Friday, June 12, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com


Steve Parker: This weekend's www.TalkRadioOne.com automotive shows Top
Join us LIVE Saturday and Sunday at 5pm Pacific time on www.TalkRadioOne.com for our exclusive LIVE motoring and motorsports talk shows! Steve Parker's The Car Nut Show Saturday starting at 5pm Pacific Special guest: Bruce Meyer, one of America's premier car collectors, the man responsible for hot rods being shown at the Pebble Beach Concours d'Elegance, talks about the upcoming Father's Day Concours on Rodeo Drive ... in Beverly Hills. There's a new man in-charge at GM, someone who admits, "I don't know anything about cars!" Chrysler is now officially part of Fiat, so can I buy the Alfa Romeo 8C supercar at a Dodge dealer next year? Great move: Fiat CEO Marchionne makes former Toyota exec Jim Press the top man at Chrysler. Ferrari is making a hybrid. The US is "churning" the vast government fleet, and buying more cars and trucks from Ford than GM or Chrysler ... And Steve reviews the amazing little Honda FIT. Be sure to call-in and join the action! Honda's FIT, like Toyota's Yaris and Nissan's Versa, is a new-generation small car for the US which has seen success in its native Japan Steve Parker's World Racing Roundup Sunday starting at 5pm This weekend, it's the greatest sports car race in the world, the 24 Hours of LeMans, and there's lots of live coverage of this monumental event on radio, TV and the Web for us to talk about. Steve reviews the movies "LeMans" and "Grand Prix," "the essentials" for racing fans - and those you'd like to become racing fans! F1, NASCAR, IndyCar and even NHRA continue to produce the same winners week-after-week ... how can racing survive this and the cutbacks coming from Detroit car-makers, too? Be sure to call- in and let us know what you think! Peugeot (shown) and Audi will be running turbocharged V12 diesel engines at LeMans this weekend in the world's most prestigious sports car race That's this Saturday and Sunday at 5pm USA Pacific time on www.TalkRadioOne.com! More on Cars
 
6 More Bodies Found In Air France Jet Crash Top
RECIFE, Brazil — Six more bodies were recovered from the Atlantic Ocean where an Air France jet crashed, Brazilian officials said Friday, as the race to find the black boxes and gather key evidence from human remains and debris gained urgency. On the coast, investigators examined corpses and received the first wreckage: two plane seats, oxygen masks, water bottles, and several structural pieces, some no bigger than a man's hand. Almost two weeks after the crash, Brazil's military said the search is becoming increasingly difficult and a tentative June 25 date for halting efforts has been set. Beginning Monday, officials will meet every two days to evaluate when to stop the search, depending on whether they are still finding bodies or debris. The black boxes _ whose emergency locator beacons begin to fade after 30 days _ along with debris and bodies from the jet, all contain crucial clues as to how and why Air France Flight 447 went down en route from Rio de Janeiro to Paris. Navy Vice Adm. Edison Lawrence said the Brazilians "have information" that a French ship has found six more bodies _ which would bring the total found to 50. It was not clear when these bodies were recovered, Lawrence said he thought it was either Thursday or Friday. It wasn't immediately possible to verify this with French officials. William Waldock, who teaches air crash investigation at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Prescott, Arizona, said the ability for a body to float in water _ and remain visible to searchers _ depends highly on water temperatures and sea life in the area. According to the Brazilian military, the water temperature in the areas they are looking is averaging about 82 degrees (28 degrees Celsius) _ warm water that speeds up the process of a body surfacing, floating, and then sinking once again, Waldock said. "At this point, it's not really surprising you are hearing them (the Brazilian military) talking about an end to the search," he said. In water temperatures like those in the search area, Waldock said an intact body could likely float for two or three weeks _ Air France Flight 447 went down May 31 with 228 on board. Those warm waters also mean there is a lot of marine life in the area and "they'll break a body down faster." A body, once torn open, will quickly sink, Waldock noted. Medical authorities examining the 16 bodies already brought on to land in Recife have refused to release information about the state of the corpses. Meanwhile, military ships and planes continued to struggle in worsening weather to find more bodies and debris. Brazilian ships didn't pick up more bodies on Friday, but they did find more debris, the details of which weren't disclosed. The most important piece recovered to date is the virtually intact vertical stabilizer, which could give the French investigative agency BEA solid clues about what prompted the crash. "The debris will be at the disposition of the BEA and they will decide what to do with it," said Brazilian Air Force Gen. Ramon Cardoso. He also said French ships equipped with sonar looking for underwater wreckage were approaching an area extending out some 70 kilometers (44 miles) from the last known position of the plane _ within the main search zone. The plane's black boxes _ perhaps the best hope of definitively learning what went wrong _ remain elusive. A French nuclear submarine is scouring the search area in the hopes of hearing pings from the boxes' emergency beacons. The first of two U.S. locator listening devices won't arrive until Sunday. Meanwhile, the weather in the mid-Atlantic is bad and getting worse. Rains have reduced visibility for ships, and cloud cover has blocked satellite imagery. So far, there is no evidence of an explosion or terrorist act, but a number of clues that describe systemic failures on the plane. A burst of 24 automatic messages sent during its final minutes of flight show the autopilot was not on, but it was not clear if it was switched off by the pilots or stopped working due to conflicting airspeed readings, perhaps caused by iced-over speed sensors. If the black boxes are not found, the cause could still be determined _ though with much more effort. The Brazilians have deferred all questions on the investigation to the French, who haven't said how they'll handle the wreckage. BEA spokeswoman Martine del Bono said she "absolutely can't respond now" to questions about reconstructing the aircraft from debris. She wouldn't comment Friday on whether this is because not enough debris has been collected to make the effort worthwhile. Without any other solid clues, investigators have focused on the possibility that external speed monitors iced over and gave false readings to the plane's computers. Air France ordered these Pitot tubes replaced on the long-range Airbus planes on April 27 after pilots noted a loss of airspeed data in a few flights on Airbus A330 and A340 models, he said. ___ Marco Sibaja reported this story from Recife and Bradley Brooks from Rio de Janeiro. AP writer Elaine Ganley in Paris contributed to this report.
 
AKMuckraker: Palin, Letterman, and the Double Standard About Double Standards. Top
We all heard it. Sarah Palin on The Today Show with Matt Lauer... After a brief discussion of the gas line that glossed over Alaska's new unholy alliance with its old foe Exxon, the topic changed. Lauer: Can we talk about some of the other ways you've been in the news lately, and you know about this. There's been this feud this week with Late Show... Palin: (interrupting) If we must... Lauer: I know.... But there's been a feud this week with David Letterman about some comment he made... They go on to discuss the issue. Then at 3:37 in the interview, something interesting happened. Palin looks down at the Blackberry she is holding in her hand. Palin: Let me read to you something that I received in the middle of the night, and email I received from somebody who's not a (dismissive hand wave) known feminist, not someone who is an activist, but this I think speaks to the issue. She then reads the letter. If we are led to believe by Palin that she really doesn't want to talk about Letterman....that she'd much rather be talking about the gas line, and only talks about Letterman "if we must," then why does she have a Blackberry in her lap all set up with an email on the screen ready to be read aloud, the subject of which is....David Letterman? Palin was totally prepared and ready to talk on the subject, but took the opportunity to paint the picture that Lauer was the one bringing it up, much to her feigned dismay. In another lesson on how you can be right in principle (yes, the joke was tasteless and inappropriate as Letterman admitted) and still totally blow it (yes, the Palins now look even worse than Letterman), here's how she reacted when Lauer asked about the statement issued by her spokeswoman Meg Stapleton: Lauer: (reading) "The Palin's have no intention of providing a ratings boost for David Letterman by appearing on his show. Plus, it would be wise to keep Willow away from David Letterman." I'd like you to explain what that meant. Are you suggesting that David Letterman can't be trusted around a 14-year old girl? Palin: Hey, take it however you want to take it... So if we "want to take it " that she thinks David Letterman is a pedophile, that's OK with her? Lauer gets this, and follows up. Lauer: But is that not, in fact, in bad taste also governor if you're...if you're suggesting that a 62-year old man can't be trusted... Palin: It's not in bad taste. It's not in bad taste. (pause) Palin: Hey, maybe he couldn't be trusted because Willow's has had enough of this type of comments. Maybe Willow would want to...uh....uh...uh..react to him in a way that..uh...would catch him off guard. That's one way to interpret such a comment. In her clumsy attempt to justify this comment, she basically ends up implying that Willow is the one who can't be trusted to act appropriately. Then she goes on to talk about the "real problem," the oft used Palin talking point - the double standard. The problem is... Here's the problem, Matt. It's the double standard that's been applied here. [snip] ...remember in the campaign, Barack Obama said "Family's off limits. You don't talk about my family, and 'the candidate who must be obeyed'....everybody adhered to that, and they did leave his family alone, and they haven't done that on the other side of the ticket, and it has continued to this day. So that's a political double standard. Since somehow, Barack Obama got dragged into the drama, just for clarity, I looked up his quote from the campaign about families being off-limits, so we can examine this supposed double standard. Here it is: I have heard some of the news on this and so let me be as clear as possible. I have said before and I will repeat again, I think people's families are off limits, and people's children are especially off limits. This shouldn't be part of our politics, it has no relevance to governor Palin's performance as a governor or her potential performance as a vice president. And so I would strongly urge people to back off these kinds of stories. You know my mother had me when she was 18. And how family deals with issues and teenage children that shouldn't be the topic of our politics and I hope that anybody who is supporting me understands that is off limits . So, in reality, where most of us live, Obama was actually defending her family specifically. Now that we've cleared that up, let's have a little thought experiment. Let's just suppose that someone had asked David Letterman if, when he told that joke, he meant to insinuate that Willow Palin has promiscuous sex with older men, and he had said, "Hey, take it however you want to take it." You know...since we're talking about double standards.
 
Donald Remy, Obama's Nominee To Be Army's Top Lawyer, Withdraws Top
President Obama's choice to be general counsel of the Army, Donald M. Remy, withdrew his nomination late Friday.
 
3 Gitmo Detainees Sent Home To Saudi Arabia Top
WASHINGTON — U.S. officials say three Guantanamo Bay detainees have been sent home to Saudi Arabia. The Justice Department say the trio will be subject to judicial review in Saudi Arabia before they participate in a rehabilitation program administered by the Saudi government. With the latest transfer, the U.S. has removed 10 detainees from Guantanamo in the past week, sending four to Bermuda, one to Chad, one to Iraq, and one to face trial in New York City. That leaves 229 detainees still at the U.S. military detention center in Cuba. The three men sent to Saudi Arabia are Khalid Saad Mohammed, Abdalaziz Kareem Salim Al Noofayaee and Ahmed Zaid Salim Zuhair. More on Saudi Arabia
 
In Search Of The Bizarre And Dangerous Stone Fish (VIDEO) Top
In this video from "Dangerous Encounters with Brady Barr," the National Geographic host goes in search of the venomous stonefish in Australia. More on Australia
 
Robert Naiman: Jane Hamsher's Call to Action Against the War/IMF Supplemental Top
Can Jane Hamsher's internet army teach Rahm Emmanuel and Timothy Geithner a lesson about accepting the input of progressive Democrats? That would be change I could believe in. Here she makes the case against progressive Democrats caving in to leadership pressure that they vote for the War/IMF Supplemental: Here's the lesson I want Rahm Emmanuel and Timothy Geithner to learn. To paraphrase another President from Illinois: you can piss on all of the progressive Democrats some of the time, and some of the progressive Democrats all of the time, but you cannot piss on all of the progressive Democrats, all of the time. What makes the present situation particularly outrageous is this: the White House and the House leadership now want progressive Democrats in the House to abandon their constituents, their commitments, and their principles and vote for the War/IMF supplemental. But when progressive Democrats tried to have input into the process earlier, they were locked out by the leadership, on orders from the White House and Treasury. Representative Jim McGovern tried to introduce an amendment on the war supplemental requiring the Pentagon to submit to Congress an exit strategy from Afghanistan. But McGovern's amendment was not even allowed to be considered. As a freestanding bill [ H.R.2404 ], McGovern's amendment has 85 Democratic and Republican co-sponsors. Representative Maxine Waters and forty other Democrats presented a package of commonsense reforms to U.S. policy at the International Monetary Fund. But they were not allowed by the House leadership to offer any amendments - that was the whole point of sneaking $108 billion for the IMF into the Senate version of the supplemental - to evade normal legislative process in the House. On Thursday, House-Senate conferees made their deal on the war supplemental. They agreed to include Treasury's request for $108 billion dollars for the International Monetary Fund, the bulk of which will almost certainly be used for full bail-outs of European banks from their risky bets in Eastern Europe. But in the conference report, the House-Senate conferees did not agree to any of the four demands for IMF reform put forward by 41 House Democrats, led by Representative Maxine Waters. On June 3, 40 other Democrats joined Waters in sending a letter to the House appropriators, asking for IMF reform language to be included in any IMF appropriation. Specifically, the 41 Democrats asked for: - language to ensure that the funds allocated by Congress for global stimulus are used for stimulatory, and not contractionary, purposes. [That is, the money should not be used as leverage to demand austerity policies such as government budget cuts and high interest rates.] - language requiring the U.S. Executive Director to the IMF to ensure that some of the revenue from the planned gold sales and/or other sources of income will be used to provide at least $5 billion in non-debt-creating assistance to the world's poorest countries - either via debt relief or grants. - language requiring the U.S. Executive Director to the IMF to ensure parliamentary approval of all IMF loans. [So that IMF agreements can't be used to undermine democratic process in recipient countries.] - language to ensure greater transparency and public availability of documents within a reasonable time period. [So that people can see what government officials - from developed as well as developing countries - are doing in IMF board meetings and in negotiating agreements mandating changes to government policy in recipient countries.] A summary of the conference report is here . The full conference report is here . Here's what the summary says about the IMF: International Monetary Fund (IMF) 1. To enable the IMF to respond to grave threats to the stability of the international monetary system, particularly in developing countries severely impacted by the financial crisis, the bill provides an increase in the U.S. quota in the IMF of roughly 5 billion in Special Drawing Rights valued at about $8 billion. The bill also provides for loans to the IMF, as requested, to enable the U.S. to increase its share of the New Arrangements to Borrow, which establishes a set of credit lines extended to the IMF, from approximately $10 billion (6.6 billion in SDRs) to the equivalent of $100 billion. 2. The bill authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to agree to the sale of nearly 13 million ounces of IMF gold which will finance an endowment the return on which will fund a portion of IMF administrative expenses and expand the IMF's investment authority. A portion of the sale of gold (at least $4 billion) would also be used to address the short-term financing needs of low-income countries. As you can see, there is no mention in the summary of policy reforms on ensuring that IMF funds go for stimulus rather than economic contraction, no mention of transparency, no mention of parliamentary approval. [There's no mention of these issues in the full conference report either - the IMF part starts on page 142.] Regarding low-income countries, the summary refers to "short-term financing," implying loans that would add to poor country debt, rather than debt relief and grants, as 41 Democrats called for in their June 3 letter. Moreover, even this figure is $4 billion, 20% less than called for in the June 3 letter. Thus, the demands 41 Democrats made on June 3 regarding the IMF appropriation have been ignored. If these Democrats want to be taken seriously by Treasury about IMF reform, they should vote no on the war supplemental with the IMF funding included. If they vote yes, they're communicating to the U.S. Treasury Department that they're not willing to fight for their demands. And that would validate Treasury's longstanding view that it can safely ignore progressive Democrats in Congress regarding U.S. policy at the IMF and the World Bank. If progressive Democrats vote no, and the IMF funding is defeated, then Treasury will have to go through normal Congressional process to get the money. And that would mean that the criticisms of the 41 Democrats would get a full airing, and they would have an opportunity to try to amend the legislation. Twenty-two of these 41 Democrats voted no on the war supplemental in May. Here's what we know about their positions now, thanks to FireDogLake : Tammy Baldwin: expected to vote no again. Yvette Clarke: expected to vote no again. John Conyers: expected to vote no again. Donna Edwards: expected to vote no again. Keith Ellison: current position uncertain. Sam Farr: expected to vote no again. Bob Filner: certain to vote no again; signed a Dear Colleague letter with Dennis Kucinich against IMF funding in the supplemental. Alan Grayson: expected to vote no again. Raul Grijalva: expected to vote no again. Luis Gutierrez: expected to vote no again. Michael Honda: current position uncertain. Jay Inslee: expected to vote no again. Dennis Kucinich: certain to vote no again; signed letters against war funding and IMF funding in the supplemental. Barbara Lee: expected to vote no again. John Lewis: expected to vote no again. James McGovern: certain to vote no again; told the Wall Street Journal he was voting no. Donald Payne: current position uncertain. Jan Schakowsky: current position uncertain. Maxine Waters: expected to vote no again. Diane Watson: expected to vote no again. Mel Watt: current position uncertain. Lynn Woolsey: certain to vote no again; signed a letter with Kucinich against the war funding. To summarize: Keith Ellison , Michael Honda , Donald Payne , Jan Schakowsky , and Mel Watt voted no on the war supplemental in May, and then signed a letter saying that money for the IMF should have IMF reforms attached. But with the House now scheduled to vote early next week on the same war supplemental with money for an unreformed IMF, they have yet to state that they will vote no. If you would like to ask them where they stand, you can use FDL's " Citizen Whip Tool ." Eighteen of the 41 Democrats who wrote against funding an unreformed IMF voted for the war supplemental in May (one of the 41 was a non-voting Member.) Here's what we know about their positions now: Robert Brady: expected to vote yes. Corinne Brown: current position uncertain. André Carson: current position uncertain. Danny Davis: current position uncertain. Chaka Fattah: current position uncertain. Marcia Fudge: expected to vote yes. Charles Gonzalez: current position uncertain. Al Green: current position uncertain. Phil Hare: current position uncertain. Alcee Hastings: expected to vote yes. Maurice Hinchey: current position uncertain. Jesse Jackson: expected to vote yes. Sheila Jackson-Lee: expected to vote yes. Carolyn Maloney: current position uncertain. Gwen Moore: current position uncertain. Charles Rangel: current position uncertain. Laura Richardson: current position uncertain. Robert Scott: current position uncertain. Disturbingly, not one of this second group of Members, who wrote in opposition to IMF funding without reform, has yet to say that they will back up that position with their vote. If you want to ask them about it, you can do so here . If you'd like to write a letter to your local newspaper against the War/IMF Supplemental, you can do that here . More on Afghanistan
 
Activists: Obama Admin Falsely Claiming They Had To Defend Marriage Ban Top
Ben Smith at Politico just reported the following statement from the Department of Justice over their brief, filed last night, comparing gay marriage to incest: As it generally does with existing statutes, the Justice Department is defending the law on the books in court. The president has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. However, until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system. More on Gay Marriage
 
Chris Weigant: Friday Talking Points [81] -- Where Are The Democrats On Healthcare Reform?!? Top
That subtitle can be taken two different ways. To be absolutely clear, I meant it in both interpretations. In fact, it is so exasperating that I feel a rather longish rant coming on (relatively speaking -- which makes "longish" even more intimidating, coming as it is from me). Just to warn everyone, up front. But back to the subtitle. The first way it can be taken is, of course: " Where are the Democrats on healthcare reform?" And the second is: "Where are the Democrats on healthcare reform?" To put it another way (that is less dependent upon how readers personally interpret italics), the first point is: "Where the heck are the Democrats in the public debate about healthcare reform? I haven't been hearing much from them on the news, or the talk shows. Who is leading the effort? Who is supporting the effort? WHERE are all the Democrats out there talking about it in public?" And the second could be translated as: "What, exactly, are the Democrats ready to label a 'deal-breaker'? Where are the lines drawn in this battle? What is the basic, core Democratic position on how to effectively reform the healthcare industry?" Neither question, in my mind, has been answered adequately. Because of this dereliction of duty, the Republicans are dangerously close to dominating the entire debate -- even though they don't have any real plans or suggestions as to what to do. Or any power to do it with, even if they did have a clue in the first place! This is pathetic. And it has to end. Soon. Or the promise of real healthcare reform will be yet another lost opportunity in a long history of such which stretches back over seventy years in American history. What's really pathetic is that the public is solidly on the Democrats' side in this debate. They just need a champion to remind them of this, in the midst of the debate. So far, I have to say, we have not seen such a champion. And if we don't see one real soon now, the window of opportunity for change will have again slammed shut, perhaps for another generation. And that, truly, would be pathetic. President Obama seems to be leading this brigade of wussiness, I am sorry to say. Either that, or David Broder is misquoting his sources (which, knowing him, is always a possibility). In his most recent column , Broder reports: "The goal of the Obama White House is to come up with a health-care plan that can attract bipartisan support. The president has told visitors that he would rather have 70 votes in the Senate for a bill that gives him 85 percent of what he wants rather than a 100 percent satisfactory bill that passes 52 to 48." Excuse me, but that is a stinking pile of manure. Here's a quick quiz: what the Hell is the purpose of healthcare reform? Answer: To improve things for the American healthcare consumer. So why is the president willing to sacrifice 15 percent of his goals just so he can look good politically while doing so? What the Hell is that all about? How many Republicans voted for Social Security when F.D.R. was pushing for it? Does anyone remember? Can you quote Roosevelt's vote count in the Senate today? How many Republicans voted for Medicare when it passed Congress? How many Republicans voted for Medicaid? You know why you don't know the answers to those questions? Because nobody cares! Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid are all highly successful programs which stand on their own merits -- LONG after everyone has forgotten the political battles which took place when they were passed. So what, exactly, is the benefit to passing something that throws 15 percent of your ideals under a bus, just so you can look better politically? Will "History" record this fact? Or will it be buried in the mists of time? So what, exactly, is the point of the statements Broder reported from White House officials? Let's get this straight from the beginning of this battle royale -- the end result is what is important here. Helping Americans is the goal. And most decidedly not how many votes you get in the Senate while doing so. I've even helpfully written about what the core Democratic framing on the issue should be, which can be easily summed up as: "Democrats want to change the system so that nobody ever faces a bankruptcy judge from a hospital bed." You can read the whole column for more details, but that's it in a nutshell. Why oh why do Democrats always prepare for every legislative battle by tying one of their own hands (the left one) behind their back? It reminds me of the scene in Monty Python's Life Of Brian where Brian is taught how to haggle by a shopkeeper. "You've got to haggle!" the scandalized proprietor keeps insisting, while Brain keeps immediately agreeing to the outrages prices quoted. Read the whole scene in the original script , and then apply it to the Democratic healthcare battle: Republicans: "Well, how about we reform healthcare by doing absolutely nothing, by passing a bill with lots of flowery language that doesn't change anything?" Democrats: "OK, that sounds good to us, let's pass that!" Republicans: "No, no, no -- that's not the way to have a legislative battle. you've got to haggle!" Democrats: "But we just want to say we passed something. Do we really have to?" Republicans: "'Do we really have to?' -- you've got to be kidding. Let's try it again. Republicans are offering a window-dressing bill that does absolutely nothing to truly reform healthcare." Democrats: "Um, how about a regional co-op plan instead, with 'level playing field' provisions, and a trigger written by the insurance companies that will never be triggered?" Republicans: "No, no, you've got to do it properly. See, you're supposed to say 'We demand single-payer healthcare, and anything else is a deal breaker!'" Democrats: "OK, we demand single-payer!" Republicans: "What, and turn America into some socialism? You're crazy!" Democrats: "Yeah, you're right. Let's just do it your way." Republicans: "You almost had it there, but you've got to keep it up. See, now you go to: 'We are reluctantly giving up single-payer, for now, but our line in the sand is a strong public option where people -- if they choose -- can buy into Medicare if they want." Democrats: "Well, I don't know if all of us will keep to that line in the sand, maybe we better just let you guys write the whole thing, OK?" Republicans: [slap forehead in disgust] Is it just me, or does anyone else see this Pythonesque quality to the Democrats these days? Here is how this campaign could have gone: the farthest left members of Congress get first swing at the bat. They come out strongly for single-payer healthcare, and make their argument for a week in the news. They get beat up by a few Republicans, but they get people talking about the idea . Then more senior members of the congressional Democrats weigh in, offering a grand compromise of a public plan in addition to (rather than "instead of") the private market. They warn Republicans, respectfully, that they can pass a bill with only 50 (plus Biden) votes in the Senate, and tell the GOP that unless they want to see single-payer become a reality before Thanksgiving, that they better get on board this compromise, which will keep the private insurance market alive instead of making the whole industry irrelevant. They would calmly explain that, since every person got to choose, and since Republicans have believed for decades that nothing government does can ever be better or cheaper than what the free market does, that their philosophy will probably ultimately prevail; but that we've got to have this public plan option (which, according to them, will fail miserably in the marketplace, of course)... just to appease the left wing of the party. In a wink-wink-nudge-nudge sort of way (I seem to be in a Monty Python mood today), "serious" Democrats could have sold Republicans on the idea as a sop to the left which will, of course, fail in the end. In other words, no problem -- the marketplace will crush the government-run plan because everyone knows the government can't do anything right. How hard would this have been to arrange? Part of the problem is we're lacking the strong voices from the Democratic side so far. This has already led to an initial defeat. A few weeks ago, when I first tackled this subject, the term everyone (even Republicans) were using was "public plan" or "public option." Now (check a newspaper if you don't believe me) it is "government-run healthcare" or something similar with the word "government" in it. This is like throwing away your best weapon before the battle even begins. This is because Democrats have been so silent in the debate so far. There are a few reasons for this, I believe. The first is what happened to the Clinton healthcare plan. It was released too early (many think), and was picked to death before it had a chance in Congress. Because of this, Democrats now believe it is to their advantage to play their cards close to the vest and hammer something out between them before they start the big public push for it. This is wrong, in my opinion, because it is not what we were promised. We were promised a full discussion of the situation, with everyone getting a seat at the table. We are getting neither. Single-payer advocates actually were arrested trying to get heard in a hearing -- because they were denied a place at the table. The debate, so far, has been going on in the Democratic backrooms in Congress, and not in public. This has to change. Another reason, closely related to the first, is that Democrats do not want to appear divided on the issue, preferring instead to present a united front behind a single bill. This is a mistake, because squabbling is going to happen anyway -- it's inevitable. Better to start the squabbles now and get them over with, and be united at the end of the process. Part of the problem, too, is that Teddy Kennedy is supposed to be the point man on healthcare reform. And Teddy's not as young or healthy as the job may demand. To solve this, Democrats everywhere should use Kennedy's name liberally (pun intended), while Teddy himself anoints a surrogate champion to speak for him on the airwaves. There are plenty of media-savvy Democrats who could handle this job, and if Kennedy gave a news conference and announced his heir apparent on the issue, the spotlight would shift to the new spokesperson immediately. And lastly, part of the problem is President Obama. Obama has always been reluctant to be seen as championing this detail or that in his preferred legislation, because he knows it is much easier politically to let congressional Democrats fight it out, and then swoop in at the end and bless whatever they've come up with. That isn't going to be good enough on healthcare, though (see: the past few weeks). To Obama's credit, he has kicked off his personal advocacy tour for healthcare reform. He is saying nice things about the public plan. And he can perform at a town hall like nobody else can, at this point. All to the good. But it's not going to be enough. Obama, at some point, is going to have to draw those lines in the sand. He's going to have to say "I will veto a bill that does not have X in it," and mean it. This will give Democrats in Congress the political cover they crave to actually vote for something real. And this will shift the fight to a personal one -- Obama versus Republicans. Frank Luntz, a highly-paid GOP consultant, wrote in a leaked briefing book on healthcare for the Republicans the following (emphasis in original): If the dynamic becomes "President Obama is on the side of reform and Republicans are against it," then the battle is lost and every word in this document is useless. . . . The status quo is no longer acceptable. The overwhelming majority of Americans believe significant reform is needed - and they see Republicans (and the insurance companies) as the roadblock. If the dynamic becomes "President Obama and Congressional Democrats are on the side of reform and Republicans are against it," -- which is exactly what Obama has already started to promote -- the public will side with the Democrats and you will lose both the communication and the policy. . . . Your political opponents are the Democrats in Congress and the bureaucrats in Washington, not President Obama. Every time we test language that criticized the President by name, the response was negative - even among Republicans. Americans want solutions, not politics. . . . If you make this debate about Republicans vs. Obama, you lose. But if you make it about Americans vs. politicians, you win. That's clear enough, right? But if Obama doesn't start drawing lines in the sand, it won't work -- it'll just punt the ball back to "Congressional Democrats versus Republicans," which is nowhere near as good. And finally, before we get to this week's awards and the talking points, Democrats need to tap some populist rage. This is NOT hard to do. You don't have to look very far to find someone with a heart-breaking healthcare story that is tragic, crushing, and totally avoidable. Democrats need to get some of these people in front of some television cameras. Obama did a good job of this at his town hall yesterday, but how about some hearings from Congress? How about a parade of stories of people who had been screwed over by their health insurance company? Like I said, they are not hard to find. Hearing these stories is crucially important to this debate, because it refocuses everyone on the problem we are trying to solve. A few poster-patients on the issue is just what the doctor ordered. OK, I apologize for that last sentence, but I think you get my drift. Picture a Democratic politician saying "After hearing Mrs. Eileen Smith's tragic story, I vow that any piece of legislation which does not specifically address the inhumane situation she was faced with will not pass Congress and will not be signed by the president. Passing healthcare reform without fixing the problem Mr. Joe Shlabotnik faced is not real reform and is a waste of time. We will not allow any window-dressing bill to move forward unless it addresses these problems." How hard is that to do? So why haven't Democrats started doing it yet? Barack Obama can be Democrats' champion on healthcare reform. But he needs some other Democrats backing him up. Where (and who) is Teddy Kennedy's surrogate? Who will be the "designated lefty" in the public battle? Democrats can ignore Republicans legislatively (since all they need is a bare majority of votes in the Senate), but they cannot ignore them (or their arguments) publicly, or they will wind up losing the battle for public opinion. Speaking of public opinion, where is the public's face in all of this? Where are the endless horror stories of dealing with insurance companies? As Senator Jeff Merkley recently pointed out , Republicans are already using Frank Luntz' talking points on the floor of the Senate, so
 
Over Two Days Hannity Devotes One Sentence To Holocaust Museum Murder Top
Fix News host Sean Hannity only devoted one sentence to discussing the shooting at the Holocaust Museum on his program this week, Media Matters reports . This comes after Hannity had criticized other networks for not giving significant coverage to the recent shooting at an Army recruiting center in Arkansas. Instead of discussing the shooting at the Holocaust museum, Hannity did, according to Media Matters, dedicate significant time on his show this week to "David Letterman's jokes about Sarah Palin, the firing of Miss California Carrie Prejean, and actor Craig T. Nelson's take on the proper role of government." More on Video
 

CREATE MORE ALERTS:

Auctions - Find out when new auctions are posted

Horoscopes - Receive your daily horoscope

Music - Get the newest Album Releases, Playlists and more

News - Only the news you want, delivered!

Stocks - Stay connected to the market with price quotes and more

Weather - Get today's weather conditions




You received this email because you subscribed to Yahoo! Alerts. Use this link to unsubscribe from this alert. To change your communications preferences for other Yahoo! business lines, please visit your Marketing Preferences. To learn more about Yahoo!'s use of personal information, including the use of web beacons in HTML-based email, please read our Privacy Policy. Yahoo! is located at 701 First Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94089.

No comments:

Post a Comment