EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
What Massachusetts Got Right
The president got creamed in Massachusetts. No amount of blaming this disastrous outcome on the weaknesses of the local Democratic candidate or her Republican opponent's strengths can gainsay that fact. Obama's opportunistic search for win-win solutions to our health care concerns and our larger economic problems is leading to a lose-lose outcome for the president and the country.
The two issues that mattered on Election Day were the economy, which Obama has sold out to Wall Street-as quite a few disgruntled voters pointed out-and his plea to save health care reform, which the voters who had backed him for the presidency with a huge majority now spurned. It is significant that it was the voters of Massachusetts who have now derailed the Democrats' efforts to revamp the country's health care system by denying them the necessary 60th vote in the Senate, for these voters know the subject well.
The federal proposal is based on their own state's model requiring people to obtain health insurance without the state doing anything to effectively control costs through an alternative to the private insurance corporations. Lacking a public option, the cost of health care in Massachusetts, already the highest in the nation at the time of the plan's implementation, has spiraled upward. Services have been curtailed, and many, particularly younger people, feel they are being forced to sacrifice to pay for a system that doesn't work.
Instead of blindly following the failed Massachusetts model, Obama should have insisted on an extension of the Medicare program to all who are willing to pay for it. He squandered the opportunity to bring about meaningful health care change that the public would have supported had it been kept simple and just. Instead, Obama gave away the store to medical profiteers. They, in turn, hopelessly muddied the waters with well-funded scare advertising tactics that principled leadership on Obama's part could have thwarted.
A mere seven months ago, The New York Times/ CBS poll found that 72% of Americans "supported a government-administered insurance plan-something like Medicare for those under 65-that would compete for customers with private insurers." Even half of those identified as Republican said they would back such a public plan, as would three out of four independents and 90% of Democrats. Instead of heeding that call by endorsing a serious extension of Medicare, along with increased subsidies for those who could not afford it, Obama played to the conservatives in Congress-and they rolled him.
If he wasn't prepared to make a breakthrough in health care, and that meant a reform program that would begin sooner rather than later, he should have put it on a back burner. The furor over a very unsatisfactory plan drew attention from the far bigger crisis concerning the meltdown of the nation's economy. By accepting and indeed expanding the Bush administration's strategy of throwing money at Wall Street, Obama ceded the populist label to the Tea Party Republicans who now pretend that a banking mess brought about by their radical deregulatory philosophy is not of their making.
It is the economy, stupid, and the sooner Obama grasps that, the better for his and the nation's prospects. A new Wall Street Journal/NBC poll finds that "Americans ranked job creation and economic growth as their clear top priority for the federal government, well above national security and deficit reduction. Health care, Mr. Obama's top domestic priority in 2009, now ranks fourth, closely trailing the deficit and government spending."
Of course, the public is right. In the midst of the worst economic crisis in 70 years, why waste enormous political capital battling to pass a health care plan that is modeled on a proven failure in Massachusetts, as voters there clearly registered? Meanwhile, the president has dropped the ball in the effort to make bankers act responsibly by forcing them to forego outrageous bonuses and help homeowners stay in their homes.
Again quoting the message of that Wall Street Journal/NBC poll: "The president's focus on health care amid heightened job concerns could be hurting his ratings. At the one-year mark of his presidency, 35% of Americans said they were ‘quite' or extremely' confident he had the right priorities to improve the economy, down from 46% at midyear." The Journal noted that a majority disapproved of the government's response to the financial crisis, adding, "The related problem for Mr. Obama is the public's lingering anger about the bailouts of 2008 and 2009, which helped boost bank profits even as unemployment grew-a toxic political problem."
To salvage his presidency, Obama must reverse course and make solving the "toxic political problem" of Wall Street greed that's bankrupting the country his highest priority.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
43 Comments so far
Show AllThank you...
Tell the progressives to shut up long enough and then act surprised when they don't show up to push the agenda of those who betrayed them. I just hope this becomes the first of a long line of voters turning out our "divine right" leaders, and insisting that people in Washington actually represent the people.
Progressives, let's have a debate on health care.
Is there really a debate to be had? I grew up in a single-payer, tax-funded system and I see no competition.
Somebody at CD must really like this article, 'cause it's posted twice.
" It is significant that it was the voters of Massachusetts who have now derailed the Democrats' efforts to revamp the country's health care system by denying them the necessary 60th vote in the Senate,"
Here we go again. The so-called Dem party has a so-called 58-42 majority in the senate, well above the so-called majority (51) needed to pass legislation.
This is more bs from a so-called independent author.
#4 on today's bs mem
Massachusetts is right. I'm giving up on these turkeys. From now on I'll vote for a progressive third party or not at all. Some say that means I'll waste my vote. Well, been there....
vine, I, and I'm sure a lot of others here feel as you do. But I just had a thought. Instead of chosing either to not vote, or "waste our vote," wouldn't it be better if we forgot "party" althogether and try to ferret out the few "good apples" in both barrels of rotten ones and work to get them elected? That would keep Congress more balanced, and would also keep one rotten party from becoming so entrenched that no new party will ever have a chance. This, while working together to create a viable, and powerful Progressive Party.
I have voted third party in most elections for the past 20 years and have never felt that I wasted my vote. At the very least I was letting the two parties know where I stood and encouraging third party candidates.
I also abhor "non-partisan" organizations that discourage third parties. For example, I was considering joining AARP until I noticed they barred third party candidates from participation in debates they sponsored.
I know a fellow who is a Libertarian, but who switched to the Republican party and became a precinct captain because with regard to local affairs in his city, the Libertarians had no influence. I don't know how much influence he thinks he has now (in a largely Democratic-run city), but he hasn't switched back.
Shadre,
I really like you idea. I think a lot of us feel that both parties are worthless. The Green Party does have a foundation to build on. People know that there is a Green Party and we have worked hard to get our name on ballots. In AZ our Green Party is active on the west side of Phoenix having people on the ballot for state office. I know in other states the Green Party is active too. I think of Hawaii and California.
We still have time to get qualitfied Progressives to run for local and state office and start building the foundation we need to win national office. Our goal should be to gain political power. We build power by winning one seat at a time. Each seat we win on a local and state level is a littel more power. We start at the local and state level. Then when they are ready to move up to the National level we have more people run for their office. It is a waste of time and energy to not be working to get a true Progressive party into power so that we can can bring our vision into reality.
To just vote Democrat is a wasted vote. To work for a true Progressive Party to have a seat at the political table is working toward a better nation and is part of the solution. To continue to vote for Democrats thinking this time will be different is insane. When you do something over and over again and each time you get screwed but thinking this time they will listen to Progressives and they don't because their loyality is not to progressives but to Corporate America is insantiy. Don't let anyone make you feel guilty because you don't vote Democrat or Republican.
I like the idea of voting for the best man regardless of his party. While working hard to build the Green Party into the Progressive Party that has a seat at the Political table.
I go by the following quotation (the writer of this quotation escapes me at the moment):
"It's better to vote one's conscience and to vote for someone who can't win than to vote for someone who can win and will betray you".
That is exactly right.
You might be interested in "Googling" A NEW FEDERALIST PARTY. Whoever wrote it makes a lot of sense.
What we now have in Washington can't get much worse, for sure!
At least there are more brass tacks in this piece by Scheer compared to the Nichols fluff.
The election last night is a reminder of how right wing militarism is growing in America. This man Brown repeated often that he agreed with Dick Cheney on torture and in fact it was the first thing he mentioned last night after his victory. It is true that people are enraged at disconnected washington elites giving all possible breaks to wall street while continuing to screw the public but who can imagine a refined intellectual like Obama suddenly becoming a populist as the head of the party that gets the most money from wall street. The country is much more right wing than progressives would like to admit and yet even conservatives could respect a liberal president who had convictions and fought for what he believed in. The trouble is Obama apparently has no convictions. The two party system is bankrupt because there is only stylistic differences between these two corrupt parties as both believe in greed and militarism.
Right you are, Thalidomide, and it is curious to note that, however correct Scheer may be concerning Obama on the economy and health care, he completely omits the overriding, all-inclusive, all-important issue of the WAR. Scheer's a good, smart man, so it's not that he's unaware of this, but it IS curious he left it out. It is a rather glaring formal flaw, at the very least, in his analysis. In his second 'graph, he says: "The two issues that mattered on Election Day were the economy, which Obama has sold out to Wall Street-as quite a few disgruntled voters pointed out-and his plea to save health care reform."
Well, no, Robert. The war was what mattered most to voters across the whole spectrum from left to right.
Right, I wondered about that too--and it answers both the issue of health care and the economy.
Concerning, "The war was what mattered most to voters across the whole spectrum from left to right," nah. It's the economy, stupid! The war(s) are "simply" perceived as a giant waste of money for no discernable purpose.
No, according to the pre-election polls it was the Iraq war, and the desire to end it, that united the highest percentage of voters, something like 70%. Afghanistan didn't elicit quite the same numbers, though opposition was still quite high, and has increased since then.
In any case, even if the war(s) are primarily perceived as a giant waste of money, that still makes them enough of a concern to merit mention from Scheer. But I think the general opposition to them goes beyond simple economic concern; that is only the "angle" the MSM pundits like to spin the issue from.
"refined intellectual"...Please, more like an elitist--a pompous phony who, when he isn't swinging his head back and forth to read the monitor, and actually looks directly at his audience, looks down his nose.
And, rather than repeating the falsehoods of the Right, a well-funded and ongoing campaign to have you believe that this is a Rightwing country, look at poll after poll on EVERY issue from the environment to health care and you will find the country more aligned by the marginalized Kucinich than any Rightwing dickwad. Now why do you suppose that the powers that be put every effort into marginalizing, ignoring or denying what the people want? It is like those who always blame the lack of presence of the progressive Left, while they continue to act as apologists for the Democrats. They actually aid in the perception that the Left doesn't exist.
Time for the DEM "radical" protest; "law and order" miserepublican reaction political spin cycle. Any Nixonian UP?
ANOTHER stupid, "what Obama needs to do" dimwitted article masquerading as objectivity.
Obama, and the majority of both sides of the coinage of Washington, don't give a rat's ass about anything more than pleasing their corporate masters on Wall Street and their favorite hobby - military violence for monetary profits.
The Dumbo-crats throw bones and tell us it is a "balanced" meal while the repugnicans would rather we starve quicker.
How anyone can possibly believe that Massachusetts voters sided with Scott Brown because of the economy or healthcare or the wars makes me dizzy. Massachusetts is like a dysfunctional family ... but also suffering from dementia. Don't know how to move forward for the good of everyone ... especially the least amongst us. Don't remember where they came from to know where they are going.
At the time of the election of Scott Brown it is quite likely most residents of Massachusetts don't realize the debacle the 'required' health insurance of their state. So they think, or believe, that Scott Brown will be their deliverance. When all the assistance the State provides for residents is slashed and burned the voters will find themselves unable to afford health insurance.
Massachusetts is largely in denial in regards to the state of their economy. The local and statewide media coverage always has a rosy spin. Wait ... when the unemployment checks stop.
The wars our country is waging, in truth, barely make a mention in local or statewide media. Every effort has been made to not keep these horrible wars in the forefront of voters' minds.
Don't give the Massachusetts Scott Brown voters so much credit as to actually knowing who Scott Brown is, what he stands for, positions he holds, and why they voted for him.
Perhaps not, but they seem to have an opinion of Obama.
What Scheer Got Wrong:
"It is significant that it was the voters of Massachusetts who have now derailed the Democrats' efforts to revamp the country's health care system by denying them the necessary 60th vote in the Senate, for these voters know the subject well."
___________________________
Buck referenced this same quote in an earlier comment, but IMO it's also noteworthy because it repeats the fantasy that Democrats were making efforts to "revamp the country's health care system".
Like "the terrorist attacks of 9/11", this is a meme or factoid with no basis in reality that is treated as true because it's repeated so often.
Neither Democrats NOR Republicans are "revamping" the predatory, parasitic, capitalist profit-driven health care chaos. (Even "system" begs the question.)
One of the reasons I have such antipathy for the standard process-obsessed conventional political analysis offered by Scheer and so many other regular CommonDreams writers is because they begin with such bogus untruths and distorted simplifications, then build on them.
At best, Scheer might defend such phrases as being true "in a manner of speaking". And they are-- and it's the same nonsensical, pseudo-rational, deceptive manner of speaking employed by our political and corporate media elites that got Amerika into the position it's in today.
· Yr Obd't Servant
"Neither Democrats NOR Republicans are "revamping" the predatory, parasitic, capitalist profit-driven health care chaos. (Even "system" begs the question.)" -- Obedient Servant
I agree with your statement!
Over the weekend, I watched a Ron Wyden town meeting on C-SPAN -- or, at least, part of it. Someone called out numbers, and citizens then, had the opportunity to comment and ask questions. Senator Wyden had a "but" ready for all questions and comments that advocated for "single-payer," and there were quite a few who stood up and spoke in its favor. With each "but," I became angrier and angrier. The last comment I heard was a woman who stood up and said that until all of our senators and represenatives have to go out and find, and pay for, their own health insurance policies, she didn't think any of them would ever get it!
With that comment, I turned OFF the TV.
>>>Obedient Servant wrote: What Scheer Got Wrong: ....
Daily Show's Jon Stewart caught this one too - 2 days ago:
"If this lady loses, the health care reform bill that the beloved late senator considered his legacy, will die. And the reason it will die... is because if Coakley loses, Democrats will only have an 18 vote majority in the Senate, which is more than George W. Bush *ever* had in the Senate when he did whatever the f*ck he wanted to."
Towards the end, Jon Stewart starts hyperventilating trying to make sense of the Democrats approach.
But if the Democrats didn't go along with Bush...the tewwowists would have gotten us.
Oh bummer, hey bummer, bummer bummer O Bama hey Bama ho and how
Hey Barack Barach, can you skip the croc?
You had everything where is it now?
(apologies to JC Superstar)
Speaking to a friend in the States last week on the phone who asked me, "say, how is the health care there in Canada? I've heard some bad things about it."
Really? From WHO? Oh, in political columns and advertisements and Fox News.
I agree with the central argument in this article. Massachusetts knows what if feels like to be forced to pay the privateers for a lousy, expensive product. It's like paying for your own rape. They sent a message. I'm sure it will be received with ears wide shut.
I've been seeing this "Obama must do this or that" for months now, while we see him do the opposite. After hiring Goldman Sachs and Wall St for his Treasury dept, the trillions on bailouts, the bullshit on the bonuses, how can we expect anything out of the supposed banking and wall street reforms. We knew before the HCR started how that would end up. We should know how the wall st/banking reform carnival will end. How on earth could it be any different?
Don't know if anyone has reported yet on how many
Democrats simply didn't come out to vote?
Obviously the Obama administration, led by Rahm Emmanuel
is doing something very wrong ---
Wars bankrupting our Treasury --
Trade agreements draining jobs from America to move them to slave labor --
Loss of jobs bankrupting our states and our citizens --
Cuts in taxes for the rich destroying infrastructure --
And Health Care -- of, by and for the benefit of insurance
companies, drug companies and "for profit" health care
industry --
Rahm has run another one into the ground . . .
Just the way he likes it - destroying what's left of the
Democratic Party for a complete corporate takeover.
.
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
"Tea Party Republicans who now pretend that a banking mess brought about by their radical deregulatory philosophy is not of their making." And they also pretend that the failed Massachusetts Health "care" system in not their party's doing--former Governor Romney was a Republican after all. The difference between him/ MA System and the now in jeopardy health care"reform" bill is the difference between Twidle Dee and Twidle Dum.
It might be easy to think of the Democrats as the most brutal and rotten kind of moral and political cowards. Since they are now no different than the Republicans, all you need to say is that they are totally corrupt. For people like that, morality has no bearing on anything. The Republicans are much better than the Democrats at this kind of political savagery. Obama knows this. He will now move even farther right and insure his own destruction. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
How To Get Elected to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts:
1. Be handsome, smile a lot, and look good naked.
2. Drive a truck and talk about it a lot.
3. Support a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, while simultaneously bashing "big government."
4. Talk a lot about how you're a regular guy (see 2 above), while simultaneously opposing taxing the bankers to pay for the bailout.
5. Speculate about the President possibly being born out of wedlock.
6. Have a bunch of friends who are ex-baseball players and washed-up TV actors, and campaign with them.
7. Have a wife who's a current local TV celebrity.
8. Have a daughter who's a former flash-in-the-pan TV celebrity, and pimp her and her sister out for laughs.
9. Have no significant ideas or accomplishments beyond those enumerated above.
10. Above all, oppose doing anything whatsoever to improve health care in this country.
Oh those discerning Massachusetts voters. They know what they want, alright!
I would agree that the "principled" vote would have been for any third party that was on the ballot. It should have been used as a "None Of The Above". But when people are propagandized to believe it's either fric or frac--and no one talks seriously about the Green, Progressive, Independent or Libertarian (or any others)on the ballot then those making either choice are just part of the game.
And people in Massachusetts probably don't like their version of "subsidize the insurance companies" health care. This is the only way they see that they have open to them to spit back.
Our founding fathers never intended for the Senators to be popularly elected. Let's face it, the voters are not too bright. In South Boston a guy named Murphy received a bunch of votes in South Boston, a white Irish district in time of racial strife, and he was darker than Obama (not saying he did not deserve the votes, just that voters who voted had no clue who he was or what he stood for, and they voted for the Irish name).
In MA you go from Ted Kennedy to a Republican, possibly because the Democratic candidate did not know who Curt Schilling was, but alos because today the republicans appear to them as the lesser of 2 evils.
In any event, a year ago those of us who said that there is no significant difference between Republicans and Democrats at the leadership level were ridiculed. Choose the lesser of 2 evils, Coke instead of Pepsi they said. 4-8 years later it is Pepsi instead of Coke. Rinse, wash, repeat.
We are a defacto 1 party government, basically 1 corporate (global at that) party in 2 colors, one red and one blue. China has 8 parties, including 4 with democratic or democracy in their names, but all are subservient to the controlling party, the CCP. We don't know the name of our controlling party, they prefer to lurk in the shadows, financing and pulling the strings of the Dems and Republican pretenders. The voters preferences are secondary to our controllers interests.
For those who still do not get this, 1984 is just around a corner.
Enjoyed the posts to this article, so the article must have had a little substance.
For anyone to become President of the United States of America it takes a little "sum sumthin'. I keep looking for something in President Obama. He's got to dig a little deeper from here on out for sure, "the King does Pee".
The answer though my friends is "blowin in the wind". If this country is to reach another level of greatness, the people must rise up. We suffer a dearth of leadership in the political or financial sector, Greed rules. The Citizen must now stand forth. The vacuums in our society are large; The Citizen must find his place. Technology can aid Citizenship. Technology increases connectivity, connectivity increases involvement, involvement has potential for force "Where two are gathered...and force produces change. Let's just keep talking, "in the beginning was the word".
And yes, the election in Massachusetts was irrational, idicative of the times we live in.
I really don't understand the logic underlying many of these posts.
The idea that the republicans and democrats are equally corrupt makes no logical or historical sense. Certainly, there are many democrats who have been bought by corporations, but at the same time, there are also a number of reasonable, even progressive democrats. In contrast, the republicans are close to 100% corrupt. To assume that two parties are ideologically equivalent, when one is 100% corrupt and the other is 50% corrupt, is nonsense. Too many of these comments are grounded in such black and white, categorical thinking. What is needed is more flexible analysis based on relative proportions, where differences are viewed on a continuum rather than in terms of arbitrary categories.
Another example, again shared by the MSM, is the tendency to blame everything on the democrats. The democrats did fail (and cave in) in their efforts for a robust public option. But the primary reason for this failure was that the republicans were 100% obstructionists. To understand what happened with health care, people have to be able to think of two things simultaneously (as most adolescents can do): The proportion of democrats who undermined real reform (50%) in relation to the proportion of republicans who undermined reform (100%). Again, the role played by the republicans is considerably more substantial than that of the democrats (and this has been true for 50 years in the case of health care). Many other examples could be cited.
I am no fan of the democrats and I am not apologizing for them. I just abhor these kinds of false equivalencies. Not only are they logically flawed, but they are self destructive (for progressive interests) and they undermine any motivation to hold republicans accountable.
People are noticing that Democrats never seem to be able to mount the spine to be as Progressive as their talk, and are beginning to think that's not by accident.
Republicans, as you noted, are always able to mount the spine to be as Regressive as their talk (and then some), which also is no accident.
If Democrats are always just a few votes shy of Progressive change, many posters here think, that's by design. They thus appear to be Progressive but have no intention of being so, and hence are really no better than the GOP, even though they appear to be.
Those who think money runs both Parties don't misunderstand the Democrats. That is, the Progressive stance would tend to chill the flow of money to their candidacy, hence adopting it (for real) would be political suicide in many cases. But understanding why Democrats would adopt the duplicitous stance they govern with doesn't ease the pain of seeing them do so.
You must admit that given the kind of overwhelming voter support the DNC got in the last election, to serve up this healthcare 'reform' on top of a WallStreet bailout with no strings is beginning to look rather fishy. People are right to think that if Democrats can't pass Progressive legislation with that kind of voter support, then maybe its because they're 'Progressives' in name only.
Mammon runs everything now, and Mammon is no friend to Progressive causes.
This still sounds rather categorical to me, with no consideration of degree. For example, to say that money runs both parties may be true, but it's an oversimplification and misleading because the effect is much stronger and integral in republicans than democrats. Or just compare the voting record for individual democrats versus republicans on issues relevant to progressive values - they are quite different.
Also, there's no consideration of the role republicans play in thwarting democratic efforts to be progressive (weak as these may be). You are certainly right though in pointing out the timidity of the democrats and that things look fishy. On the other hand, people are not right to think that maybe democrats are "progressive" in name only. This is of course true of some democrats, but there are other democrats who really are progressive, as well as others who are not remotely progressive and don't pretend to be. To cast these wide labels (phony progressives) across the party as a whole is not helpful. It tends to smear important differences and It causes us to forget that the there isn't a progressive fiber on the republican side, which is a major source of the problem.
Obama's agenda: 1. Close Guantanamo (expand Bagram--further out of sight): Bagram bigger, Gitmo still open. 2. Health Care reform: capitulate to Repubs in EVERY way. 3. War: Same in Iraq, bigger in Afghanistan. 4. Economics: Too small stimulus, absolutely REPUBLICAN saving of the banks. 5. Gay marriage: Nope. 6. Transparency in government: Nope. 7. Holding those in the previous administration responsible for treasons, crimes against humanity and war crimes: Nope.
If Dems can't get it done, they deserve a good whipping.
At least repubs don't whine and moan about their impotence when they stick it to us. That's because they're not impotent. They have principles, however despicable. The Dems have only one principle: don't piss off the republicans.
So, this a little confusing to me because, the two issues that mattered on Election Day were the economy, which Obama has sold out to Wall Street and the healthcare plan..
So, in anger, what do the people of Massachusetts do? They vote someone into office who is sure do be even more pro Wall street and will vote against any kind of healthcare reform or any kind of regulation of Wall street..
The Republicans must be rolling in aisles laughing at these fools.
Another fine example how people can be manipulated to vote against their own best interests.
Not really.
Because ultimately it has become- what difference does it make?
It is a reflection on Obama and Democratic party brand identity. Democrats say one thing to get elected and then change course away from the promised change. And there is an elitism there--a lack of real connection--and the rhetoric in stark contrast to the policies inacted only amplify the resent.
This is the place--the vote where the people can connect--and the message is punishment for betrayal.
I agree with most of this except that I would point out that the health care mess is one of the reasons why the US will not be creating many jobs for the foreseeable future. Health care costs have gone off the deep end, to the point where they are harming the economy in general and job creation in particular. Of course, since Obama and the Democrats failed to actually come up with cost reductions in their failed legislation, the fact that they spent a lot of time on health in 2009 was meaningless instead of smart.