For better or worse, it's done. The bill is signed. It's law. It's still surprising that the Senate didn't try to pull a fast one, but I suppose they wanted this behind them as much as everybody else does.
I still hope it is better law than I suspected it is.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
"Favorite Books"
Ezra Klein linked to me while opining on books that influenced his thinking, since blogs feature as much as books in his thought.
In fact, if anything, my opinions have been reconfirmed. The conflict between public and private interest has become as much of an issue for bloggers as for other journalists. Perhaps even more so, since bloggers are often trusted as much as (or more than) journalists since they're writing as citizens, instead of elites. What's handy about an obvious pseudonym is that it's actually quite difficult to exploit it to benefit yourself. Sure, you could theoretically attack someone behind a wall of anonymity, but nobody has any reason to trust you, unless you can bring solid proof to bear. You can't hide behind your organization, nor your profession. You are no expert, and in fact cannot be an expert, since you can't prove your expertise. Even if you succeed, you can only benefit indirectly at best. You can't put a pseudonym on a resume, and you sure as hell can't leverage it into a spot at the Washington Post.
So that's why I still think pseudonymity is important. You'll never be inducted as a member of the "village" as a pseudonymous opinion writer. You remain forever an outsider. You won't go to the cocktail parties. You won't drink at the insider bars. You won't attend the events. You won't get the plum administration positions. All you can do is read, and write, and think, and try to communicate your thoughts and beliefs as best you can.
But maybe that's enough.
Much of my emphasis on the institutions of American government and the processes by which they work (or don't) came from my relationship with Mark Schmitt, first through his blog and then through his editorship at the American Prospect. That was cemented, of course, by reporting deeply on health-care reform, which is an opportunity that TAP gave me but that few other outlets would've been even mildly interested in letting me pursue. I consider reading the blogger Demosthenes use the word "props" in relation to politics as something near to an epiphany; it was the first time I realized that I could speak about Washington in a language I recognized.Before I say anything else, I'd like to point out the box to the right that describes where all this comes from. That "no further connection" is something that I take quite seriously; my opinions have almost nothing to do with any fictional characters or their authors, and I have never claimed otherwise. It's all about pseudonymity, and the importance of clear pseudonymity. The character of Demosthenes did affect my thinking in that respect, and still does, since said character predicted a lot of the strengths (and weaknesses) of pseudonymous opinion journalism.
In fact, if anything, my opinions have been reconfirmed. The conflict between public and private interest has become as much of an issue for bloggers as for other journalists. Perhaps even more so, since bloggers are often trusted as much as (or more than) journalists since they're writing as citizens, instead of elites. What's handy about an obvious pseudonym is that it's actually quite difficult to exploit it to benefit yourself. Sure, you could theoretically attack someone behind a wall of anonymity, but nobody has any reason to trust you, unless you can bring solid proof to bear. You can't hide behind your organization, nor your profession. You are no expert, and in fact cannot be an expert, since you can't prove your expertise. Even if you succeed, you can only benefit indirectly at best. You can't put a pseudonym on a resume, and you sure as hell can't leverage it into a spot at the Washington Post.
So that's why I still think pseudonymity is important. You'll never be inducted as a member of the "village" as a pseudonymous opinion writer. You remain forever an outsider. You won't go to the cocktail parties. You won't drink at the insider bars. You won't attend the events. You won't get the plum administration positions. All you can do is read, and write, and think, and try to communicate your thoughts and beliefs as best you can.
But maybe that's enough.
N-Bombs and Populists
So here's the tea party at work:
First, a lot of "tea partiers" really are racist as all hell. We all knew it, as much as folks like Carville tried to deny it—back when they thought that Republicans could be brought onside for things like health care reform—but now it's absolutely obvious.
Second, right-wing populism ain't going anywhere. The tea party isn't entirely about race; it's tapping into the enormous dislike of American elites right now. It's turning it in a destructive and racist right-wing direction, yes, but it didn't cause that dislike: the behavior of America's political and business elites did.
Health Care is now a done deal. Fine. But Dems who think that this will somehow salve this anger are delusional. The new health regime is fundamentally an elitist activity: one set of elites (in Washington) is requiring you to pay money to another set of elites (at the insurance companies) "for your own good". It's regulating things, and it might be better than the system that exists, but it is still very much a top-down approach. It will do nothing to help this fundamental alienation, and that alienation is what will dominate the next elections.
No, the only way that this will be sorted out is if one set of elites sticks it to another. It could be pro-business leaders sticking it to Washington. That's more likely than you might think: it motivates a lot of deregulation fervor, and is a favorite of Republicans that argue that government "is the problem, not the solution". People go along with it because at least some elites are getting knocked down.
Dems can't do that, though. It doesn't fit their ideology, their themes, or the public's perception of the party. The Republicans will always outdo them on that front. No, the only way they can recover is if Washington sticks it to the big business elites. They need to get populist, and get there fast, before the tea partiers distort and exploit the existing rage even more than they already have.
HCR was a good opportunity to do that, since everybody despises health insurance companies, but the Dems dropped the ball on that one. So it'll have to be finance reform. They have to go beyond wise and minimal regulation. They must be seen to be horrible punitive bastards—and when called on it, they need to frame it as a conflict between the common man and the fat cats that exploit them and grow rich at their expense. It's not difficult for a Dem to pull off, and if you contrast it with small business and businesses that actually make things, you'll do well. (Businesses that make things tend to employ more people, leading to more votes.)
Do I think they'll do anything along that line? No. Not with the Senate the way it is now. Not with the conservative Democratic Senators having been given ample proof that the White House will do and say absolutely anything they want, and that they need never fear the sort of arm-twisting that brought principled progressive Reps like Kucinich on board.
I still think 2010 will be a disaster. The Dems simply Do Not Get It, and the people who are supposed to be speaking truth to power have been almost completely co-opted to support everything the party tells them to. But I do hope that 2010 will change this. I hope that, post-disaster, those people who are so reflexive in repeating the party line will wake up and start doing their damned job. I hope that the progressive movement will finally find its own feet, and realize that its own interests can vary from those of the Dems.
No promises. But one can hope.
The tea party movement is disturbingly racist and reactionary, from its roots to its highest branches. On Saturday, as a small group of protesters jammed the Capitol and the streets around it, the movement's origins in white resistance to the Civil Rights Movement was impossible to ignore. Here's only what the mainstream media is reporting, ignoring what I'm seeing on Twitter and left wing blogs:Two things to take away from this.
- Civil rights hero Rep. John Lewis was taunted by tea partiers who chanted "nigger" at least 15 times, according to the Associated Press (we are not cleaning up language and using "the N-word" here because it's really important to understand what was said.) First reported on The Hill blog (no hotbed of left-wing fervor), the stories of Lewis being called "nigger" were confirmed by Lewis spokeswoman Brenda Jones and Democratic Rep. Andre Carson, who was walking with Lewis. "It was like going into the time machine with John Lewis," said Carson, a former police officer. "He said it reminded him of another time."
- Another Congressional Black Caucus leader, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, was spat upon by protesters. The culprit was arrested, but Cleaver declined to press charges.
- House Majority Whip James Clybourn told reporters: "I heard people saying things today that I have not heard since March 15, 1960, when I was marching to try to get off the back of the bus."
- There were many reports that Rep. Barney Frank was called a "faggot" by protesters, but the one I saw personally was by CNN's Dana Bash, who seemed rattled by the tea party fury. Frank told AP: "It's a mob mentality that doesn't work politically."
First, a lot of "tea partiers" really are racist as all hell. We all knew it, as much as folks like Carville tried to deny it—back when they thought that Republicans could be brought onside for things like health care reform—but now it's absolutely obvious.
Second, right-wing populism ain't going anywhere. The tea party isn't entirely about race; it's tapping into the enormous dislike of American elites right now. It's turning it in a destructive and racist right-wing direction, yes, but it didn't cause that dislike: the behavior of America's political and business elites did.
Health Care is now a done deal. Fine. But Dems who think that this will somehow salve this anger are delusional. The new health regime is fundamentally an elitist activity: one set of elites (in Washington) is requiring you to pay money to another set of elites (at the insurance companies) "for your own good". It's regulating things, and it might be better than the system that exists, but it is still very much a top-down approach. It will do nothing to help this fundamental alienation, and that alienation is what will dominate the next elections.
No, the only way that this will be sorted out is if one set of elites sticks it to another. It could be pro-business leaders sticking it to Washington. That's more likely than you might think: it motivates a lot of deregulation fervor, and is a favorite of Republicans that argue that government "is the problem, not the solution". People go along with it because at least some elites are getting knocked down.
Dems can't do that, though. It doesn't fit their ideology, their themes, or the public's perception of the party. The Republicans will always outdo them on that front. No, the only way they can recover is if Washington sticks it to the big business elites. They need to get populist, and get there fast, before the tea partiers distort and exploit the existing rage even more than they already have.
HCR was a good opportunity to do that, since everybody despises health insurance companies, but the Dems dropped the ball on that one. So it'll have to be finance reform. They have to go beyond wise and minimal regulation. They must be seen to be horrible punitive bastards—and when called on it, they need to frame it as a conflict between the common man and the fat cats that exploit them and grow rich at their expense. It's not difficult for a Dem to pull off, and if you contrast it with small business and businesses that actually make things, you'll do well. (Businesses that make things tend to employ more people, leading to more votes.)
Do I think they'll do anything along that line? No. Not with the Senate the way it is now. Not with the conservative Democratic Senators having been given ample proof that the White House will do and say absolutely anything they want, and that they need never fear the sort of arm-twisting that brought principled progressive Reps like Kucinich on board.
I still think 2010 will be a disaster. The Dems simply Do Not Get It, and the people who are supposed to be speaking truth to power have been almost completely co-opted to support everything the party tells them to. But I do hope that 2010 will change this. I hope that, post-disaster, those people who are so reflexive in repeating the party line will wake up and start doing their damned job. I hope that the progressive movement will finally find its own feet, and realize that its own interests can vary from those of the Dems.
No promises. But one can hope.
LieberCare is Law, But It's Still a Dark Time for Progressives
It passed the House. I wasn't sure it would; I had thought that the Stupak contingent would, perhaps, be willing to risk the wrath of their party in order to curry the anti-abortion vote. But that door was closed when Obama decided to use executive privilege to curry their favor instead.
Honestly, I hope I'm wrong. I hope the critics are wrong. I hope that the bill—as tremendously broken in creation and flawed in execution as it is—ends up serving as the foundation for something that could actually benefit America. I believe that that is still possible, if progressives are vigilant about protecting Americans' interests in the face of the now-clearly-overwhelming influence of the insurance and pharma industries.
I am no longer confident of that, however. I have seen too many self-declared liberals and progressives make the same mistake now that they did in 2002: put the political interests of a party ahead of their own beliefs and America's best interests. I have seen too many people decrying terrible legislation and then, half a year later, supporting the same bill out of personal interests and political expedience. I've seen the collapse of progressive influence in the House, the Senate, and even the Blogosphere, showing that they cannot and will not learn the lesson of their more-successful conservative counterparts.
And I've seen people I used to respect tremendously push the same sort of disingenuous talking-point bullshit that they hated so much when it came from their political opponents.
Is this legislation better than the status quo? Maybe, maybe not. It is a product of the status quo, in almost every way, reflecting every dysfunction that the American political system has to offer. That it even exists is due to the legacy of the hopefulness of 2008, but I don't believe that there's much left of that anymore. What's left might help propel it in a more positive direction.
In the meantime, though, I still believe now what I did last summer: that if a congressman voted for a bill that didn't include a public option, they should be subject to primaries. Progressives ended up looking like absolute tools over the past year, and the only way to fix that is to exert influence that makes a real difference. Many Americans thought the bill didn't go far enough: their voices must be heard, and primaries are the best way to do that. Maybe not this year, since the deadline is past; but in 2012, certainly. It is still possible that progressives can get a little power, develop a credible threat, though it is less likely than it was yesterday or the day before.
In the meantime, though, there is the Senate. I don't even want to think about that.
Honestly, I hope I'm wrong. I hope the critics are wrong. I hope that the bill—as tremendously broken in creation and flawed in execution as it is—ends up serving as the foundation for something that could actually benefit America. I believe that that is still possible, if progressives are vigilant about protecting Americans' interests in the face of the now-clearly-overwhelming influence of the insurance and pharma industries.
I am no longer confident of that, however. I have seen too many self-declared liberals and progressives make the same mistake now that they did in 2002: put the political interests of a party ahead of their own beliefs and America's best interests. I have seen too many people decrying terrible legislation and then, half a year later, supporting the same bill out of personal interests and political expedience. I've seen the collapse of progressive influence in the House, the Senate, and even the Blogosphere, showing that they cannot and will not learn the lesson of their more-successful conservative counterparts.
And I've seen people I used to respect tremendously push the same sort of disingenuous talking-point bullshit that they hated so much when it came from their political opponents.
Is this legislation better than the status quo? Maybe, maybe not. It is a product of the status quo, in almost every way, reflecting every dysfunction that the American political system has to offer. That it even exists is due to the legacy of the hopefulness of 2008, but I don't believe that there's much left of that anymore. What's left might help propel it in a more positive direction.
In the meantime, though, I still believe now what I did last summer: that if a congressman voted for a bill that didn't include a public option, they should be subject to primaries. Progressives ended up looking like absolute tools over the past year, and the only way to fix that is to exert influence that makes a real difference. Many Americans thought the bill didn't go far enough: their voices must be heard, and primaries are the best way to do that. Maybe not this year, since the deadline is past; but in 2012, certainly. It is still possible that progressives can get a little power, develop a credible threat, though it is less likely than it was yesterday or the day before.
In the meantime, though, there is the Senate. I don't even want to think about that.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Digby on Walking Away
Take a look:
Everybody wants a lot of things. In fact, they want so much that they're often contradictory. You want lots of services and low taxes. You want to eat your cake and have it too. You want to save your money but buy nice things. That's life, too.
The real question is "what do you want more?" Do you want health care expansion, or do you want a good health care expansion? Do you want broader coverage, or do you want to reduce the power of insurance companies? Sure, you want to "raise the poor", as digby says later, but how do you want to do that, exactly?
You also have to compare personal vs. public or political goals. Do you want personal access and wealth? Do you want to be "at the table" as a reliable supporter, or do you want to be influential but, perhaps, somewhat untrusted? Are you willing to sacrifice your personal career goals for something you truly believe in, or are your beliefs flexible?
It's that latter problem that has motivated my opinions on this fight. Chris Bowers and Matthew Yglesias can write all they wish about how the "progressive bloc has been ineffective" because progressives aren't as willing to walk away as Conservatives are. But let's be honest: they've been part of the problem. They have access. They have notoriety. They have identities in the notorious "Village", and careers that depends on such things.
They also know that if they don't play ball with the White House, all that could go away. That suffuses every word of their arguments; particularly Yglesias. It's one of the main reasons I've been so disappointed with them of late. It's why I asked the question that, unanswered, still guides my beliefs to this day: Is there a Democratic bill that they wouldn't support, as long is it was labelled "Health Care Reform"?
That's what it comes down to, really. Are they willing to walk away? Not "the progressive movement". Obviously some progressives are, or Jane Hamsher and the rest of the anti-HCR progressive group wouldn't exist. I mean you personally. Are you willing to give up influence, notoriety and access in favor of something greater? Digby's right. That's where power comes from. It comes from the ability to walk away.
They didn't, though. Yglesias, Bowers, Moulitsas, Klein et al—they haven't provided a single reason to ever believe that they would walk away. Not one. They are as reliable as the sunrise and therefore completely ineffectual. Worse still, when people did make that decision, Yglesias et al carved them up: over, and over, and over again ad nauseum. They didn't just go along with the White House's agenda, they enforced it. They deny their own agency, but one of the major reasons why progressives didn't walk away was because they would endure withering attacks if they did. I mean, for the love of all that's holy, we had Kos saying he was going to try to primary Dennis Kucinich! This over a bill that Kos himself said was unsupportable, back before he stood the risk of actually taking some serious heat over it!
(And I'm not even going to get into Nate Silver's issues.)
Conservatives understand that the power of their movement comes from being able to walk away from the Republicans. They did it to George H. W. Bush, and they've certainly done it at lower levels. They don't attack those who disagree from the right: those people actually get catered to! They don't employ the opposition's framing during the debate, as the Dems' lackeys so often do, and they recognize those lines that they are not willing to cross.
Digby says that maybe they should take a stand on a different issue:
So far, they have not demonstrated that they are. I hope things change. I hate having this incredible disappointment and discouragement about people that I once respected so highly. I do hope that, when the next time rolls around, Yglesias, Kos et all are willing to say "no, Mr. Obama, this is too important and we will not compromise on it."
But, then again, I hoped that in 2003, too.
Edit: Here's Hamsher's position on it:
Re-Edit: Look at Kucinich here. This is not a man who enthusiastically agrees with Yglesias and the defenders. This is not a man who thinks that this is even a good bill. This is a man who has, for whatever reason, been given no other choice but to knuckle under.
To claim him as anything else is just perverse.
(Edited slightly for clarity)
Contemplating Chris Bowers' interesting discussion of the progressive bloc(k) strategy, Matt Yglesias points out what should be evident to anyone who's ever done a negotiation: whoever can walk away always has more power. It's just the way things work. That doesn't mean that you can't win if you want something more than the person with whom you're negotiating. There are lots of strategies. You can ask for far more than you're willing to settle for, you can play others against each other, you can try for a "win-win." But in the final analysis, it's always going to be much tougher to walk away from something everyone knows you really want and much easier if it doesn't matter much to you. That's life.True. But it's not that simple.
Everybody wants a lot of things. In fact, they want so much that they're often contradictory. You want lots of services and low taxes. You want to eat your cake and have it too. You want to save your money but buy nice things. That's life, too.
The real question is "what do you want more?" Do you want health care expansion, or do you want a good health care expansion? Do you want broader coverage, or do you want to reduce the power of insurance companies? Sure, you want to "raise the poor", as digby says later, but how do you want to do that, exactly?
You also have to compare personal vs. public or political goals. Do you want personal access and wealth? Do you want to be "at the table" as a reliable supporter, or do you want to be influential but, perhaps, somewhat untrusted? Are you willing to sacrifice your personal career goals for something you truly believe in, or are your beliefs flexible?
It's that latter problem that has motivated my opinions on this fight. Chris Bowers and Matthew Yglesias can write all they wish about how the "progressive bloc has been ineffective" because progressives aren't as willing to walk away as Conservatives are. But let's be honest: they've been part of the problem. They have access. They have notoriety. They have identities in the notorious "Village", and careers that depends on such things.
They also know that if they don't play ball with the White House, all that could go away. That suffuses every word of their arguments; particularly Yglesias. It's one of the main reasons I've been so disappointed with them of late. It's why I asked the question that, unanswered, still guides my beliefs to this day: Is there a Democratic bill that they wouldn't support, as long is it was labelled "Health Care Reform"?
That's what it comes down to, really. Are they willing to walk away? Not "the progressive movement". Obviously some progressives are, or Jane Hamsher and the rest of the anti-HCR progressive group wouldn't exist. I mean you personally. Are you willing to give up influence, notoriety and access in favor of something greater? Digby's right. That's where power comes from. It comes from the ability to walk away.
They didn't, though. Yglesias, Bowers, Moulitsas, Klein et al—they haven't provided a single reason to ever believe that they would walk away. Not one. They are as reliable as the sunrise and therefore completely ineffectual. Worse still, when people did make that decision, Yglesias et al carved them up: over, and over, and over again ad nauseum. They didn't just go along with the White House's agenda, they enforced it. They deny their own agency, but one of the major reasons why progressives didn't walk away was because they would endure withering attacks if they did. I mean, for the love of all that's holy, we had Kos saying he was going to try to primary Dennis Kucinich! This over a bill that Kos himself said was unsupportable, back before he stood the risk of actually taking some serious heat over it!
(And I'm not even going to get into Nate Silver's issues.)
Conservatives understand that the power of their movement comes from being able to walk away from the Republicans. They did it to George H. W. Bush, and they've certainly done it at lower levels. They don't attack those who disagree from the right: those people actually get catered to! They don't employ the opposition's framing during the debate, as the Dems' lackeys so often do, and they recognize those lines that they are not willing to cross.
Digby says that maybe they should take a stand on a different issue:
But as Yglesias says, there are plenty of issues where it can work. In fact we saw it with Grayson's audit the fed initiative and earlier in the year they gave Pelosi and Emmanuel big, big headaches over the first war supplemental. There's power in legislators working together across party lines and being willing to play hardball.I don't believe there is actually precious little power in "working together across party lines" in this case. (One of the things I disagree quite severely with Hamsher about, by the way.) You will just end up supporting their arguments, and they'll judo-flip you to force legislators to move in their direction. I do agree that there is enormous power in being willing to play hardball, but that must come making it absolutely clear that you aren't going to pull a 180 and support the bill when the White House tells you to. You not only must accept that they might get egg on their faces; you have to be willing to hurl the thing yourself, or be willing to stand by those that would.
So far, they have not demonstrated that they are. I hope things change. I hate having this incredible disappointment and discouragement about people that I once respected so highly. I do hope that, when the next time rolls around, Yglesias, Kos et all are willing to say "no, Mr. Obama, this is too important and we will not compromise on it."
But, then again, I hoped that in 2003, too.
Edit: Here's Hamsher's position on it:
[I]t’s also worthy of note that it’s hard for them to withstand the assault of liberal “pundits” who sneeringly derided their efforts as naive, futile and “purist.” These thoughtful folks should be proudly taking credit for their role in delegitimizing progressive opposition to the bill in liberal intellectual circles, much the same role that the same people played during the Iraq war. After all, it’s TNR’s stock in trade.I had been wondering why Yglesias had been so obnoxious in this post, saying "they say they agree with me now so that proves I'm right! Hah!" Now it makes sense, though, since he really hates the Iraq analogy. Probably because it sort of hits home—a lot of the people who supported that war did it for the same political ends that causes them to support LieberCare now.I’ll leave it to others to analyze how corporate cash was laundered through foundations to underwrite the efforts of various “opinion leaders” in the health care debate, but it definitely deserves more scrutiny.
Re-Edit: Look at Kucinich here. This is not a man who enthusiastically agrees with Yglesias and the defenders. This is not a man who thinks that this is even a good bill. This is a man who has, for whatever reason, been given no other choice but to knuckle under.
To claim him as anything else is just perverse.
(Edited slightly for clarity)
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
The Next Question...
Does anybody actually think that the House's reconciliation bill will actually be passed?
Now that we know that the Senate bill must be law before it can be changed, what's to stop the President's beloved, coddled "centrist" Senators from walking away just as soon as they get what they want?
And what is to stop the Dems (who just want this over), the Republicans (who want the terrible Senate bill to run against), and their various spokescritters from moving on to a "there just aren't enough Senate votes, you have to live with reality" story, now that the House is proven utterly ineffective?
Does anybody REALLY think "reconciliation" will happen?
Edit: Here's a link from the Daily Caller:
Now that we know that the Senate bill must be law before it can be changed, what's to stop the President's beloved, coddled "centrist" Senators from walking away just as soon as they get what they want?
And what is to stop the Dems (who just want this over), the Republicans (who want the terrible Senate bill to run against), and their various spokescritters from moving on to a "there just aren't enough Senate votes, you have to live with reality" story, now that the House is proven utterly ineffective?
Does anybody REALLY think "reconciliation" will happen?
Edit: Here's a link from the Daily Caller:
Jon Ward interviewed Rep. Mike Pence today about deem and pass (AKA “demon pass”), the whole thing is worth a read, not least of which for enigmatic exchanges like this one:I'd assume so, yes. But it's not about the Republicans. It's about pulling the football away from progressives. Again.[Mike Pence]: The Senate bill cannot be fixed by reconciliation. The reconciliation bill that’s been talked about and contemplated can’t pass the Senate for a variety of substantive and procedural reasons. So all that we’re really doing here is passing the Senate bill in the House. That’s all we’re really doing and the American people know that and they’re intending to pass the Senate bill without ever voting for it.
Does the GOP know something Democrats don’t?
It Would Appear Kucinich is On-Side
So says the Washington Post.
His prerogative, but once again this raises the question of liberal independence, and progressive relevance. Once again, a progressive is being smashed into supporting the powers-that-be where his "centrist" counterparts, flush with health corp cash, would be coddled and catered to at every opportunity.
And, once again, progressives have to ask what, exactly, they fought for, when their supposed spokesmen and -women appear to have no belief they're not willing to jettison to get access to the halls of power. It's illusory access, of course. The progressive groups have still proven themselves completely unable to affect policy because of the lack of a credible threat. But at least they get to feast at the Village.
Edit: By the by, this is partially the result of the Republicans' obstructionism, but not in the way you think. As long as the Republicans are publicly obstructionist, they can be sure that no small number of Democratic-leaners will support the legislation, because Republicans oppose it. Opposition from the left becomes difficult as hell, because you get lumped in with the Republicans.
(As happened with Kucinich.)
This wouldn't be a problem for progressives if the Republicans had no say in legislation whatsoever. They do. They have a big impact in committees, they have a lot of friends in the media, and the President has continued to reach for "bipartisan" solutions. One of the main reasons the Senate HCR bill is so weak is precisely because the Republicans were playing this push-pull game. So, as should have been apparent a long time ago, the Republicans get to have it both ways: they get legislation that caters to their whims, and they either get divided progressives or progressives that are willing to do their work for them because said progressives think they're stymieing them.
(And then they win more seats back, because any bill a Republican has input into is almost guaranteed to be terrible, so the public punishes the Dems for passing it.)
Nothing new there, of course. And it is possible that HCR might be improved. But it won't be improved by Republicans, that's for damned sure, and I see no opportunity for the Dems to improve it outside of the very near-term. Not with 2010 looking the way it does.
Re-Edit: And it looks like he didn't get anything for his vote, either.
Ben Nelson got a big ol' kickback. Stupak is going to get women sold out for his cause. (Oh, he is. Let's just admit it.) Lieberman got the Medicare extension killed.
Do you know why that is, fellow progressives? Because if you can make a credible thread, they will concede to you what you want. Basic bargaining and negotiations. If Kucinich had held out and been the last House vote, he'd have gotten something, too.
As it is, he got nothing. His constituents got nothing. His supporters got nothing. Hell, he probably isn't even going to get an apology from Kos.
That's why the Obama administration won't listen to you. They won't, unless they need to. Your choice.
His prerogative, but once again this raises the question of liberal independence, and progressive relevance. Once again, a progressive is being smashed into supporting the powers-that-be where his "centrist" counterparts, flush with health corp cash, would be coddled and catered to at every opportunity.
And, once again, progressives have to ask what, exactly, they fought for, when their supposed spokesmen and -women appear to have no belief they're not willing to jettison to get access to the halls of power. It's illusory access, of course. The progressive groups have still proven themselves completely unable to affect policy because of the lack of a credible threat. But at least they get to feast at the Village.
Edit: By the by, this is partially the result of the Republicans' obstructionism, but not in the way you think. As long as the Republicans are publicly obstructionist, they can be sure that no small number of Democratic-leaners will support the legislation, because Republicans oppose it. Opposition from the left becomes difficult as hell, because you get lumped in with the Republicans.
(As happened with Kucinich.)
This wouldn't be a problem for progressives if the Republicans had no say in legislation whatsoever. They do. They have a big impact in committees, they have a lot of friends in the media, and the President has continued to reach for "bipartisan" solutions. One of the main reasons the Senate HCR bill is so weak is precisely because the Republicans were playing this push-pull game. So, as should have been apparent a long time ago, the Republicans get to have it both ways: they get legislation that caters to their whims, and they either get divided progressives or progressives that are willing to do their work for them because said progressives think they're stymieing them.
(And then they win more seats back, because any bill a Republican has input into is almost guaranteed to be terrible, so the public punishes the Dems for passing it.)
Nothing new there, of course. And it is possible that HCR might be improved. But it won't be improved by Republicans, that's for damned sure, and I see no opportunity for the Dems to improve it outside of the very near-term. Not with 2010 looking the way it does.
Re-Edit: And it looks like he didn't get anything for his vote, either.
Ben Nelson got a big ol' kickback. Stupak is going to get women sold out for his cause. (Oh, he is. Let's just admit it.) Lieberman got the Medicare extension killed.
Do you know why that is, fellow progressives? Because if you can make a credible thread, they will concede to you what you want. Basic bargaining and negotiations. If Kucinich had held out and been the last House vote, he'd have gotten something, too.
As it is, he got nothing. His constituents got nothing. His supporters got nothing. Hell, he probably isn't even going to get an apology from Kos.
That's why the Obama administration won't listen to you. They won't, unless they need to. Your choice.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
And Now They're Attacking Kucinich
There's a reason I haven't been blogging much. When the medium is associated with transparent White House spin this odious, it doesn't strike me as worth the pixels its written on.
What's sad isn't that Silver is spouting nonsense that's politically convenient. He's outed himself as a mercenary long before now. What's sad is that he damned well knows that attacking Dennis Kucinich as "not valuable" is ridiculous, because he acknowledges that opposition from the left moves the Overton Window in progressives' favor.
The only way that you could possibly reconcile that is if you believe that Democrats don't care about progre....
...oh.
Oh. Well then.
Edit: And I hadn't even gotten to Kos. Markos, you're on record as someone who has admitted that you couldn't give a rat's ass about policy. You're about the team, and handing it victories.
Sometimes, it's not about the team. Sometimes it's about something more important. So, for God's sake, stop shitting on someone who does care about policy.
I remember Kos from way back in 2002. I remember his ideals, and what he wanted to do when he got a real voice. Now he has one. What an absolute goddamned disappointment.
Re-edit: As always, you have to ask yourselves a simple question: is there anything an advocate would not support even if it would aid the interests of the party?
No?
Then he's not an opinion maker. He's not even a politician. He's nothing more than a marketer.
What's sad isn't that Silver is spouting nonsense that's politically convenient. He's outed himself as a mercenary long before now. What's sad is that he damned well knows that attacking Dennis Kucinich as "not valuable" is ridiculous, because he acknowledges that opposition from the left moves the Overton Window in progressives' favor.
The only way that you could possibly reconcile that is if you believe that Democrats don't care about progre....
...oh.
Oh. Well then.
Edit: And I hadn't even gotten to Kos. Markos, you're on record as someone who has admitted that you couldn't give a rat's ass about policy. You're about the team, and handing it victories.
Sometimes, it's not about the team. Sometimes it's about something more important. So, for God's sake, stop shitting on someone who does care about policy.
I remember Kos from way back in 2002. I remember his ideals, and what he wanted to do when he got a real voice. Now he has one. What an absolute goddamned disappointment.
Re-edit: As always, you have to ask yourselves a simple question: is there anything an advocate would not support even if it would aid the interests of the party?
No?
Then he's not an opinion maker. He's not even a politician. He's nothing more than a marketer.
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
Damage Control! Damage Control!
So Ben Adler over at Newsweek is now trying to establish some critical distance between himself and the rather damning conversation over whether or not "terrorists live in caves", as his colleague Dan Stone asserted last week.
According to Adler, it's not as if Stark or Michael Isikoff or Kathy Jones or whoever believe this sort of thing. Oh no. They're just talking about how the media looks at it.
To which I can only respond: "pull the other one. It's got bells on it."
I'll give you credit for having made some of the more sensible comments. But they ARE the media, Ben. In a situation like that, being in that position, your colleagues (especially Daniel!) should have taken great pains to point out that these are not their beliefs, but the ones that they see floating in the aether. (Or however that works.)
If your group HAD done so, then it wouldn't look utterly self-serving for you to claim as much now. Your colleague Jan Interlandi might also not look quite so bad for saying that "we reserve the label 'terrorist' for foreign attackers". And Isikoff wouldn't have looked like an idiot for thinking that a terrorist must be "equipped and dispatched by a foreign power": an assumption which is not only ahistorical but shows how deeply the media has internalized Republican post-9/11 talking points.
Come on. It's pretty transparent that you're leading the defense here because you were one of the very few to come out of this looking like anything but a schmuck. You are taking one for the team. Good on 'ya. It still doesn't change a damned thing; even if Stone was being facetious, there's no way that Isikoff was.
It wouldn't do them any favors to claim that they were being facetious, either. This is a deadly serious issue. Why the hell WOULD Stone be joking around about it? Why would he be busting out the sarcasm, knowing that it doesn't come across well in text and that the discussion was going to be published? Why the hell would anybody have thought it was appropriate? Sure, maybe if the discussion was happening on Fark or 4chan or something, but you people are professionals working at NEWSWEEK. Get it together.
Here's Glenn's Greenwald's reaction:
What I find truly amusing, though, is that it feels like Adler was more responding to my outrage than Glenn's. Glenn is right. This doesn't really respond to his points at all. Perhaps I'm not the only one who thought that Stone et al deserved to have scorn poured on to them, but Glenn really did have a broader critique of agency in media that went ignored.
Ah well. It's Newsweek. Perhaps I shouldn't have expected any better. The last decent thing I read there was N'Gai Croal's old gaming blog. It's just too bad that Adler was trotted out to try to cover for 'em.
Edit: Kathy Jones also whines "it's not my opinion, it's just how people in the media describe things!" Well, guess what? YOU ARE THE MEDIA. You're a managing editor at one of the biggest newsweeklies in the country. You know damned well how important an issue this is, and you know how likely it is that such a comment will get misconstrued. You know that the ugly mood in America makes it quite likely that this sort of violence may become more commonplace if it is not roundly condemned, and you did not write word one to condemn it.
Indeed, the best Kathy could do is say that it was "a loaded term". That's true. It is. Your magazine uses it anyway. Your choices about whether and when to do so are therefore fair game, and you don't get to assert critical distance to try to save yourself.
Re-Edit: Case in point for how terrible Newsweek is: one of their articles blaming the public for all of America's ills. It's the sort of lovely, contrarian "I can't get in trouble for blaming everybody because I'm blaming everybody" articles that journalists adore because it won't get them in trouble or threaten their access to the Big Cheeses that ARE largely responsible for America's current plight. The kind that always includes paeans to bipartisanship that never actually existed, and which only encourages the Dems to hand the store over to the Republicans that much faster.
It includes the sentence (quoted verbatim) " Grade inflation is so out of control in the nation's high schools that 43 percent of college-bound seniors taking the SATs have A averages—even though SAT scores have remained flat or drifted slowly downward for years."
That SAT scores may have been renormalized did not even occur to them. That the biggest issue is actually that too many kids are getting perfect scores would probably blow their fool heads off.
Worthless.
According to Adler, it's not as if Stark or Michael Isikoff or Kathy Jones or whoever believe this sort of thing. Oh no. They're just talking about how the media looks at it.
To which I can only respond: "pull the other one. It's got bells on it."
I'll give you credit for having made some of the more sensible comments. But they ARE the media, Ben. In a situation like that, being in that position, your colleagues (especially Daniel!) should have taken great pains to point out that these are not their beliefs, but the ones that they see floating in the aether. (Or however that works.)
If your group HAD done so, then it wouldn't look utterly self-serving for you to claim as much now. Your colleague Jan Interlandi might also not look quite so bad for saying that "we reserve the label 'terrorist' for foreign attackers". And Isikoff wouldn't have looked like an idiot for thinking that a terrorist must be "equipped and dispatched by a foreign power": an assumption which is not only ahistorical but shows how deeply the media has internalized Republican post-9/11 talking points.
Come on. It's pretty transparent that you're leading the defense here because you were one of the very few to come out of this looking like anything but a schmuck. You are taking one for the team. Good on 'ya. It still doesn't change a damned thing; even if Stone was being facetious, there's no way that Isikoff was.
It wouldn't do them any favors to claim that they were being facetious, either. This is a deadly serious issue. Why the hell WOULD Stone be joking around about it? Why would he be busting out the sarcasm, knowing that it doesn't come across well in text and that the discussion was going to be published? Why the hell would anybody have thought it was appropriate? Sure, maybe if the discussion was happening on Fark or 4chan or something, but you people are professionals working at NEWSWEEK. Get it together.
Here's Glenn's Greenwald's reaction:
Time constraints prevent me from addressing this, except to say that it's hard for me to believe that Adler actually read what I wrote, since the points he claims I overlooked were ones I expressly addressed, and the aspects of their discussion which he claims I omitted were ones I explicitly included. Moreover, Adler's denial that Newsweek was reluctant to use the term Terrorism for Joseph Stack is strange, given that the whole point of their deliberations, as the magazine's editor defined it, was to have "a discussion over here about the aversion so far to calling the Austin Tax Wacko a terrorist," and the very first response, from Managing Editor Kathy Jones, was to explain what she called herThat Jones bit is really the crux of it. Newsweek had already decided that it was going to equate the word "terrorist" with "foreigner". That wasn't humor or hyperbole; it was a simple statement of policy. Hirsh stating that "Al Qaeda co-opted terrorism after 9/11" wasn't humor either. It was denial of Newsweek's own culpability for equating "terrorist" with "foreigner"."rule of thumb""handy guide" that the word is only for foreigners protesting "the American government," but not used for Americans. Adler's response is one of those which negates itself, and I'm content to allow readers here and elsewhere to compare what Newsweek actually said to what Adler now claims they said and decide for yourself (see also: this insightful objection to Newsweek's discussion from The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates).
What I find truly amusing, though, is that it feels like Adler was more responding to my outrage than Glenn's. Glenn is right. This doesn't really respond to his points at all. Perhaps I'm not the only one who thought that Stone et al deserved to have scorn poured on to them, but Glenn really did have a broader critique of agency in media that went ignored.
Ah well. It's Newsweek. Perhaps I shouldn't have expected any better. The last decent thing I read there was N'Gai Croal's old gaming blog. It's just too bad that Adler was trotted out to try to cover for 'em.
Edit: Kathy Jones also whines "it's not my opinion, it's just how people in the media describe things!" Well, guess what? YOU ARE THE MEDIA. You're a managing editor at one of the biggest newsweeklies in the country. You know damned well how important an issue this is, and you know how likely it is that such a comment will get misconstrued. You know that the ugly mood in America makes it quite likely that this sort of violence may become more commonplace if it is not roundly condemned, and you did not write word one to condemn it.
Indeed, the best Kathy could do is say that it was "a loaded term". That's true. It is. Your magazine uses it anyway. Your choices about whether and when to do so are therefore fair game, and you don't get to assert critical distance to try to save yourself.
Re-Edit: Case in point for how terrible Newsweek is: one of their articles blaming the public for all of America's ills. It's the sort of lovely, contrarian "I can't get in trouble for blaming everybody because I'm blaming everybody" articles that journalists adore because it won't get them in trouble or threaten their access to the Big Cheeses that ARE largely responsible for America's current plight. The kind that always includes paeans to bipartisanship that never actually existed, and which only encourages the Dems to hand the store over to the Republicans that much faster.
It includes the sentence (quoted verbatim) " Grade inflation is so out of control in the nation's high schools that 43 percent of college-bound seniors taking the SATs have A averages—even though SAT scores have remained flat or drifted slowly downward for years."
That SAT scores may have been renormalized did not even occur to them. That the biggest issue is actually that too many kids are getting perfect scores would probably blow their fool heads off.
Worthless.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
"Terrorists have beards in live in caves."
So says Dan Stone at Newsweek.
Let's be honest. That distinction has NOTHING to do with ideology, and it has NOTHING to do with foreign support. It's race. Pure and simple. If you're brown, you're a terrorist. If you're white, you can't be. And, of course, there is an ideological component. If conservatives hate something, and it's attacked, the attacker can't really be a terrorist. After all, conservatives are always right, and terrorists are always wrong, so they couldn't possibly agree! I mean, look at this:
I'm with Glenn. This says nothing good about Newsweek. Nothing good at all. That this is even up for debate is horrible; that people would make these sorts of statements even more so. Those that seriously argued in favor of this have discredited themselves as analysts and journalists; to the extent that a human being is an ethical being, they've discredited themselves as people.
Considering all the dehumanization going on here, that's somewhat appropriate, don't you think?
To be fair, not all did: Mark Hosenball was absolutely right in saying "I guess it's easier and more convenient — politically correct, even — to use that word to describe someone if they have a beard." I hope that he finds a better publication to work for.
But, well, here's Michael Hersh:
But here we are. With a pack of racist bastards unworthy of the label "sapiens".
Comes down to ID. This guy was a regular guy-next-door Joe Schmo. Terrorists have beards in live in caves. He was also an American, so targeting the IRS seems more a political statement – albeit a crazy one – whereas Abdulmutallab was an attack on our freedom. Kind of the idea that an American can talk smack about America, but when it comes from someone foreign, we rally together. Or in the case of the Christmas bomber, vie for self-righteousness.Yes, this is THAT Newsweek. Where, apparently, they're struggling to find reasons to call a guy who flew a plane into an IRS building anything but a terrorist. Why? Because he's white:
Kathy Jones, Managing Editor (Multimedia)Here is Michael Isikof, one of their chief correspondents:Did the label terrorist ever successfully stick to McVeigh? Or the Unabomber? Or any of the IRS bombers in
Here is my handy guide:
Lone wolfish American attacker who sees gov't as threat to personal freedom: bomber, tax protester, survivalist, separatistGroup of Americans bombing/kidnapping to protest U.S. policies on war/poverty/personal freedom/ - radical left-wing movement, right-wing separatists
All foreign groups or foreign individuals bombing/shooting to protest American gov't: terrorists...
...Patrick Enright, Senior Articles Editor
Yeah, maybe the distinction depends too on whom you're attacking — if it's the people you think wronged you (like the IRS), you're a protester/separatist/etc., and if it's indiscriminate killing of clearly innocent people, you're a terrorist.
Jeneen Interlandi, Reporter
I agree with Kathy. Right or wrong, we definitely reserve the label 'terrorist' for foreign attackers. Even the anthrax guy (not that we ever found him) wasn't consistently referred to as terrorist.
Michael Isikoff ,Investigative CorrespondentIt should be immediately obvious that this is all horseshit. (Sorry, no gentler word for it.) Domestic terrorists are so old as to be trite in any number of countries around the world, and especially in Europe, so there is no reason whatsoever to believe Isikoff's distinction is in any way accurate. (Isikoff goes on to do the "of course there can be domestic terrorists" line, but then qualifies his statements by talking about how this guy isn't "a bigger terrorist deal".
ok, just to weigh in on this — I think some of the comments miss what I take to be the fundamental distinction. The underpants bomber, for all his ineptitude, was equipped and dispatched by a foreign enemy — Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula— whose ultimate leader (bin Laden) has declared war on the United States and who has demonstrated his willingness and intent to inflict mass casualties on our civilian population. That makes underpants man a terrorist and had he been captured overseas, would have made himan enemy combatant— and why the Obama administration dispatches the U.S. military and Predator drones to destroy the people who sent him here. Similarly, the Fort Hood shooter may have been a disturbed "lone wolf" but he was in ideological alignment and in communication with a member of the same foreign enemy.
That makes them both terrorists.
The Austin tax protestor, the anthrax scientist wacko, the Unabomber— all did heinous things that we can describe any way we want — certainly what they did were terrorist acts— but they all remain a very different kettle of fish, which is why Mr. underpants man gets more attention that Austin tax protestor flying plane into building.
Let's be honest. That distinction has NOTHING to do with ideology, and it has NOTHING to do with foreign support. It's race. Pure and simple. If you're brown, you're a terrorist. If you're white, you can't be. And, of course, there is an ideological component. If conservatives hate something, and it's attacked, the attacker can't really be a terrorist. After all, conservatives are always right, and terrorists are always wrong, so they couldn't possibly agree! I mean, look at this:
Devin GordonIf they agree with you? You aren't a terrorist. If they don't? Terrorist.
I continue to be fascinated by the divergent reactions between Austin Wacko and Underpants Man, and I think it goes much deeper than the taxonomy of what is a "terrorist." (One simple reason: Tiger Woods didn't step on the Underpants saga the very next day. Sigh.)
Fundamentally, I'm with Dan: a Texan white guy named Joe Stack isn't as interesting / enraging / anxiety-inducing as a Nigerian Muslim named Abdulmutallab. I'm also with Eve: Stack's philosophy, unlike Abdulmutallab's, is pretty kosher with many — maybe even most — Americans. We're basically with him right up to the burn-down-your-house-and-fly-a-plane-into-a-building part of the story. Other than that part, right on, Joe Stack!
I'm with Glenn. This says nothing good about Newsweek. Nothing good at all. That this is even up for debate is horrible; that people would make these sorts of statements even more so. Those that seriously argued in favor of this have discredited themselves as analysts and journalists; to the extent that a human being is an ethical being, they've discredited themselves as people.
Considering all the dehumanization going on here, that's somewhat appropriate, don't you think?
To be fair, not all did: Mark Hosenball was absolutely right in saying "I guess it's easier and more convenient — politically correct, even — to use that word to describe someone if they have a beard." I hope that he finds a better publication to work for.
But, well, here's Michael Hersh:
Michael Hirsh , Senior Editor, Washington Web EditorApologies to Sam Jackson, but I DON'T REMEMBER AL QAEDA CO-OPTING A GOD-DAMNED THING. You did that, Hirsh. You did it then, and you're doing it now, and it's so much worse now because you clearly KNOW BETTER.
Isikoff pretty much has it right. Al Qaeda and Islamist extremism co-opted the term "terrorist" after 9/11. No one had any problem calling Timothy McVeigh a domestic terrorist before 9/11.
And Stack is pretty isolated. There was the same fear after OK City. But it turns out there aren't as many copycat killings of this nature as there are, say, school shootings.
But here we are. With a pack of racist bastards unworthy of the label "sapiens".
Friday, February 19, 2010
Reid to Support Public Option Through Reconciliation?
So sez Huffpo.
Me, I'll believe it when I see a bill sitting on Obama's desk, not before. Especially because, apparently, Obama's still trying to push LieberCare for some bizarre reason. Damned if I know why, it's political poison and none-too-good policy, but I suppose that he's worried that Baucus will get mad if somebody passes a bill that he didn't clear with WellPoint first.
Me, I'll believe it when I see a bill sitting on Obama's desk, not before. Especially because, apparently, Obama's still trying to push LieberCare for some bizarre reason. Damned if I know why, it's political poison and none-too-good policy, but I suppose that he's worried that Baucus will get mad if somebody passes a bill that he didn't clear with WellPoint first.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Texan Crashes Plane Into IRS Building
From Huffpo:
A software engineer furious with the Internal Revenue Service launched a suicide attack on the agency Thursday by crashing his small plane into an office building containing nearly 200 IRS employees, setting off a raging fire that sent workers fleeing for their lives.HuffPo goes on to note that he left a bomb at the local airport, set his house on fire, and has hospitalized two people in the attack; one is unaccounted for.At least one person in the building was missing.
A federal law official identified the pilot as Joseph Stack and said investigators were looking at a long anti-government screed and farewell note that he apparently posted on the Web earlier in the day as an explanation for what he was about to do.
In it, the author cited run-ins with the IRS and ranted about the tax agency, government bailouts and corporate America's "thugs and plunderers."
"I have had all I can stand," he wrote in the note, dated Thursday, adding: "I choose not to keep looking over my shoulder at `big brother' while he strips my carcass."
Stack, 53, also apparently set fire to his house about six miles from the crash site before embarking on the suicide flight, said two law enforcement officials, who like other authorities spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation was still going on.
The also have republished his suicide note; it is a living, breathing example of the seething anger that's growing in America over the difference in treatment between the ultra-wealthy and everybody else. I had thought, upon first learning of the note, that it would be a left-wing or right-wing harangue. It isn't. There is no ideology anymore in saying, as Stack did, that "there are two 'interpretations' for every law; one for the very rich, and one for the rest of us... Oh, and the monsters are the very ones making and enforcing the laws; the inquisition is still alive and well today in this country."
No, it is the same anger that animates both the teabaggers' rage and the left's disgust with the current Administration and Congress. I can only hope that more don't reach the same conclusion. But I doubt it, and I am gravely, gravely concerned that this is not going to be the outlier incident that I hope it is.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Murtha Passed Away
Been unable to update for a little while. Fortunately, the situation's changed.
Unfortunately, John Murtha passed away on Monday. He was a fighter, he was a good Dem, and he'll always be remembered for speaking truth about the Iraq debacle when so few were willing. He was 77, and will be missed.
Unfortunately, John Murtha passed away on Monday. He was a fighter, he was a good Dem, and he'll always be remembered for speaking truth about the Iraq debacle when so few were willing. He was 77, and will be missed.
Monday, January 25, 2010
"Monsters" and "Political Reality"
I should point out that, despite my last post, I have a lot of respect for people like Matt Yglesias, Ezra Klein, and (of course) Paul Krugman. I do believe they have a point, and they're dead-on on a lot of issues.
The problem isn't their perspective. The problem is the extent to which they've gone to defend it. Like practically everybody who finds themselves on the side of the Village—or finds themselves a part of it—they are jettisoning far too much in the name of "political realities". They are not stopping to think about how real those "realities" are, and the extent to which their cases are built on a rickety foundation of assumptions, suppositions, and projection.
They always forget that the rest of America does not think as Washington does. Republicans are forced to remember that because they live in fear of their base. If they forget, they could end up on the business end of a nasty primary challenge. GOP candidates can even lose a general if the SoCons stay home. Dems don't have to worry about either of these possibilities from their always-supportive base, so they end up imprisoned Washington's "political realities".
That is the true basis for that Republican "you study reality, we create it" comment that Dems mocked a while back. The Republican in question was not talking about physical reality. He was talking about those political realities, the ones that people like Matt are always referring to. The Republican use their knowledge of both the Dems and Washington to create the conventional wisdom, and the Democratic lawmakers and hangers-on end up trying to operate within those ever-shifting Republican-built boundaries.
And when they fail, as they so often do, they always blame everybody but themselves. They blame the Republicans, sure, but they mostly blame those who stand outside the "political reality" and try to tell them what's really going on. They don't want to hear it, since they have invested time, energy, and their personal reputation in these "political realities". They build a common defense against the cognitive dissonance between "political reality" and the actual stuff. It happened with Iraq, and it's happening here.
Even this whole "pass the Senate bill" thing has a sense of unreality to it. It boils down to the Dems exploiting the fact that the Senate passed the bill before the new guy could chance to vote against it, and before the public made it clear that the Senate bill was not enough. Both of those, together, make "pass the Senate bill" sleazy at best.
The public will hate it. The Republicans will run against it. The base will walk away. Seats will be lost. So why support it? "Political reality".
The good news is that the Brown victory seems to have helped these guys realize what's truly real. Bernanke's reappointment was "political reality", but it's troubled. Knuckling under to the banks' agenda was "political reality", but Obama looks to be giving Volcker and Warren their heads on that one. Pretending that the Republicans were partners, instead of opponents, was "political reality", but the Dems seem to finally realize what they're up against. Chasing the independent vote while ignoring the core supporters was "political reality", but the Dems are now confronted with proof that young, committed supporters can and will stay home.
So now we have to find new "political realities". With any luck, the Dems will start creating them, instead of just following them. The only way that will happen, though, is if people like Yglesias, Klein and Silver start defending what's right, instead of whatever "reality" they're invested in.
The problem isn't their perspective. The problem is the extent to which they've gone to defend it. Like practically everybody who finds themselves on the side of the Village—or finds themselves a part of it—they are jettisoning far too much in the name of "political realities". They are not stopping to think about how real those "realities" are, and the extent to which their cases are built on a rickety foundation of assumptions, suppositions, and projection.
They always forget that the rest of America does not think as Washington does. Republicans are forced to remember that because they live in fear of their base. If they forget, they could end up on the business end of a nasty primary challenge. GOP candidates can even lose a general if the SoCons stay home. Dems don't have to worry about either of these possibilities from their always-supportive base, so they end up imprisoned Washington's "political realities".
That is the true basis for that Republican "you study reality, we create it" comment that Dems mocked a while back. The Republican in question was not talking about physical reality. He was talking about those political realities, the ones that people like Matt are always referring to. The Republican use their knowledge of both the Dems and Washington to create the conventional wisdom, and the Democratic lawmakers and hangers-on end up trying to operate within those ever-shifting Republican-built boundaries.
And when they fail, as they so often do, they always blame everybody but themselves. They blame the Republicans, sure, but they mostly blame those who stand outside the "political reality" and try to tell them what's really going on. They don't want to hear it, since they have invested time, energy, and their personal reputation in these "political realities". They build a common defense against the cognitive dissonance between "political reality" and the actual stuff. It happened with Iraq, and it's happening here.
Even this whole "pass the Senate bill" thing has a sense of unreality to it. It boils down to the Dems exploiting the fact that the Senate passed the bill before the new guy could chance to vote against it, and before the public made it clear that the Senate bill was not enough. Both of those, together, make "pass the Senate bill" sleazy at best.
The public will hate it. The Republicans will run against it. The base will walk away. Seats will be lost. So why support it? "Political reality".
The good news is that the Brown victory seems to have helped these guys realize what's truly real. Bernanke's reappointment was "political reality", but it's troubled. Knuckling under to the banks' agenda was "political reality", but Obama looks to be giving Volcker and Warren their heads on that one. Pretending that the Republicans were partners, instead of opponents, was "political reality", but the Dems seem to finally realize what they're up against. Chasing the independent vote while ignoring the core supporters was "political reality", but the Dems are now confronted with proof that young, committed supporters can and will stay home.
So now we have to find new "political realities". With any luck, the Dems will start creating them, instead of just following them. The only way that will happen, though, is if people like Yglesias, Klein and Silver start defending what's right, instead of whatever "reality" they're invested in.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Now They Just Sound Pathetic.
"Republicans", you might ask? No, the Senate bill's bloggy defenders, who are now reduced to calling House Progressives "monsters".
No, I'm not making this up. Yglesias actually said that. House progressives are not particularly receptive to the whole "pass the Senate bill or health care dies forever" argument, and aren't willing to roll over for the Senate, so apparently that makes them "monsters". Not Lieberman. Not the Republicans. Not the voters who—largely because they think the Democrat Senate is a hill of crap—rejected the Dem's chosen candidate in Mass. and will probably react very poorly to an attempt to ram this thing through. It's the progressives, somehow, that are the "monsters". Because, unlike Yglesias et al, there's a line they won't cross.
HCR's defenders get really oversensitive to the comparison, but this is exactly what happened with Iraq. Liberal "hawks" and neoconservatives spent enormous time and energy defending the idea of the war and its necessity. When it went bottoms-up, they responded to the (entirely justified) criticism of their enormous mistake by absolutely losing their minds. They called the war's progressive critics traitors, communists, hippies—and, yes, "monsters". And now that the Senate's perverse legislation is likely doomed, what happens? They're losing their minds, again, and the namecalling begins anew.
Yes, it's pathetic. It was pathetic with Iraq, and it's pathetic now. Not even so much because it's wrong, but because they just don't want to admit they lost. Yes, they're losers, as firmly rejected by the electorate as the Bush agenda was in 2006. Somewhere deep down, they probably know that they deserved to lose. They can't stand that. So they lash out, and stink of fear and desperation in doing so.
And in that fear and desperation, they have also finally answered that question I posed to the defenders months ago. You may remember it:
And if you don't support it?
You're a MONSTER.
Edit: Some of Matt's commentators are defending his post for being "sarcastic". Bull. He's dressing up a serious point in quasi-sarcasm. It's "Ha Ha Only Serious".
No, I'm not making this up. Yglesias actually said that. House progressives are not particularly receptive to the whole "pass the Senate bill or health care dies forever" argument, and aren't willing to roll over for the Senate, so apparently that makes them "monsters". Not Lieberman. Not the Republicans. Not the voters who—largely because they think the Democrat Senate is a hill of crap—rejected the Dem's chosen candidate in Mass. and will probably react very poorly to an attempt to ram this thing through. It's the progressives, somehow, that are the "monsters". Because, unlike Yglesias et al, there's a line they won't cross.
HCR's defenders get really oversensitive to the comparison, but this is exactly what happened with Iraq. Liberal "hawks" and neoconservatives spent enormous time and energy defending the idea of the war and its necessity. When it went bottoms-up, they responded to the (entirely justified) criticism of their enormous mistake by absolutely losing their minds. They called the war's progressive critics traitors, communists, hippies—and, yes, "monsters". And now that the Senate's perverse legislation is likely doomed, what happens? They're losing their minds, again, and the namecalling begins anew.
Yes, it's pathetic. It was pathetic with Iraq, and it's pathetic now. Not even so much because it's wrong, but because they just don't want to admit they lost. Yes, they're losers, as firmly rejected by the electorate as the Bush agenda was in 2006. Somewhere deep down, they probably know that they deserved to lose. They can't stand that. So they lash out, and stink of fear and desperation in doing so.
And in that fear and desperation, they have also finally answered that question I posed to the defenders months ago. You may remember it:
Is there a line? If there were a bill called "health care reform" that consisted solely of "everybody tithes 10% of their money to Rupert Murdoch", would they still support it? If THAT were all that Joe Lieberman, Nelson et al were willing to vote for, would Rahm head on down to Reid's office and harass them to pass the Health Care/Buying Rupert Murdoch Big Yachts Act of 2009?Yglesias just showed that the answer is "no". There's no line. There never was. The Buying Big Yachts Act of 2009 would be perfectly acceptable. Anything with the name "health care" on it would be acceptable. Anything that makes Matt Yglesias and the rest feel like winners, instead of losers, is acceptable.
And if you don't support it?
You're a MONSTER.
Edit: Some of Matt's commentators are defending his post for being "sarcastic". Bull. He's dressing up a serious point in quasi-sarcasm. It's "Ha Ha Only Serious".
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Supreme Court Rules That Corps Can Advertise As Much As The Want
This blog entry has been brought to you by Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart: we think unions are smelly!
So, yes, the Supremes ruled 5-4 (naturally) against restrictions on corporate advertising during elections. No surprise: the Roberts court was, and is, a profoundly corporatist creature.
This does slightly help unions and non-profits like the ACLU, but the money gap there is just too much to contemplate. Wal-Mart is going to be able to, quite literally, buy their own candidates. Sure, they can't donate directly or coordinate, but who cares? Most campaign spending is advertising anyway. If a corp can pick up that slack, the campaign's fundraising work is a million times simpler.
America: It Was Nice While It Lasted.(tm)
So, yes, the Supremes ruled 5-4 (naturally) against restrictions on corporate advertising during elections. No surprise: the Roberts court was, and is, a profoundly corporatist creature.
This does slightly help unions and non-profits like the ACLU, but the money gap there is just too much to contemplate. Wal-Mart is going to be able to, quite literally, buy their own candidates. Sure, they can't donate directly or coordinate, but who cares? Most campaign spending is advertising anyway. If a corp can pick up that slack, the campaign's fundraising work is a million times simpler.
America: It Was Nice While It Lasted.(tm)
"Relieved"
This is from TPM. It's an anonymous staffer talking about the mood in Washington after the Brown win. Quoted verbatim:
I certainly wouldn't want to indicate I have any unique insight on how everyone feels around this place but I thought you might be interested in how one Senate staffer is feeling.Bolding is mine. I wanted to quote the whole thing, but that was the important bit. The Dems just don't get that it's not about some nonexistent line from mythical "left" to mythical "right". It never has been. And they're going to be crushed for it.My background is like probably the majority of staffers I know. I came to DC, from a far superior climate and quality of life, because I wanted to save the world. I arrived, and took a job in the House, at what I still view as the nadir of Congress - in 1996. Republicans had recently taken over Congress and had 230 seats in the House and 52 in the Senate. Democrats were in a state of shock and we watched (because that was essentially all we could do) in horror as they systematically went after nearly every institution of civil governance culminating in nearly removing the President from office via an entirely trumped-up charge. They had destroyed the Democrats in 1994 because they simply couldn't deliver - the BTU tax went down, health care went down, and finally the Crime Bill failed because it had such laughably wacky ideas as "midnight basketball" as a crime prevention measure (something with is widely approved of today and is completely noncontroversial). As a young LA, it was amazingly dispiriting. Literally nothing we proposed could get passed - we couldn't even get votes. Every bill came to the floor under a closed rule so we couldn't propose amendments and our Senate colleagues faced a full amendment tree on every bill such that unless they had Republican patron they couldn't get votes either. Kennedy fought like hell for things like minimum wage and sometimes could arm-wrestle a procedural vote win out of them but things would just die in the hands of the Hammer in the House. Eventually, my boss got fed up and retired and I went over to the Administration where I thought I might be able to get more accomplished.
Even there, in a Democratic Administration, we faced constant battles as anything remotely beneficial to the public or in keeping with our mission was forcibly outsourced by the Congress or investigated into near-paralysis. The Republican Majority in the House had steadily eroded so that by the end of the Clinton years they had only a 5 seat cushion (223) in the House, but their strong majority in the Senate (55) kept them firmly in control. Then, when Bush took over in the wake of the most disputable election imaginable, the political appointees flooded in and began reversing policies (including policies promulgated by previous Republican administrations) as if they were exercising the overwhelming mandate of the people. Republicans barely kept the House with 221 seats and only held on to the Senate via Cheney's tie breaking vote on the organizing resolution. I left to start a family.
Despite Jeffords' flip, and the razor-thin majority in the House, the Democrats dealt no significant losses to President Bush and his agenda went essentially unchecked, and nominations were processed efficiently and quickly (after all, the people had spoken!). The only arguable exception I can think of right now is that the Administration was unable to push through drilling in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge but they actually did put it on reconciliation, they just lost too many Republicans to win. I returned to being in the Minority on the Hill, on the Senate side this time and as staff to an important Committee, and Republicans now had a 51-seat Majority in the Senate and had strengthened in the House to a mighty 229 seats. We fought valiantly to slow them down but were unsuccessful in stopping a one-sided energy bill, escalation of a needless war in Iraq, and continued erosion of the social safety net and de-funding of civil institutions through tax cuts for the well-off. We got occasional fig leaves, and maybe could get a witness or two included in a hearing, but were essentially not a part of the final discussions to put together bills. I dreamed that if only we could get two Senate seat takeaways, then we could finally take the reigns back - after all, poll after poll showed the American people agreed with us on nearly every issue. In 2004 we would surely break through to the public - we had neutralized them on their central issue by nominating a war hero and people were desperate for health care and education reforms. We had moved away from that scary Howard Dean fellow and were now proposing only modest reforms to health care, more tax cuts, and deficit reduction (don't worry, never at the expense of the Pentagon!). How could we lose? Republicans strengthened their majorities to 55 Senators and 232 House Members and I almost lost my job as the now-overwhelming Republican Majority in the Senate increased their allocation of the office space and staff salaries. Now a majority was a faraway dream and the best we could hope for was a few sympathetic Republicans on a few issues that might help us at least expose what they were doing (and we did manage to beat back drilling in Arctic again).
Unexpectedly, public mood did finally begin to sour on the wars and deficits agenda in 2006 and we were able to eek out victories in MT and VA so that we could take a narrow 51-49 majority in the Senate (including a dicey vote from Lieberman) and a massive 233-202 Majority in the House. Of course, we'd have to cautious and trim our sails a bit since Bush still was President and we had several skittish votes in the Caucus, but the American People were giving us a shot. We suffered some disappointments but we did about as well as could be expected in the Senate, but at least we were making progress and, though I had to trim my ambitions a bit, I was finally writing provisions that were becoming law. On balance, it was a good Congress, but I dreamed of having big majorities like 55 Senators so that we could really do the stuff we've all been waiting for.
A wave election hit us in 2008 where we not only had overwhelming majorities of 59 seats in the Senate (once Republicans finally got around to letting us seat Franken) and 257 seats in the House (returning us to the same power level as when we ruled the House with inpugnity in 1992-3) but, most importantly, a President who was explicitly elected on an agenda of "change." It was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to wrench the wheel away from the abyss and really deliver on our promises. It was disheartening when it seemed that Reid was allowing McConnell's disingenuous narrative of "it's always taken 60 votes to get anything done" to take hold, but we were later even saved from that when Specter switched. But it seems we've spent the entire year moving our own goalposts farther away. Things have gotten so bad that in roaming the halls today it feels exactly as if we lost the Majority last night.
The worst is that I can't help but feel like the main emotion people in the caucus are feeling is relief at this turn of events. Now they have a ready excuse for not getting anything done. While I always thought we had the better ideas but the weaker messaging, it feels like somewhere along the line Members internalized a belief that we actually have weaker ideas. They're afraid to actually implement them and face the judgement of the voters. That's the scariest dynamic and what makes me think this will all come crashing down around us in November.
I believe President Clinton provided some crucial insight when he said, "people would rather be with someone who is strong and wrong than weak and right." It's not that people are uninterested in who's right or wrong, it's that people will only follow leaders who seem to actually believe in what they are doing. Democrats have missed this essential fact.
The stimulus bill in the spring showed us what was coming. In the face of a historic economic crisis, Democrats negotiated against themselves at the outset and subsequently yielded to absurd demands from self-described "moderates" to trim the package to a clearly inadequate level. No one made any rational argument about why a lower level was better. It would have been trivial to write "claw-back" provisions if the stimulus turned out to be too much or we could have done a rescission this year to give these moderates their victory, but none of this was on the table. We essentially looked like we didn't know what the right answer was so we just kinda went for what we could get. This formula was repeated in spades in both the Climate and Health Care debacles.
This is my life and I simply can't answer the fundamental question: "what do Democrats stand for?" Voters don't know, and we can't make the case, so they're reacting exactly as you'd expect (just as they did in 1994, 2000, and 2004). We either find the voice to answer that question and exercise the strongest majority and voter mandate we've had since Watergate, or we suffer a bloodbath in November. History shows we're likely to choose the latter.
Although I realize this is far too long to publish, if you do decide to use any of it, please keep my anonymity. Just in case I'm wrong and there is more good to do yet.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Cohn Pleads: "Pleeeeease Pass the Senate Bill!"
Yep, it's already started. We've already got Jonathan Cohn whinging in TNR about how doomed the House will be if they don't pass the Senate's bill unaltered.
Yes, that Senate bill. The one that's a big ol' giveaway to insurance companies, which taxes the holy hell out of unions to avoid higher upper-class taxes, which practically forces insurance cartels and and which Coakley almost certainly lost the election on. (Yes, it's similar to Massachusetts' own setup. That is completely irrelevant.)
The House should pass that bill unchanged.
Riiiiight.
Look, Jon. I can call you Jon, right? I know that you've invested a lot of your own political and intellectual capital into this thing, despite your own misgivings. A lot of other people have, too. Poor Ezra seems to have found himself practically authoring the thing, and Captain Sabermetrics has, in defending this tripe, managed to so competely alienate himself from more progressive bloggers that his reputation as a cool, unattached statistical analyst is probably gone for good.
But now you've been reduced to advocating the very bill that you and everybody else had been saying, just a few months ago, would be "fixed in reconciliation". You've been reduced to telling politicians that a terrible bill is "better than nothing", which has always been political suicide. And you've been reduced to telling the House that their entire Congressional body is supposed to lie down and admit that they have less authority than ONE Connecticut Senator...that they're essentially worthless.
Even if you can pull it off, is it really worth it? You sound exactly like the neoconservatives and "liberal hawks" trying to defend the Iraq occupation after the wheels went off the whole thing in late 2003. Same damned "better than nothing" arguments, even. "You go to war with the army you have" is a punchline, not a guideline. Sure, TNR was one of the main sources of that malarky, but you're a good writer and a good journalist; you should be able to learn from history.
I'm not going to predict whether this sort of thing will work. The same entitlement and disconnect that fueled this bill and Coakley's humiliating, bizarre defeat might mean that the House gets convinced to vote against their own interests. They're trying to save their jobs, after all. They're politicians.
But Cohn isn't a politician. And, dammit, he should know better.
Edit: And, as you can see here, he DOES know better, when it isn't health care on the table.
Yes, that Senate bill. The one that's a big ol' giveaway to insurance companies, which taxes the holy hell out of unions to avoid higher upper-class taxes, which practically forces insurance cartels and and which Coakley almost certainly lost the election on. (Yes, it's similar to Massachusetts' own setup. That is completely irrelevant.)
The House should pass that bill unchanged.
Riiiiight.
Look, Jon. I can call you Jon, right? I know that you've invested a lot of your own political and intellectual capital into this thing, despite your own misgivings. A lot of other people have, too. Poor Ezra seems to have found himself practically authoring the thing, and Captain Sabermetrics has, in defending this tripe, managed to so competely alienate himself from more progressive bloggers that his reputation as a cool, unattached statistical analyst is probably gone for good.
But now you've been reduced to advocating the very bill that you and everybody else had been saying, just a few months ago, would be "fixed in reconciliation". You've been reduced to telling politicians that a terrible bill is "better than nothing", which has always been political suicide. And you've been reduced to telling the House that their entire Congressional body is supposed to lie down and admit that they have less authority than ONE Connecticut Senator...that they're essentially worthless.
Even if you can pull it off, is it really worth it? You sound exactly like the neoconservatives and "liberal hawks" trying to defend the Iraq occupation after the wheels went off the whole thing in late 2003. Same damned "better than nothing" arguments, even. "You go to war with the army you have" is a punchline, not a guideline. Sure, TNR was one of the main sources of that malarky, but you're a good writer and a good journalist; you should be able to learn from history.
I'm not going to predict whether this sort of thing will work. The same entitlement and disconnect that fueled this bill and Coakley's humiliating, bizarre defeat might mean that the House gets convinced to vote against their own interests. They're trying to save their jobs, after all. They're politicians.
But Cohn isn't a politician. And, dammit, he should know better.
Edit: And, as you can see here, he DOES know better, when it isn't health care on the table.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Brown Won, and the Dems Will Undoubtedly Learn the Wrong Lesson
Already the talking heads are bleating about "too much government". This is Massachusetts we're talking about; it's not about "too much government".
No, it is about—and has always been about—the belief that the Dems got into office and, instead of changing anything, bellied up to the lobbyists' tables and ate their fill at the American people's expense, just as the Republicans did. Of course, the Republicans weren't quite as hypocritical about it.
And, yes, that means it's really about the bailout, and about the economy. It has ALWAYS been about the economy. There is a disconnect between the people they see on television chattering about how the "economy is rebounding", and their experiences as workers, small businessmen, and the increasingly-desperate unemployed. They sense that they've been had, and the Republicans are (as ever) adroit about exploiting it while the Dems are busy stumbling around like idiots.
So, is health care now dead? Depends. I suspect that, considering this IS the Dems we're talking about, they'll try to leverage some BS about "moving towards the center" to pressure progressives in the House into passing the Senate bill. They've spent the entire past year pissing on progressives and calling it rain, no reason to think that they'd stop now.
If they smarten up, realize this has nothing to do with "big government" and everything to do with the perception of who they're governing for, they might be able to turn this around and exploit reconciliation to get a (better) bill on to Obama's desk.
But if they were that smart, Brown would never have won to begin with.
No, it is about—and has always been about—the belief that the Dems got into office and, instead of changing anything, bellied up to the lobbyists' tables and ate their fill at the American people's expense, just as the Republicans did. Of course, the Republicans weren't quite as hypocritical about it.
And, yes, that means it's really about the bailout, and about the economy. It has ALWAYS been about the economy. There is a disconnect between the people they see on television chattering about how the "economy is rebounding", and their experiences as workers, small businessmen, and the increasingly-desperate unemployed. They sense that they've been had, and the Republicans are (as ever) adroit about exploiting it while the Dems are busy stumbling around like idiots.
So, is health care now dead? Depends. I suspect that, considering this IS the Dems we're talking about, they'll try to leverage some BS about "moving towards the center" to pressure progressives in the House into passing the Senate bill. They've spent the entire past year pissing on progressives and calling it rain, no reason to think that they'd stop now.
If they smarten up, realize this has nothing to do with "big government" and everything to do with the perception of who they're governing for, they might be able to turn this around and exploit reconciliation to get a (better) bill on to Obama's desk.
But if they were that smart, Brown would never have won to begin with.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Credit Card Companies Skimming Off Haiti Donations
Again, on HuffPo, Laura Bassett:
I agree with Laura that legislators should intervene. This is unconscionable. Visa et al should not be profiting from this disaster. They are literally taking food away from the mouths of starving Haitians, and they should be ASHAMED.
Words fail. But it gets worse:As a massive human tragedy unfolds in Haiti, relief organizations are soliciting credit-card donations through their hotlines and websites. About 97 percent of these donations will actually make it to the designated organizations -- but the other 3 percent will be skimmed off by banks and credit card companies to cover their "transaction costs."
Thanks to this hidden fee, American banks and credit card companies are making huge profits -- somewhere in the neighborhood of $250 million a year -- off of people's charitable donations, according to a Huffington Post analysis.
Those profits rise sharply after major disasters, when humanitarian relief organizations such as Oxfam and Operation USA take in more than 85 percent of their donations via credit card -- and the credit card providers, with only a few exceptions, refuse to waive their fees...
...Ben Woolsey, director of marketing and consumer research at Creditcards.com, says the hidden processing fees tacked onto all credit card donations cover far more than the transaction costs, allowing the issuing banks, as well as companies like Visa, MasterCard and American Express, to generate significant profits off of online charitable donations.
"They certainly profit off of these fees," Woolsey said. "Charities are treated like any other merchant. The credit card company bleeds a few percentage points off each transaction; that's central to their business model.
It is difficult to know whether this is the true reason or not. it would almost be worse if it were. What would it say about America if a company as important as Walmart couldn't understand why charitable donations should get preferential treatment?Spokespersons for Visa and American Express declined to say whether they would consider waiving their fees for the Haiti disaster, or for all charitable donations. But Bill Strathmann, CEO of the online charity portal Network for Good, says they won't: "The reason credit card companies don't waive fees for charities is that they have so many corporate partners who drive high volume through their system. A company like Walmart could say, 'Hey, you're giving them a bettter rate? Last I looked I was passing billions of dollars through your company.'"
I agree with Laura that legislators should intervene. This is unconscionable. Visa et al should not be profiting from this disaster. They are literally taking food away from the mouths of starving Haitians, and they should be ASHAMED.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)