Before I get too deep into Afghanistan, pray indulge one comment on Iraq. As I hear Republicans who want credit for conditions in Iraq improving, it sounds like demanding credit for picking up broken glass after smashing the windows.
Actually, there is a direct relation between Iraq and my main point, because it seems one of the biggest changes we made in Iraq has gone unremarked upon, even though I suspect it's one of the main causes of improvements. Specifically, I'm suggesting the improvements as we approach the withdrawal date are because of the withdrawal date. By setting that date, we told the Iraqis that we really intend to leave and would not be their occupiers.
That's what Obama did by setting July 2011 as the end of the build up in Afghanistan. That is, by setting a date, he told Afghans that the US has no intention to be their permanent occupiers. His reiteration of that in his speech last night was the most important thing he said, at least in a purely Afghan context, yet it's gone unnoted in the commentary I'm aware of.
At Congressman Ellison's birthday party last weekend, I said to him, "So, I see both you and the President have the same birthday, Aug. 4 -- if that really is his birthday, that is. And you're both Muslim -- if you're really Muslim, that is."
I am part of a group of people who, since last November, have engaged in a daily vigil for torture accountability at the Federal Building in Minneapolis. Usually it's a solitary individual, symbolic not only of our small numbers but also of the vulnerability of the detainees held all across the planet.
Wearing an orange jumpsuit and black hood, I hold my sign, which says, "I Am Waiting For Justice." Some passersby half-jokingly shout out, "Aren't we all!" Indeed we are.
WE ARE WAITING for a full accounting of what Major General Antonio Taguba called our "systematic regime of torture." We need to know what was done and what is still being done in our names.
WE ARE WAITING for B. Todd Jones, the United States Attorney for Minnesota, to respond to our request for a meeting, so we can explain why we think he has jurisdiction and a legal and moral obligation to investigate allegations of torture.
WE ARE WAITING for Mr. Jones to remember he took an oath to support and defend the Constitution, not the President and not the Attorney General.
WE ARE WAITING for any United States Attorney to tell President Obama and Attorney General Holder that when judges, inspectors general and Pentagon investigators say we tortured people, we must investigate those claims.
WE ARE WAITING for Minnesota's United States Senators and for Minneapolis' and St. Paul's Congresspersons to open their eyes to torture and to respond to the issues raised in meetings we've had with their staff members since January. Silence is complicity.
WE ARE WAITING for the Obama administration to stop renditioning people to countries our State Department has criticized for abusing prisoners, to refrain from raising obstacles for torture victims who seek redress in our courts, and to begin the healing process by fully examining what we have done.
WE ARE WAITING for anyone in government, for any court, to say, "We are a nation of laws. We have signed treaties; we have passed statutes. Torture must be addressed."
WE ARE WAITING for those who seek to protect our troops, strengthen our alliances, regain our credibility on human rights, and enhance our security to speak out in favor of accountability for torture.
WE ARE WAITING for the American public to rise up and say, "Not in our names. Investigate. Prosecute if necessary. Stop renditions. Allow redress for claims of torture to go forward."
WE ARE WAITING, but our patience is wearing thin. Join us in telling our government the time for waiting is over.
June has been designated Torture Awareness Month by the National Religious Campaign Against Torture. Help keep torture from being swept under the rug. Join in the various free public "Torture Awareness Month" events sponsored by a coalition of anti-torture and human rights groups in the Twin Cities, including Amnesty International and the Women Against Military Madness' "Tackling Torture at the Top" Committee. Come to the daily vigils held each weekday at noon in front of the federal courthouse in Minneapolis, programs every Tuesday (7:00 p.m.) at the Mad Hatter's Tea House in St. Paul, a June 23 United Council of Churches program at Richfield United Methodist Church (7:00-9:00 p.m.), a June 26 Center for Victims of Torture outdoor event honoring torture survivors (11:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m.), a June 26 showing of the film "Torturing Democracy" at Walker Church (7:00 p.m.), and a June 27 forum (3 to 5 pm) on torture at Plymouth Congregational Church. (For more information, see www.worldwidewamm.org/calendar.html.)
DFL State Senator Terri Bonoff understands that reforming State and local government, fixing the revenue/budget crisis and lifting up poor urban and rural school districts will take more rounds in St. Paul. Powerful, myopic and vested, Holy Cow interests (my words not the Senator's) have attempted to hose down her fire. In Bonoff, Senate District 43 residents (Minnetonka, Plymouth, Medicine Lake), have an elected official with the drive, smarts and fizz of a Hubert Humphrey. But see for yourself by watching the current edition of Democratic Visions.
The DFL Senate District 42 public issues program is seen on Comcast Channel 15 in Minnetonka, Eden Prairie, Richfield, Hopkins and Edina Wednesdays at 5:30 pm and Sundays at 9 pm. The program is also carried by Bloomington Cabled and premiers on MTN later this month.
So what was wrong with the claim there were no oil spills caused by hurricanes Katrina and Rita? If you guessed it was completely wrong and not merely a twisting of some actual facts, well done. There was almost enough oil to equal another Exxon Valdez when both offshore and terrestrial oil is counted.
If you guessed that oil spilled on land, just not at sea, you fell for the same half-truth Obama fell for when he explained his support of more offshore drilling. The tiny fragment of accuracy in there is most of the oil was on land. However, those who bought this, including the president I hate to say, should have thought that something seemed fishy about offshore wells and facilities holding up fine under hurricanes but somehow terrestrial wells and facilities got blasted. That didn't scream out for fact-checking?
This Republican falsehood is one I thought had died after the Republicans moved on from their 2008 talking points. Alas, even Obama fell for at least part of it, using it to support expanded offshore oil drilling. Republicans supported "Drill Baby Drill!" with the claim that drilling is so environmentally safe, hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused no oil spills. Sorry for linking to an example, but doing so would give away how the Republicans git it wrong, and take away the "fun" part.
What's wrong with this story, and why is it relevant again?
This is an article written by Jane Hamsher for the Huffington Post.
Federal investigators have told Reuters that WellPoint, the country's largest insurance company, is using an algorithm to identify women with breast cancer for the express purpose of dropping their coverage.
Murray Waas writes that WellPoint "specifically targeted women with breast cancer for aggressive investigation with the intent to cancel their policies":
The women all paid their premiums on time. Before they fell ill, none had any problems with their insurance. Initially, they believed their policies had been canceled by mistake.
They had no idea that WellPoint was using a computer algorithm that automatically targeted them and every other policyholder recently diagnosed with breast cancer. The software triggered an immediate fraud investigation, as the company searched for some pretext to drop their policies, according to government regulators and investigators.
Wellpoint claimed that these women had made material misrepresentations in order to justify dropping their coverage, but Waas says they were dropped "based on either erroneous or flimsy information." Last week, Waas reported that AIDS patients were being similarly targeted for recision.
The version of health care bill passed by the House of Representatives would've allowed these women to apply to an "independent external third party" for review before being dropped. It also would have required Wellpoint to keep their coverage in place until the board made its determination, and policies could only be canceled in cases with "clear and convincing evidence of fraud."
Those provisions were not included in the Senate Finance Committee bill, however, which became the basis for the final health care bill signed by the President. Reuters says that Wellpoint lobbyists "helped quash proposed provisions that would have required a third party review of its or any other insurance company's decision to cancel a customer's policy."
As Marcy Wheeler reported last year, the Senate Finance Committee bill was written by former WellPoint VP Liz Fowler, who left her position at the insurance company in February 2009 expressly for the purpose of helping the committee to draft the health care bill:
And when Max Baucus did a "victory lap" after the health care bil passed, he expressly thanked Fowler for her work:
I wish to single out one person, and that one person is sitting next to me. Her name is Liz Fowler. Liz Fowler is my chief health counsel. Liz Fowler has put my health care team together. Liz Fowler worked for me many years ago, left for the private sector, and then came back when she realized she could be there at the creation of health care reform because she wanted that to be, in a certain sense, her profession lifetime goal. She put together the White Paper last November-2008-the 87-page document which became the basis, the foundation, the blueprint from which almost all health care measures in all bills on both sides of the aisle came. She is an amazing person. She is a lawyer; she is a Ph.D. She is just so decent. She is always smiling, she is always working, always available to help any Senator, any staff. I thank Liz from the bottom of my heart. In many ways, she typifies, she represents all of the people who have worked so hard to make this bill such a great accomplishment.
Susan Bayh, wife of Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, is on the WellPoint board. Bayh threatened to join Joe Lieberman in a filibuster of the health care bill if a public option was included, something that would very much threaten WellPoint profits -- which have soared in the past year. Susan Bayh's compensation for her role on the WellPoint board includes valuable stock options.
Before the health care bill passed, Harry Reid promised Bernie Sanders that there would be a vote on the public option "in the coming months," and anonymous "hill aides" said that they were looking to use the reconciliation process, such that only 50 Senate votes were needed for passage. In exchange, Sanders offered to give up on his plans to offer a public option amendment. A public option would mean that at the very least, breast cancer and AIDS patients who were unfairly dropped from private insurance plans had some place to go for medical coverage.
But the Senate budget committee is marking up next year's budget right now, and according to the Hill, there are no plans to include reconciliation instructions for health care. Which means that for the next year, any plan to "fix it later" would require 60 votes in the Senate -- but the public option doesn't have 60 votes. Which means Reid punk'd Sanders, Jeff Merkley and other progressive Senators to secure their votes.
It's shameful that Wellpoint lobbyists were successful in keeping key protections for those with breast cancer, AIDS and other serious illnesses out of the Senate bill. But it's even more shameful that Harry Reid has no intention of keeping his promise to fix the health care bill any time soon -- and that members of the Senate with serious conflicts of interest will profit handsomely as a result.
Today we learn that the first part of the Republican strategy to defeat the much-needed financial services regulatory reform is to say that it is the opposite of what it actually is. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), echoing comments he made Tuesday, said the bill amounts to an "endless taxpayer bailout for Wall Street banks."
I'm not sure exactly why the Republican leadership wants to protect the status quo and block Wall Street reform, but I'm betting it has a lot more to do with politics than any policy that will actually help consumers and their constituents. It's helpful to remember that at the beginning of the health care debate, the GOP, of course, voted against even debating the subject in the Senate.
The 60-39 vote (not a vote to spare) took place back before Thanksgiving last year, and cleared the way for a bruising, full-scale public discussion on extending coverage to roughly 31 million who lack it, cracking down on insurance company practices that denied or diluted benefits and curtailing the growth of spending on medical care nationally. Instead of moving forward with an honest debate to meet these objectives, all we heard Republican leadership was "death panels," "government takeover," and "huge tax increases,".
Now while it's entirely legitimate to debate how effect the new health care law will be, no one can honestly argue that the health care law was about extending coverage, reigning in the insurance industry, and dealing with costs, premiums or otherwise. You know, what President Obama promised in his campaign and set out to do once in office.
So back the financial reform in the Senate. The GOP is setting it up the same way. First, demonize the legislation to set up a voting block to even debate the merits. Then, it will be scream that they are on the side of the everyday people while actually protecting a big special interest of their party. However, this time I don't think they'll get as much traction as they did on health care.
Think about it. The bailouts "were about as popular as a root canal," as the President aptly put it in his State of the Union Address. Lines will have to be drawn. Either you're for protecting predatory Wall Street practices, or you're not. Republicans know full well that Americans have a sense of getting screwed by the system, as the Tea Party has loudly pointed out (although I'm not convinced they are entirely victimized in America), and they're going to jump out in front saying that they are for them, and not the Banksters.
However, like with health insurance reform, the facts speak otherwise, which is why for the Party of Hell No this is another loosing political bet. While far from perfect the 1,336 page financial reform bill put forth by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, (D-Conn), is large in scope and reach in regulating the financial services industry.
The bill proposed would tighten oversight of derivatives markets and protect consumers from abusive mortgages among other restraints, set up a consumer protection agency and overhaul the powers of the Federal Reserve as a way to police Wall Street and set up procedures for shutting down banks that are "too big to fail."
In case you hadn't heard, former Alaskan Governor and VP candidate Sarah Palin broke a big-time barrier for women in politics, well, at least according to Rep. Michele Bachmann (MN-06), and perhaps for the Grand Old Republican Party.
On Sean Hannity's hour-long Fox show broadcast from yesterday's Bachmann/Palin rally in Minneapolis, Bachmann was asked about a possible Palin presidential run in 2012 and said, "I want to thank Governor Palin for breaking the barrier by being a woman as the vice president on the ticket. She did a wonderful job, I think, as the vice-presidential candidate. And I think the world is her oyster. If she wants to run, I think that she has tremendous support from the American people."
Now this might be biased media nitpicking, people, but a lot of folks have rightfully pointed out that the Democratic presidential candidate in 1984, former VP Walter Mondale (from MN), chose the first female VP candidate ever, Geraldine Ferraro.
So maybe Bachmann meant on the Republican ticket? OK, fair enough. The Dems broke it in '84 and the Repubs in '08, 24 years later. This is actually a BIG accomplishment for the GOP! With only 4 of 17 women Republican Senators (23%), and 17 of 75 GOP women Representatives (22%), and 0 of 43 African Americans (0%), no gay members, 1 Asian American, and a few Hispanics, this is as diverse and exciting as the Republicans get: a woman "breaking" a barrier the Democratic Party did 24 years previous.
The year was 1981, and unemployment was at 7.5%. During Jimmy Carter's last year in office (1980), inflation averaged 12.5%, and Reagan swept in with the messages of "government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem." and "peace through strength" (a.k.a. "firm but fair." It was morning time in America again, after some tough economic breaks for the previous administration.
Unemployment was hitting highs of 9.7% (1982), peaked at 10.8% percent in December 1982 - higher than any time since the Great Depression - and 9.6% (1983), going down after that. Despite the fact that Reagan enacted the largest peacetime tax increase in American history, (TEFRA, an example) he is better known for his tax cuts for the super-wealthy and the "trickle-down" economic theory. The net effect of all Reagan-era tax bills was a 1% decrease in government revenues, however, federal Income Tax receipts almost doubled from 1980 to 1989. I'm not even talking about Reagan's second term, where the Savings and Loan scandal lead the United States to borrow heavily both domestically and abroad, raising the national debt from $700 billion to $3 trillion.
So, here we are in 2010, and there's all these cries about Obama and government expansion and spending and debt, etc, but if you compare Reagan's first term, and the economic circumstances, I'd say Obama's economics stack up quite well. Plus, President Obama's legislation has actually been helping out the average American. You know, with that whole Recovery Act and Health Care stuff (where as Reagan cut the budgets of Medicaid, food stamps, federal education programs and the EPA, and not once raised the minimum wage in eight years). Given G.W. Bush's massive expansion of government spending/debt with Medicare part D, three rounds of tax-cuts for our nation's wealthiest, and a couple of big wars (all on the nation's credit card, no less), Obama seems like an economic hawk.
Note to the righties: This is why your anti-Obama economic arguments aren't sticking. Obama is actually incorporating fiscally conservative measures in his proposals where Republican presidents of our recent past have failed to do just that.
What does it all mean? It's time to for Republicans to generate new ideas! Or, they can keep saying the economic sky is falling and that up is down, while all the economic indicators are moving in a positive direction.
(Great post, Thanks, Aaron. - promoted by The Big E)
The recent announcement by the Obama administration that they would open significant areas of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) to oil and gas exploration has created a lot of consternation among environmentalists and a lot of skepticism in the "drill, baby, drill" crowd. And like most policy coming from the Obama White House, both groups aren't wrong. In case you hadn't noticed, this is a policymaking motif that's been Obama's hallmark, and this issue is a great example of the technique of attempting to split the difference between irreconcilably different groups. The question is "what is to be gained by splitting the difference?" or perhaps it's better phrased as "is there a middle ground on this issue at all?"
Predictably, coverage in the news media lacks nuance and missed some of the essential points of this policy shift in its rush to describe it in its usual way - who "won" and who "lost." And that's the fundamental problem here; this is a policy shift full of nuance, with lots of gray and very little black and white.
After the jump - what exactly is the new oil and gas policy and how does it fit into the overall policy direction of the Obama White House?
Well, they were right, this was Obama's Waterloo. Sen. DeMint, meet Barack "Wellington" Obama:
[author's note: Obama didn't actually pose for this. Nor was he really at Waterloo or even alive in the 19th century, not even in Kenya. I can't confirm that he was an extra in "Sharpe's Rifles".]
Forgive me proclaiming my own bit of prescience, but conservatives made a strategic blunder. They framed the debate as any bill meant defeat, and only no bill at all qualified as victory. The odds there would be no bill at all were always slim. Getting any specific provision in the bill was doubtful, and getting any sort of public option was perhaps not obtainable (though it seems there are liberal congressmen ready to try again, and not many months into the future), but like I said in August, conservatives blew an opportunity. Success or failure could have been defined how many of us on the liberal side thought of it: whether or not we got a public option or some sort of single-payer. They went for total victory instead, and got Waterloo, but found themselves wearing French uniforms. Considering how conservatives hate the French, that has to hurt.
But if any conservatives think that's just me saying this:
What has happened to the Democratic Party of Paul Wellstone? Where have all of the truly bold and visionary progressives gone? Are they hiding under a rock or does the Party Machine not let their voices be heard via the corporate media lest they piss off the corporate sponsors of the Democratic Party? Yes, that is correct, I said Corporate Sponsors of the Democratic Party. After reading the following article, http://www.salon.com/news/opin... I must say it only reinforces the beliefs I have had for the last 12 months.
The Democrats don't care about their base unless it is 9 months before the next election. Then, on cue, they start up with the populist and "working families" rhetoric. After the election is over and they have won, it is right back to "business as usual". They slide up to the lobbyists and continue to do the work of Big Business all the while giving us patronizing quips, gentle pats on the head, and nice, warm fuzzies.
Take, for example, the recent Al Franken rally in Minneapolis. The room was packed and people were cheering for a bill that FORCES PEOPLE TO BUY A PRODUCT THAT IS SO BAD, THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO FORCE PEOPLE TO BUY IT. Unfortunately, it is sadly ironic and masochistic. I am sure there were quite a few people who were questioning the bill, as am I, but you could tell the MoveOn.org, SEIU, HealthCareForAmericaNOW, TakeActionMN, and OFA people were all boldly and vigorously cheering for not only Al Franken but also the bill that the President and Congress will eventually pass.
How is that possible? Why have we, the people of the Democratic Party, become so gullible and misinformed that we are willing to become slaves to the medical insurance industry. If you question that statement, I ask you; what other option is there in the president's plan? How else do I obtain medical insurance except through a private medical insurance company?
I truly believe that if President Bush was offering this very plan the Democratic faithful would be up in arms and frothing at the mouth. However, since someone from our party is in power and is offering the plan, we sit back quietly and say while nodding our head, they must know better.
Bullshit! They don't know better because the facts show that they have sold us out for the campaign contributions by the medical insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the medical device industry, and almost every other sector of health care. I can't believe I just said that. The Democratic Party has sold out the working people for Big Business. Disgusting and pathetic!
Therefore, I forewarn you with great respect and remorse before this legislation becomes law. KILL THE HEALTHCARE REFORM BILL!! KILL THE BILL!! Otherwise, the Democratic Party will no longer be the party of the People. Instead, they will join with the Republicans and be the party for the Power.
Let's break down the analogy literally: Pawlenty/conservatives = wronged white wife; Obama/liberals = unfaithful, multiracial public figure; politics = golf, both realms traditionally reserved for whites; violence = appropriate solution to budgetary challenges.
The governor has used the nine iron line before, so be assured that the race-based comparison is intentional and playing well with teabaggers. A point of information to the governor--you need more than a nine iron to make it all the way around a PGA course.
In case you hadn't heard, former Alaskan Governor and VP candidate Sarah Palin broke a big-time barrier for women in politics, well, at least according to Rep. Michele Bachmann (MN-06), and perhaps for the Grand Old Republican Party.
The year was 1981, and unemployment was at 7.5%. During Jimmy Carter's last year in office (1980), inflation averaged 12.5%, and Reagan swept in with the messages of "government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem." and "peace through strength" (a.k.a. "firm but fair." It was morning time in America again, after some tough economic breaks for the previous administration.
