Thursday’s Mini-Report

Today’s edition of quick hits.

* Given the pressures he’s facing in his House district, I suppose the timing was right for Dennis Kucinich to step aside: “Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich is abandoning his second bid for the White House. In an interview with the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the congressman said he was quitting the race and would made a formal announcement Friday. ‘I want to continue to serve in Congress,’ he told the newspaper. Kucinich said he will not endorse another Democrat in the primary.”

* Discouraging-but-expected news from the Senate this afternoon: “The Senate just voted to kill (table) the Senate Judiciary Committee’s surveillance bill, which did not contain retroactive immunity for the telecoms. The vote was 60-36 to table, with a number of Dems crossing over.”

* Just one year ago, the president, in coordination with the Maliki government, presented the nation with 18 fairly specific benchmarks, which would demonstrate for Americans how much progress the administration’s policy was making. Twelve months later, by the Center for American Progress’ estimate, just three of the 18 benchmarks can fairly be described as complete.

* Encouraging: “Just 24 hours after it was launched, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign pulled a South Carolina radio ad that targets Barack Obama for his recent comments on the Republican Party…. Clinton’s South Carolina spokesman did not provide a reason why the ad was pulled, saying only, ‘we are on schedule with our closer ads starting.'”

* Even more encouraging: “CNN reported that the Hillary campaign has yanked their radio ad in South Carolina hitting Obama for saying the GOP is the ‘party of ideas.’ … Now the Obama campaign has responded in kind with their S.C. ad hitting Hillary for being willing to ‘say anything’ to win. Obama spokesperson Bill Burton tells us: ‘Once we confirmed that Clinton was taking down her attack ad, we instructed radio stations in South Carolina to take down our response ad.'”

* I plan to have a more detailed report on this tomorrow, but EPA Chief Stephen Johnson had a very rough day before a Senate committee this afternoon, with the administrator struggling to explain why he rejected his staffers’ advice and blocked states’ efforts to combat global warming.

* It’s about damn time: “Ending months of resistance, the White House has agreed to give House members access to secret documents about its warrantless wiretapping program, a congressional official said Thursday. The Bush administration is trying to convince the House to protect from civil lawsuits the telecommunications companies that helped the government eavesdrop on Americans without the approval of a court. Congress created the court 30 years ago to oversee such activities. House Intelligence and Judiciary committee members and staff will begin reading the documents at the White House Thursday, said an aide to Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas.”

* Fox News personality John Gibson continued to mock Heath Ledger’s death today, because the actor portrayed a gay man in “Brokeback Mountain.” MSNBC’s Scarborough described the homophobic undertones of Gibson’s comments as “mean-spirited and hateful.” I still don’t know why anyone would listen to Gibson’s show voluntarily.

* Even William Safire seems disappointed that the NYT hired Bill Kristol as a columnist. Is there anyone outside the paper’s leadership who still thinks this was a good idea?

* Al Gore supports gay marriage. May others follow his lead.

* I can’t believe Fox News did a hatchet job on one of my wife’s favorite video games.

* The problem with some “independent” voters.

* This probably shouldn’t surprise anyone: “The White House confirmed Wednesday that its new budget next month will not request a full year’s funding for the war in Iraq, leaving the next president and Congress to confront major cost questions soon after taking office in 2009.”

* And finally, this story was painful to read: “A passenger who went through an airport security checkpoint — before remembering that he had a loaded gun — is facing charges after going back to report his error, authorities said.” Seriously. A guy passed through security at Washington National Airport with a loaded gun, and went undetected. He realized his mistake and returned to the checkpoint. He could have gotten on the plane and been on his way, but he did the right thing — so he was charged with possessing or transporting a firearm into an air carrier terminal. As Steve Verdon put it, “Wouldn’t it make more sense to not come down so hard on what appears to be a decent law abiding citizen and instead spend more time focusing on how the security checkpoint failed? Just an idea.”

Anything to add? Consider this an end-of-the-day open thread.

MSNBC’s Scarborough described the homophobic undertones of Gibson’s comments as “mean-spirited and hateful.”

When you’re even too mean and hateful for Joe, you really need to be rethinking your approach to life. Maybe Gibson is secretly the only non-Phelps-related member of the Westboro Baptist Church – he can lead the protest they have announced for Ledger’s funeral.

  • “The problem with some “independent” voters”

    There really is no “problem” with us… Unless you are a mindless set of voters that enjoys acting like a group of sheep at the beckon call of any given party’s leadership.

  • I predict there’s a wide stance in Gibson’s travel plans. Ledger was an awesome actor and Brokeback was one of his best performances. I was a little taken aback after I heard of Ledger’s death when I went to Salon.com and was greeted by an ad for Aussie tourism with a bold message, “Where the bloody hell are you.” Weird coincidence.

    Non-voters are a much larger (non) voting bloc than independents.

    Man, those airport fascists acted the same way when I told them I forgot I had a bomb in my shoe.

  • Once we confirmed that Clinton was taking down her attack ad, we instructed radio stations in South Carolina to take down our response ad.’”

    So, Obama stands up to Clinton, Clinton blinks, and Obama calls off the dogs? Pretty darned impressive. I’d say we all just learned something about him we didn’t know yesterday.

  • Fish’s column on independent voters is truly moronic. I’m an independent, and it’s not for the reasons he assumes. Yes, the two major parties have fairly well set views on the major issues, but the groupings don’t always hold for individuals. What party should someone vote for if they are anti-abortion but pro-environment? What about someone who wants tax cuts and separation of church and state? Or someone who wants gay rights and a balanced budget?

    The problem with the two party system is the lack of choice in the mix, which is the result of the way the parties enforce their party lines. That’s what independent voters are dealing with. It’s constant compromise, never getting exactly what you want (or nothing closer than 60%), but still making the choice.

  • * I can’t believe Fox News did a hatchet job on one of my wife’s favorite video games.

    I typed this up earlier and almost submitted it to you, but I thought it might be a bit outside or your normal scope. Next to politics, my other love is video games, so I’ve been following this one for a bit.

    Just look at what the gaming community did in retaliation against Fox’s ‘expert’ who lied about the game:

    http://www.amazon.com/Fixer-upper-Man-Maybe-Right-Steps/dp/1598694561/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201159268&sr=1-5

    http://www.amazon.com/Been-There-Done-That-Jewelry/dp/1593376359/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201159268&sr=1-4

    http://www.amazon.com/Cult-Perfection-Making-Peace-Overachiever/dp/1599211793/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201193310&sr=8-1

  • Here in MD-04, Donna Edwards is taking on Al Wynn again in a heated rematch of 2 years ago. She came close to unseating him last time and while I haven’t seen any recent polls, Wynn is obviously distressed. From Matt Stoller…

    Anti-Net Neutrality Congressman Al Wynn Fakes News Video, Also Video is Really Really Stupid

    Fresh off of robocalling his own supporters to tell them he’s not a crook and a liar, the Congress on the Energy and Commerce Committee (who cosponsored the bill to get rid of net neutrality) Al Wynn has now posted a video response to Donna Edwards. Only, it’s both really stupid and it’s a fake news release. Wynn’s campaign disabled embedding video in blog posts, so I downloaded it and uploaded it to an OpenLeft account. Here it is in all its remarkable glory…

  • Awww, I just checked out those links I posted again and it looks like Amazon has started taking down the reviews, but the basic gist is that they started writing ridiculous reviews and ended them saying:

    Of course, I don’t know if this review is accurate because I haven’t read the book, but if she can comment about a game she hasn’t played, then I can do the same concerning her book.

    For what it’s worth, she’s a pop-psychologist in the vein of Dr. Phil who thinks that lifelong problems can be solved in 30 minute or less, or it’s free. As someone who has a degree in psychology, I loathe these people.

  • “…with a number of Dems crossing over.” Mary Landrieu has got to be the absolutely most useless Dem Senator.

    And it is good to see Obama and Clinton making nice on such things. Too bad neither is taking the time to get to the Senate to support Dodd.

  • … The trader has been suspended and faces a formal sacking and a legal complaint from Societe Generale …

    Reuters article referring to the rogue trader who cost French bank Societe Generale $7,100,000,000.

    I just wonder what it means to be “formally sacked?” Do they rip off his shirt buttons while a color guard does a drum roll?

    I’d love to see Bush’s EPA flunky “formally sacked,” along with nearly all of the other top administrators in the Federal government.

  • #5: It’s constant compromise, never getting exactly what you want (or nothing closer than 60%), but still making the choice.

    At this point I’d be happy with 60%.

    All I got in 2006 was a bit less Republican outrage, and Harry and Nancy’s spineless idiot show.

  • Kucinich’s purpose was debates + enough delegates to influence the party platform. Excluding him from the debates was the final straw.

    Now no one is going to hear about Single payer healthcare or Impeachment, both ideas supported by a majority of Americans. Too bad America, you never deserved it anyway.

  • Does anybody else get the feeling that Clinton and Obama are just stealth Repocons?

    It wouldn’t be the first or even the 10th instance of the Republicans putting their candidate into another party and lying their way into office and then shedding their sheep’s disguise to expose yet another lying cheating Republican who will stoop to any depths of infaminy to win office.

  • I just wonder what it means to be “formally sacked?” — Idlemind, @10

    That the paper you read it in used Brit-English, rather than Am-English, terminology. “Sacked”, in Brit-Eng means “fired” (kicked out, given the boot, etc).

  • libra –

    I think Idlemind was wondering about the “formal” rather than the “sacking” given the context of his question. Here in the US a “formal sacking” means Donald Trump says “Yer Fired”. Idlemind may just be wondering if Europe has a higher standard for “formal” than an old dude in a bad toup telling you to pack your bags.

  • Beep52:

    So, Obama stands up to Clinton, Clinton blinks, and Obama calls off the dogs? Pretty darned impressive. I’d say we all just learned something about him we didn’t know yesterday.

    What did you learn Senior Beep?

    That he doesn’t like the politics of despair and destruction?
    I think that is fairly obvious.
    It’s been obvious from the very start that Barack has the power to destroy the Clintons anytime he wants.

    He certainly doesn’t want for ammo.
    For example in regards to that debate question: Was Bill Clinton the first black president?
    He didn’t have to be gentleman and play the comedian.
    There was an easy dagger at hand.

    All he had to say was something like this:

    Bill Clinton governed the country in such a way that he was a net positive to poor people of every color and sex. But honestly? At the gut level I would be ashamed if the first black president ever appeared before the nation and told a blatant lie regarding his own sexual misconduct to the American people.

    Game. Set. Match. Destroyed.

    What you must realize about Barack is that he is smarter than me.
    Smarter than you.
    Smarter than Steve Benen.
    Smarter than everyone that posts here.
    Smarter than the Clintons.
    Smarter, more worldly in experience, and more decent than anyone who has ever run for this office.

    He had that dagger in hand.
    You can’t be a deeply thoughtful black man and not have that dagger in your hand.
    He has other daggers in his hand too.
    He chooses to swallow them.

    Don’t get me wrong:
    He is no saint.
    He can talk trash with the best of them.
    That’s easy. Anybody can do it.
    It is the path of least resistance.
    That’s why we call it “the low road.”
    Anybody can run low. They all do.

    Believe me:
    He can destroy these people anytime he wants.
    He chooses not to.

    He is a far better person than me.
    Hell… I’d use the dagger on these people faster than you can click on this link.

  • As Steve Verdon put it, “Wouldn’t it make more sense to not come down so hard on what appears to be a decent law abiding citizen and instead spend more time focusing on how the security checkpoint failed? Just an idea.”

    I think the idea is probably to let people know to be very sure they’re not carrying a gun when they try to get on an airplane, rather than let terrorists who get caught think they can get away with an “I just forgot I had it, and I was about to walk back and report it” defense. It may sound harsh, but it’s a way to get the word out that if you think you can cute your way through getting caught with a gun going on a plane, no one’s going to talk pity in you. In the long run, it may prevent truly dangerous people from getting on planes with guns hidden on them.

    In fact, maybe prosecuting him is the best thing they can do to improve the check-point.

  • “The problem with some “independent” voters.” ” And the key word is “some.”

    What a strange post this was. Must have been written by a Republican. It’s kind of a strawman argument, characterizing independents as being too stupid to consider the points he’s making in favor of party affiliation. But he’s constructed a conceptual box in which he’s not capable of thinking outside of. I don’t know what to call that. Or maybe he’s just not much of a conceptual thinker. Or both. Or who cares?

    It’s not worth reading. I don’t know why I did. I guess because I’m an independent, but I’m also a lifelong progressive (my brain forgot to take note of when I reached age 40), so most of the time I’m with the Democrats, most of the candidates, most of the issues.

  • Re: the airport story

    Anyway, no one really knows this guy wasn’t about to hijack the plane as some sort of stunt, or that he wasn’t about to try to kill some guy on the plane he didn’t like. It could be he called it off, and then decided to go to a counter to report the weapon, because he saw a security guy eyeing him suspiciously, and he thought it was safer to try to tell them a line if he went to them voluntarily instead of if he got taking by the arm to a room for questioning.

    He tried to go on a plane with a gun, and that’s a crime, and that’s that.

  • #16 –

    What you must realize about Barack is that he is smarter than me.
    Smarter than you.
    Smarter than Steve Benen.
    Smarter than everyone that posts here.
    Smarter than the Clintons.
    Smarter, more worldly in experience, and more decent than anyone who has ever run for this office

    I respectfully, and most vehemently, disagree. What you must realize is that this is your opinion.

  • Yeah, it was the “formal” part that caught my eye; I’m familiar with the British term “sacked” (a much more, ah, colourful term than “fired”). But “formally” brought to mind some sort of ceremony, not the traditional American technique of leaving a voicemail.

    Marnie: I think it’s just you. Perhaps you’re finding it hard to believe just how far to the right many Democrats currently lean, but, yeah, those are Dems all right. The two parties may occupy a disappointingly small part of the political spectrum, but a few differences linger. And they’re all politicians, and when their backs are to the wall will more-or-less behave like them.

  • Kucinich is the only really progressive candidate put there. Is there no way to rid ourselves of this “money” party who deal with Americas problems as if they were on the board of some private country club? America is going over a cliff and the best we can get is slightly less than complete corporate control.

    Air America’s Rachel Maddox was mentioning the list of senators who voted with republicans to grant telecom immunity and almost stuttered when she mentioned Sen. Claire McCaskill D- MO who narrowly won her election running on a progressive agenda. She seems to be following in the shoes of Diane Feinstein. It was very disappointing that she would side with republicans over members of her own party such as our two presidential candidates in the senate and Dodd and Feingold. These Bush supporters voting for this bill promised to support the constitution but get in office and just go along trying to avoid conflict. Here I believed she had a spine and would support Dodd’s filibuster. There’s no justification for voting for telecom amnesty. If the president can bribe the telecoms to break the law then they can turn around and bribe the senate to grant them immunity it proves that the senate can be bought and sold by the lobbyists at will.

  • What you must realize about Barack is that he is smarter than me.
    Smarter than you.
    Smarter than Steve Benen.
    Smarter than everyone that posts here.
    Smarter than the Clintons.
    Smarter, more worldly in experience, and more decent than anyone who has ever run for this office

    LOL. I know ROTF has retracted this, but still. . . anyone who has been slamming the Clinton supporters for saying Obamaists are messianic or swoony or starry-eyed care to claim this post? Do you see our point yet?

    More decent not just than any other candidate this year, not more decent than anyone who has held the Presidency, but decent than any of the hundreds of people who have ever run! Oh my. I guess Jimmy Carter did confess to lusting in his heart. But really, what scoop do you have on Shirley Chisolm, for example?

    And I completely agree that Obama is brilliant – Harvard Law Review, Professor Tribe’s RA, impressive stuff – but c’mon, Bill was Yale Law and a Rhodes Scholar, Hillary was Wellesley with Honors, Yale Law and was on the Yale Review of Law and Social Action. A little hard to say who wins that one.

    ROTF’s got a crush! 🙂

  • You know, zeitgeist, I don’t think Kevin Drum has asked his commenters just who is the smartest candidate yet. That sort of question is right up his alley. He’s too cynical to ask about decency, though.

  • Bubba, are you out there?

    Now I am confused. The above “discouraging but expected news” is linked to a TPM Muckraker story from 2:30 about the Judiciary Committee FISA bill. This bill would have given no immunity to telecoms and was defeated. But a later TPMM story at about 5:30 shows that on the intelligence committee version, the one that does include immunity for telecons, Harry Ried refused a cloture vote, and put off the decision until Monday. That would seem to suggest that this time he might support a filibuster, which would be odd, since it would then require the Dem’s to do the windbagging. At least it would give us something to watch on TV other than the State of the Union Adress.

  • Hey Z…

    I feel so ashamed!
    You’ve destroyed me!

    Crickey children…

    I should have left it at this:
    He is smarter than me.

    Of course all that law school shit isn’t what I am talking about.
    Any common eager ass can get A’s in school.
    That’s an easy beast of burden game:

    “Book full blockheads ignorantly read…
    With loads of learned lumber in their heads.”

    Smarter for me is:
    Who has thought deepest about life.
    Who has made serious journeys and learned the most from them?
    And yes: This kid goes as deep as a poet.

    Someone once wrote that of all the forms of genius, kindness has the longest awkward age.

    Obama has got some serious daggers.
    He chooses not to use them.
    That is a rather remarkable thing.
    Especially in the world of poliltics.

    That was the gist of my post.
    I noticed you ignored that part.

    Fair enough.

  • Zeitgeist –

    Did you know that Barack Obama’s tears cure cancer? But that he’s so badassed he’s never cried?

    Or that Barack Obama has counted to infinity? Twice?

    Or that in fine print on the last page of the Guinness Book of World Records it notes that all world records are held by Barack Obama, and those listed in the book are simply the closest anyone else has ever gotten?

    Or that sometimes, when I read paeans about Barack Obama from his supporters, I feel like I’m reading one of those “Chuck Norris” lists that float around the Internets?

  • My wife went to law school when Obama was a professor, and he is probably the smartest guy in the race (next to Clinton), and frankly, they are all decent. Eight years of non-stop investigations with nothing to show for it… imagine what we could do with a President who complied with sopoena power and a press that suggested something to hide if he didn’t, rather than suggesting the Dems have something to hide when they DO turn stuff over.

    A fair attack for Obama would be to try to neutralize Hillary’s experience and management, if you will (the Rove “attack a strength”). The second thing he needs to do is to show how he will change politics with policy as well as style in a way Hillary Clinton, beholden to those “special interests”, can’t or won’t.

  • “At least it would give us something to watch on TV other than the State of the Union Adress.”

    For sure. I might even try to get into the building to watch it live. And Clinton and Obama will be in DC, so they can use a little of their juice to convince their Senator supporters to support them in fighting the intelligence committee version of the bill. Check out Greenwald and Talk Left–they have more info.

  • Maybe it’s that extra glass of wine, or maybe it’s that I can no longer deny that I AM getting the cold that has been making its way around the office, but I’ve had something noodling around in my brain since the Clinton choke-up in NH, but I just couldn’t quite pin down what it was.

    I finally figured it out.

    All you M.A.S.H. fans ( I know – it’s ancient history) have to remember the episode when Margaret “Hot Lips” Houlihan is kind of on a rampage about the nurses breaking the rules and comes down hard on them, confining them to their tent. When one of the nurses’ husband gets a last-minute R & R and comes to visit his wife, the other nurses sneak her into a tent behind Margaret’s back. Of course, she finds out, and when the other nurses want to know why she is so hard-hearted, Margaret goes on a tirade about being left out of their fun. “Did you ever once just offer me a cup of coffee?” she says, as her voice cracks and her eyes shine with tears. She finally shows the nurses that she is a human being, who has feelings, even though she works like a dog to hid them from everyone. And all the nurses, who thought she was this inhuman dragon lady, rally round her and everyone finally understands each other a little better.

    Well, anyway…that’s what the Clinton mini-meltdown reminded me of.

    Silly, huh?

  • I don’t know if any of you are listening to or watching the GOP debate, but it is glaringly obvious that these people have no credibility. It isn’t helping that the questions are ludicrous: “Was the war a good idea and was it worth the loss of blood and treasure?” Ron Paul is the only one who says no on both counts, to thunderous applause – the rest all tried to out-so the other on who was most for the war.

    It boggles the mind that these candidates all still think that the GOP is the party of fiscal responsibility.

    The only thing Rudy says more than “9/11” is “Hillary.”

    Anyone remember that John McCain recently said that he was no expert on economics? Well, Grandpa McCain doesn’t remember that – he’s quite the expert. And even though he was against the Bush tax cuts, now he’s for them – they all are – and Rudy wants to cut all the taxes.

    I can’t listen to much more. Well, now the candidates get to ask each other questions – this might be interesting.

  • Anne… not watching the debates.
    Huge waste of time. Those guys are all crazy.

    But I have watched this video several times:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClfpG2-1Bv4&feature=related

    It really has a profound effect on me.
    Especially that moment when he is asked about the cigar and his eyes do that INCREDIBLE double-dip cross-eyed flippy thing.

    Very sad. Very painful.
    As much as I know I should feel nothing but condemnation and anger for his lies.
    Something inside stops my wrath from going hot.
    Empathy I suppose. It is such a profoundly pathetic moment.
    A president of the US being interrogated like a criminal.
    It is all so sordid.
    And I admit: I still hate the republicans for making that happen.
    Vile bastards.
    They would subject the OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY to that sort of demeaning interrogation just to score political points.

    Like I said Anne: Those bastards are all bat shit crazy.
    Don’t watch it.

  • Idlemind wrote:

    You know, zeitgeist, I don’t think Kevin Drum has asked his commenters just who is the smartest candidate yet. That sort of question is right up his alley. He’s too cynical to ask about decency, though.

    I don’t know where you get that from. He seems like a pretty middle-of-the-road guy to me. I don’t think he’s too anything to not do a blog post asking about decency. He might prefer something like smartness as the subject because he might see the decency thing as too much of a sound-bite, subjective, propaganda BS thing. Then again, he might feel like you could judge it by their record. But in any event, I’m sure if something came up that made it stand out as a more important issue than usual, he’d devote a post to decency.

  • ROTFLMLiberalAO @ 16 saod… What did you learn Senior Beep?

    Some people questioned whether Obama could survive the slings and arrows of a general election. I think he demonstrated that he can and will fight if that’s what’s required — without completely abandoning the higher ground he laid claim to earlier. It took him a while to find his feet this time, but the Clinton’s and the Repubs now know he’s capable of defending himself effectively. Next time, I think he’ll react quicker.

    Until then, he’s bought a little time to prove his claim to that higher ground.

  • Anne @ 32: brilliant. I remember that episode very well, and I suspect you nailed it.

    Myself, I wish Obama had stuck to his guns–the charge he was making resonates with people who might like the Clintons on professed substance but don’t trust them on style–but I get the point beep (and I guess ROTF as well) makes that it’s not his bag, so to speak.

    In the spirit of open-thread-ness, and the grand tradition of a liberal who won’t even take his own side in an argument, I commend to you all this excellent American Prospect piece about the legacy of the 1993-94 health care reform effort:

    http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_lessons_of_94

    If Klein is correct and the landscape has shifted in ways so favorable to the cause, then one of my biggest arguments against Sen. Clinton–that she’s too polarizing and/or cowardly to win a big health care reform fight–is seriously weakened. So if she wins, let’s hope he’s right, and that someone uses the pen with which she signs it into law to stab that evil prick Bill Kristol in his scrawny neck.

  • Swan, Kevin seems a dedicated middle-of-the-roader, ’tis true, and certainly not someone unfamiliar with “decency.” I’ve read him since Calpundit days. It just doesn’t seem like a question he’d ask — it’s too squishy a concept to be subjected to his usual rational treatment. But I could well be wrong.

  • In regards to the mentioned article by Stanley Fish… I liked his referenced article from last year actually more helpful:

    Here’s an excerpt: ” … From that fact follows a strategy I would recommend to the Democrats, who seem to believe that they will win in ’08 simply because the Bush presidency has imploded: Run against the other party – not against its candidate or the sitting president (although you should do a little bit of that too), but against what the other party usually does when it gets into office. What it does (based on the record of the past six years) is appoint cabinet members and ambassadors who are either jokes, incompetent cronies or malign subverters of the Constitution.

    the link, if you’re interested in the entire article, .. http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/08/parties-matter/

    Some of it is funny, but true and sad at the same time.

  • At the EPA hearings in the Senate, Barbara Boxer had a great moment when she told the hearing that she was given documents redacted with white duct tape. White f-ing duct tape! The lengths the Bushies have been going to hide their shenanigans has been comical, in a disturbing way, but redacting with white duct tape? I’m waiting to see if they’ve been using white-out on their computer screens to redact other documents.

  • dajafi, thanks for the Klein link – great article. It is, of course, the sad oft-repeated tale of all of the things Democrats do wrong over and over. Yes, the failure is ultimately Clinton’s responsibility; it was his plan on his watch. But as the article notes, everyone who has tried has failed, and FDR was scared to even try.

    one factor i think he understates to a degree is that the Clinton presidency came at a time when all of the old rules were changing, and no one on our side quite knew the new rules yet. Klein points this out with regard to Republican hardball in the Senate – the end of bipartisanship as the radicals like Kristol stole the party. but it was more than that. no one had really seen a campaign like Harry & Louise. it was like when Carter suddenly found inflation and unemployment both going up – something economists of the day said shouldn’t happen. there is nothing to turn to, you are on your own in the wilderness.

    today, everyone knows the Harry & Louise ads are coming (although it doesn’t make it easier to deal with).

    the article also points out how all of our supportive groups – Labor, progressive activists, individual issue groups, AARP – cant seem to subjugate their own egos to the collective good. ironically, the Republicans who preach rugged individuality and abhor collectivism as socialistic actually acheive a more collectivist unity in service of their strategic goals. the Clinton plan was sold out by nearly everyone – business switched sides, Dole switched sides, Moynihan switched sides (or, more importantly, was a poor chair).

    finally it strikes me as sad about the process and the country as a whole that bringing foremost experts in economics and health policy in and crafting a bill that benefits from that expertise in a way that revolutionizes health care turns out to be the worst way to go. health care is astoundingly complex with a million moving pieces; it really shouldn’t be cobbled together by people with no expertise. yet Klein largely amasses evidence that the only way to go is more evolutionary, with more compromises, and driven more by politics and policy expertise. the very complexity of health care ensures there will always be plenty for people to take aim at to bring down change. what a sad way to run a country.

  • z, the dean of the school where I got my Masters was one of the specialists on the health care task force. As she explained the plan in a course on healthcare policy in 1998, it made perfect sense, and (as Klein suggests) really would have incorporated the best elements of the worldviews right and left bring to this debate. Unfortunately, they didn’t get to sit the public down in a 12-person class and lay out why it was a good way to go. And the tactics of the group’s leaders–probably less either Clinton than Ira Magaziner–so turned off the ego-driven senators that the merits of the plan were almost totally irrelevant to its fate.

    It also didn’t help that the Clintons went for the toughest assignment at the exact wrong time: as Klein writes, they’d alienated labor over NAFTA, squandered the considerable political capital they’d come in with (partly on bad tactical grounds, partly in the entirely commendable push for the DRA), and wasted essentially the first year of their administration getting the plan “perfect.” He doesn’t note, but probably should have, that Bill chose to push health care reform before tackling welfare reform–which I think he could have had a decisive win on in 1993-94 while producing a much better piece of legislation than the eventual 1996 law (which itself wasn’t entirely awful, but was more punitive than would have been ideal). A win there would have strengthened his hand on health care, IMO.

    In a larger sense, the conflict you refer to–let’s call it expertise versus legislative sausage-making–was the story of policymaking in the 20th century. (Not the 21st, at least not yet, because the Bush/Cheney/DeLay crowd crapped on both in favor of raw self-serving incoherence.) I hope that the awful experience of the Bush years restores some weight and luster to “the experts,” but I also think there’s a place for the people’s representatives, even given their inevitable flaws.

  • “Anything to add?”

    Bush: Bin Laden Will Be ‘Gotten By A President’ (But Probably Not This One)
    http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/24/bin-laden-bush-caught/

    “President Bush tells Fox News in ‘George W. Bush: Fighting to the Finish,’ a documentary scheduled to air Sunday night. Fox reports:
    Bush says in the interview he’s confident bin Laden ultimately will be found.
    ‘He’ll be gotten by a president,’ Bush says.

    Hey, that’s great, George. Any other problem/mess you want to pawn off to the next prez?

    Oh, wait, I forgot:

    EVERY-FUCKING-THING!!

  • T Hurlbutt@15 hark @19
    I’m a registered Democrat. Have been since the first time I could vote.
    Voted in every primary.
    If I could vote in primaries without affixing a label by which morons like Fisher could assume they know what I think about everything I would.
    Thus, independents in many states miss out on a key opportunity to shape the world they live in.

    States where Independents CAN vote in primaries are entirely sensible people. The only advantage of belonging to a party then is to run for office or be a cog in the machine. A very, very acquired taste.

    Maryland Democrats are so scared of Independents they passed a law that anyone running for office independent of any recognized party label shall be marked “Unaffiliated” on the ballot. You know, nobody loves them. They are shunned. The parties refused to let these nutjobs join.
    The narcissism of the two parties is revolting.

  • Comments are closed.