* James Wolcott on why Democrats should be ashamed of the job they have done selling health care reform. Relatedly, many thanks to whichever reader recommended reading The Rubicon. The book uses Rome to splendidly illustrate, among many other things, how showmanship cannot be separated from Democratic politics. The book also illustrates why the old and painfully true mantra Democrats fear losing, Republicans are afraid of looking weak is a double loser for Democrats.
* Wherein I reference Glenn Greenwald referencing me on why Eric Holder’s apparent decision to limit torture investigations to an abu Ghraib redux will most likely turn out worse than doing nothing. It will surely dissuade future torture regimes to know that they will need a secret legal memo before they can drown freezing, naked prisoners, threaten their children to extract confessions and (if, as AG Gonzales helpfully pointed out, the President deems it necessary) beat them to death. Note that the memo need not be ‘legal’ in the sense of making one goddamn iota of legal sense. Also note that the memo can apparently be written after the fact.
BR
Meanwhile, Nate Silver finds 67% of congressional districts have popular support for the public option and yet we’re told by the MSM that out there in real America it’s really a policy only supported by wacko liberal Democrats.
cmorenc
The reluctance to seriously “go after” the perps in the Bush Admin (especially as it might lead up toward the top) is based on two things:
1) Doing that will end the prospects for bipartisan cooperation and focus on important issues on the nation’s agenda (So, how’s that working out?)
2) Doing that will result, next time there’s a GOP administration, on officials within the new administration being hell-bent to go after members of the Obama administration on some sort of charges. If they can’t find anything plausible, they’ll trump up something trivial in the clothing of something serious. SEE: Bill Clinton. (So, how’s that going to work out when Clinton’s main crime was winning the White House and ending the GOP succession that had only been broken once since 68 by the ineffectual Carter?)
Geez, grow some balls, Holder.
The Grand Panjandrum
And both points are related. The administration probably fear losing in 2012 if they go after the war criminals from the previous administration. But hope springs eternal. We may get a strongly worded letter from Eric Holder, yet.
DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal)
I am hoping that Holder is downplaying things until the ball gets rolling and gains some momentum. I don’t think it would be politically wise for Holder to say that he is going to go after every single person involved, no matter the reason. While I sure would welcome a statement like that, I think it is not realistic (again, politically).
One thing I do believe is that when the public learns specifics about torture deaths and protocols used, when they (and the rest of the world) see how depraved those involved were, I have to believe that if the crimes are as horrendous as I expect then I would expect politicians to start to belly up to the bar and start demanding more action.
I just think it is unrealistic to expect the AG to bite off too much now. The cries of witch hunt and such are harder to believe when the AG is (at least initially) limiting the scope of the investigation. I know I would like to see a long line of assholes being frog marched into court and then into prison, but I also know that if you want to get something done then don’t bite off more than you can chew.
Take one bite, chew it well and savor the flavors in the hope they lead to more bites. I think that is what Holder is doing. At least I sure as hell hope so.
Derelict
And, indeed, Democrats SHOULD be ashamed. They have an overwhelming majority in the house, a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and a Democratic president. The public option in healthcare reform enjoys the support of more than 70% of the public.
And yet, the Democrats simply cannot write and pass legislation to make that happen. The only reason I can discern for this is that they’re afraid Republicans won’t like it.
If Republicans enjoyed similar majorities back during Bush’s reign, we would now have no estate tax, no capital gains tax, abortion banned, the EPA and Department of Education dismembered, unions outlawed, and a host of other measures that are wildly unpopular with the electorate.
Napoleon
Tim F.,
As long as you are doing book reviews perhaps tell us who the authors of that book are. Amazon has no book called “The Rubicon”. I assume looking at books with the work Rubicon in it that you are talking about the book written by Michael C. Ruppert and Catherine Austin Fitts.
El Cid
To be fair, I think the “weakness” shown by Democrats is, more often than not, a rhetorical and ideological strategy which is the result of the real and strong division among Democratic political leaders (and their orbiting consultant and pundit asteroid belt) between striving to be the more responsible party of Big Capital and hawkish interests, and the more natural interests of the vast majority of Democrats.
It’s not so much that they’re confused or weak, it’s that many of them simply do not want to do what many of us assume that they want to do, and it’s certainly more acceptable to appear weak to their own base than to appear hostile to it — though they’ll happily pull out the hostile card if that seems to work. (I.e., ‘we’re going to stand up to ‘liberals’ and their silly opposition to the shitty policy I intend to advocate!’)
Montysano
Does any other country have a health care system where it is mandatory to buy insurance, with fines imposed on those who don’t? Something like this, with no public option, seems like a gift to the insurance companies and a middle finger to the public.
Fulcanelli
A government run public option health insurance plan should have been the compromise, not the main objective. The stated goal should have been a single payer system, period. Who ever devised such a limp dick negotiating and promotional strategy for such a major policy overhaul should be shot at dawn, and I don’t give a fuck it’s Rahm Emmanuel or not. What ever happened to the Obama media message machine on display during the campaign?
As usual, Wolcott nails it. The White House’s “marketing” of this whole endeavor to the public is a joke. I couldn’t care less about any politician’s summer vacation and that includes Obama. People are going broke or even bankrupt trying to stay alive in too many instances, and some aren’t making it. Obama should have personally and relentlessly jack hammered this project day and night in the media with a simple, teflon named theme to the point that Democrats would have been too terrified to even think about screwing around by opposing it. Fuck the right wing, they were never on board anyway.
This is America. If some fool can make millions upon millions marketing and selling pet rocks and chia pets, the most popular president since JFK should have been able to sell a health insurance system overhaul in his fucking sleep. To his own god damn party, no less.
Message FAIL, Barry.
SenyorDave
Fulcanelli,
I couldn’t have said it better!
kay
@DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal):
I don’t think the prosecutor should announce he’s “going after” anyone, and that has nothing to do with politics.
We want him to call a press conference and read a list of unindicted persons?
Yeah. That’s a great idea. I’d call for his immediate removal if he did anything remotely like that, and I’d be right.
Demo Woman
@Montysano: The Swiss.
Kay also left you an interesting post downstairs about the Bush mandates for the unmarried and uninsured.
El Cid
Good drugs policy / crime policy news: Colombia’s Supreme Court follows the Argentinian Court’s precedent and declares it not criminally penalizable to possess ‘personal’ doses of any mind-altering drug, given that this is a fundamental issue of self-determination and individual will.
robertdsc
I wonder if anyone would ask Maxie Baucus what would happen if he personally had to subscribe to the abortion of a plan he came up with.
I wish that the rest of the Democrats simply shut his shit down and never even let it come to a vote. That’s how goddamned awful it is.
gnomedad
OT, this morning’s Chicago Tribune has:
1) A sidebar sarcastically finding “hidden meaning” in the school speech.
2) An editorial saying “you can come out from under the beds now, kids.”
3) Kathleen Parker likewise mocking the wingers, saying “the only thing missing was a Republican president.
Less OT, can Obama have timed this to speak to Congress (and the nation) when his critics are looking (especially) ridiculous?
Meep, meep!
I’m picturing the wingers unpacking another crate of “Acme Tea Bags”.
Montysano
@Demo Woman:
I had no idea. This is the comment that Kay refers to.
kay
@Montysano:
I thought about it when the tea baggers were talking about the constitutionality of a mandate.
This Bush move was pretty clever. A state child support enforcement agency has jurisdiction over unmarried parents with children, so President Bush just extended that power to order health insurance. It’s broad, too. If your employer offers health insurance and it’s “reasonable) (5% of gross) the state can order you to purchase it for your children. If you are a S-CHIP recipient, the state grabs 5% and reimburses Medicare.
It seemed like a real power grab to me, particularly as it didn’t go thru Congress, it’s an administrative order, but there wasn’t a peep out of anyone.
Napoleon
On the Wolcott piece, he is right on about much/all of what he says but the one part of it that can not be over emphasized is his bit on bargaining/bargaining chips. One of the biggest factors that have turned me on Obama is the complete incompetence he has shown in pushing a health program by basically pre-surrendering his positions by refusing to draw a line in the sand. If Obama worked in my office and I caught him negotiating a deal in the manner he has handled health care I would fire him.
peach flavored shampoo
@Montysano: Seems like?
If they passed a law saying you had to buy garden hoses only from Walmart, just what do you think Walmart would do to the price of a hose?
This “forcing” of insurance is jaw-dropping. And before someone ties it to “well, they have mandy auto-insurance laws”, I’ll remind you that one need not drive. But health insurance, unless you’re dead, has no such out.
I truly hope and pray this provision is a joke and we’re being punked.
Montysano
@peach flavored shampoo:
We are talking about Max Fucking Baucus here.
kay
@Montysano:
Here’s the practical effect: if you are married, make more than 150% of poverty level, you may receive S-CHIP for your children.
If you are unmarried, and meet those same parameters, you are ordered to reimburse Medicare for S-CHIP. The child support number drops, as a result of the medical order, (there’s only so much money) so essentially President Bush is charging children for their own health insurance, but only those children whose parents are not married.
The children of unmarried parents are subsidizing S-CHIP.
We definitely need reform. Costs should be spread somewhat equitably, at the very least.
Brian J
I’m much more inclined to agree with the claim that the Democrats in congress have done a lousy job of selling health care reform, but I have a feeling that he’s trying to get those on the low end of the tortutre totem poll talking first. It’s possibly easier to get someone like Cheney that way.
Ash Can
@Fulcanelli: While I agree that the publicity machine has left much to be desired, Obama himself remains on message. (h/t GOS)
As for Holder on torture,
@kay:
This.
Given the fact that the machinations of the legal profession in general, and in particular on the rarified levels such as Holder’s, are only one small step removed from determining the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin, I don’t expect pronouncements from Holder’s office to be anything but circumspect to an extreme. That it can be perplexing at best to the rest of us (me included) is, to be blunt, immaterial. I’m not going to say we can’t complain about it or let our reps know what we think the right thing to do would be, but complaining about Holder himself serves no purpose other than venting our own spleens. Like everyone else, we just have to wait and see where the investigation leads — and legal matters always take more time than we’d like.
As for the MSM and health care reform, I sincerely believe at this point that there are pundits out there who are getting payola from the health insurance industry to say what they do. They can’t possibly be so clueless as to actually believe that there’s any substantive division among the citizens of this country regarding reform in general and a public option in particular. Someone — and I mean other than their coporate-media bosses — must be paying them to manufacture controversy where none actually exists.
Woody
Chuy!
I have tried to explain, over and over, since at least December, ’08, that there are four terrific reasons why neither Obama, nor any Dim Pres, could realistically “go after” Busheviks on war crimes:
slag
@Montysano: You missed a lively debate about this in DougJ’s Walk on Water thread. (Sorry for trolling your post, DougJ!…not really.)
I think the debate boils down to the fact that some of us have differing levels of confidence in the US regulatory structure. As jl and Zifnab and others remarked, the Swiss insurance market is heavily regulated and basically all their insurance companies are nonprofit. I don’t think anyone sees that happening here.
Some people think you can shift the incentive structure for insurance companies enough that they can still make a profit and still do what’s in the patient’s best interest in the process. Personally, I’m of the opinion that the only real way to make that possible is to start letting insurance companies open up casino/whorehouses on the side in order to make up for their healthcare profit loss. But that opinion apparently makes me a pie-in-the-sky idealist who only deals in ponies.
The end.
slag
Was it “c a s ino” or “w ho re houses” that damned me to moderation? Just curious.
The Grand Panjandrum
@kay: Thanks for the info on S-CHIP. I am going to do some research on how it is done here in NH.
kay
@Ash Can:
I think a good place to lobby would be on holding those convicted inside the US. Congress is blocking that, and it’s ridiculous.
We can hold convicted terrorists here, in prison. Of course we can, and everyone in Congress knows it.
Where is Holder supposed to put those tried and convicted?
We were all yelling for closing Gitmo. We should now be yelling for Congress to stop blocking transfer of prisoners to the US.
I’m not seeing a lot of follow-up or attention to practical realities here. “Close Gitmo!” “try the detainees!”
Okay. Where does he put them? Ask Congress.
jibeaux
@peach flavored shampoo:
The problem is, as I unnastand it, that if you aren’t under some compulsion to buy health insurance, healthy 25 year olds aren’t going to buy it. The people wanting to buy it are the ones who know they’re going to use it, and for economic reasons we all need the healthy people in the pool, too. Insurance just won’t be affordable if only the sick are in the risk pool. It may seem unfair to the healthy people, but of course accidents happen to all of us and they need insurance also.
Of course, I’m right with you on the public option part. Even if buying on the private market is coupled with significant reforms and subsidies, it’s still a gift to insurers with no real mechanism for holding costs down.
The Other Steve
One of the greatest mistakes Democrats have long made was assuming the legal channel was more important as the court of public opinion. It’s not. There is no purpose served in taking the Bush administration to court that could not be better served via the court of public opinion. In fact the court option causes more problems, as it cripples the current administration to get things done and it reinforces the theme that Democrats are weak which will just cause us to lose future elections.
It is the court of public opinion that is important to win. We best win that by doing a better job, but also standing up in public and arguing forcefully and intelligently for our positions.
It’s interesting you make this mistake in a post where you mention The Rubicon.
The Other Steve
As far as health care reform. Did you all read the New Yorker article on costs?
It’s written by a doctor who decides to go to McAllen, TX and find out why it costs so much there as compared to El Paso, TX. Given both areas have similar populations, similar problems and yet McAllen costs Medicare $15k/person instead of $7k/person.
It’s really enlightening.
Zifnab
@Woody: Wait, what? Who said anything about arrest and trial? I thought the Unitary Executive was just allowed to toss these yahoos into Gitmo?
And the legal system doesn’t work by popular vote. You get 12 guys in a jury box and you ask “Did they do it?” not “Was what they did ok?” It isn’t the jury’s job to figure out the difference between justifiable homicide and reckless manslaughter. And most of what the Bush regime would be brought up on focuses on procedural questions. Did Bush authorize wiretapping in violation of FISA? Did Cheney or Gonzo sign orders that resulted in the torture/death of a detainee. You can say there is no credible link between the White House and the guys on the ground. But you can’t rule from the jury box that they did it but it was ok. Any more than you can rule a rape wasn’t really rape because of the way the girl was dressed. The jury system just doesn’t allow for that.
kay
@The Grand Panjandrum:
My state was ordered to put enabling legislation in place by July of 2008. They did so on July 27th, 2008. I’m already fighting them on “reasonable”, and losing every round :)
Zifnab
@The Other Steve:
The GOP rode the “Law and Order” public opinion pony all through the 80s and 90s. When people saw high crime and too many drugs, they flocked to the polls to support the Republicans. Now the GOP has been caught coddling white collar criminals in one hand while committing some of the most grievous war crimes in the other.
The court of public opinion demands retribution. You can’t call your opposition a pack of war criminals for four years, then step into office, shrug your shoulders, and announce it’s all water under the bridge. How serious are we supposed to take allegations of torture or reports of bribery at the highest levels of power, if “White House officials get a free pass” is engraved in precedent? Where are the “Law and Order” Democrats? You know, the ACLU guys that are supposed to defend our civil rights and crack down on government malfeasance?
Democrats need to be the party of clean government. Carter and Clinton and Obama were elected to repair the messes of their predecessors, and their success in politics was – and will be – defined by how good a job they do.
Montysano (All Hail Marx & Lennon)
@slag:
And some of us have virtually no confidence in it. If BO were the radical that he is portrayed to be, we would be well under way to instituting draconian re-regulation of Wall Street. So far, we’ve seen very little.
This is starting to feel like a watershed moment to me. We’ve all recognized that corporations have too much of a voice in our politics. If a mandated-care-with-no-public-option bill is under serious consideration, then I think we have to consider the possibility that we as citizens no longer have any real voice in determining how our country is run.
b-psycho
@Montysano (All Hail Marx & Lennon):
Nah. You have to have actually had a “voice” before you can lose it.
The Grand Panjandrum
@kay: Do the Feds require every state to incorporate these orders to provide insurance?
geg6
@The Other Steve:
Wow. Just…wow. So public opinion is more important than the law. Oooooookay. Personally, I really don’t give a fat fuck about public opinion or if Dems never win another election as long as the rule of law and constitutional principles are reinforced. But then, I’m silly like that.
@kay:
“I don’t think the prosecutor should announce he’s “going after” anyone, and that has nothing to do with politics.
We want him to call a press conference and read a list of unindicted persons?
Yeah. That’s a great idea. I’d call for his immediate removal if he did anything remotely like that, and I’d be right.”
Exactly. Couldn’t say it better myself.
Stabetha
Steeplejack
@Napoleon:
I presume Tim means this book: Rubicon: The Last Years of the Roman Republic, by Tom Holland.
Montysano (All Hail Marx & Lennon)
@b-psycho:
I can always count on someone here being more cynical than I am, which ain’t easy.
someguy
Friedman is right. The for benevolent, enlightened one party rule.
Failing that I’ll settle for outlawing the Republicans and banishing them from public life or to Texas, same thing pretty much.
someguy
The time is right…
Stupid html fail…
Zifnab
@Stabetha:
I think they can throw you off the jury for trying to do that, though.
Zifnab
@someguy: Hey, screw you buddy. Texas is – slowly but surely – working it’s way back to sanity. Send’m to some fly-over state like Mississippi or Alabama. Leave us Houstonites out of it.
Montysano (All Hail Marx & Lennon)
@Zifnab:
Screw you, buddy. We’re overflowing with the crazy here in Alabama. Mississippi works for me.
Shygetz
@Zifnab: Zifnab, that’s a pretty fantasy world you’re living in, but the real world doesn’t work like that. Juries can and do nullify the law outright; even if they didn’t, they very often color their decision based on sympathies with/against the defendant (or the victim). The idea that juries are logical fact-finding machines is naive. And how would you screen the jury pool? Throw out every registered Democrat? Ever registered Republican? Question the jury pool as to how they voted in 2000 and 2004? Or would you just ask if they would be willing to convict a former Republican US President if the facts showed he committed a crime, and trust that you get a sincere answer in reply?
slag
@Montysano (All Hail Marx & Lennon):
Welcome to the Marx/Stalin/Hitler/Mugabe Social-Fascist Fan Club. We’re thinking of having jackets made. You may purchase a jacket for either $25 or the head of one aristocrat/peasant, whichever costs more.
Chad N Freude
@Woody: You may very well be right, but if you are, then we have a Government of Men and not of Laws (RIP John Adams). Why not just acknowledge that every four years we elect a new absolute monarch?
CalD
The Wolcott piece is brilliant — and I’m not just saying that because he happens to be fulminating on one of my very own pet peeves… He’s also Wolcott.
Stefan
I have tried to explain, over and over, since at least December, ‘08, that there are four terrific reasons why neither Obama, nor any Dim Pres, could realistically “go after” Busheviks on war crimes: 1) No precedent. Really. Has ANY ranking member of ANY replaced regime EVER been brought to trial for acts committed in office?
What nonsense. Yes, of course they have. In Watergate, H.R. Haldeman and John Erlichman (White House staff), John Dean (White House legal counsel), John Mitchell (Attorney-General), and Chuck Colson (special counsel to the President). among others, were all arrested, tried, convicted and jailed for their crimes.
And for Iran-Contra, both Elliott Abrams (Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the National Security Council) and John Poindexter (National Security Adviser), among others, were convicted and found guilty of numerous felonies, though they were later pardoned by Bush.
Stefan
Also forgot to mention Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, indicted for perjuring himself to Congress but pardoned by Bush. If we could indict a Secretary of Defense, an Attorney General and a National Security Adviser for crimes committed in office, then surely we have precedent.
ericblair
2) It would invite—nay, necessitate—revenge prosecutions from the next Puke regime.
Besides being the worst kind of political cowardice, I personally don’t think there is going to be another Puke regime. It’s not like parties haven’t died before in this country: Whigs, anyone? With any luck, the babbling loonies will take the Repubs right off the cliff, and the Democratic money wing will split off into the center-right party and the social justice/environmental Dems will form a center-left.
Shygetz
@Zifnab: Only if you are blatantly obvious about it before the decision is rendered. If you just say “I think he’s not guilty” and don’t give any reasons, the judge can’t throw you out.
Chad N Freude
@Zifnab:
If the coddling and the war crimes made people feel unsafe on their own streets, we would see a demand to do something about the perps. If not, well, ho-hum, let’s see what’s on Fox News.
kay
@The Grand Panjandrum:
Sorry. I didn’t see your question.
I assume it applies to every state. I don’t know how they would get away with picking and choosing. I know my state wrote enabling legislation that is state-specific, but that would be ordinary practice. They have to comply with the federal order, but they can come up with the specific mechanism.
I’m not opposed to mandating health insurance. I actually think it’s inevitable, as a cost-containment measure, if nothing else. I’m a little amused that Our Leaders are being so dishonest about it, though.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@Stabetha:
Jury nullification was quite popular with wingnuts in say Mississippi circa 1955.
Mike G
Tactical Error: Health Care versus Finance Regulatory Reform
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/09/finance-reform-vs-health-care-reform/
By Barry Ritholtz – September 9th, 2009, 7:15AM
There was a narrow window to effect a full regulatory reform of Wall Street, the Banking Industry and other causes of the collapse. Instead, the White House tacked in a different direction, pursuing health care reform…The massive taxpayer wealth transfer to inept, corrupt, incompetent bankers has created huge resentment amongst the populace — regardless of political affiliation.
This was a colossal blunder. Passing reform legislation successfully would have fulfilled the campaign promise of “Change;” it would have created legislative momentum. It could have provided a healthy outlet for the Tea Party anger and the raucous Town Hall meetings. It might have even led to a “throw the Bums out” attitude in the mid-term elections, forcing the most radical de-regulators from office.
Instead, we have a White House that appears adrift, and the most importantly, may very well have missed the best chance to clean up Wall Street in five generations.
Woody
Mea culpa: I should have been more careful in specifying that NO ELECTED official of any (previous) regime has EVER been prosecuted for acts committed in office; and even those to whom Stefan emphatically points were 1) appointees and 2) investigated ‘in situ,” not after the regime had left office…
Kirk Spencer
@Woody: No, I don’t think that’s what you meant. Not when your original statement was that the bushevists wouldn’t be prosecuted.
Bush and Cheney might slide. But they might not. If we don’t investigate, they will. Investigations have chased up ladders in the past, and just because they’ve stopped below those two before does not guarantee they will this time.
Brachiator
@Fulcanelli:
I know that some people are hot for single-payer because they want to eliminate health insurance companies from being involved in health care, but this alone does not insure that health care reform would be effective. And as has been noted in other threads, industrialized countries with universal health care do not all use the same funding mechanism. Single payer is an option, but not the only remedy.
PTirebiter
Wolcott’s great, but a lack of really good consultants isn’t the problem. We’re Democrats, and that’s the problem.
We don’t follow directions and we don’t work and play well with others. The White House’s campaign was barely out the door before Harry Reid was on the capitol steps assuring the media that he didn’t work for President Obama. If we actually planned our circular firing squads, they’d never happen.
Brachiator
@Montysano:
Germany appears to have a mandatory component to its health care system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_Germany
Here, Massachusetts implemented a health care system with a mandatory component and a public option in 2007. Despite all the publicity surrounding the program, some people didn’t get the message or completed paperwork incorrectly, and ending up losing the personal exemption on their personal income tax returns (this was how the mandatory aspect was enforced). The method of assessing the penalty changed for 2008, but is still pretty crappy. The Massachusetts program is hitting all kinds of funding problems, made worse by the declining economy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care
JHF
Um… why doesn’t Obama mention that ***Iraq*** has state-guaranteed (single payer) healthcare for life for every Iraqi citizen? And that Bush set it up, AND… [drum roll]… that directly or indirectly, we’re paying for it, of course.
Stefan
Mea culpa: I should have been more careful in specifying that NO ELECTED official of any (previous) regime has EVER been prosecuted for acts committed in office; and even those to whom Stefan emphatically points were 1) appointees and 2) investigated ‘in situ,” not after the regime had left office…
So basically you’ve now whittled down your original false statement to the President and Vice-President. True, perhaps, but a sample size small enough that we can’t really draw too many conclusions from it. After all, not too many prior Presidents and Vice-Presidents were running a secret gulag of torture camps either.
Also, if you were actually only referring to Bush and Cheney why did you say that no one “could realistically ‘go after’ Busheviks on war crimes”? “Busheviks” refers to Bush regime minions, not to Bush himself. Looks rather like you made a false claim and, instead of simply admitting you were wrong, retroactively attempted to amend your claim to make it appear correct.