Are Democrats pulling a Jedi mind trick on Health Care Reform?

Are Democrats about to dramatically improve and pass what so far has looked like a deeply flawed and corrupt bill by adding a strong public option or Medicare buy in?

Think about it: only an idiot would really think the Republicans would support real health care reform that took money out of the pockets of insurance companies, and if the debate started with single payer, a public option, or opening medicare to all, enough Blue Dogs and DLCers would have joined the GOP to sustain a filibuster and kill the bill. Likewise, the media would not have been kind to such a bill and would have parroted the GOP talking points about the evils of socialism.

So what do you do? Get over the initial hurdles with a bill that is nearly identical to one signed into law by a Republican governor. Republicans will protest it anyway, but swing voters might notice their hypocrisy, which would limit the effectiveness of GOP protests.

Once the bill got past the procedural hurdles to the point that it could be done with reconciliation, it still does no good to telegraph the punch, but it does help to get the public to visibly ''twist their arms'' with ever growing demands for a public option.

Then if they substitute a strong public option, Medicare buy in, or hell, even single payer at the last second, the protests of the right and their parrots in the media won't matter. The public will get it, and thank the Democrats for it at the polls in November.

It would have a side benefit as far as all the money insurance companies threw at Democrats to sway their vote. The Democrats would get to keep that money, and what could the insurance companies say? That they expected a quid pro quo? A second benefit would be that Democrats could honestly say their vote on this could not be bought in spite of all the money that was showered on them and it could reset the relationship between pols and lobbyists.

This scenario would require a lot of coordination and discipline, which the Democrats as a party rarely demonstrated apart from voting for the worst excrement of the Bush administration, and maybe the current talk of a public option is just shining us on until they pass a corporate give away--but maybe, just maybe, these aren't the droids you're looking for.

Move along.

Move along.


UPDATE: I was wrong. March 29, 2010

To POLITICO: on "Anxious Democrats"

POLITICO posted a story discussing Democrats in Congress supposedly dithering over whether to tack to the left or center in the upcoming 2010 election. I posted this in the comments:

Unlike the Republicans who must choose between their base of racists, religious extremists, and economic royalists and independents who find them morally repulsive, the Democrats could easily appeal to both their progressive base and independents by implementing progressive policies that broad majorities of Americans would support:

• Reregulate Wall Street & prosecute and imprison those at the top who knowingly committed fraud.
  

• Break up any business big enough to buy or intimidate our democracy.
  

• Enact a Wall Street transaction tax steep enough to kill speculation, and force investors to place long term bets on companies they actually hope will succeed (instead of creating one pump & dump bubble after another).
  

• Base our trade policy on what is good for American families, not speculators on Wall Street.
  

• Pass health care reform that does more to help middle and working class families than it does to protect and enrich insurance companies.
  

• Enact a separation of corporation and state when it comes to foreign policy, so we don't overthrow governments or invade countries just because some oil company, banana plantation, or sweatshop owner got their panties in a knot because the leader of a country drove a hard bargain for their natural resources or raised the minimum wage. This change alone would make it harder for terrorist groups to recruit.
  

• End privatization of government functions that are invariably the result of corruption that in turn then uses our tax dollars to fund further corruption.
  

• Invest more in alternative energy than we do in invading and occupying oil producing and pipeline countries. Besides giving us an endless supply of nearly free energy, it would break the power of oil companies to dictate our foreign policy and impoverish countries like Saudi Arabia that use their oil wealth fund terrorist groups.
  

• Listen to teachers for advice about how to fix schools instead of scammers who hope to make money on privatizing them.
  

• Legalize marijuana and deal with other illegal drugs by reducing demand and through treatment--exactly the way the wealthy and politicians deal with their kids when get caught with the stuff.
  

And that is the bottom line to all progressive positions. Treat your fellow citizens the way you would members of your own family, not overly indulgent, but not as sheep to be fleeced or led to the slaughter either.

If Democrats did things like this, were guided by that principle, or even appeared to be, they would not have to worry about 2010 or any election after that.

Unfortunately, by trying to split the baby between the needs of the working and middle class and the rapacious, insatiable demands of the sociopathic trust fund babies on Wall Street, they look weak and unwilling to stand up for their core principles at best, and at worst, as corrupt as the Republicans only with the lipstick of soothing social justice platitudes instead of the shrill, sharp absolutes of the religious right.

Neither option will get the Democratic base out, nor will it inspire independents to vote for Democrats unless they decide based on a coin toss.

We need WAR TAX to force GOP to choose between war & ''no new taxes''

David Obey has stumbled upon a way to further sink the GOP.

He warned Obama that if he continued the Afghanistan War, he would institute a ''war surtax'' of 1% for most people and 5% for the wealthiest to pay for it.. He should add a bracket for businesses too.

I would formalize it and add that when ever troops are sent into harms way, the tax is triggered and stays in place until the war is over, and the rates could be adjusted annually depending on the actual cost of the war.

Bush accidentally set the precedent for this when he continually asked for war spending as supplementals instead of as part of his regular budget (so he could claim his budget wasn't creating as big a deficit as it really was).

Republicans in Congress who want to see any war continue as long as possible should be asked if they support such a proposal to pay for current and future wars or whether we should continue to charge our grandchildren for them.

The current cost of our two ongoing wars:

It was around $937 billion when I posted it, so divided by the 308 million people who live in the United States, it would be about $3000, per man, woman and child. That would be lower for most of us if we charged the wealthy a slightly higher percentage than the rest of us.

And that would be on top of what we spend on the military that's in the regular budget.

Separating war spending from the rest of the budget would force Republicans (and business-owned Democrats) to make a Sophie's Choice between two of their cherished policies: endless wars and no new taxes.

I suspect they would try to have it both ways or call for cuts in social programs instead, but since so many people are struggling right now, that might not go over so well.

It would also help people re-connect taxes to actual government action, rather than the current disconnect between what people want, and their GOP pavlovian conditioning to assume any tax increase is bad. Maybe people would start to wonder what percentage of the budget goes to other issues too.

bailout could make Democrats in Congress ''rope a dope'' strategy blow up in their faces

I don't really believe it was a strategy in the first place. A sizable number of Dems are as business-owned as the GOP.

But to the extent they have even bothered to explain their acquiescence with nearly everything Bush has proposed, they have fallen back on saying ''You don't get in the way of someone committing suicide.''

So they vote with the GOP and wait for the natural consequences of those policies to convince the public of how disastrous they are.

But suppose the White House makes the stakes insanely high as they have with the bailout, Democrats do their usual shtick of token complaining and grousing, then vote for the bailout--but Republicans DON'T.

Then the mother of all pork and corruption belongs to the Democrats.

And that is exactly what one right wing pundit said:

"God Himself couldn't have given rank-and-file Republicans a better opportunity to create political space between themselves and the Administration. That's why I want to see 40 Republican 'No' votes in the Senate, and 150+ in the House. If a bailout is to pass, let it be with Democratic votes. Let this be the political establishment (Bush Republicans in the White House + Democrats in Congress) saddling the taxpayers with hundreds of billions in debt (more than the Iraq War, conjured up in a single weekend, and enabled by Pelosi, btw), while principled Republicans say 'No' and go to the country with a stinging indictment of the majority in Congress."

FULL TEXT

As they did with Social Security, Democrats need to draw a hard line, and stop this.

Passing it will not only screw the country but give the GOP a club to beat the Dems with.

Machiavelli: Is candidate of people or corporations stronger?

The GOP and corporate Democrats think they are being clever by sucking up to corporations and Wall Street, but even Machiavelli saw that true strength derives from the consent of the governed, not treating them like suckers while you suck up to the nobles.

They might do well to recall that it took almost 50 years before the Republicans dared attempt to reverse the changes that FDR started, and even then, a sizable percentage of the public still believed in what FDR did. By contrast, the Reagan Revolution is looking (and smelling) like a dead man walking in less than half that time because it was a scam to oppress the people and serve the nobles as Machiavelli would say.

Someone said that the Republicans hope their candidates will do what they say and Democrats hope that their candidates won't. The reason for both is the same--too few actually serve the voters apart from the way a sushi chef serves fish to his customers.

THE PRINCE
Chapter 9

...principality is obtained either by the favour of the people or by the favour of the nobles. Because in all cities these two distinct parties are found, and from this it arises that the people do not wish to be ruled nor oppressed by the nobles, and the nobles wish to rule and oppress the people; and from these two opposite desires there arises in cities one of three results, either a principality, self- government, or anarchy.

A principality is created either by the people or by the nobles, accordingly as one or other of them has the opportunity; for the nobles, seeing they cannot withstand the people, begin to cry up the reputation of one of themselves, and they make him a prince, so that under his shadow they can give vent to their ambitions. The people, finding they cannot resist the nobles, also cry up the reputation of one of themselves, and make him a prince so as to be defended by his authority. He who obtains sovereignty by the assistance of the nobles maintains himself with more difficulty than he who comes to it by the aid of the people, because the former finds himself with many around him who consider themselves his equals, and because of this he can neither rule nor manage them to his liking. But he who reaches sovereignty by popular favour finds himself alone, and has none around him, or few, who are not prepared to obey him.

Besides this, one cannot by fair dealing, and without injury to others, satisfy the nobles, but you can satisfy the people, for their object is more righteous than that of the nobles, the latter wishing to oppress, while the former only desire not to be oppressed. It is to be added also that a prince can never secure himself against a hostile people, because of their being too many, whilst from the nobles he can secure himself, as they are few in number. The worst that a prince may expect from a hostile people is to be abandoned by them; but from hostile nobles he has not only to fear abandonment, but also that they will rise against him; for they, being in these affairs more far- seeing and astute, always come forward in time to save themselves, and to obtain favours from him whom they expect to prevail. Further, the prince is compelled to live always with the same people, but he can do well without the same nobles, being able to make and unmake them daily, and to give or wake away authority when it pleases him.

FULL TEXT

Pelosi REFUSES to discuss how Bush's Iraq oil law screws Iraqis say Antonia Juhasz

If you aren't familiar with Antonia Juhasz, she used to be a staffer for John Conyers and has done excellent work on the Bush economic agenda, neoliberalism, and most importantly, how the Bushies are trying give Iraq's tens of trillions of oil income to his big oil cronies.

She was on Stephanie Miller today, and I called in to ask why more Dems than Kucinich, McDermott and a couple of others weren't discussing how the Hydrocarbon Law Bush is forcing on the Iraqis essentially gives away the store to big oil.


She said that was the million dollar question.

She lives in the Bay area, and Pelosi is actually her rep, but refuses to address this issue. Unfortunately, this is pretty consistent with how other Democratic Party "leaders" react to this question even when asked on camera.

Juhasz didn't know the reason, but her best guess is to help in the '08 election--if the war is still an open wound, the Democrats think they will gain more seats and the White House.

Juhasz didn't say it, but I suspect this is the same reason they aren't impeaching Bush & Cheney or cutting off war funding. Once those problems are fixed, they will be out of the public mind in about thirty seconds, and the GOP can start their rehabilitation PR. After Nixon resigned, Gerald Ford came within spitting distance of holding onto the White House for the GOP.

She also mentioned the more obvious and prosaic reason: corporate money talks in DC, and the rest of us are at best annoying mimes.

She said Congress got some secret report from the White House on Iraq's oil that said we will need to keep troops their for the foreseeable future to protect the oil, so I looked it up:

But the report, obtained by the Blotter on ABCNews.com, says the issues the three sides are too far apart to agree on are the "role of foreign companies in the oil sector" and the division of the oil profits.

The report also includes a grim assessment of the possibility of an increase of oil output in Iraq despite its huge reserves.

It concludes that security in Iraq is so unstable "it is unlikely that any major foreign oil company will be able to invest in Iraq during 2008 (unless they are heavily underwritten by the U.S. government)."

FULL TEXT

More on the OIL THEFT MOTIVE FOR IRAQ WAR

Iraqis vow mutiny over Bush OIL THEFT LAW

Why aren't the Democrats denouncing and investigating this Hydrocarbon Law that Iraqis don't want but Bush is forcing on them?

Gen. Jay Garner, the first guy Bush appointed to run Iraq said trying to privatize their oil would lead to violence. He was right, but the Bushies are still trying to do it anyway.

The blood of our troops and the Iraqis is on the hands of the Bush administration but if the Democrats as a group fail to speak out on this economic war crime, it will be on their hands too.

KEY EXCERPTS:



Iraq unions vow 'mutiny' over oil law

"This law cancels the great achievements of the Iraq people," Subhi al-Badri, head of the Iraqi Federation of Union Councils, told the al-Sharqiyah TV station. He referred specifically to laws that nationalized Iraq's oil sector.

Iraq holds 115 billion barrels of proven reserves, the third largest in the world, and likely much more when the country is fully explored.

It could produce more than the 2 million barrels per day, and many are pushing the oil law as a means of solidifying investment in the sector. The law, as drafted, allows for foreign access to the oil, a line that must not be crossed, the oil unions say.

"If the Iraqi Parliament approves this law, we will resort to mutiny," he said. "This law is a bomb that may kill everyone. Iraqi oil does not belong to any certain side. It belongs to all future generations."

FULL TEXT

More on OIL THEFT motive for Iraq War

POLL: Is it taxation without representation if those we elect ignore the public will?

There are a number of issues both parties do this on like trade and immigration.

The Democrats in particular ignore their base on these core issues:

• the Iraq War

• potential Iran War

• impeaching Bush & Cheney

• healthcare reform that eliminates insurance companies or at least makes them subservient to the public good.

In some ways, we have exactly what Bush gave the Iraqis: the appearance of democracy that is intended to anything but actually represent our interests.

Maybe the only thing that's changed since 1776 is who's doing the screwing and how subtly they are doing it.

Is it taxation without representation if those elected ignore public will?
	YES--it is taxation without representation. We are suckered into thinking we have a choice then just get screwed from a slightly different position.
	NO--business interests are just more effective at working the system than us, so it's our own fault.
	NO--people like the glacial, inperceptible change the Democrats pursue. That's what people really dislike about the Patriot Act--passed too darned fast.
	other
Free polls from Pollhost.com

TOON: the anti-war party?

Apologies to Tom Tomorrow:
(his old toon, my new words).

Click pic to see full sized

this modern world tom tomorrow goofus gallant iraq war wmd terrorism oil withdrawal president george w bush cartooneditorial cartoon dlc democratic leadership council republican GOP conservative corruption occupation halliburton political humor colonialism white mans burden professor smartass iraq democratlies peak oil propaganda corporationfascism democracy public relations foreign policy al qaeda northwoods worst president ever failure war criminal idiot retard humor comedy funny smartass comments resistance censored news rebel iraq appropriation bill

Dems suckered us with Bush-like Bait and switch

Some of us have often complained that the Democrats have failed to learn anything from the Bushies. Unfortunately, they just demonstrated that they learned how to snooker the public with bait & switch.

Remember after 9/11 we were immediately told bin Laden did it?

Then somehow Saddam became part of the discussion.

Then bin Laden fades and is dropped from the talking points most of the time.

And the action was all about Saddam and Iraq.

Fast forward to 2006:

We elected the Democrats to do two things: end the war and impeach Bush and Cheney.

They say impeachment is off the table and knowing whispers are spread that it will be harder to bring the troops home safely if there's a big impeachment hooha.

So we wait for action on ending the war.

This Iraq appropriation comes up, and they give Bush more money than he wants, but attach benchmarks that are things Bush wants anyway, and a non-binding timeline.

That seems like a sellout until Bush vetoes it, then it seems like it might have been a smart way to make Bush look unreasonable--if they keep sending him that same bill with the mere suggestion of ending the war.

But like Osama bin Laden, the anti-war part drops out of the equation, and they just gave Bush the money with no deadline strings attached.

And just as Bush pulls out the voodoo rattle of Osama to make the rubes pay attention, the Democrats will pull out the anti-war rattle and shake it at us when they need votes or money.

Then once we have cast the ballot or written the check, they will quietly put it away, and go back about their corporate masters' business.

bait and switch osama bin laden saddam hussein harry reid vichy dem oil president george w bush dlc democratic leadership council corruption occupation colonialism white mans burden professor smartass democratlies peak oil corporation fascism impeach impeachment withdrawal democracy worst president ever failure war criminal idiot iraq appropriation bill smartass comments resistance censored news

POEM FOR DEM SURRENDER: Ballad of the Dry Powder

I wrote the poem below for some past democratic capitulation when they hadn't even bothered with the token resistance they put up this time.

It is no longer enough to email, write, or call your congressman and senators. You must GO to their LOCAL OFFICE.

Every congressman has an office in their district, and every senator has offices a spread around the state so constituents can go their to be patronized and ignored in person.

Don't make an appointment or dress up, just show up and ask a couple of questions:

• When will you end the war?

• When will you impeach Bush?

You don't have to yell or argue, but when the staffer finishes handing you a hatful of bullshit, simply say, "Do you believe that yourself?"

Our system is profoundly broken when we have to scream and stamp our feet to get our elected representatives to actually represent us. Before we can fix it, we need to make these steaming sacks of shit in neckties fear us more than Wall Street or the corporations whose boards they hope to sit on when they leave Congress.

Find their office and go.

FIND YOUR REPRESENTATIVE

FIND YOUR SENATOR

Ballad of the Dry Powder

When we fought King George, Colonel Harry Reid was sent to gaurd a mountain pass.
He had twenty men, the high ground, and a good view of all possible routes of attack,
but just one small keg of gunpowder for all their muskets blasts.

Each soldier would have powder to let just ten bullets fly.
General Washington gave thought to this when he bid them good-bye.
He said, "Take care boys, and keep your powder dry!"
He would soon regret those words for they led good men to die.

One night as Reid's boys were sitting around the campfire at their post up in the pass,
a grizzly bear got scent of them and into their camp crashed.
Johnny grabbed his musket and aimed at the bear's boulder of a head,
but before he squeezed the trigger, Col. Reid jumped up and said,
"Stand fast! Our bullets are for Redcoats, save our powder for them instead!"
Johnny held his fire and the bear tore out his throat.

As the bear began to eat him, the other soldiers grabbed their guns,
but Reid said, "Fight him if you must, but no bullets should let fly!
Washington has ordered we must keep our powder dry."

So they turned their muskets round and swatted with the butts,
they pulled their Bowie knives and they tried to slash his guts.
The bear just took the beating, but he would stand the cuts.
He turned on his attackers clawing flesh and chewing heads.
By the time that he was finished, half Reid's men were lying dead.

Reid thought it a victory for that keg was tight and dry.
Every bit of powder meant another Redcoat boy would die.

When the dead were buried, and the night lightened to day,
The watch saw Indians approaching with warpaint and sharpened blades.
Bob whispered to Reid, "They are fighting for the crown."
"That may be so," said Reid, "but when Redcoats come around,
we need every bit of powder to shoot each soldier down."

Bob was going to answer when a bullet hit his lung.
The Indians weren't as stingy with their own powder drum.
Harry took the powder and he began to run.
Half his men were killed again,
just five left from when he had begun.

"Now we can fight," he said.
"We have plenty for each gun."

As the day was fading and they lay up there in wait,
a half dozen Redcoats approached them, lined up perfect in their sights.

Tom pulled back his hammer and almost fired a shot,
but Harry grabbed his barrel and said this squad need not be fought.
"A bigger army's coming, and no powder can be lost."

"But if we all are dead, then who will fire the shot?"
Tom tried to wrest rifle, but in the struggle it went off.
The Redcoats were upon them, and then all five were caught.

While he tied their hands, the British sargeant asked why they hadn't fired a shot.
Harry Reid said nice and loudly, "I cannot tell a lie,
Gen. Washington himself told me to keep my powder dry."

"But if you shot the bear, your men would have lived to fight.
And if you shot the Indians, and put a bullet in my eye,
you could have stole our powder and have more to be kept dry."

The soldier took his bayonet, and Harry had to die.
Then he killed the others,but man he told to fly,
and take with him the powder keg
with Reid's head in it to keep the powder dry.

harry reid vichy dem oil president george w bush dlc democratic leadership council corruption occupation colonialism white mans burden professor smartass democratlies peak oil corporation fascism impeach impeachment withdrawal democracy worst president ever failure war criminal idiot iraq appropriation bill smartass comments resistance censored news

Edwards apologized with a lie

In an editorial in the Washington Post, John Edwards offered this version of his Iraq War vote apology:

The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the president -- and that I was being given by our intelligence community -- wasn't the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war.

John Edwards. "The Right Way in Iraq"
The Washington Post. Nov 13, 2005.

That's very nice.

The only problem is, Dick Durbin who served on the senate intelligence committee with Edwards said they had the information to know Bush was lying and exaggerating about the intelligence.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/28/sen-durbin-dro...

Senator Bob Graham was disturbed enough by the difference between the public rhetoric and what the committee was hearing that he asked CIA director George Tenet to draft a public letter summarizing the intel and analysis on Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

Tenet slanted the letter toward Saddam being more dangerous than he was, but he had to admit that Saddam would not have used WMD against us or given them to terrorists who did unless his life and grip on power were in immediate jeopardy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2312369.stm

And anyone serving on the senate intelligence committee might have a passing knowledge of our ability to retaliate against a WMD attack would take fewer of our 10,000 nukes than we lose to spoilage every year, they might be old enough to remember Mutually Assured Destruction that kept the Soviets at bay when they had as many or more nukes than us, and they might know the rest of the world is acutely aware that we are the only nation that has ever used a nuclear weapon--that senator might wonder why Saddam would be a threat to us if he got nukes anyway, apart from the action movie level view of Arabs as bad guys who live to run in front of our guns and be shot.

Individuals may go on suicide missions, but nations do not, nor do thugs who worked hard to get and hold power like Saddam.

So in essence, what Edwards didn't know when he voted that he knows now is that the war would become unpopular, not that the intelligence was faulty, which was not the case. The same is true for any politician who uses the same excuse.

This shows a serious flaw in the approach of the Democrats: they want to tell lies that are less extreme and mean than the republican ones, and fewer of them if possible, but still want to keep the real reasons for doing things and deliberations behind closed doors where the "little people" like us can't interfere.

The Democrats on the intel committee who voted for the war have shown that's what they are doing, and even those who voted against the war are showing that loyalty to the good old boys is greater than loyalty to our country. If they were motivated by patriotism, they could broken their vow of secrecy and the courts likely would have backed them up as they did with Daniel Ellsberg when he leaked the Pentagon Papers. That leak would have been in the public interest and would have saved hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives.

Edwards says he wants to do things for poor people, and I believe him. I believe he would do them. LBJ did things for poor people too, but the deals he made with the corporate suits for war in Vietnam was a price we shouldn't have had to pay for the good things LBJ did. And if those same people show up at President Edwards door asking for a war in Iran or Venezuela, I'm not so sure he'd give them the boot in the ass they deserve.

apology john edwards dick durbin george tenet wmd intelligence iraq war resolution senate intelligence committee democrats candidate