President Obama did what he had to do in the speech before the Joint Session of Congress. For slightly over an hour, he walked through the details of the health care plan and reminded the audience that the effort at health care reform began with Theodore Roosevelt and has continued to this day without success. He boldly said he would the last President to deal with this issue. "We came here to make the Future."
President Obama adroitly painted the leftist position as the single-payer option and knocked it down to move on to attack the Republican positions. He noted the acrimony this debate has generated and played the adult calling on civility, despite a tough debate. He rightfully blasted the various lies being told about the death panels, socialized medicine, restricting the care for the elderly and all the rubbish that has emerged from the Republicans and their fellowers in the tea parties. He came right out and called them "lies" and promised to call out anyone who misrepresents his program. He was called a "liar" by a Republican from South Carolina for saying the health reform did not pay for illegal immigrants as the Right has argued. And he said from the podium this just wasn't true.
He covered at great length the details of the reform package and promised he would not sign a bill that added a penny to the deficit--too bad in my opinion. But he scored plenty of points calling out the unfunded programs of the Republicans such as the Iraq War, Medicare B and the tax cuts for the wealthy--these got the biggest applause lines. For the Republicans now bemoaning deficits for the first time in over a generation, Obama scored heavily on this point and his sparring with them on the whole issue of what government can and cannot do.
He had moments of great eloquence yet grounded his speech in all the particulars various groups wanted to hear about. The pieces which would hold the insurance companies accountable were welcome news to my ears and I was delighted he brought up the monpolistic practices of health insurance companies in various states with my particular favorite Alabama where Blue-Cross Blue Shield is virtually the only player. Finally, he made the explicit connection between the health insurance exchange proposition and the federal employees' program, which enlarges the risk pool and drives insurance rates down. For instance, if my wife and I bought our current program through the federal employees program it would cost for exactly the same plan one-half the cost. He reiterated the ban against prior conditions and a cap on benefits in both a year and over a lifetime. And he had to speak directly to the seniors because the Republicans have generated support in blocking health care reform by causing concerns among the seniors. He went on to point out that those very people pretending to protect seniors proposed under the Bush Administration to make Medicare a private voucher system. And of course, he emphasized that he would defend Medicare.
The most interesting parts of the speech in my mind was his defense of government and the need for government policy to create security for people who work hard over a lifetime. He cited the creation of Social Security and Medicare--two programs that lacked republican support--as great contributions to America. He painted them as bipartisan achievements even though he knows better. He went on to cite Senator Kennedy's letter released after his death saying that this year would be the year for health care reform. And he movingly defended Kennedy from accusations over liberalism saying the cause of health care reform was a moral one. Much to their obvious displeasure President Obama tied Charles Grasley, Orrin Hatch and John McCain to Senator Kennedy and linked them to several programs which might be considered liberal. His speech clearly put the monkey on the Republicans back.
He made the case that the status quo wouldn't work and is no longer working. He portrayed those resisting reform as fiscally irresponsible--I thought that was a shrewd political move. While leftwing bloggers are expressing their concern about President Obama's bipartisan overtures, I think it creates enormous pressure on them and raises greater political consequences if they don't respond positively. He was just painting them into a corner from which they can't escape.
I share the qualms the left has about his discussion of the public option. But I wonder if he did not rhetorically seem to downplay it to make it less of a red flag. He nonchalantly threw out that only 5% of Americans would choose the public option--that is a helluva lot of people. I thought he was strong in defending the public option but I think he wanted to portray it to the larger audience as something that any insurance company should be able to cope with. Remember Senator Grassley said that health insurance companies would disappear if a public option were adopted. What Obama was doing was deflating the extravagant claims being made about the public option as a rival to the status quo.
In the end, President Obama made the case not only for the urgency of health care reform but also for all the reforms he is proposing. As always, he comes off as the reasonable one. And one wonders also if the pre-emptive hysteria of conservatives and Republicans over his education speech doesn't help him out on this one. Even conservatives are admitting they jumped the gun in criticising a very sensible and inspiring speech for young people. So on such a big issue as health care reform--now that one heard the August hysteria at the townhall parties and today heard what the President believes about the subject--who are you going to believe? It must soon become apparent that the Republican and the Right have serious credibility problems.
That's my take before I heard any commentators. I do recommend as I did during the whole campaign to watch these speeches on C-Span where you are spared the nonsense of the punditocracy. It allows you to hear the speech and make up your own mind unfiltered through the rantings of the talking heads. Again a very strong performance by the President with just enough of the old spirit that got him the office.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
9-9-09--Morning Coffee
How many more do-or-die speeches will Barack Obama have to make in his presidency? There is some hidden assumptions here when this is raised every time he speaks. Why is it that people actually think any of these speeches are do-or-die?
This has been going on since he declared for the Presidency. We had the great Race Speech in Philadelphia, which we were told would either make or break his candidacy. Somehow he did fine. Then we had the big speech at the Democratic Convention, which was ridiculed before delivery by Republicans who thought the set was too grandiose. Democrats claimed he would have to tread a fine line in the speech so as not to offend Hillary.
Or remember the first trip overseas where McCain offered to be his guide to Iraq? Daily we were treated to news coverage anticipating a blunder. Would our troops greet him as they did George W? Of course,they were thrilled. In addition, critics said his proposal for withdrawal was unrealistic only to find the Iraqi government agreed. Then we had his trip to Israel, a time-bomb waiting to happen. No problem.
Then we had the Berlin speech, which would be compared to JFK and Reagan and he would have to fail. Of course, over 200,000 came out and it was superb. But then we had the flap over the military hospital, where one of his military aides was ruled a campaign officials and so a trip had to be cancelled. And it doesn't end.
The speech the night he won--would it be uniting enough. The inaugural speech with 2 million people in town--would it be bold enough? Or how about his first G-8 conference, could he command the respect of our NATO allies and the Chinese? he actually personally brokered an agreement between France and China. Or he didn't show the proper respect to Queen Elizabeth and -horrors--Michelle put her arm around the Queen. The Palace had to issue a statement saying the Queen thought this was just ducky and she loved the first lady. Off to Europe and the meeting with the Pope, whose statement of support for President Obama's social policy, was quietly ignored by American Catholics.
And off we go to everything from the Stimulus package to Health Care. Perhaps the best vantage point to get a clearer view of this phony high-wire analysis or the do-or-die analysis is the simple speech yesterday by President Obama to the schoolchildren of America and the run-up to this relatively innocuous event. We were treated to the hysteria of the right-wing alkshows denouncing his indoctrinating America's youth into socialism,soliciting their support for the Cash-for-Clunkers program and the takeover of the banks. School districts threatened by teabaggers cancelled plans for showing the speech. Here in Virginia, Herndon and Loudon county schools made no plans even though the speech was at neighboring Wakefield High School a few miles down the road.
Of course--anyone who has listened to Barack Obama on education--would find no surprises. It was a speech aimed at students but not condescending to them, urging the youth to take academic achievement seriously and as a way for the success, instead of rappers and sports idols. Nice and ,of course, naive when the country only produces wealth through the doings of morons like we're some American idol society--which we are.
The Republican and conservative response was typical--their protests forced Obama to change his speech--absolutely not true-- and that his speech was basically conservative. Libertarian Neil Boortz in a moment of clarity made it clear that Republicans and conservatives were sucked into a trap of their making and any strategist worth his salt would have known that an education speech by this President, of all people, would sound the themes that he did and would have prepared the troops for just that. Oh, no! I'm waiting for the pushback that must come when people have some collective awakening that Obama is nothing like his critics say and that every criticism so far has been nothing but blatant lies.
There is a very dirty secret here. No Republican or conservative I know ever listens to President Obama and has never heard a thing he has said about anything. I have had e-mails from people purporting to "know" about the President's townhall meetings. Having been to two in the last year, I have some idea about how to gauge the truthfulness of their accounts. Union goons and Acorn people being "bussed" in, while "real Americans" are locked out. One account had lobsters being flown in for a meal in rural Montana. Barack Obama as Emperor Jones, a grandiose blackman acting as some African despot. There are people who honestly believe it and go viral with all this nonsense. As one would expect, the Townhalls are a pretty convivial affair, made inconvenient by all the wait and security checks, but with a full cross-section of the local community there. At the two I attended, there were no Acorn people but they were probably in disguise.
So now, we are at another make or break point--in all of 8 months of a Presidency--the health care speech. If he advocates a public option, the entire health insurance industry will disappear over night. Health care will be delivered like the post office--an improvement over its current state. Death panels and Death books will be the manner of today. It will be socialized medicine. There is no real medical care crisis says Michael Gerson in todays Washington Post. There is no urgency. The President is making up a crisis--just quote Rahm Emmanuel.
Of course, all the talking heads, lobbyists, congresscritters are actually rich people and for them there really is no health crisis. Just as one conservative complained that the President's speech on education was being shown at a church, when "everyone knows students could have access to the speech on internet." My tame response was that all students do not have access to the internet--like it or not.
I'll probably listen to the speech because I've listened to all of his just so I know what lies will be said. After a while, I'd like to take a pass but I receive streams of e-mails everyday, claiming Obama's new socialist idea or other. One of those told me yesterday that our freedoms are being threatened as now time before--except the American revolution. The Civil War? World War II? Richard Nixon? Sorry. As for President Obama, he'll do just fine.
This has been going on since he declared for the Presidency. We had the great Race Speech in Philadelphia, which we were told would either make or break his candidacy. Somehow he did fine. Then we had the big speech at the Democratic Convention, which was ridiculed before delivery by Republicans who thought the set was too grandiose. Democrats claimed he would have to tread a fine line in the speech so as not to offend Hillary.
Or remember the first trip overseas where McCain offered to be his guide to Iraq? Daily we were treated to news coverage anticipating a blunder. Would our troops greet him as they did George W? Of course,they were thrilled. In addition, critics said his proposal for withdrawal was unrealistic only to find the Iraqi government agreed. Then we had his trip to Israel, a time-bomb waiting to happen. No problem.
Then we had the Berlin speech, which would be compared to JFK and Reagan and he would have to fail. Of course, over 200,000 came out and it was superb. But then we had the flap over the military hospital, where one of his military aides was ruled a campaign officials and so a trip had to be cancelled. And it doesn't end.
The speech the night he won--would it be uniting enough. The inaugural speech with 2 million people in town--would it be bold enough? Or how about his first G-8 conference, could he command the respect of our NATO allies and the Chinese? he actually personally brokered an agreement between France and China. Or he didn't show the proper respect to Queen Elizabeth and -horrors--Michelle put her arm around the Queen. The Palace had to issue a statement saying the Queen thought this was just ducky and she loved the first lady. Off to Europe and the meeting with the Pope, whose statement of support for President Obama's social policy, was quietly ignored by American Catholics.
And off we go to everything from the Stimulus package to Health Care. Perhaps the best vantage point to get a clearer view of this phony high-wire analysis or the do-or-die analysis is the simple speech yesterday by President Obama to the schoolchildren of America and the run-up to this relatively innocuous event. We were treated to the hysteria of the right-wing alkshows denouncing his indoctrinating America's youth into socialism,soliciting their support for the Cash-for-Clunkers program and the takeover of the banks. School districts threatened by teabaggers cancelled plans for showing the speech. Here in Virginia, Herndon and Loudon county schools made no plans even though the speech was at neighboring Wakefield High School a few miles down the road.
Of course--anyone who has listened to Barack Obama on education--would find no surprises. It was a speech aimed at students but not condescending to them, urging the youth to take academic achievement seriously and as a way for the success, instead of rappers and sports idols. Nice and ,of course, naive when the country only produces wealth through the doings of morons like we're some American idol society--which we are.
The Republican and conservative response was typical--their protests forced Obama to change his speech--absolutely not true-- and that his speech was basically conservative. Libertarian Neil Boortz in a moment of clarity made it clear that Republicans and conservatives were sucked into a trap of their making and any strategist worth his salt would have known that an education speech by this President, of all people, would sound the themes that he did and would have prepared the troops for just that. Oh, no! I'm waiting for the pushback that must come when people have some collective awakening that Obama is nothing like his critics say and that every criticism so far has been nothing but blatant lies.
There is a very dirty secret here. No Republican or conservative I know ever listens to President Obama and has never heard a thing he has said about anything. I have had e-mails from people purporting to "know" about the President's townhall meetings. Having been to two in the last year, I have some idea about how to gauge the truthfulness of their accounts. Union goons and Acorn people being "bussed" in, while "real Americans" are locked out. One account had lobsters being flown in for a meal in rural Montana. Barack Obama as Emperor Jones, a grandiose blackman acting as some African despot. There are people who honestly believe it and go viral with all this nonsense. As one would expect, the Townhalls are a pretty convivial affair, made inconvenient by all the wait and security checks, but with a full cross-section of the local community there. At the two I attended, there were no Acorn people but they were probably in disguise.
So now, we are at another make or break point--in all of 8 months of a Presidency--the health care speech. If he advocates a public option, the entire health insurance industry will disappear over night. Health care will be delivered like the post office--an improvement over its current state. Death panels and Death books will be the manner of today. It will be socialized medicine. There is no real medical care crisis says Michael Gerson in todays Washington Post. There is no urgency. The President is making up a crisis--just quote Rahm Emmanuel.
Of course, all the talking heads, lobbyists, congresscritters are actually rich people and for them there really is no health crisis. Just as one conservative complained that the President's speech on education was being shown at a church, when "everyone knows students could have access to the speech on internet." My tame response was that all students do not have access to the internet--like it or not.
I'll probably listen to the speech because I've listened to all of his just so I know what lies will be said. After a while, I'd like to take a pass but I receive streams of e-mails everyday, claiming Obama's new socialist idea or other. One of those told me yesterday that our freedoms are being threatened as now time before--except the American revolution. The Civil War? World War II? Richard Nixon? Sorry. As for President Obama, he'll do just fine.
Monday, September 7, 2009
I'm Fired Up--Ready To Go
In a terrible time in a terrible year, it took the old Barack Obama to get the juices flowing. Speaking before the AFL-CIO Labor Day picnic, Obama finally came back on fire,giving the type of speech that inspired all those who voted for him. Alot of it he has said before and over the last few months--the need to place the economy on a new foundation, one based on work, not wealth, the need to reform a badly damaged health care system that will not leave everyone one illness from bankruptcy. He hit all his points today but with a fervor that has been lacking in his normal speeches as President. O' and yes, he did endorse the public option to keep health insurance companies honest. He pointedly talked about all the lies being said about the health reform plan and asked his critics,"What's your plan?" He quickly answered his own question,"None". He should have kept going and said that his critics think the status quo is OK. If whole segments are going to hate the man without a harsh word from him, I would prefer he keep the fire in the belly and speak with the passion he's known for. Like many people, I think he's been too nice and hasn't slapped his opposition around enough. I could use with a whole lot of those Whoop-d-doo speeches Hillary Clinton always complained about. That do inspire and that's a good part of leadership.
See you at the White House rally tomorrow.
See you at the White House rally tomorrow.
Labor Day Thoughts
Would anyone have objected if Bill Cosby were to speak to the American schoolchildren? Responding to the kerfuffle about President Obama's speech, Education Secretary Arne Duncan pointed to the amazing 30% dropout rates of America's high school students as maybe one of the reasons the President wants to deliver the speech. Combined with the growing number of college dropouts, this is a dangerous sign of a country who has to compete globally.
The great Nate Silver over at www.fivethirtyeight.com commented on the growing Republican demographic of angry seniors. While a long term detriment to the GOP's chances on a national level, it is a benefit for the 2010, since seniors tend to vote in higher percentages than other groups. Will this see a Republican wave as Washington pundits predict, over at the Dailykos, there was a look at all the by-elections to date and Republican have not fared well, even when they tried to nationaliz the election by tying the Democrat to Obama's health care plan or to gay marriage. That's why I think the governors' elections in New Jersey and Virginia will constitute a false dawn for Republicans. At this writing both Republicans are leading in the polls but are now drawing flak for past deeds and actions. Even if victorious, it's going to be hard to justify any national trend.
I happen to subcribe to the Bill Clinton theory that if health reform is passed, President Obama's approval ratings will climb and the Democrats might dodge a bullet in 2010 elections. It's hard to see what a Republican vote would accomplish except to re-enforce the party's message of "No". If the elections go as the past, the President's party should lose between 15-20 seats in the House. That still will not be enough to fulfill Newt Gingrich's Dream Number 2 of replaying 1994.
Look to see Harold Koh as the leading contender for the next slot on the Supreme Court when Stevens retires. The former Dean of Yale Law School and a defender of human rights globally, he will draw the fire of the right as he has recently. Koh is a very decent and very likeable man and accomplished man but that won't stop anyone.
Glenn Beck tasting blood over the resignation of Van Jones wants to go after Cass Sunstein, the former law professor from the University of Chicago and friend of Barack Obama. Dr. Sunstein is a very peculiar target for Beck. During the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama disappointed his supporters for his support of the FISA bill. Sunstein gave out interviews on why Obama did this. In the interview, he recalled that during all the Bush maneuverings on civil liberties Obama consulted him and asked him to lay out the soundest legal arguments one could make in defense of the Bush actions so he understood them. It seems to me that someone who could actually make these arguments--even if he didn't support them--is hardly material for attack. In particular, Beck wants to expose Sunstein's writings that concern the possibility of using organs from the deceased without a family's consent. A theoretical article about a theoretical situation--something professors are apt to do. But it would fit into the death panel-death book-euthanasia themes that are so popular among the Beck audience. I can see him now--Obama-Sunstein-Chicago-Ezekial Emmanuel--Socialism.
Keith Olbermann seems to have sensed that Glenn Beck is no longer the joke he enjoyed while explaining the symbolism of Rockefeller Center. He has put out a request on his Daily Kos blog for all leads, tips, informants on Mr. Beck's past and present. I hope he comes up with some good stuff.
Van Jones wounded himself with signing the 9/11 petition. However, I found his tape about Columbine truthful and interesting. He said that only white boys shoot up schools, while black boys don't. Since I can't find anything that disputes this, it actually is a subject worthy of analysis. Naturally, this tape was to show how racist he was but I found it disturbingly accurate.
The NAACP criticized President Obama for letting Van Jones go because of criticism from the right. The Washington Post, the company newspaper, said that this showed the problem of vetting in the Administration. Unfortunately, it reminds me of the loss when Tom Daschle could not make it as Health Secretary, a blow to the health care plan. Van Jones had a compelling personal history that led him naturally to the place of being a Czar for Green Jobs.
Old Governor Sunbeam--California's Attorney-General Jerry Brown--has opened up an investigation into the abuse of health insurance companies who demand employees attend townhall meetings to voice talking points against reform. Brown said that, while this practice may be legal in other states, it is not in the state of California and represents a specific abuse of workers' rights, according to the statutes. Well done. The insurance industry has ordered employees out in every state, armed with talking points created by their lobbyists. Some news reports put this figure at 47,000 people placed in these various townhall meetings.
The oil companies thought this astro-turfing ideas is so great that they are now mobilizing protests against the Cap-and-Trade bill before Congress. This is a fantastic moment in our democracy--American corporations are organizing street protests--what a concept?! Billionaires for Weathfare--one of more favorite protest groups--should appear at these protests with a new chant,"We all want to shop at the Company Store!"
My friends in the Natural Gas industry constantly complain about President Obama, mostly I think because they are all from Texas. But underneath the radar, it has been the Coal Industry lobby on the Hill blocking the expansion of natural gas, which is cheap, plentiful and clean.
On the book front, I received notice from Amazon that Bill Burroughs' Evil River will not be published this September. Now the due date is September 2010. That means four years since I first ordered it. Now, Burroughs has been dead for years, the manuscript has been in the hands of the publisher for at least five years. Certainly, there is an editor around by now.
The one book I look forward to is Ralph Ellison's Three Days Before the Shooting about the assassination of a biracial Southern politician who passed as white but was raised by a black family. But with the current climate of hate rhetoric against President Obama,I'm not so sure I'll be as receptive to it as I might be.
The stupid award goes to Hank Williams, the descendent of the great Hank Williams, who proclaimed that "We all know that President Obama is only President because of the electoral college. The electoral college is the problem." Maybe, he's President for receiving the largest amount of popular votes in American history. Or, maybe not.
While Washington braces for Glenn Beck's 9/12 project, some of us are anticipating the 9/9/09 project--the release of all the remastered Beatles albums. I'm usually skeptical about these re-issues of the classics as some new money making proposition. But, the exercise looks like it might actually contribute something to finally obtaining the "real sound" of the Beatles. I'll report in due time.
The great Nate Silver over at www.fivethirtyeight.com commented on the growing Republican demographic of angry seniors. While a long term detriment to the GOP's chances on a national level, it is a benefit for the 2010, since seniors tend to vote in higher percentages than other groups. Will this see a Republican wave as Washington pundits predict, over at the Dailykos, there was a look at all the by-elections to date and Republican have not fared well, even when they tried to nationaliz the election by tying the Democrat to Obama's health care plan or to gay marriage. That's why I think the governors' elections in New Jersey and Virginia will constitute a false dawn for Republicans. At this writing both Republicans are leading in the polls but are now drawing flak for past deeds and actions. Even if victorious, it's going to be hard to justify any national trend.
I happen to subcribe to the Bill Clinton theory that if health reform is passed, President Obama's approval ratings will climb and the Democrats might dodge a bullet in 2010 elections. It's hard to see what a Republican vote would accomplish except to re-enforce the party's message of "No". If the elections go as the past, the President's party should lose between 15-20 seats in the House. That still will not be enough to fulfill Newt Gingrich's Dream Number 2 of replaying 1994.
Look to see Harold Koh as the leading contender for the next slot on the Supreme Court when Stevens retires. The former Dean of Yale Law School and a defender of human rights globally, he will draw the fire of the right as he has recently. Koh is a very decent and very likeable man and accomplished man but that won't stop anyone.
Glenn Beck tasting blood over the resignation of Van Jones wants to go after Cass Sunstein, the former law professor from the University of Chicago and friend of Barack Obama. Dr. Sunstein is a very peculiar target for Beck. During the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama disappointed his supporters for his support of the FISA bill. Sunstein gave out interviews on why Obama did this. In the interview, he recalled that during all the Bush maneuverings on civil liberties Obama consulted him and asked him to lay out the soundest legal arguments one could make in defense of the Bush actions so he understood them. It seems to me that someone who could actually make these arguments--even if he didn't support them--is hardly material for attack. In particular, Beck wants to expose Sunstein's writings that concern the possibility of using organs from the deceased without a family's consent. A theoretical article about a theoretical situation--something professors are apt to do. But it would fit into the death panel-death book-euthanasia themes that are so popular among the Beck audience. I can see him now--Obama-Sunstein-Chicago-Ezekial Emmanuel--Socialism.
Keith Olbermann seems to have sensed that Glenn Beck is no longer the joke he enjoyed while explaining the symbolism of Rockefeller Center. He has put out a request on his Daily Kos blog for all leads, tips, informants on Mr. Beck's past and present. I hope he comes up with some good stuff.
Van Jones wounded himself with signing the 9/11 petition. However, I found his tape about Columbine truthful and interesting. He said that only white boys shoot up schools, while black boys don't. Since I can't find anything that disputes this, it actually is a subject worthy of analysis. Naturally, this tape was to show how racist he was but I found it disturbingly accurate.
The NAACP criticized President Obama for letting Van Jones go because of criticism from the right. The Washington Post, the company newspaper, said that this showed the problem of vetting in the Administration. Unfortunately, it reminds me of the loss when Tom Daschle could not make it as Health Secretary, a blow to the health care plan. Van Jones had a compelling personal history that led him naturally to the place of being a Czar for Green Jobs.
Old Governor Sunbeam--California's Attorney-General Jerry Brown--has opened up an investigation into the abuse of health insurance companies who demand employees attend townhall meetings to voice talking points against reform. Brown said that, while this practice may be legal in other states, it is not in the state of California and represents a specific abuse of workers' rights, according to the statutes. Well done. The insurance industry has ordered employees out in every state, armed with talking points created by their lobbyists. Some news reports put this figure at 47,000 people placed in these various townhall meetings.
The oil companies thought this astro-turfing ideas is so great that they are now mobilizing protests against the Cap-and-Trade bill before Congress. This is a fantastic moment in our democracy--American corporations are organizing street protests--what a concept?! Billionaires for Weathfare--one of more favorite protest groups--should appear at these protests with a new chant,"We all want to shop at the Company Store!"
My friends in the Natural Gas industry constantly complain about President Obama, mostly I think because they are all from Texas. But underneath the radar, it has been the Coal Industry lobby on the Hill blocking the expansion of natural gas, which is cheap, plentiful and clean.
On the book front, I received notice from Amazon that Bill Burroughs' Evil River will not be published this September. Now the due date is September 2010. That means four years since I first ordered it. Now, Burroughs has been dead for years, the manuscript has been in the hands of the publisher for at least five years. Certainly, there is an editor around by now.
The one book I look forward to is Ralph Ellison's Three Days Before the Shooting about the assassination of a biracial Southern politician who passed as white but was raised by a black family. But with the current climate of hate rhetoric against President Obama,I'm not so sure I'll be as receptive to it as I might be.
The stupid award goes to Hank Williams, the descendent of the great Hank Williams, who proclaimed that "We all know that President Obama is only President because of the electoral college. The electoral college is the problem." Maybe, he's President for receiving the largest amount of popular votes in American history. Or, maybe not.
While Washington braces for Glenn Beck's 9/12 project, some of us are anticipating the 9/9/09 project--the release of all the remastered Beatles albums. I'm usually skeptical about these re-issues of the classics as some new money making proposition. But, the exercise looks like it might actually contribute something to finally obtaining the "real sound" of the Beatles. I'll report in due time.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Republican Gomorrah
Max Blumenthal's expose of how much the fundamentalists control today's Republican Party is one of the best reads on domestic politics in a long time. There are so many great moments. One summarizes ,in my opinion, why educated professionals are fleeing the Republican Party in droves. Sarah Palin is a member of a Third Wave Pentecoastal Church, which preaches that Satan had sex with Eve and gave birth to Cain--the so-called "Serpent's Seed". And through Cain, in the words of the Church's founder, came "all the smart, educated people to the antediluvian flood--the intellectuals. They know all the creeds but they do not know God." So, it doesn't matter to Palin's supporters she is clueless in terms of policy, she has right religion.
Blumenthal also does an excellent job of explaining the on-going appeal of George W. Bush to the religious right. Despite all the failings, he is seen as carrying out the personal commands of God, as he emphasized many times in conversations with foreign leaders. Horribly,if these people control the party, then it can not get beyond George W. and reinvent itself. Logically, it must plunge deeper into the religious right.
After finishing the book, it's apparent that there are only two possible nominees for 2012--Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee. Blumenthal does a splendid job of laying out Huckabee's long-time relationship with people like Dr. Dobson of Focus on the Family and by inference it's clear that Huckabee can talk the talk in a way that I think will be more compelling than Palin. One priceless scene is how Palin calls Dobson and tries to persuade him McCain is on board against Stem-Cell Research (he wasn't) and how he was firmly for banning gay marriages (he wasn't.) Since Dobson muscled McCain to choose Palin, it didn't really matter he had his girl.
Blumenthal does a real service by exploring the hinky side of the Christian Right's heroes. We discover that Diaper Dave Vitters, not only visited the D.C. Madam but also regularly engaged in S&M with a prostitute in New Orleans. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council came to Vitters defense because funds for the faith-based initiatives were coming to the Lousiana based branch of his outfit courtesy of Vitters. In addition, Vitters might be replaced by a Democrat. But in the case of Idaho's Larry Craig, who could only be replaced by a Republican, he could be thrown under the bus to assert the righteous indignation over gay sex.
Some of the best writing is on the Republican gay underground and how it sees itself as "Jews in Hitler's Army" by backing the extreme right's social agenda. Blumenthal reminds us of the long-history of gay-baiting by the right started under Joe McCarthy and enabled by Roy Cohn, who died of AIDS but never admitted he was gay. In the 1980s, when I first came to Washington during the Reagan years, it was startling to see how many gays were Republican activists, while the Democrats were basically homophobes then.
One interesting portrait is that of Howard Ahmanson, Jr, a terribly shy man who suffers from Tourette's Syndrome and who was once hosptalized for mental illness, who put his fortune at work funding anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-big business candidates for the California Assembly and by 1994 secured a Republican takeover of that body. He provided a good bulk of the funding behind the anti-gay Propositions in the State. He invested early on in the career of Marvin Olasky, who was a member of the Communist Party in the early 1970s when that group barely existed and who later converted from Judaism to an ultraconservative version of the Presbyterian Church. Olasky later became the godfather of compassionate conservatism, arguing that the church had been the traditional and most effective approach to philanthropy before the New Deal. During the bruising primaries between George W. Bush and John McCain, Olasky accused McCain's Jewish neoconservative supporters as worshipping the "religion of Zeus". His brainchild was Bush's creation of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in 2001.
Ahmanson's other success was the creation of the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which touts the intelligent design movement and seeks to debunk evolution. Americans United for Separation of Church and State calls Discovery "the most effective and politically savvy group pushing a religious agenda in America's public school science classes." The institute was founded by former Reagan official Bruce Chapman, a conservative Catholic. He has recruited dozens of research fellows, directors and advisors who all boast advance degrees from respectable universities.
There are some surprises in the book. One is the war the religious right waged against Newt Gingrich, culminating in a power play by Tom DeLay to force Gingrich to resign both as speaker of the House and finally his seat in Congress. While I knew Newt's womanizing galled some Republicans, I never realized it was the religious right who actually waged the campaign against him.
Another fun section of the book concerns Ralph Reed and Jack Abramoff, who hustled the religious right into blocking attempts to loosen restrictions on gambling if these state efforts conflicted with their Indian clients ,who ran casinos and gambling operations on their own territory. This sparked a brawl between them and Haley Barbour, who represented the Jena Choctaws, who were about to be granted a gambling license, and were rivals of Reed and Abramoff's clients. Reed managed to persuade Focus on the Family and Dr. Dobson to flood the White House and the Department of Interior with protests. In the end, Haley triumphed but not before the evangelicals unleashed a torrent of warning about the sins created and fostered by gambling.
The book is extremely troubling for its insights into how far the Republican Party has gone down the path of religious extremism. Much of the fiery rhetoric we hear today against Obama is present through much of the religious right's war against.. fill in the blank. And what is especially disturbing is the evangelicals stated position that it is alright to lie in order to advance their agenda. This is the doctrine of Islamists, who believe it is righteous to lie and deceive the infidels.
Throughout much of the book, there is a stream of thought that America must adopt biblical laws and that somehow America has become degenerate and corrupt. It depends on the age when they discuss this--first it's during the civil rights period, then it's against the Age of Aquarius and the new religions, now it's against gays and anti-abortion. From the early 1980s, there is also a doctrine that legitimizes armed struggle, particularly the violence against any place or person perceived as performing abortions. This language was the creation of Francis Schaeffer, whose son within the last year has denounced the very religious right he helped create.
Imagine for a minute any of these people charged with running the largest economy in the world, a government which controls 30% of that economy, and the largest military on earth. That is a truly frightening prospect. But then again, we did--the Bush Administration was not only the most conservative in terms of policies in the modern age but the one most dominated by the religious right. And where did it get us--a Global Depression, two wars, a suspension of our constitutional rights and the legal rationalization of torture.
There is one thing in this book, an incidental detail but significant for understanding today's political rhetoric. Republicans actually polled on language suggesting fear and death and found that these ideas brought forth the most coherence among their followers. Death Panels, Death Book,and Obama letting terrorists free on the streets,another terrorist attack. Among Republican voters this is red meat. Personally, I doubt whether this resonates anymore in the public at large.
Blumenthal also does an excellent job of explaining the on-going appeal of George W. Bush to the religious right. Despite all the failings, he is seen as carrying out the personal commands of God, as he emphasized many times in conversations with foreign leaders. Horribly,if these people control the party, then it can not get beyond George W. and reinvent itself. Logically, it must plunge deeper into the religious right.
After finishing the book, it's apparent that there are only two possible nominees for 2012--Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee. Blumenthal does a splendid job of laying out Huckabee's long-time relationship with people like Dr. Dobson of Focus on the Family and by inference it's clear that Huckabee can talk the talk in a way that I think will be more compelling than Palin. One priceless scene is how Palin calls Dobson and tries to persuade him McCain is on board against Stem-Cell Research (he wasn't) and how he was firmly for banning gay marriages (he wasn't.) Since Dobson muscled McCain to choose Palin, it didn't really matter he had his girl.
Blumenthal does a real service by exploring the hinky side of the Christian Right's heroes. We discover that Diaper Dave Vitters, not only visited the D.C. Madam but also regularly engaged in S&M with a prostitute in New Orleans. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council came to Vitters defense because funds for the faith-based initiatives were coming to the Lousiana based branch of his outfit courtesy of Vitters. In addition, Vitters might be replaced by a Democrat. But in the case of Idaho's Larry Craig, who could only be replaced by a Republican, he could be thrown under the bus to assert the righteous indignation over gay sex.
Some of the best writing is on the Republican gay underground and how it sees itself as "Jews in Hitler's Army" by backing the extreme right's social agenda. Blumenthal reminds us of the long-history of gay-baiting by the right started under Joe McCarthy and enabled by Roy Cohn, who died of AIDS but never admitted he was gay. In the 1980s, when I first came to Washington during the Reagan years, it was startling to see how many gays were Republican activists, while the Democrats were basically homophobes then.
One interesting portrait is that of Howard Ahmanson, Jr, a terribly shy man who suffers from Tourette's Syndrome and who was once hosptalized for mental illness, who put his fortune at work funding anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-big business candidates for the California Assembly and by 1994 secured a Republican takeover of that body. He provided a good bulk of the funding behind the anti-gay Propositions in the State. He invested early on in the career of Marvin Olasky, who was a member of the Communist Party in the early 1970s when that group barely existed and who later converted from Judaism to an ultraconservative version of the Presbyterian Church. Olasky later became the godfather of compassionate conservatism, arguing that the church had been the traditional and most effective approach to philanthropy before the New Deal. During the bruising primaries between George W. Bush and John McCain, Olasky accused McCain's Jewish neoconservative supporters as worshipping the "religion of Zeus". His brainchild was Bush's creation of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in 2001.
Ahmanson's other success was the creation of the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which touts the intelligent design movement and seeks to debunk evolution. Americans United for Separation of Church and State calls Discovery "the most effective and politically savvy group pushing a religious agenda in America's public school science classes." The institute was founded by former Reagan official Bruce Chapman, a conservative Catholic. He has recruited dozens of research fellows, directors and advisors who all boast advance degrees from respectable universities.
There are some surprises in the book. One is the war the religious right waged against Newt Gingrich, culminating in a power play by Tom DeLay to force Gingrich to resign both as speaker of the House and finally his seat in Congress. While I knew Newt's womanizing galled some Republicans, I never realized it was the religious right who actually waged the campaign against him.
Another fun section of the book concerns Ralph Reed and Jack Abramoff, who hustled the religious right into blocking attempts to loosen restrictions on gambling if these state efforts conflicted with their Indian clients ,who ran casinos and gambling operations on their own territory. This sparked a brawl between them and Haley Barbour, who represented the Jena Choctaws, who were about to be granted a gambling license, and were rivals of Reed and Abramoff's clients. Reed managed to persuade Focus on the Family and Dr. Dobson to flood the White House and the Department of Interior with protests. In the end, Haley triumphed but not before the evangelicals unleashed a torrent of warning about the sins created and fostered by gambling.
The book is extremely troubling for its insights into how far the Republican Party has gone down the path of religious extremism. Much of the fiery rhetoric we hear today against Obama is present through much of the religious right's war against.. fill in the blank. And what is especially disturbing is the evangelicals stated position that it is alright to lie in order to advance their agenda. This is the doctrine of Islamists, who believe it is righteous to lie and deceive the infidels.
Throughout much of the book, there is a stream of thought that America must adopt biblical laws and that somehow America has become degenerate and corrupt. It depends on the age when they discuss this--first it's during the civil rights period, then it's against the Age of Aquarius and the new religions, now it's against gays and anti-abortion. From the early 1980s, there is also a doctrine that legitimizes armed struggle, particularly the violence against any place or person perceived as performing abortions. This language was the creation of Francis Schaeffer, whose son within the last year has denounced the very religious right he helped create.
Imagine for a minute any of these people charged with running the largest economy in the world, a government which controls 30% of that economy, and the largest military on earth. That is a truly frightening prospect. But then again, we did--the Bush Administration was not only the most conservative in terms of policies in the modern age but the one most dominated by the religious right. And where did it get us--a Global Depression, two wars, a suspension of our constitutional rights and the legal rationalization of torture.
There is one thing in this book, an incidental detail but significant for understanding today's political rhetoric. Republicans actually polled on language suggesting fear and death and found that these ideas brought forth the most coherence among their followers. Death Panels, Death Book,and Obama letting terrorists free on the streets,another terrorist attack. Among Republican voters this is red meat. Personally, I doubt whether this resonates anymore in the public at large.
The Torture Memos:Rationalizing The Unthinkable
The New Press has just published six of the memos by the Bush Department of Justice released from 2002 to 2005 to legally justify the practice of torture on detainees during the "war on terror". Phillipe Sands, author of Torture Team, the first book I remember about the memos,writes the introduction where he outlines the international developments that triggered the release of the memos. His own book was a sensitive and objective view of America caught unawares by the attacks on 9/11 and probed the views of those principals involved in these dreadful deliberations. The lower level officials he found to be honest and fairly open about the problems with their own actions; while the higher ups remained fairly reticient to even acknowledge the horrible truth.
The book--291pages--was edited by David Cole, a professor of law at Georgetown and the legal affairs correspondent for The Nation, Cole's 40-page introduction puts these memos in their context both within the policy deliberations of the Bush Administration and within the requirements of law, particularly international obligations of the United States. The memos themselves are horrifying in their dryness and matter-of-factness. Naturally, the lawyers enlarged any ambiguities to justify the worst abuses under this policy. To read these legal justifications produced by men educated at some of America's leading law schools is absolutely horrifying.
The book--291pages--was edited by David Cole, a professor of law at Georgetown and the legal affairs correspondent for The Nation, Cole's 40-page introduction puts these memos in their context both within the policy deliberations of the Bush Administration and within the requirements of law, particularly international obligations of the United States. The memos themselves are horrifying in their dryness and matter-of-factness. Naturally, the lawyers enlarged any ambiguities to justify the worst abuses under this policy. To read these legal justifications produced by men educated at some of America's leading law schools is absolutely horrifying.
Whither the Conservative Movement?
When a Republican House leader says the GOP should model itself after the Taliban, when conservative activists are holding organizational seminars to teach Saul Alinsky's and Eurocommunist Antonio Gramsci's theories, something is dangerously amiss. The secret Christian fundamentalists group The Family eulogizes Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot and talk show hosts liken Fascism with Communism and claim Barack Obama is like Hitler. Somehow I am missing the democracy and the conservatism in all this.
To help understand what's going on, conservative Sam Tenenhaus, the biographer of Whittacker Chambers, has just published a book-long essay "The Death of Conservatism"(Random House, $17.00) where he claims the conservative movement has been hijacked by "revanchists"who distrust government and society and find themselves at war with America itself. These people, he claims, are "profoundly and defiantly unconservative" in their arguments and ideas, iin their tactics and strategies and above all in their vision. He calls how modern conservatism grew out of intellectuals such as James Burnham, Wittacker Chambers and Bill Buckley, Jr. and how at a critical juncture they had to set the boundaries where the extremists had to be neutralized.
Sam Tenenhaus recalls the days when Bill Buckley,Jr. published an entire issue of the National Review reading the John Birch Society out of the conservative movement. At that moment, the Republican Party was at its historic low-point of 25%--which is about where it is now. As I've written before, the John Birch Society called Ike a Communist sympathizer and ran campaigns against his cabinet. Some of us remember their view that fluoride treatment of water was a Communist plot. Buckley saw that their paranoid politics was destructive and would hinder any growth of a serious conservative movement. He solicited and received the support of Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and John Tower from Texas. Tower read Buckley's writings about the Society into the Congressional Record as a clear signal to Republicans to step away from the Society. Some of us recall the photo of Sarah Palin reading the John Birch magazine during the campaign.
The problem is there are no adults today in the conservative movement, who will denounce the proliferation of the paranoid fringe of birthers,deathers, tenthers and vaxers (those opposing the swine flue vaccination). And there is even a more profound problem--the total absence of any belief in the common welfare or the public good. Old-fashioned conservatives debated liberals about the "politics of stability" and did not dream of destablizing the American government.
How did it get to this point? Tanenhaus takes a stab at it by locating the beginnings of the end when conservatives started attacking Ronald Reagan at the end of his second term. This was then followed by their defection from George Bush because of his raising taxes. Then Tenenhaus sees the radicalization of the conservative movement with the emergence of Newt Gingrich and his bid to take over the House. By then, conservatives simply abandoned any belief in the virtue of government and its power to adjust to changing conditions.
But conservatives may have let the situation get far beyond them. Max Blumenthal in Republican Gomorrah: Inside The Movement That Shattered The Party (Nation Books, $25.00) tells the sorry and seedy tale of how the evangelical movement took over the Republican Party. If anything the tales of Governor Sanford and Senator Ensign are rather mild compared to the depravity of the theocrats trying to run the party. Blumenthal outlines how Sarah Palin was the absolutely natural and logical choice for John McCain to pick since he had to appease this dominating element of the party. He warns that Palin's backers will be the major elements trying to undermine President Obama. His investigative reporting has some delicious bits on how Palin started running for President in 2012 at John McCain's expense and extensive material on the evangelicals difficult problems with their own gays and those in the general society. So if you hear people refer to "Real Americans"--run for cover. It's the guys in Blumenthal's reporting.
To help understand what's going on, conservative Sam Tenenhaus, the biographer of Whittacker Chambers, has just published a book-long essay "The Death of Conservatism"(Random House, $17.00) where he claims the conservative movement has been hijacked by "revanchists"who distrust government and society and find themselves at war with America itself. These people, he claims, are "profoundly and defiantly unconservative" in their arguments and ideas, iin their tactics and strategies and above all in their vision. He calls how modern conservatism grew out of intellectuals such as James Burnham, Wittacker Chambers and Bill Buckley, Jr. and how at a critical juncture they had to set the boundaries where the extremists had to be neutralized.
Sam Tenenhaus recalls the days when Bill Buckley,Jr. published an entire issue of the National Review reading the John Birch Society out of the conservative movement. At that moment, the Republican Party was at its historic low-point of 25%--which is about where it is now. As I've written before, the John Birch Society called Ike a Communist sympathizer and ran campaigns against his cabinet. Some of us remember their view that fluoride treatment of water was a Communist plot. Buckley saw that their paranoid politics was destructive and would hinder any growth of a serious conservative movement. He solicited and received the support of Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and John Tower from Texas. Tower read Buckley's writings about the Society into the Congressional Record as a clear signal to Republicans to step away from the Society. Some of us recall the photo of Sarah Palin reading the John Birch magazine during the campaign.
The problem is there are no adults today in the conservative movement, who will denounce the proliferation of the paranoid fringe of birthers,deathers, tenthers and vaxers (those opposing the swine flue vaccination). And there is even a more profound problem--the total absence of any belief in the common welfare or the public good. Old-fashioned conservatives debated liberals about the "politics of stability" and did not dream of destablizing the American government.
How did it get to this point? Tanenhaus takes a stab at it by locating the beginnings of the end when conservatives started attacking Ronald Reagan at the end of his second term. This was then followed by their defection from George Bush because of his raising taxes. Then Tenenhaus sees the radicalization of the conservative movement with the emergence of Newt Gingrich and his bid to take over the House. By then, conservatives simply abandoned any belief in the virtue of government and its power to adjust to changing conditions.
But conservatives may have let the situation get far beyond them. Max Blumenthal in Republican Gomorrah: Inside The Movement That Shattered The Party (Nation Books, $25.00) tells the sorry and seedy tale of how the evangelical movement took over the Republican Party. If anything the tales of Governor Sanford and Senator Ensign are rather mild compared to the depravity of the theocrats trying to run the party. Blumenthal outlines how Sarah Palin was the absolutely natural and logical choice for John McCain to pick since he had to appease this dominating element of the party. He warns that Palin's backers will be the major elements trying to undermine President Obama. His investigative reporting has some delicious bits on how Palin started running for President in 2012 at John McCain's expense and extensive material on the evangelicals difficult problems with their own gays and those in the general society. So if you hear people refer to "Real Americans"--run for cover. It's the guys in Blumenthal's reporting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)