I had a chance to watch Bill Maher's show on HBO this past week. Maher, who would never be confused for a small-town, Conservative values voter, had a discussion with his panel, made up of Chuck Todd, Jay Leno, and Democratic Congresswoman Jean Schakowsky. Schakowsky is one of the most prominent Democratic Congress persons in the House today, and has continued to be rumored as someone who may try to run for Barack Obama's former Senate seat in Illinois.
To say the least, it was embarrassing to watch the Congresswoman go on a show, where the host is GIVING her a platform to exhibit leadership, and watch how embarrassingly out of touch she seemed on the health care debate.
Maher basically told her that the Republicans were winning the debate, and that she had an opportunity RIGHT THERE to make a succinct point to start to turn the tide in the debate. She couldn't string two sentences together to say anything resembling a clear point.
At this point, I conceded the debate. Passing Health Care with this Congress is a hopeless debate. As saddened as I was to see that Ted Kennedy died this past week, it was merely a reminder to me (being under the age of 45, I have no memories of Kennedy, Camelot, Chappaquiddick, or any of the other newsworthy reminders of the Kennedy's prominence in America.) that there really is no leadership of note in the Democratic Party.
Which brings me to President Obama. Someone in the media really summed it up best for me: Obama leading the Democrats is the equivalent of Michael Jordan playing for the Washington Generals. Take him out of the equation and it really is a pathetic group. Don't like watching Max Baucus or Kent Conrad running the Finance committee, holding up the bill? The White House has leverage on these folks. Leadership can strip people of their chairmanships. Don't like the Blue Dog's howling about spending? There's always a way to strip money out of their districts to balance things some. Don't like the Republican's sudden religion on budget deficits? Remind the country that the last time we faced economic downturn and fought to balance the budget was in the early 1930's. Anyone want to try that play again?
I'm not suggesting that there aren't some Democrats that truly do believe that they are doing the right thing for the country by opposing a Public Option in the Health Care debate.
However, for the rest of the 80% of Democrats opposing the bill, who think it will lose them their next election, I would remind them that they have already lost their seats if they vote this down. Does anyone remember the mid-term elections of 1994?
I would also encourage someone (anyone) who really believes in a Public Option to explain--in 2 sentences or less--why we need one. Obama has utterly failed to step up and make the case. It's embarrassing to watch the best orator in 50 years lose a debate to Chuck Grassley and Sarah Palin.
So, someone must step up for the cause. Explain why doing nothing is a guarantee of bankruptcy of the current system. Why doing nothing will pretty much ensure a premium rate hike of 15% next year in my health care premiums. Why doing nothing has led to a doubling of my personal premiums ALONE in the last 5 years. That doesn't even count the TRIPLING of my co pays. We talk about Medicare going up by the rate of inflation. But my private health care premiums and co pays have gone up FAR faster than that. We talk about inefficiency of government run health care, yet Medicare receives better customer satisfaction than any private run health care services do. Watching the Democrats screw this up is like seeing someone dealt a full house in Poker, and turning in 3 cards, just to make it seem fair to the other players...
Look, I'm not suggesting that this combination of bills being put forth is perfect. No bill ever is on the first try. However, doing nothing is already on a path over the cliff. Imcrementalism won't fix the issues fast enough. Everyone has auto insurance. Everyone should have health insurance. If you want Congress to work on healthy lifestyle incentives separately, fine. If you want to point to a lack of legislation on improved facilities, pharmaceutical R&D, etc, fine. But let's not confuse this bill with the notion that if it's not a panacea, it must be killed.
Obama has failed to lead on this. Let's see what happens in the next couple of weeks, but I'm not encouraged by anyone's leadership on this issue. It's a sad harbinger of things to come, as the Republicans take control of the debates, and we get back on to issues like religious values, flag burning, earmarks, Terri Schiavo, illegals, etc.
I hope people remember this debate, as they all howl at the unimaginable rate increases in their health care in the next 5 years. Enjoy that Private Insurance coverage, folks, because you won't be able to afford much else...
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
Health Care Debate 2009--A Simple Flow Chart for the Masses to Keep Score
For those of you watching the Health Care debate, I know this is getting a little confusing. So here's a simple flow chart to explain how things have gone, and even a preview into next steps for the debate, and impacts on the political landscape. I hope this helps...
Monday, August 17, 2009
Health Care Debate--1993 Redux
Okay, Politics fans, let's see how many parallels we can draw between 1993-1994 and 2009-2010. Ready, set, go!
1. A popular, young President is elected on the back of a message of change and hope.
2. His message resonates during a time of economic recession, against an aging veteran/war hero who just can't believe that the country would elect someone like his opponent.
3. With a mandate of voters in hand, the new President pushes for sweeping changes in government spending, with no bi-partisan support.
4. The new President pushes for the holy grail of politics--Health Care reform--only to finally be rebuffed as having "pushed too far" to the left for the country to accept.
5. The mid-term elections, (often won by the party out of power, due to the lax attention paid by the majority, and the fervent support of the minority party), undo the Democratic Majorities in both Congress and the Senate, where Republican leadership takes hold for over a decade.
Okay, the last two haven't happened quite yet, but point #4 is soon to arrive. Odds have dropped on getting a health plan passed at all, to about 50% (and I'm being generous at that!)
The interesting thing about this is that, despite the 2010 elections being 15 months off, the Democratic losses may already be a fait accompli. Why? That's simple.
Demographics--The whole concept of a "blue dog" democrat is kind of silly, when you think about it. What Republican would vote for a "Republican lite" Democrat, when they could have the real thing? I'd make the same point for Republicans. Lincoln Chafee and Gordon Smith are two perfect examples of good Republican Senators who lost their elections because a lot of Democrats said, "hey, I like Chafee, but I don't want Mitch McConnell running things in the Senate." Republicans were disgusted with his voting record because it was too liberal for their tastes. In the end, losing on health care, but "standing up for their blue-dog conservative values" will not help any of these guys get re-elected. Their liberal constituencies in these districts will desert them, and the conservatives in their districts will vote for the conservative candidate, hoping to get Nancy Pelosi out of power. It may not be enough to flip the House into Republican hands in 2010, but it will certainly be close.
Political savvy--The smart thing for the Blue Dogs, the Ben Nelsons, the Evan Bayh, Max Baucus, Blanche Lincoln group of Senators to do on health care, is get something passed this year. If they delay, and take their time, and pass nothing, they are all in trouble. Bayh can kiss his seat goodbye. Lincoln will finally get some opposition. And Nelson will also face trouble in 2012. For the same reason as I noted earlier, these people will lose the support of the left, and the right will smell blood, and put up their own candidates to take these seats. There is one saving grace...
Economic Recovery--It's funny how people are less riled up when they all have jobs. Inflation will be a worry in the near future, should the economy turn around. However, a good economy is what saved Bill Clinton in 1996 (that, and a poor showing from Bob Dole). It could very well save enough of the Senators and Congressmen and women to keep Democratic Majorities in the Congress. But Republicans know how to win elections, and messaging has never been the problem (until recently, anyway).
(lack of) Courage--the Republican party is excited that they are finally able to recruit some better candidates and get some money in the coffers? Why? It's easier to run against a face of opposition, rather than hang onto a majority. Also,the Dems have controlled the debate, which means that the people who were used to their issues getting attention for 8 years, are particularly upset about having to deal with the "other guy's" issues for the past year or so. That's normal.
But the Dems are showing a surprising lack of courage in their approach to health care. It's almost incomprehensible that the votes for such a reform as health care wouldn't have been counted before pushing ahead with a "public option" platform. But it's clear that the Kent Conrads and others are not going to move forward with such a plan. Therefore, any good Republican candidate should be able to put their Democratic opponent on the ropes over this issue again and again. It won't work in places like Massachusetts or New York, but it will change the House representation in Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina, and other places where Democrats have made inroads into Republican territory.
So we will have to watch and see how the upcoming failure of Health Care changes Congress's appetite for tackling big issues. Obama's Waterloo may be just around the corner. But most Presidents face about 5 "Waterloo's" in their terms, and we'll soon see just what the new face of the Republican party looks like. Is it Sarah Palin, and her "death panel" postings that turned the tide? She may make that case to enough people, that her stature climbs significantly in the upcoming months.
Let's see how the health care debate plays out. Much more to come...
1. A popular, young President is elected on the back of a message of change and hope.
2. His message resonates during a time of economic recession, against an aging veteran/war hero who just can't believe that the country would elect someone like his opponent.
3. With a mandate of voters in hand, the new President pushes for sweeping changes in government spending, with no bi-partisan support.
4. The new President pushes for the holy grail of politics--Health Care reform--only to finally be rebuffed as having "pushed too far" to the left for the country to accept.
5. The mid-term elections, (often won by the party out of power, due to the lax attention paid by the majority, and the fervent support of the minority party), undo the Democratic Majorities in both Congress and the Senate, where Republican leadership takes hold for over a decade.
Okay, the last two haven't happened quite yet, but point #4 is soon to arrive. Odds have dropped on getting a health plan passed at all, to about 50% (and I'm being generous at that!)
The interesting thing about this is that, despite the 2010 elections being 15 months off, the Democratic losses may already be a fait accompli. Why? That's simple.
Demographics--The whole concept of a "blue dog" democrat is kind of silly, when you think about it. What Republican would vote for a "Republican lite" Democrat, when they could have the real thing? I'd make the same point for Republicans. Lincoln Chafee and Gordon Smith are two perfect examples of good Republican Senators who lost their elections because a lot of Democrats said, "hey, I like Chafee, but I don't want Mitch McConnell running things in the Senate." Republicans were disgusted with his voting record because it was too liberal for their tastes. In the end, losing on health care, but "standing up for their blue-dog conservative values" will not help any of these guys get re-elected. Their liberal constituencies in these districts will desert them, and the conservatives in their districts will vote for the conservative candidate, hoping to get Nancy Pelosi out of power. It may not be enough to flip the House into Republican hands in 2010, but it will certainly be close.
Political savvy--The smart thing for the Blue Dogs, the Ben Nelsons, the Evan Bayh, Max Baucus, Blanche Lincoln group of Senators to do on health care, is get something passed this year. If they delay, and take their time, and pass nothing, they are all in trouble. Bayh can kiss his seat goodbye. Lincoln will finally get some opposition. And Nelson will also face trouble in 2012. For the same reason as I noted earlier, these people will lose the support of the left, and the right will smell blood, and put up their own candidates to take these seats. There is one saving grace...
Economic Recovery--It's funny how people are less riled up when they all have jobs. Inflation will be a worry in the near future, should the economy turn around. However, a good economy is what saved Bill Clinton in 1996 (that, and a poor showing from Bob Dole). It could very well save enough of the Senators and Congressmen and women to keep Democratic Majorities in the Congress. But Republicans know how to win elections, and messaging has never been the problem (until recently, anyway).
(lack of) Courage--the Republican party is excited that they are finally able to recruit some better candidates and get some money in the coffers? Why? It's easier to run against a face of opposition, rather than hang onto a majority. Also,the Dems have controlled the debate, which means that the people who were used to their issues getting attention for 8 years, are particularly upset about having to deal with the "other guy's" issues for the past year or so. That's normal.
But the Dems are showing a surprising lack of courage in their approach to health care. It's almost incomprehensible that the votes for such a reform as health care wouldn't have been counted before pushing ahead with a "public option" platform. But it's clear that the Kent Conrads and others are not going to move forward with such a plan. Therefore, any good Republican candidate should be able to put their Democratic opponent on the ropes over this issue again and again. It won't work in places like Massachusetts or New York, but it will change the House representation in Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina, and other places where Democrats have made inroads into Republican territory.
So we will have to watch and see how the upcoming failure of Health Care changes Congress's appetite for tackling big issues. Obama's Waterloo may be just around the corner. But most Presidents face about 5 "Waterloo's" in their terms, and we'll soon see just what the new face of the Republican party looks like. Is it Sarah Palin, and her "death panel" postings that turned the tide? She may make that case to enough people, that her stature climbs significantly in the upcoming months.
Let's see how the health care debate plays out. Much more to come...
Friday, August 14, 2009
2012 Republican Candidates--It's never too early...
I've been away from my favorite subject for far too long. I always enjoy a good election, but the odd year elections are a little sparse. We can discuss the New Jersey or Virginia Governor's races some other time. right now, let's see what our favorite GOP Presidential candidates are up to, shall we?
These candidates are NOT in ranked order:
Sarah Palin--"quitting" her post as Governor of Alaska may have its advantages in terms of availing Ms. Palin to more exposure in the lower 48 states. She can now campaign anywhere she wishes. However, she continues to be a polarizing force for independents, and some on the Right don't like the tag of "quitter" that they now feel she has to wear in any future election. Certainly, the bumper stickers already popping up (Sarah Palin--2012-2014 1/2) won't give her comfort.
Definitely not a good couple of months for the ex-Governor.
Newt Gingrich--I wonder why a guy who has so much going for him, would go on Meet the Press and represent to America that there are "those in the government" that are for Euthanasia... Really, Newt? Keep pushing this position. Watch the polls just slide right away.
In reality, Newt continues to be a strong force, and should be a favorite for the nomination...if he can avoid that "foot in mouth" situation, or Diane Sawyer interview...
Jeb Bush--I may be the only person here, but I still think Jeb's the favorite if he decides to run. He has the family connections, the experience, the more moderate tone, the popularity in Florida, and a hint of his father's pragmatism. Will America forget the legacy of his brother by 2012, though?
Bobby Jindal--The best thing Jindal's done recently, is NOT put himself out on the national stage. Jindal's a smart guy, and can play to the "penny loafer" segment of the party. He's an ideal vice president candidate in my mind. He helps a candidate without having to be too charismatic.
Paul Ryan--A new entry to the discussion, Conservatives have had their eye on him for a while. Like Jindal, Ryan may be a little young and inexperienced for the GOP to put him up at the top of the ticket in 2012. But he has experience and finance credentials, that would make him a formidable VP option. He'd make an interesting primary candidate.
Tim Pawlenty--Pawlenty is a popular guy, and considered a leader in the GOP. However, he has a problem. He's not really the darling of any real faction of the party. The evangelicals will prefer Huckabee, the Social Conservatives will pick Palin, Libertarians prefer Ron Paul, and the Economic Conservatives will prefer Newt or Mitt. That leaves Pawlenty as the also-ran, and will result in a quick exit from the race.
Mitt Romney--On paper, this should be THE guy for the nomination. Only no one in the GOP seems to really like him. He's not really anyone's first choice, so he has the same issue as Pawlenty. I think he'll do better, though, because he has more money, and since Romney is in his 60's, he may sense this is his last chance. He'll push harder, and he already has better infrastructure.
Mike Huckabee--Huck has done well with a standing platform (his Fox News show), radio spots, and a built in base of evangelicals from the last election. I'm not sure that alone is enough to push Huckabee over the top, though. He's too weak among the other demos in the GOP, and I'm not sure he'll have the dollars or the moxy to compete with Newt, Palin, or Bush (should he enter the race).
Haley Barbour--to me, Barbour is the dark horse in the race. A conservative from Mississippi, he's held leadership posts in the party, he's an acting Governor, and seems to represent Republicanism. He has a Southern Base who should favor him over many of the candidates listed here. If the primaries fracture, Barbour could win some primaries with, say, 18%, and gain momentum, as other candidates drop out. I still think he's not going to win, but he could very well gain himself consideration as a VP candidate.
Ron Paul--The Libertarian darling, Paul continues to have a loyal following. Certainly, those worried about "socialism" have a home in Paul's camp. At 78, though, he'll be an old candidate, and with the exception of Reagan, and perhaps William Henry Harrison, non-incumbent candidates older than their mid-60's have struggled. I wouldn't count Paul out, but I wouldn't hold my breath either.
Mitch Daniels/John Thune/Other--Some other Senators, Governors, and perhaps Congressmen may dip their toes into the nomination fray. But most will probably be looking to build support or organize for future campaigns. It will be a stretch for any of these guys to jump to the top of the list in 2012.
So that's the Pundit's take. Let's see how the next few months play out...
These candidates are NOT in ranked order:
Sarah Palin--"quitting" her post as Governor of Alaska may have its advantages in terms of availing Ms. Palin to more exposure in the lower 48 states. She can now campaign anywhere she wishes. However, she continues to be a polarizing force for independents, and some on the Right don't like the tag of "quitter" that they now feel she has to wear in any future election. Certainly, the bumper stickers already popping up (Sarah Palin--2012-2014 1/2) won't give her comfort.
Definitely not a good couple of months for the ex-Governor.
Newt Gingrich--I wonder why a guy who has so much going for him, would go on Meet the Press and represent to America that there are "those in the government" that are for Euthanasia... Really, Newt? Keep pushing this position. Watch the polls just slide right away.
In reality, Newt continues to be a strong force, and should be a favorite for the nomination...if he can avoid that "foot in mouth" situation, or Diane Sawyer interview...
Jeb Bush--I may be the only person here, but I still think Jeb's the favorite if he decides to run. He has the family connections, the experience, the more moderate tone, the popularity in Florida, and a hint of his father's pragmatism. Will America forget the legacy of his brother by 2012, though?
Bobby Jindal--The best thing Jindal's done recently, is NOT put himself out on the national stage. Jindal's a smart guy, and can play to the "penny loafer" segment of the party. He's an ideal vice president candidate in my mind. He helps a candidate without having to be too charismatic.
Paul Ryan--A new entry to the discussion, Conservatives have had their eye on him for a while. Like Jindal, Ryan may be a little young and inexperienced for the GOP to put him up at the top of the ticket in 2012. But he has experience and finance credentials, that would make him a formidable VP option. He'd make an interesting primary candidate.
Tim Pawlenty--Pawlenty is a popular guy, and considered a leader in the GOP. However, he has a problem. He's not really the darling of any real faction of the party. The evangelicals will prefer Huckabee, the Social Conservatives will pick Palin, Libertarians prefer Ron Paul, and the Economic Conservatives will prefer Newt or Mitt. That leaves Pawlenty as the also-ran, and will result in a quick exit from the race.
Mitt Romney--On paper, this should be THE guy for the nomination. Only no one in the GOP seems to really like him. He's not really anyone's first choice, so he has the same issue as Pawlenty. I think he'll do better, though, because he has more money, and since Romney is in his 60's, he may sense this is his last chance. He'll push harder, and he already has better infrastructure.
Mike Huckabee--Huck has done well with a standing platform (his Fox News show), radio spots, and a built in base of evangelicals from the last election. I'm not sure that alone is enough to push Huckabee over the top, though. He's too weak among the other demos in the GOP, and I'm not sure he'll have the dollars or the moxy to compete with Newt, Palin, or Bush (should he enter the race).
Haley Barbour--to me, Barbour is the dark horse in the race. A conservative from Mississippi, he's held leadership posts in the party, he's an acting Governor, and seems to represent Republicanism. He has a Southern Base who should favor him over many of the candidates listed here. If the primaries fracture, Barbour could win some primaries with, say, 18%, and gain momentum, as other candidates drop out. I still think he's not going to win, but he could very well gain himself consideration as a VP candidate.
Ron Paul--The Libertarian darling, Paul continues to have a loyal following. Certainly, those worried about "socialism" have a home in Paul's camp. At 78, though, he'll be an old candidate, and with the exception of Reagan, and perhaps William Henry Harrison, non-incumbent candidates older than their mid-60's have struggled. I wouldn't count Paul out, but I wouldn't hold my breath either.
Mitch Daniels/John Thune/Other--Some other Senators, Governors, and perhaps Congressmen may dip their toes into the nomination fray. But most will probably be looking to build support or organize for future campaigns. It will be a stretch for any of these guys to jump to the top of the list in 2012.
So that's the Pundit's take. Let's see how the next few months play out...
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Government Run Health Care...what does that even mean?
Do people really understand what's being proposed here for health care? Probably not. Basically, the whole idea is to create a public option to provide the kind of pricing pressure that has a chance of controlling costs, and can still provide increased coverage to all Americans. I think everyone would approve of the ends in mind.
Clearly, the objection half of America has to this health care proposal is in the means. The government or "public" option just sounds too socialistic. Too much government. But people don't realize that in reality, we have these kinds of situations everywhere. What is being proposed for medicine already exists today in other areas of our economy, and are not considered the end of capitalism. There are very few, if any instances of our economy where public works are the only game in town. And many of the utilities may be private, but are heavily regulated by the government. Even most governmental agencies contract work through private businesses.
"But private companies can always run their business better..." you may say? Not necessarily. Let's look at some areas where public and private compete...
Fire Department--I'm so glad that there are private fire department companies. If my house was burning down, I'd like to be able to know which firefighters cost how much, so that I don't waste my hard earned taxpayer money on the most expensive firefighters, when a far more reasonable team could do the job, for less. Perhaps while my house is burning down, I could call a few firefighter companies, compare prices, and then choose the best one to put out the smoldering ashes left of what was once my home. Wait, there AREN'T any real private fire departments? What a shocker...
Police/Defense-- Blackwater could be seen as "competition" for the US Army. Certainly they can police the streets of Iraq more effectively for less dough, right? If they can't, then certainly Halliburton and their spin off--Kellogg Brown and Root, could do the job without inefficiency or taxpayer waste, right? Er...maybe that's not such a good example...
Mail--But what about the post office? It competes with FedEx and UPS. And the government controlled pricing power of the USPS has simply put FedEx and UPS out of business, hasn't it? Well, maybe not, but we're getting warm...
Education--Ah, education. There's private and public schools. And if people want their kids to get a parochial, or top-flight secular education, they can spend the additional cash to send their kids to private schools. If they can't afford such a luxury, their kids can go to public schools. Ah, now we're getting closer to the right comparison...
"So? Public schools are a mess..." you may say? That may be true in some circumstances. But funding for education has been severely lacking in recent years, and there are proposals on the table now to use school vouchers and magnet schools to help to address some of these issues. Ahhh...the free market at work...
So...let's take the school analogy and apply it to health care...giving people the option of going to whatever doctor they want, but having the government provide the voucher to pay for it and set the rates...
You know what that sounds like? The current Congressional proposal.
Clearly, the objection half of America has to this health care proposal is in the means. The government or "public" option just sounds too socialistic. Too much government. But people don't realize that in reality, we have these kinds of situations everywhere. What is being proposed for medicine already exists today in other areas of our economy, and are not considered the end of capitalism. There are very few, if any instances of our economy where public works are the only game in town. And many of the utilities may be private, but are heavily regulated by the government. Even most governmental agencies contract work through private businesses.
"But private companies can always run their business better..." you may say? Not necessarily. Let's look at some areas where public and private compete...
Fire Department--I'm so glad that there are private fire department companies. If my house was burning down, I'd like to be able to know which firefighters cost how much, so that I don't waste my hard earned taxpayer money on the most expensive firefighters, when a far more reasonable team could do the job, for less. Perhaps while my house is burning down, I could call a few firefighter companies, compare prices, and then choose the best one to put out the smoldering ashes left of what was once my home. Wait, there AREN'T any real private fire departments? What a shocker...
Police/Defense-- Blackwater could be seen as "competition" for the US Army. Certainly they can police the streets of Iraq more effectively for less dough, right? If they can't, then certainly Halliburton and their spin off--Kellogg Brown and Root, could do the job without inefficiency or taxpayer waste, right? Er...maybe that's not such a good example...
Mail--But what about the post office? It competes with FedEx and UPS. And the government controlled pricing power of the USPS has simply put FedEx and UPS out of business, hasn't it? Well, maybe not, but we're getting warm...
Education--Ah, education. There's private and public schools. And if people want their kids to get a parochial, or top-flight secular education, they can spend the additional cash to send their kids to private schools. If they can't afford such a luxury, their kids can go to public schools. Ah, now we're getting closer to the right comparison...
"So? Public schools are a mess..." you may say? That may be true in some circumstances. But funding for education has been severely lacking in recent years, and there are proposals on the table now to use school vouchers and magnet schools to help to address some of these issues. Ahhh...the free market at work...
So...let's take the school analogy and apply it to health care...giving people the option of going to whatever doctor they want, but having the government provide the voucher to pay for it and set the rates...
You know what that sounds like? The current Congressional proposal.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Health Care Update--Now a Shout-fest on Race
As I'm watching this Health Care debate play out, I can't help but think there's a real discussion going on here, but it's just not playing out in words. The debate about health care seemed to be going the Democrats way until about 2 months ago. Once the polls started to soften on support for a bill, and the GOP started to block progress, the momentum shifted. Then the fun started.
Activist groups, led by Rick Scott, Dick Armey, Betsy McCaughey, and the rest of the "do nothing, we're #1!" faction started to put their plan into action to kill the health care reform efforts.
But to kill health care reform, you need a bogeyman. Ted Kennedy just wasn't cutting it. So why not go for the race card, and (in the words of Robert Shapiro), play it from the bottom of the deck?
Go for the big cheese. Obama himself. After all, he doesn't look like you! He's got Hillary running State, Sotomayor running the Supreme Court, and Holder running Justice. Pretty soon, he'll have you standing in front of Death Panels, justifying your right to live. And he wasn't even born in this country! And did you know he's a secret Muslim, when he isn't busy paling around with terrorists, and did you see what his Pastor said during the campaign ads last year!?
It's small wonder that anyone who doesn't like where "this country is going" from a demographic standpoint would be more susceptible to such an argument. If you notice, who has been shouting down all of these town halls? I have noticed a stark dearth of color in these movement groups. Suddenly, a lot of people (many of whom are on Medicare NOW!) hate government health care, and don't like the idea of it. But listen to what they say. It's not that they don't like Government health care, it's that they don't like OBAMA health care. Interesting, isn't it?
These cries of "socialism", and "I want my country back" just make me sad. After all, democracies have elections, and the winners put their policies in place. The losers cry and howl, but in the end, understand that they have rights and protections. There were no disruptions of town halls, and threats to lawmakers (swastika signs spray painted on Congressmen's signposts), or people coming to Presidential Town Halls, with loaded guns during the Teri Schiavo case (by the way, a loaded gun!? seriously!? I wanted to ask that guy yesterday, "are you out of your mind!? Do you really think any one's going to be allowed to bring a loaded gun into a room with the President?")
In the end, this is about one thing. This issue (health care) is just the latest in a series of events that have shown that there is a contingent of Americans who hate the idea that their team (the White Males) have lost the majority of the power. They hate the notion that this country is growing, but it's growing through increases of Hispanics, Asians, Indians, and even Muslims (if you can really count a religion the same way you can count national origins).
The sad part is, this country has ALWAYS been one to change and grow in different directions. The Irish were not welcomed with open arms. Nor were the Italians. I would need a whole different blog to describe how the African Americans were welcomed to this country.
And now, the country is going to take a new direction, one where Whites still may hold the largest plurality, but one where their hold on leadership is checked and diminishing.
But to a group of people in this country, the Health care Debate symbolizes ALL of these frustrations--with losing power status, with seeing a President who is more of a citizen of the world than his predecessors, with leadership that is more demographically mixed, with leadership that is more secular in nature--and these town halls give people a chance to channel all of these frustrations in a way that allows them not to have to appear racist.
To these people, I say, "sorry Charlie". You can dress up the language, you can try to change the topic, but your words don't match the deeds. Yelling and disrupting the town halls, hasn't actually been about debating the health care system. No one seems to be yelling anything constructive. It's all be yells about government, Obama, control, etc. It's about not wanting the "black man", the "bogeyman" take over our most precious possession--our personal health.
To me, it's sad to see. Because Health Care really is a topic we need to debate. I'm not sure I love every part of the bill, and I may regret supporting health care reform in 5 years, should it pass this year. But I like the fact that my President is trying to come up with a plan to make health care a right for everyone. And I will support it and him.
So to THAT end, here's my message to the following groups:
To the Democrats--pass the bill this year. Do it through a vote, reconciliation, or whatever means necessary. Don't be cowed by this, or you are guaranteed to lose your seat. Because you'll lose every Democrat who voted for you, and the Republicans who cheer your vote will vote for one of their own too.
The alternative to a yes vote is nothing. And that's just unacceptable. While you're at it, get out to talk to your constituents with a message of why this vote HELPS THEM! Enough with the town halls. Give a speech instead.
To the Republicans--be careful what kind of party you are running. If you're going to go to bed with the dogs, be prepared to wake up with the fleas. For those of you comfortable with Sarah Palin, Orily Taitz, Rush Limbaugh, Rick Scott, and Rick Santorum leading your party, have at it. You'll be in the minority for years to come.
To the Media--call a spade a spade (pun intended). All of these signs with the swastikas, the hammer and sickle, etc. It's important to show what kind of people are attending these rallies on the side against reforming health care. Ask yourself why these groups don't look like all of America, just one section of America?
To the anti-Obama team--"I want my country back?" It was never YOURS to begin with. And the days of White, Anglo-Saxon Protestantism are gone, if they ever really existed to begin with. You may even get 4 more years of such leadership, sometime in the next 10 years. But in the long run, you're going to have to face some sobering truths. You will not be the majority demographic going forward. You will not have the power. And while I'm at it, some more straight dope. America's domination of business and economics will erode in the next 20-30 years. It's not because we aren't doing as well. It's simply that the rest of the world will catch up. The Internet makes all things possible now. It's just reality. You can scream at the tides to stop coming in, or you can plan for changes, and prepare yourself for a different reality.
Somehow, I don't think this is a group of people who will listen to me...
Activist groups, led by Rick Scott, Dick Armey, Betsy McCaughey, and the rest of the "do nothing, we're #1!" faction started to put their plan into action to kill the health care reform efforts.
But to kill health care reform, you need a bogeyman. Ted Kennedy just wasn't cutting it. So why not go for the race card, and (in the words of Robert Shapiro), play it from the bottom of the deck?
Go for the big cheese. Obama himself. After all, he doesn't look like you! He's got Hillary running State, Sotomayor running the Supreme Court, and Holder running Justice. Pretty soon, he'll have you standing in front of Death Panels, justifying your right to live. And he wasn't even born in this country! And did you know he's a secret Muslim, when he isn't busy paling around with terrorists, and did you see what his Pastor said during the campaign ads last year!?
It's small wonder that anyone who doesn't like where "this country is going" from a demographic standpoint would be more susceptible to such an argument. If you notice, who has been shouting down all of these town halls? I have noticed a stark dearth of color in these movement groups. Suddenly, a lot of people (many of whom are on Medicare NOW!) hate government health care, and don't like the idea of it. But listen to what they say. It's not that they don't like Government health care, it's that they don't like OBAMA health care. Interesting, isn't it?
These cries of "socialism", and "I want my country back" just make me sad. After all, democracies have elections, and the winners put their policies in place. The losers cry and howl, but in the end, understand that they have rights and protections. There were no disruptions of town halls, and threats to lawmakers (swastika signs spray painted on Congressmen's signposts), or people coming to Presidential Town Halls, with loaded guns during the Teri Schiavo case (by the way, a loaded gun!? seriously!? I wanted to ask that guy yesterday, "are you out of your mind!? Do you really think any one's going to be allowed to bring a loaded gun into a room with the President?")
In the end, this is about one thing. This issue (health care) is just the latest in a series of events that have shown that there is a contingent of Americans who hate the idea that their team (the White Males) have lost the majority of the power. They hate the notion that this country is growing, but it's growing through increases of Hispanics, Asians, Indians, and even Muslims (if you can really count a religion the same way you can count national origins).
The sad part is, this country has ALWAYS been one to change and grow in different directions. The Irish were not welcomed with open arms. Nor were the Italians. I would need a whole different blog to describe how the African Americans were welcomed to this country.
And now, the country is going to take a new direction, one where Whites still may hold the largest plurality, but one where their hold on leadership is checked and diminishing.
But to a group of people in this country, the Health care Debate symbolizes ALL of these frustrations--with losing power status, with seeing a President who is more of a citizen of the world than his predecessors, with leadership that is more demographically mixed, with leadership that is more secular in nature--and these town halls give people a chance to channel all of these frustrations in a way that allows them not to have to appear racist.
To these people, I say, "sorry Charlie". You can dress up the language, you can try to change the topic, but your words don't match the deeds. Yelling and disrupting the town halls, hasn't actually been about debating the health care system. No one seems to be yelling anything constructive. It's all be yells about government, Obama, control, etc. It's about not wanting the "black man", the "bogeyman" take over our most precious possession--our personal health.
To me, it's sad to see. Because Health Care really is a topic we need to debate. I'm not sure I love every part of the bill, and I may regret supporting health care reform in 5 years, should it pass this year. But I like the fact that my President is trying to come up with a plan to make health care a right for everyone. And I will support it and him.
So to THAT end, here's my message to the following groups:
To the Democrats--pass the bill this year. Do it through a vote, reconciliation, or whatever means necessary. Don't be cowed by this, or you are guaranteed to lose your seat. Because you'll lose every Democrat who voted for you, and the Republicans who cheer your vote will vote for one of their own too.
The alternative to a yes vote is nothing. And that's just unacceptable. While you're at it, get out to talk to your constituents with a message of why this vote HELPS THEM! Enough with the town halls. Give a speech instead.
To the Republicans--be careful what kind of party you are running. If you're going to go to bed with the dogs, be prepared to wake up with the fleas. For those of you comfortable with Sarah Palin, Orily Taitz, Rush Limbaugh, Rick Scott, and Rick Santorum leading your party, have at it. You'll be in the minority for years to come.
To the Media--call a spade a spade (pun intended). All of these signs with the swastikas, the hammer and sickle, etc. It's important to show what kind of people are attending these rallies on the side against reforming health care. Ask yourself why these groups don't look like all of America, just one section of America?
To the anti-Obama team--"I want my country back?" It was never YOURS to begin with. And the days of White, Anglo-Saxon Protestantism are gone, if they ever really existed to begin with. You may even get 4 more years of such leadership, sometime in the next 10 years. But in the long run, you're going to have to face some sobering truths. You will not be the majority demographic going forward. You will not have the power. And while I'm at it, some more straight dope. America's domination of business and economics will erode in the next 20-30 years. It's not because we aren't doing as well. It's simply that the rest of the world will catch up. The Internet makes all things possible now. It's just reality. You can scream at the tides to stop coming in, or you can plan for changes, and prepare yourself for a different reality.
Somehow, I don't think this is a group of people who will listen to me...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
