to repeat what Joe Wilson did and it's going to get worse and worse and we won't ever get the honesty you'd like to see. Keep that immature behavior in the genie bottle. Writing at places like Common Dreams about how bad Obama's plan is, can get across the message a lot more effectively and professionally. We DON'T need more unprofessional behavior in Congress, no matter how important the issue is.
Other than that, I agree with you on the rest of the stuff you said.
Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to applaud either, or give standing ovations? I would be in favor of that. Or if you can applaud then maybe you should also be able to politely boo? Why can they show agreement and not dissent?
Ever heard the British PM speak to the parliament? It makes the whole incident pale in comparison.
Well, this wasn't exactly a lie, but Ob sure downplayed the number of uninsured people. Apparently he said "over 30 million Americans are uninsured."
It's something like 45-50 million. So he's a bit off the mark on that one.
Bob Avakian on revolutionary action in the U.S.:
http://www.revolutiontalk.net/films/
The figure I have seen used most often is 47 million Americans uninsured. I think its taken from a 2005 Census figure. The Right argues that this figure includes some 12-15 million immigrants and they are correct so Obama may have been trying to eliminate that argument. The thing I wonder about is that since the economic downturn, maybe more Americans than this 2005 figure are without insurance. Anyone have the most current figures with a breakdown of the demographics?
I don't differentiate between undocumented workers and citizens. Who cares? If you are on American soil and you can't get health care, you can't get health care. Everybody is entitled to it, whether they are "undocumented" or not. Hell, give it to people here on visas, tourists, visiting professors, students from overseas - anybody who needs health care should have it. It's not rocket science.
I've heard that Americans on Canadian, French or British soil get nearly free medical care when there as tourists with a medical emergency, but we Americans, I guess, are more mean spirited.
A few years ago, I remember reading a story about a U.S. citizen who became ill while in Ireland. The U.S. citizen was taken care of as if the person was one of their own.
People who visit the United States sometimes take out supplemental insurance while they are here so that they won't be bankrupted if they get sick, or have an accident.
I agree! If someone gets sick, or suffers an accident of some kind, and they happen to be in the United States, they deserve good quality medical care, regardless of who they are, or what their circumstances might be.
My nephew went to Vancouver a year ago, and went for a bike hike with two friends. He was taking a photograph on a sea wall and got caught on his bike and fell over, dropping 15 feet and landing on his feet, crushing both ankles so badly he was in danger of losing one foot.
The Canadians took him to the best hospital in Vancouver and got him the best ankle surgeon, and they saved his feet. No one asked him about insurance until he was well along in recovery.
That's the way medical care should be.
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
Kay Johnson
Well said. Allow me to share a story that relates to what you have written. My wife traveled to Europe in 1978. While in Scotland she had to visit a dental school in Edinburgh because of pain that she was experiencing in her mouth. She had a consultation and X rays which determined that she needed to have a root canal done. The charge for all these services? Zero. Which is the same chance, one suspects, that a foreigner would have if he or she needed to have emergency health care done in this country.
It is almost as if the documentary Sicko had not been made. As Moore notes in that film, it is way past the point that people in this country realize that we are all in this together. I have said this before but I think it bears repeating. It is simply astounding that what purports to be the richest democracy in the world is also the only industrialized country on the planet that can make the claim that it does not have universal health care while spending twice as much as any any other country on its citizens and yet ends up ranking 37th in the world in terms of quality health care by the WHO. Yet Obama has assured the insurance companies that he will not advocate anything that resemblances that horrid word called socialism. One has to wonder why it is acceptable [and justifiably so] for the government to mandate that schooling up to the 12th grade be required but yet there is actually a debate in this country as whether its citizens should be provided with basic health care. Is basic health care not as important as receiving an education? A country that is more concerned with killing people overseas than it is in keeping its citizens healthy is a sick country indeed.
Yea! Kay! - We rank 37th in the world for quality of health care and yet have the most expensive system because in this country "entitlement programs " exist only for corporations. Corporate entitlement programs - agribusiness subsidies, bank bailouts, & other forms of corporate welfare are endorsed and supported by politicians from both wings of the corporate pro-war party. The only "entitlement program" which suffers censure is any "socialist" program which might help the taxpayer; corporate socialism for international mega corporations is just fine and dandy.
The Incident mereley polarizes further a nation already polarized. There is a palpable HATRED from peoples towards those they see as representing the "other side".
The masses of people once more trapped in the "Liberal" and "Conservative" dialog rather then the one they should focus on that being the Rich Man , Poor man dialog.
Wilsons opponent for upcoming elections is raising hundreds of thousands of dollars from "Democratic" supporters while Wilson himself his rallying his own "Republican base" to raise hundreds of thousands more.
The people are once more suckered in to backing a person who will not work in their best interests.
The problem is that the UNDERLYING issues of inequality in America are again not being faced down as The Media hypes a rather meaningless event as something that is earth shattering.
It the for profit model of Capitalism that has created thsi inequality yet both sides pronounce their unwavering support for that SAME model. These issues can never be addressed by Tweedle dee and Tweedle dum no matter the names they sling at each other.
Great points, GwNorth.
I would add that Tweedle dee and Tweedle dum are not just represented by the two political parties, but by the whole system that supports them and works against us. Anyone who goes down there will face the same situation and we will once again be left holding the bag.
I appreciate the fact that there are others here who get that.
"We need more skepticality" (Pitch Fork)
I think you mean we need more *skepticism*.
Lindorff has a point, but we know none of this will ever happen. It should have happened every single time Bush stood up smirking and addressing an audience anywhere. But of course it never did. The closest we ever came to Lindorff's dream scenario was when the Iraqi journalist hurled his shoes at the Liar in Chief. That would have never happened in the US. The guy would have been killed on the spot, or dragged off and tortured, then jailed for life.
Ok, throwing a shoe expresses a bit more contempt than calling the president a liar but both send a similar message. The sorrow and the pity is that more members of Congress haven't been a thousand times more vocally critical of Obama's plan to protect the insurance industry's lust for profits at the entire nation's expense, killing us off daily to satisfy its greed imperative. Even the half-ass public option has already been sacrificed on the altar of the Obama-Pelosi god of "pragmatism."
We aren't going to get anything that works or anything we've demanded from these assholes. Anthony Weiner knows it and he's about the only House or Senate member who has spoken up for single-payer. Conyers just gets bills written and sits mutely at meetings and hearings. Kucinich's bill to let states decide on their own single-payer initiative will get no further than his run for president. Anyone hear Obama mention Kucinich, or Weiner or anyone else for s-p when he was showering praise on McCain and Grassley during his speech?
He always acknowledges the good sense and wisdom of the far right hate machine, but he never gives a syllable of credit to any progressive person, organization or principle, much less allow them near the sacred "table." He's a friend of CEOs everywhere; it's only the media wingnuts and prolific numbers of their followers who want to ruin Obama, and they may succeed since he's clearly incapable of fighting back. He only wants THEM to respect and trust him. He couldn't care less what Lindorff or most of us here thinks of him. We're not in the loop.
Ephraim punches through to the core truth with, "He always acknowledges the good sense and wisdom of the far right hate machine, but he never gives a syllable of credit to any progressive person, organization or principle, much less allow them near the sacred "table." He's a friend of CEOs everywhere;"
The Big O is camouflaged in liberal paint by the media. He is a corporatist. Only corporatists are allowed near the Oval Office.
It matters little even if there is a "liberal" in the White House. The US Government shall remain a right wing engine of militarism, empire, and corporate profiteering.
This article is so on the mark, & so important in its basic thrust, that its minor inaccuracies & omissions hardly even matter.
Nonetheless, here are 2 minor inaccuracies/omissions, which only serve to strengthen the basic point:
1) Re: Lindorff's #2 (""nothing else even comes close" to health care expenditures in terms of the federal deficit) -- it's not just military spending, it's also the bank bailout, which greatly exceeds health care expenditures.
2) Re: #8, Lindorff says "there's no way that the program he is proposing will be paid for by current funding. It will add to the deficit." But actually, by the time the final bill is done, it's likely that it will be accompanied by as much as $500 billion in cuts from Medicare, so it may well be "deficit-neutral." Obama snuck that into the speech, in a carefully-disguised fashion. (Some details on this at http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/sep2009/brks-s12.shtml)
Despite these points, this is a terrifically clear-headed article, & Lindorff deserves a lot of credit for it. It's a far greater travesty that no Democrat ever rose to challenge the lies of either Bush or Obama, than that one Republican whack-job challenged Obama, who is indeed a serial liar -- but simply a more fluent & silver-tongued liar than his predecessor.
It was only a week or so ago that Obama called Afghanistan a "necessary war." He still maintains, just like Bush & Cheney, that the US is there to combat "terrorism." He never says it has anything to do with oil, pipelines, or geo-strategic control. That's precisely the same lie that Bush-Cheney told for 8 years.
Thanks for the link Rich. As for that oil - isn't it rich or Oilwellian that all the Bush lies which took us into the Middle East are suddenly true now that there's a DemoCrap in the White House?
"This article is so on the mark, & so important in its basic thrust, that its minor inaccuracies & omissions hardly even matter."
I agree with your analysis, I also thought the points Lindorff made are very important, and thanks for pointing out the two minor omissions/inaccuracies.
Dave Lindorff nails it again.
I appreciated Wilson's planned "outburst," since it was the only truth I heard during the whole speech.
Obama calling for a joint session of Congress to discuss this bill was unprecedented. Obama has a real lack of understanding of the separation of the executive and legislative branch of government. He is behaving like he is king. He used this as a PR stunt to boost his popularity which is dropping faster than the value of the dollar.
The biggest problem with this healthcare bill is that we are a bankrupt nation, 49 states are bankrupt and are cutting social services in education and healthcare, unemployment is closer to 30% than the official 10% they admit to, the value of the dollar is crashing, the whole system is about to CRASH in a big way when the fiscal year ends on Sept 30. All hell is going to break loose in the form of an economic breakdown that most people could not imagine.
It is a sign of how truly insane the leadership of this nation is that they continue to talk about enacting some sort of healthcare reform when the house of cards is collapsing.
What you say here has much truth to it, but it's not accurate to say that "The biggest problem with this healthcare bill is that we are a bankrupt nation."
Let's state it clearly: the biggest problem with the bill is that it leaves the giant insurance companies in complete control of health care, & in fact strengthens their grip on the system.
After all, the bill was devised behind closed doors, by the insurance, Pharma & hospital-chain lobbyists. Anyone who advocated single-payer was excluded from the entire process. // This is EXACTLY the same process that produced the Wall St bailout: the only participants in the discussions were representatives of Wall St.
Can I hear a round of booos and hissses for David's dissent from perceived Wisdom? Our Beloved Leader is selling us at the Slave Auction - permanent debt slavery with the debts passed on to the children, and their children, and their children. Smile for the cameras BHO. "Do not pray for lighter burdens. Pray for stronger backs." Goes right up there with "Arbeit Macht Frei" and Milton's "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here." My America.
I presume you're speaking of the debt slavery we have been yoked with as a result of the bailouts, along with the continuing costs of the corporate wars, and the cost of maintaining some Seven Hundred Foreign Bases (source for that 700 number =
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0115-08.htm
I'm sure everyone must recall that both Obama and McCain - the titular heads of the corporate uni-party - took time off from their campaigns last year to twist the arms of their D.C. fellows so they'd pass the bailout legislation.
In the crude old days of slavery, the slave masters were expected to provide food, and housing; today's corporate slaves cannot be assured of either. In our brave new world it's possible to work full time at minimum wage and not be able to provide those amenities for a wife and child - much less health care. We Americans are being served up on a platter to the delight of the insurance company scamsters - perhaps we citizens should incorporate so we can stand in line for our share of the corporate dole. Is anyone here ready to stand in that line yet?
Sioux Rose
Thank you Mr. Lindorff for defining those opportune moments when the truth should have gotten "out there."
It's interesting the particulars of "Obama-speak," that in defining what he will NOT do, evidence is presented to the fact that is exactly what he IS doing. It creates an Orwellian challenge to viewers. Do I believe the words issuing from this (some think) charismatic leader? Or do I go with what I KNOW to be true? Bound to bamboozle?
Years ago I dated an attorney who refered to himself in the 3rd person. He would relate rumors he knew others speculated about him, and his tone of voice carried the sense of, "Isn't that ridiculous." The rumors he related were things I happened to notice about him, but the bland way he disregarded these items made me question the evidence. Now I wonder if this is a tactic or technique taught in some law school programs designed to confuse "the jury," a significant other, or the citizenry? Another time he told me that if a woman comes home and finds her husband in bed with another woman, HE should say, "Honey, it's not what you think!" From these minds came ideas like "substantial equivalent" to bastardize the nature of the food we regularly ingest lending it false witness. We are living in a phase of false witness rendered a new commandment by political/economic elites! If they say it is so, then so be it! Consequences be damned!
"This stupid stunt was staged and intentional. It was a weapon of mass distraction."
Are you referring to Wilson's outburst or Obama's speech? The speech was pure propaganda, designed to cover up a scam of massive proportions. Lindorff is right, it's time people began challenging Obama on his endless lies and corporate ties. The funny thing is that when Wilson said he was lying, it was the only honest thing said that night.
I am referring to the kabuki theater of the absurd in Washington. Game theory. Always one step ahead of the opponent's reaction. It's all so predictable and sad at this point. Keep the people divided into left and right and keep pillaging the country. We exist to feed the war machine. We are slaves.
Exactly what I have been trying to say, albeit not very well.
This is a game, and it is being played at our expense. Both the Right and the Left go at each other hammer and tongs (the Left goes at itself too), and that is exactly what the masters want.
We, the individual and collective People, must stop feeding into this and by doing so, feeding the System. We need to look to ourselves AND each other and start forming alternatives that support the common good instead of Their good.
I don't expect it to start here on Common Dreams, but it bears repeating.
Carry on.
Well written article...
This stupid stunt was staged and intentional. It was a weapon of mass distraction. Note the complete lack of substantive discussion about what was or was not in Obama's plan since, and all the ink and airwave coverage of this.
We need more skepticality in the boonies if we ever hope to reform the crime wave that is Washington.
Of course it was staged. Maybe Rahm Emannuel helped in the planning, since, as you say, it (very predictably) resulted in a complete lack of substantive discussion of Obama's plan.
Who benefits from a complete lack of substantive discussion? Obama, the Dems and Repubs, and the insurance and pharmaceutical companies. Win/win, all around.
Of course it was staged. One look at the bozos beside Wilson shows that they were not surprised and were looking at Obama for a reaction.
Let's us not give them the satisfaction.