It's Wide Open

(Photo: 365 Project, Day Twenty-five, 9/30/09 - Looking up 16 St. NW from Scott Circle.)

Head Like a Hole III

By now, the details of the upcoming Sarah Palin "memoir," entitled something like "Gone Rogue: The Sarah Palin Story," are starting to trickle out. There's sure to be some priceless gems in the book, especially if her foreign policy speech to those Hong Kong businessmen (sounds fishy already) is any indication of her desires to begin World War III.

But no one periodically sums of up the entirety of Sarah Palin from time to time like Andrew Sullivan:

We discovered that Palin knew nothing even about energy policy and was incapable of keeping her stories straight on any number of matters, large and small. She was a cynical tool of cynical people, marketed entirely as an identity politics candidate to appeal to white conservative red staters. In a party where the number of serious figures actually trying to address policy questions can be counted on one hand, she relied on absurd slogans such as "Drill, baby, drill!" and ugly insinuations about "real America." Her emergence revealed that America is in a period of decadence and unseriousness, even as its decline as an economic and world power accelerated and its moral authority crumbled.

[...]

The days of open press conferences will be over as Palin narrow-casts only to the base. At the same time, you see the right urging a coup, while all but beating a drum for the assassination of the president, an event that would tip this country into a near civil war. In this climate, establishment conservatism for the most part is fanning the flames and pouring on the gasoline.

Look, I don't believe that she could pull any more than 40% in a presidential election, even if Obama's popularity is low. But it's doubtful this is all for 2012. This might be a long campaign for 2016. Is 2016 some kind of Christian Conservative year of the apocalypse? Maybe she's the tool of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse .. a kind of ambassador laying down preparations for the End Times. Or is it just the triumphal merger of the dumb and the extreme?

Better Than Ever

The Kent Conrad chicanery continues down its lurid, prideful path.

On the Rockefeller amendment (robust public option) to the Senate Finance version of health reform, authored by health insurance sympathizer Max Baucus, the committee voted 'no' 15-8. Here's Jon Walker at FDL with the break down:

All ten Republicans on the committee voted against the amendment. Five Democrats (Kent Conrad, Max Baucus, Blanche Lincoln, Bill Nelson, Thomas Carper) also voted against the amendment. Eight Democrats (Jay Rockefeller, Jeff Bingaman, John Kerry, Ron Wyden, Charles Schumer, Debbie Stabenow, Maria Cantwell, Robert Menendez) vote in support of Rockefeller's amendments.

Then Walker spots our man Kent, petulantly flaunting these co-ops he's pushed as the honest way we can achieve the ever-popular bipartisan compromise. Kent is still getting his European health-care comparisons wrong. This time it's the Netherlands:

Kent Conrad was very upset that Rockefeller's public option would be tied to Medicare schedules given that North Dakota has one of the lowest Medicare reimbursement rates in the country.

He also clearly lives in a fantasy world. Conrad talked about how some systems (Beligium, Netherlands) technically have universal coverage provided by private insurance funds. Yes, it is possible to have a good universal health care system with only private insurance providers, but it needs to be highly regulated. Baucus's bill doesn't come anywhere close to the level of government regulation that kind of system requires to work.

If Conrad offered an amendment copying the robust regulation, generous subsidies, strong bad practice penalties, and powerful risk equalizer of the Netherlands' system, then we can talk about the possibility of reform without a public option.

Who does this guy think he is? And it looks like Kent's junior squad showed itself scared to utter a word of explanation for their votes:

Olympia Snowe, Thomas Carper, and Blanche Lincoln cannot be bothered to publicly debate one of the committee's most important amendments. It seems neither Olympia Snowe, Thomas Carper, nor Blanche Lincoln thought they needed to explain their opposition to a robust public option in the official Senate record.

I'll let Snowe slide since she's a Republican and has little incentive to still be around other than for attention-mongering. But Carper? Come on Delaware. Blanche Lincoln is just scared of Wal-Mart. Let's ask rural Arkansas how they feel about health insurance companies.

Electric Blue

(Photo: 365 Project, Day Twenty-four, 9/28/09 - Cloud kick! But it didn't look like this today ... this was from Sunday, just east of the White House along Pennsylvania Ave.)

Uighur Brothers the Latest Greatest Story in Gitmo Shame

Absolutely heartbreaking.

Bahtiyar Mahnut, a detainee at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, learned a few weeks ago that the Pacific island nation of Palau had invited him to settle there.

It should have been cause for celebration, especially for a man who desperately wants to be free. But, to the surprise of his attorneys, Bahtiyar has turned down the offer. He wishes to remain a prisoner, they say, so he can look after his older brother, a fellow detainee.

[...]

The brothers are Uighurs, residents of China who are considered separatists by Beijing but are not enemies of the United States. The brothers were picked up separately in Afghanistan and Pakistan soon after the United States launched attacks against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in retaliation for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Since at least 2003, the U.S. government has tried to find homes for the brothers and 20 other captured Uighurs. Five went to Albania in 2006; four were sent to Bermuda in June. At one point, U.S. officials were considering the possibility of resettling Uighurs in the D.C. region, but that plan was scuttled under political pressure. Most countries have been reluctant to accept Uighurs and risk angering China.

In recent weeks, however, Palau has agreed to accept 12 of the 13 remaining Uighurs, according to the Justice Department.

The only detainee not invited by Palau was Bahtiyar's older brother, Arkin Mahmud, 45, who has developed mental health problems that are apparently too serious to be treated in the sparsely populated country, said his attorney, Elizabeth Gilson.
ad_icon

To make matters worse, according to Gilson and military records, Arkin is a prisoner only because he went searching for Bahtiyar after the younger brother left their homeland eight years ago.

"This is just very difficult and sad," said Abubakkir Qasim, 40, a Uighur freed from Guantanamo Bay in 2006 who considers himself a friend of both brothers.

Look at what we have put this family through. Lives have been ruined and futures have been irrevocably damaged. The Bush administration post-9/11 foreign policy, in this case the unlawful extradition, imprisonment without trial, torture of other human beings, much less the same to innocent men. Many American-held detainees have died while in Guantanamo, or Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan, or Iraqi prisons, or the many CIA "black sites" all over the world. Others have been shamed and embarrassed for all the world to see, such as from Abu Ghraib. How are we supposed to lecture anyone on human rights abuses? How do we constantly claim the moral high ground with any conflict, perceived or real, throughout the world? We've left nothing for our close allies to do but begrudgingly grin and take it, because we seem to rarely care what they really think.

Anyway, it's actually a little shocking, even for a cynic like me, to see that the torture advocates are still treated as reasonable and sufficiently credible in the national security debate. I mean, read that story at the brothers at Gitmo ... have you so soul? What would like to say about this ... oh, I don't, how about you Liz Cheney? Ye of a New York Times write-up that could be called Liz Cheney: Rising Star of Republican Torture Squad (from today). If you're so sure torture works -- and the overwhelming evidence that it does not is all over the place -- how would you explain to these brothers' families why they were taken under custody, held for 8 years even after being found innocent and now getting shopped around to the rest of the world since we won't let them come here.

The Times on Cheney:

Ms. Cheney’s resolute national security positions seem to differ not at all from those of her favorite vice president. “I think you’d be hard-pressed to find any daylight at all between Liz’s and my father’s views,” said her younger sister, Mary Cheney. “It’s not because she’s been indoctrinated. It’s because he’s right.” Mary Cheney was prominent in her father’s vice-presidential campaigns but has drawn fire from some conservatives for having a child as part of a same-sex couple.

[...]

She argues her father’s positions with a cable-ready ferocity reminiscent of her mother, Lynne (a former regular on CNN’s “Crossfire”).

Mr. Obama is “an American president who seems to be afraid to defend America,” she told Larry King on his CNN program in an appearance that drew notice when Ms. Cheney appeared not to contest a suggestion that the president had not been born in the United States.

Clips of Ms. Cheney’s on-air smack-downs with liberal adversaries have become viral sensations among conservative bloggers — most recently, an interruption-fest with Sam Donaldson over the C.I.A.’s interrogation methods on ABC’s “This Week.”

When Mr. Donaldson said that everyone he knows thinks torture and waterboarding are wrong, Ms. Cheney shot back: “Waterboarding isn’t torture, and we can go down that path. The lack of seriousness here is important.”

What a crazy family. They're all on the same page, the page of grizzled, fearful, animalistic militarism. And that Mary Cheney mention, wow, there's another layer of self-loathing going on in that family.

Here's Adam Serwer of TAPPED on the Cheney family values:

Reality, it seems, is a nemesis not only for the former vice president but for the entire Cheney family. But because torture is now a "values" issue for the right, it is, like abstinence-only sex education, unmoored from the necessities of proving its usefulness in the real world, which is why someone like Liz Cheney is finding herself where she is. Unfortunately, the consequences of one of the two major parties in America embracing torture will affect us all in the long run.

How sad. Like a family of ruthless, nationalistic Attila the Huns.

Snippets from the Park

(Photo: 365 Project, Day Twenty-Three, 9/27/09 - Cheap perk of DC for an amateur photog like me: monuments/statues amongst clouds.)

Overheard in separate conversations, minutes (if that) apart:

"You keep running and running and running and not getting any closer...."

As well as:

"Isn't this great? You gotta embrace it!" (of the intensifying rain sprinkles)

Well, which is it?

Out and About

Is there an unfair bias in movies/TV to blame global free-will infringements on a progressive boon gone bad? Provocative.

That is all. Sucky blogging day. But I have pictures!


Photo: Traffic light box, triangle bay of North Carolina, Eighth and Independence Ave. SE, near Eastern Market. My greater neighborhood. 9/26/09

Photo: Along Eighth St. SE during the Barracks Row Oktoberfest. Some art gallery called The Fridge opened up in an alley. That's one of the artist's pieces. Eighth is building up rapidly. It's not bad, and it seems more's coming.

Photo: Barracks Row Oktoberfest had an animal pin, with the nice little goat.

Photo: Then the goat went raw! "I'm prisoner!"

Photo: C St. NE looking east from Sixth. It was a vantage going that way on C, walking on the opposite side of the street from where I live, that made the street feel very different for me. I always walk west on my side. I was going east on the other side. Weird.

Photo: The National Book Festival on the Mall.

Photo: It's not so bad to live here. Heard Walter Mosely speak, others were there but I just walked around for an hour or so -- Ken Burns, Jon Meacham, Gwen Ifill, John Grisham, Judy Blume, Swanson of Manhunter.

Photo: Cool banners at the festival.

(All photos: 365 Project, Day Twenty-two, 9/26/09 - A combined effort for the day.)

Fall Guy

There's some amazing quotes from Rep. Jim Moran (obtained by Josh Rogin) right here on the, basically, dismissal of Greg Craig (White House counsel) from the Obama administration, via The Washington Post. Jim Moran is a northern Virginia congressman who was trying to ease the Guantanamo transfer of prisoners, some possibly coming to northern Virginia. (Might be useful to read the WaPo article first.)

Now the administration is trying to press the reset button on Guantánamo, but Moran argued the damage is done and it is now nearly impossible to sell the idea of moving the prisoners to U.S. soil.

"This is their first major fuck up, and it's an enormous fuckup, because now that you've lost ground you're not going to be able to recover it," said Moran.

Anyway, this, I think, is the first sacrificial lamb of the Obama administration (Well, maybe Van Jones was.). Anyway, Greg Craig was supposed to be a major progressive voice in the administration. Maybe I'm wrong. I do know that he was one of the first big name Obama supporters. His Wikipedia entry says it all: "Because of his close ties to the Clintons, when Craig declared his support of Senator Barack Obama's presidential ambitions in March 2007, it attracted widespread attention."

March 2007. Obama declared in early February '07, I think. Maybe late January. Regardless, Craig was early. Now he's meat.

For Sale

(Photo: 365 Project, Day Twenty-One, 9/25/09 - Pardon the reflection.)

Clueless

Here's a surprising tidbit from a new CBS/New York Times poll, from Eric Kleefeld at TPM:

The new CBS/New York Times poll not only shows overwhelming support for the public option -- it shows that a plurality of self-identified Republicans are for it, too.

The poll asked this question: "Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan -- something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get -- that would compete with private health insurance plans?"

The top-line result is 65% in favor, 26% opposed. Among Democrats only, it's 81%-12%, and independents are at 61%-30%. And among Republican respondents, 47% are in favor, to 42% opposed.

Unfortunately, we have our valiant protectors of the health insurance industry like Kent Conrad, not to mention the brigade of Senate Republicans that refuse to bend to reality, running this freakshow. These guys have no clue. Period.

6:07 Update: The Senate Finance, in all their infinite wisdom, was supposed to debate separate public option amendments to the health bill from Jay Rockefeller and Chuck Schumer. That's been delayed for Tuesday. Jane Hamsher gives us an update on the prospects that such a sane move has in the committee. Looks like a few noncommittal Democrats will have to do some soul-searching this weekend. (I'm looking at you Blanche Lincoln.)

Head Like a Hole II

Sarah Palin made a foreign policy address "to a group of Hong Kong business types with former McCain campaign foreign-policy guru Randy Scheunemann in tow," says Josh Rogin at Foreign Policy.

Ex-Gov. Palin said:

China has some 1000 missiles aimed at Taiwan and no serious observer believes Taiwan poses a military threat to Beijing. Those same Chinese forces make our friends in Japan and Australia nervous. China provides support for some of the world's most questionable regimes from Sudan to Burma to Zimbabwe. China's military buildup raises concerns from Delhi to Tokyo because it has taken place in the absence of any discernable external threat.

China, along with Russia, has repeatedly undermined efforts to impose tougher sanctions on Iran for its defiance of the international community in pursuing its nuclear program. The Chinese food and product safety record has raised alarms from East Asia and Europe to the United States. And, domestic incidents of unrest -- from the protests of Uighurs and Tibetans, to Chinese workers throughout the country rightfully make us nervous.

She pretty much manages to demonize just about everybody in the world outside of western Europe! Impressive. But these were harsh statements for China, even by our accepted culture of permissive unease with China. That immediately jumps out. Come on lady. Imagine if she were president? It'd be the end. She'd start some serious wars, I think.

Sarah Palin: Not that anyone cares about you, but if you want to stop people from laughing at you, then please, it is not necessary to provoke our tenuous relationships with the rest of the world these days.

Will You Just Go Away Kent Conrad?

(Photo: 365 Project, Day Twenty, 09/24/09 - What I think of Kent.)

Kent Conrad drops a big Life-Zero up here. He tries to say universal health coverage isn't necessary for a quality health-care system in a large country, like Germany and Japan and France ...? France?

Let me just conclude for my progressive friends who believe that the only answer to getting costs under control and having universal coverage is by a government-run program. I urge my colleagues to read the book by T.R. Reid, “The Healing of America.” (via Think Progress)

I had the chance to read it this weekend. He looks at the health-care systems around the world. And what he found is in many countries they have universal coverage. They contain costs effectively. They have high-quality outcomes, in fact higher than ours. They’re not government-run systems in Germany, in Japan, in Switzerland, in France, in Belgium — all of them contain costs, have universal coverage, have very high quality care and yet are not government-run systems.

Yeah, how are those French doing without their universal coverage these days? Sen. Kent Conrad (D-Sellout) says they're thriving without one. You're wrong Kent. Well, you're right about the thriving part at least. France has 75% universal health care. The rest comes from those who can afford excelled private insurance. So anyone can get health care.

Think Progress:

The truth is, as the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein notes, France has had a public insurance system that covers all of its citizens since 1945. Known as Sécurité Sociale (social security), their public insurance program accounts for nearly 75 percent of total health expenditures in France, and people have the option of buying complementary private health insurance if they’d like. In its most recent ranking of health care systems, the World Health Organization concluded that France has the best health care system in the world.

(Emphasis Mine)


Nice Kent. We see who we're dealing with here. I guess we've known for a while, but you never cease to amaze.

6:39 p.m. Update: Steve Benen at Washington Monthly rounds up a few views of this one from Conrad. Some good responses here. The best is Kevin Drum of Mother Jones on Conrad's quote:

This has been sort of rattling around in my head ever since I saw it, but I couldn't quite put my finger on what I wanted to say about it. But then I figured it out: it's completely, 100% batshit crazy. I mean, is this actually breaking news to Conrad after (excuse me a moment while I google) 22 years in the Senate? WTF?

Believe me: Conrad's "progressive friends" would be punch drunk with ecstacy if the United States adopted the healthcare system of (take your pick) Japan, France or Germany. It would be beyond our wildest dreams. Does Conrad really not know this? Did he only find out this weekend that those other countries have terrific healthcare systems that contain costs, provide universal coverage, and boast very high-quality care? What's going on?

Google Kent Conrad ... ha ... that's pretty good.

J.D. Sallinger and His Revenge of the Teenage Heartthrob

So I'm scrolling through the Wikipedia entry for Catcher in the Rye (yes, it's come to that) to check up a small fact (the year it came out, '51, if you must know). I stumbled upon this besmirching buried in the "In other work" category:

The Catcher in the Rye was cited in the Jonas Brother song "6 Minutes", saying: "Sometimes I feel like the catcher in the rye/ Sometimes I wish that I could catch her eye/ Sometimes I wish that I could be that guy"

Who writes this crap? I mean, do they make it up on the bus or backstage before the concert?

You know what would have been the ultimate prank by author J.D. Salinger, the ultimate jab at the American literati that's whined about his seclusion for decades? If he would have picked that occasion to pop up, when the fucking Jonas Brothers incorporate his classic of American literature in their bullshit song about ... dry-humping, or heavy petting, or what have you. Ohhh!

He'd literally shit-eating-grin himself to death after that.

(P.S. I'm not sure I could read it anymore. I'm afraid I'd feel old and washed-up or something.)

Time to Hammer

(Photo: 365 Project, Day Nineteen, 9/23/09 - Owned.)

When it's all said and done, here what ACORN is to the American taxpayers, via Glenn Greenwald in a conversation with Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.):

Before being elected to Congress, Grayson worked extensively on uncovering and combating defense contractor fraud in Iraq, and I asked him to put into context ACORN's impact on the American taxpayer versus these corrupt defense contractors. His reply: "The amount of money that ACORN has received in the past 20 years altogether is roughly equal to what the taxpayer paid to Halliburton each day during the war in Iraq."

Wow. A pittance. And look at the Right vilify this poorly-run organization (at worst) and gloss over the cash and power showered on Dick Cheney's own Halliburton.

What's the point for this? Here's the back story, from Greenwald again:

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) -- my guest on Salon Radio today -- yesterday pointed out that the bill passed by both the Senate and House to de-fund ACORN is written so broadly that it literally compels the de-funding not only of that group, but also the de-funding of, and denial of all government contracts to, any corporation that "has filed a fraudulent form with any Federal or State regulatory agency." By definition, that includes virtually every large defense contractor, which -- unlike ACORN -- has actually been found guilty of fraud. As The Huffington Post's Ryan Grim put it: "the bill could plausibly defund the entire military-industrial complex. Whoops."

Okay, so we know the power structure in DC would never let anything critical happen to these defense contractors, unfortunately. I get it, nothing will really happen. BUT, not so fast. A Greenwald commenter has the key:

What can this episode truly gain us? How can we maximize that gain? And how many oxen can actually be gored before it is overwritten by another bill which declaws it?

If pushed the right way, I think it can definitely bring attention to how corrupt these contractors are; how ludicrous and hypocritical was the ACORN spectacle pushed by people pretending to safeguard taxpayer funds while serving the companies that burn trillions of it; and underscore how the Congress is owned by the most corrupt and powerful corporations in the country.

Will the Left step up?

Wash, Rinse, Repeat

War! War! War! Yeah!

Digby excoriates Chuck Todd, mainstream media stooge boy, piping us what we should think about Afghanistan as he claims he's just an innocent reporter.

I mean, haven't we seen this before?

Senior military officials emphasized Monday that McChrystal's conclusion that the U.S. effort in Afghanistan "will likely result in failure" without an urgent infusion of troops has been endorsed by the uniformed leadership. That includes Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen and Gen. David H. Petraeus, the head of U.S. Central Command and architect of the troop "surge" strategy widely seen as helping U.S. forces turn the corner in Iraq.

And the conventional knowledge, reports The Post, from an "observer":

Obama's decision is complicated by a deepening domestic political divide and no guarantee of success whichever option he chooses. One observer, characterizing the president's dilemma at its most extreme, said: "He can send more troops and it will be a disaster and he will destroy the Democratic Party. Or he can send no more troops and it will be a disaster and the Republicans will say he lost the war."

It's all a game to the political elite of this country. Glenn Greenwald, on our perpetual state of war, points out that America is blind to its barbarism.

It's hard to overstate how aberrational -- one might say "rogue" -- the U.S. is when it comes to war. No other country sits around debating, as a routine and permanent feature of its political discussions, whether this country or that one should be bombed next, or for how many more years conquered targets should be occupied.

Greenwald quotes James Madison:

"Of all the enemies of true liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded. . . . No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

Afghanistan looks to be Iraq's uglier twin. This famously-nicknamed "Graveyard of Empires" is likely to be a colossal flesh would for the U.S. Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, the British, the Soviets, now the Americans. It'd be fuckin' poetic if it weren't so sad.

What Lurks

Still catching up...




(Photo: 365 Project, Day Eighteen, 9/22/09 - Shed.)



(Photo: 365 Project, Day Seventeen, 9/21/09 - Alley.)

Graf of the Day

Gleen Greenwald:

In other breaking news, Erik Prince announces that he believes criminal prosecutions of Blackwater are unwarranted; Wall Street CEOs -- past and present -- conclude that an investigation of fraud and abuse among investment banks would serve no real purpose; Alberto Gonzales reveals his opposition to any proceedings against DOJ lawyers who acted in bad faith; police unions announce that the problem of brutality is overstated and there's no need for added oversight; medical doctors agree that malpractice lawsuits need to be limited; and a poll of felons currently in prison reveal that 99% of them believe that the country would have been better off if it had just let bygones be bygones and decided not to proceed with prosecutions in their particular case.

Critical Period is Here, Like it or Not

After largely a month without him, we're reminded how good Sullivan is. Here, on Afghanistan.

How do you win a war when it is being led and conducted in a country you are not at war with?

It seems to me we are at another turning point in the road, and one of the few moments when American enmeshment in Afghanistan might be turned back. We have to weigh the chances of serious terror groups re-grouping and operating even more freely throughout Afghanistan and Pakistan against the risks of more money, more troops, more casualties and more blowback. And let's not fool ourselves: neither of these is a good option. That's the Bush legacy.

But if McChrystal is right, he is strategizing Afghanistan as a semi-permanent protectorate for the US. This is empire in the 21st century sense: occupying failed states indefinitely to prevent even more chaos spinning out of them. And it has the embedded logic of all empires: if it doesn't keep expanding, it will collapse. The logic of McChrystal is that the US should be occupying Pakistan as well. And Somalia. And anywhere al Qaeda make seek refuge.

In the end, Gulliver cannot move. And his pockets are empty. Whom does that deter?

You know, how this is handled will, I think, ultimately shape what America means in today's world, and what they can or can not achieve in the future. I'm saying we can see clear historical patterns in our behavior, but we refuse to acknowledge it. We think we're different, that we'll make it out alive with our nice little American "ingenuity," but it's so much more complex than that.

Some Pictures to Catch Up On....

((Photo: 365 Project, Day Sixteen, 9/20/09 - Niece.)



(Photo: 365 Project, Day Fifteen, 9/19/09 - Lost.)



(Photo: 365 Project, Day Fourteen, 9/18/09 - Soulard Farmers Market, St. Louis.

History's Statistics

Bush's decade of decline:

(via USA Today)

INCOME SHIFTS

Change in median income from 2000-08 (in 2008 dollars):
Age Men Women
15-24 -9.7% -3.3%
25-34 -11.7% -2.9%
35-44 -6.8% -0.8%
45-54 -11.2% -4.8%
55-64 -2.3% 20.6%
65-74 8% 8.7%
75+ 1.9% 3.5%

Source: Census Bureau

Stripped

(Photo: 365 Project, Day Thirteen, 9/17/09 - Left for dead.)

No Fight

David Sirota calls out Barack Obama like no other that I've heard up to this point. He calls him on worrying about being a celebrity rather than a leader.

Specifically, it seems to me that if you went to states like, say, Montana, Iowa and Maine and publicly hammered Sens. Baucus, Grassley and Snowe as obstructionists, there's a decent chance they would fall in line (especially Baucus, who is a Democrat who always worries about losing a primary). At minimum, doing that kind of thing, rather than spending time on national/glam television and courting elite journalists/talk show hosts, gives you a better chance of delivering concrete legislative results, even if it might make you momentarily less of a pop culture celebrity.

Can you imagine a complete barnstorm now? He goes to Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, Iowa and New Mexico, then Maine for a cherry on top, and he has all Senate Finance "Gang of Six" states. He can hammer them right now, prove to everyone that a public option is what we need. If he really wanted to fight for it, he could.

What is he saving this imagined good karma for down the road? He ultimately seems to have no real interest in fighting for a public option. And I don't think anyone knows, or even can know yet, what his motivations are. What's the set up, man? Or is this a panic?

Forsaken Legacy

Max Baucus, welcome to your future.

Greg Sargent:

As you know, Max Baucus and the Senate finance committee released their health care bill today, and after all the concessions they made, they were able to gain exactly zero Republican supporters for it.

The most important legacy of all this, however, may be that Dems acquiesced to Republican demands for a delay on the bill this summer in hopes of winning GOP support. That gave reform foes a chance to mobilize the long hot August of tea-partying and town-hall hollering, which may have significantly shifted public opinion and hence may end up having a direct impact on the final bill’s quality.

The Democrats, while crafting an awful bill to acquiesce Republicans, created the town-hall furor. They kept capitulating, and insisted on appeasing the likes of Chuck Grassley, who still won't vote for the bill. The GOP is laughing at the Democrats ... we're all laughing at the Democrats. Or, I'd like to, but it's too damn sad.

Update: And to top it off, I believe this headline says it all, from the AP:

New health proposal is industry's favorite so far

It would score a new, taxpayer-subsidized customer base of millions who don't currently have insurance, thanks to a mandate that everyone purchase coverage — backed up by steep penalties on people who don't. And it wouldn't have to compete with the government to cover people, unlike in the four other health overhaul plans approved this year by Democratic-dominated congressional committees.

Nor would the nonprofit so-called "co-ops" designed to provide consumers with an alternative to private health insurance pose any real threat to their business, according to a nonpartisan analysis released Wednesday. The Congressional Budget Office said those plans "seem unlikely to establish a significant market presence in many areas of the country or to noticeably affect federal subsidy payments."

AHHHHHHH!!!! I know there's more "horse trading" left, but this is an awful starting point.

Reform in Name Only

Here's why young adults will get screwed by health reform not including a public option.

The Washington Post:

In part, young adults are uninsured because they are less likely to work for employers who offer coverage; they may not qualify for public programs such as Medicaid; and even the skimpiest private insurance plans may be too expensive alongside hefty student loan payments and credit card debt.

But some young people -- nicknamed the "young invincibles" -- are also likelier than other Americans to assume that they won't need health insurance or to decide that they'd rather spend their money on other things.

To discourage that attitude, the Finance Committee bill would fine individuals who do not purchase coverage. An early draft of the proposal set the penalty at $750 or $950 per year for single people, depending on income. But according to various insurance experts, even the least expensive plan under the bill could cost more than $100 per month, making it cheaper for people to pay the fine than to buy insurance.

Young adults are "needed" to pay for older people's care:

Drafting young adults into any health-care reform package is crucial to paying for it. As low-cost additions to insurance pools, young adults would help dilute the expense of covering older, sicker people. Depending on how Congress requires insurers to price their policies, this group could even wind up paying disproportionately hefty premiums -- effectively subsidizing coverage for their parents.

...

But it's also essential that young, healthy people participate, said Linda J. Blumberg, a health-care expert at the Urban Institute, because the requirement that people have insurance "is really a mechanism for financing health-care reform."

The more people steered into the system through such a mandate, Blumberg and others explained, the lower the total subsidies that the government must provide to keep insurance affordable. But if young people slip through the cracks -- or if Congress, facing political pressure, provides generous exemptions from the mandate -- then the government and people who buy coverage will face higher costs.

Our demographic gives the president the most support, gives reform the most support and are most optimistic compared with older cranks, but there's no Youth Lobby, is there?

About 52 percent of young adults support the idea of the individual mandate, about the same proportion as in other age groups. But in terms of the overall package, the under-30 group broadly supports the Democratic effort, with 60 percent favoring the proposed reforms vs. 42 percent among older adults.

And while the number is down from its high point, 63 percent of under-30s approve of Obama's overall job performance, significantly more than in other age groups.

Given the implications of reform, advocates for young voters wonder why they haven't commanded special attention from the White House and Congress, as have seniors, union households and industry stakeholders.

"We can do our part, but we need to hear from the people who are making the policy decisions," said Heather Smith, executive director of Rock the Vote, a nonprofit group aimed at drawing young people into the political process.

Along with other pro-reform organizations, Rock the Vote has begun a national advertising and grass-roots campaign to educate young adults about the emerging legislation. But Smith said she was frustrated that Obama offered few assurances to young adults in his speech before Congress last week, instead chastising as "irresponsible" those who don't buy coverage.

The under-30 crowd remains by far the president's most loyal following, Smith noted. "He needs to talk to them," she said. "Writ large, they are struggling; they are the uninsured."

The reporter had to find ... Rock the Vote to comment. That's what we have to argue for us? Rock the Vote? No offense to them, but that's not cutting it. We don't have AARP, we fall through the cracks.

Oh, and these co-ops are completely unproven, says the much-hallowed Congressional Budget Office.

And Obama seems willing to go along with all of this.

Max Baucus's health-care reform bill = FAIL

Notice some of his quotes here (this is from yesterday, as he was announcing the bill, officially):

"This is our moment in history"
"... Keeping the insurance companies honest"
Please.

(Just click on his face to make him stop talking ... in absence of a play button ... Washington Post....)



----

Update: Tim Noah says the "invincibles," 25 and under, will come out looking decent since the bill has a lower premium for them. It's everyone else that's screwed.

Rosary in Hand

(Photo: 365 Project, Day Twelve, 9/16/09 - Right hand. He's fixated. It's worth it to click on the image to enlarge. His head is the only part of his body blurred in the reflection from the glass. Spooky.)

Success: "We'll know it when we see it"

Walter Pincus of The Washington Post does his usual lone yeoman's work on things that actually matter. But unfortunately, the mainstream media's obsession ... scratch that, the MM's religion is the partisan, adversarial horse race, cat-and-mouse bullshit of the day. (Birth certificates. Michelle Obama's arms. Death panels. Perceived cattiness from the Clintons towards Obama. Legitimizing Republicans that have no intentions of being constructive. I could go on.)

No one cares, except those like Pincus who were ignored during the run-up to unnecessary, costly war in Iraq when they flagged flagrant lies and distortions coming from the cynical Bush administration. Now look at us (from The Economist):

Old habits from Saddam Hussein’s era are becoming familiar again. Torture is routine in government detention centres. “Things are bad and getting worse, even by regional standards,” says Samer Muscati, who works for Human Rights Watch, a New York-based lobby. His outfit reports that, with American oversight gone (albeit that the Americans committed their own shameful abuses in such places as Abu Ghraib prison), Iraqi police and security people are again pulling out fingernails and beating detainees, even those who have already made confessions. A limping former prison inmate tells how he realised, after a bout of torture in a government ministry that lasted for five days, that he had been relatively lucky. When he was reunited with fellow prisoners, he said he saw that many had lost limbs and organs.

The domestic-security apparatus is at its busiest since Saddam was overthrown six years ago, especially in the capital. . . . Journalists are prominent victims of Iraq’s judicial system. In July one was arrested for photographing a Baghdad traffic jam, after his pictures were deemed "negative" for mocking Mr Maliki’s assertion that life in the capital was improving. Last year Iraq dropped to 158th place out of 173 -- its lowest ranking since the American invasion -- in a press-freedom table drawn up by Reporters Without Borders, a Paris-based lobby, which detects a decline in freedom in many countries.

The government recently announced plans to censor imported books as well as the internet, saying it wanted to ban hate screeds and pornography. But human-rights monitors fear this may presage a first step towards a wider web of censorship.

(h/t Glenn Greenwald)

And Greenwald:

So what was accomplished by the whole venture? Aside from the grotesque immorality, criminality, loss of innocent life and the disappearance of untold billions upon billions of dollars, the only real change seems to be that we replaced one brutal tyrant with another, although the one that used to be there at least was an enemy of and check against our Current Enemy (Iran, the nation against whom Tom Friedman assures us we are waging a new Cold War), while the one that is there now is a strong ally, perhaps even a client, of those Persian Hitlers. So -- other than finding an excellent way to prop up our National Security State -- the one thing we "accomplished" with the invasion of Iraq was to provide the largest possible benefit to the country that is supposedly our Greatest Enemy.

We never learn the lesson, because we don't want to, that things don't work out well when we invade, bomb, occupy and try to re-make other countries. Does anyone believe that, if and when we stop waging war in Afghanistan, the results will be any better?

Ahhh, Afghanistan, remember that?

The New Republic:

But, if the definition of success isn't clear to the Obama team, the definition of defeat may be. Bush argued unabashedly that Iraq had become "the central front in the war on terror" and that withdrawing before the country had stabilized would hand Al Qaeda not only a strategic but a moral victory. Current administration officials don't publicly articulate the same rationale when discussing Afghanistan. But former CIA official Bruce Riedel, a regional expert who led the White House's Afghanistan-Pakistan review earlier this year, cited it at the Brookings panel held in August. "The triumph of jihadism or the jihadism of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in driving NATO out of Afghanistan would resonate throughout the Islamic World. This would be a victory on par with the destruction of the Soviet Union in the 1990s," Riedel said. "[T]he stakes are enormous."

Finally, Obama may have one last thing in common with Bush: personal pride. Bush was determined to prevail in Iraq because he had invaded it. And, while Obama, of course, had nothing to do with the invasion of Afghanistan, he has long supported the campaign there--including during the presidential campaign as a foil for his opposition to the Iraq war. Speaking before a group of veterans last month, Obama called Afghanistan a "war of necessity"--a phrase which politically invests him deeper in the fight. "The president has boxed himself in," says one person who has advised the administration on military strategy. "The worst possible place to be is that our justification for being in a war is that we're in a war."

Ultimately, it was only when Bush was honest with himself and the nation about Iraq--admitting that conditions were dire and ordering his politically poisonous troop surge--that he was able to avoid defeat there. Obama is already facing a strong temptation to limit America's costs in Afghanistan. But, if Obama's commitment to stabilizing that country is as serious as it sounds, he should be as mindful of GWB as he is of LBJ. Otherwise, he risks a war that leads to a resounding WTF.

Just like Bush! Amazing! So back to where we started: Bush and Walter Pincus.

This is sickening:

Under President George W. Bush, the President's Daily Brief -- the highly classified intelligence paper delivered each morning to the White House -- rose to "an unprecedented level of importance," with negative consequences for the intelligence community, according to a new study by the Brookings Institution.

These included "skewing intelligence production away from deeper research and arms-length analysis" and driving analysts to choose "the latest, attention-grabbing clandestine reports from the field," says the study, released Tuesday, called "The U.S. Intelligence Community and Foreign Policy: Getting Analysis Right."

At times, Bush had analysts who had been working on high-concern issues he read about in the daily brief, or PDB, conduct hour-long "deep dives" on those topics, with top policymakers present. "Not infrequently the briefings and surrounding discussions by key players would produce immediate policy decisions," the study says.

Sounds like whoring out the White House to policy experts for their approval of their foreign policy decisions. Am I being naive?

365 Project

(Photo: 365 Project, Day Eleven, 9/15/09: Crash on Constitution.)

Cruel Joke

I was mildly excited to see the guy so many of us voted for show up at the AFL-CIO Convention to speak about health care.

It's time to give every opportunity to Americans that members of Congress give to themselves.

(APPLAUSE)

I've also said that one of the options in this exchange should be a public option.

Now, let me...

(APPLAUSE)

Let me...

(APPLAUSE)

Let me be clear. Let me be clear, because there's been a lot of misinformation out here about this. This would just be an option. Nobody'd be forced to choose it. No one with insurance would be affected.

But what it would do is offer Americans more choices and promote real competition and put pressure on private insurers to make their policies affordable and treat their customers better.

Now, when you're talking with some of your friends and neighbors, they might say, "Well, that all sounds pretty good, but how you going to pay for it?" That's a legitimate question, because I inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit when I came into office. That's the other thing people have been a little selective about. They don't seem to remember how we got into this mess.

But it's a legitimate question: How are we going to dig ourselves out of this big financial hole we're in? So let me try and answer. The plan I'm proposing is going to cost $900 billion over 10 years. That's real money. Although that's less than we spent on Iraq and Afghanistan wars. It's less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed during the previous administration. Wars and tax cuts that were not paid for and ballooned our deficit to record levels and didn't help America's working families.

(APPLAUSE)

We won't make -- we won't make that mistake again. We will not pay for health insurance reform by adding to our deficits. I will not sign a bill that adds a dime to our deficits, either now or in the future.

What we will do is pay for it by eliminating hundreds of billions of dollars in fraud and waste and abuse, including billions of dollars in subsidies for insurance companies that pad their profits but aren't improving care.

I'd love to believe you man, I really would. But I don't believe he can, or is even willing, to achieve these standards. Although, nice opening line.

You Wanted Nothing, You'll Get Nothing

Mike Lillis has a great story in the Washington Independent on the Democrats' immediate giveaway of any leverage or power in negotiations with Republicans.

By choosing the public option — not single payer — as the left-most negotiating point, Democrats left themselves with few places to go but toward more conservative proposals for insurance reform, experts say, including the co-op model and a system of triggering public plans only if private insurers fail to meet certain cost and coverage targets. In the blood sport of congressional negotiating — which dictates that you over-ask, and then move toward your goal during the subsequent bartering — Democrats were asking merely for the public plan they wanted in the final bill. The move, some experts say, provided Republicans with greater leverage to fight the public option. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), a lead negotiator for the Finance proposal, has said bluntly that a public plan can’t pass the Senate. Even Obama, in a speech on Capitol Hill last week, walked back his support for the proposal by not insisting that it be included in the final reform bill.

...

Young, who practiced medicine for 61 years before joining Physicians for a National Health Program in 2007, said his group sides squarely with the 10 percent. The public plan wouldn’t accomplish the Democrats’ coverage and cost-containment goals, he said, because it would leave in place the private insurers who “account for virtually all the problems we’re confronting.”

“It’s funny that both the conservative critics and the liberal supporters [of the public option] argue that it’s a stepping stone [to single payer],” he said. “We don’t believe it.”

The entire story, a great read, is largely in between those two passages.

Tom Tomorrow's strip nails another one.

What a Jerk

Classic Facebook exchange for me, the ass-wartiest dick bag in the neighborhood:

(Cousin) Jane Schell i want to apologize to the man who went through so much trouble to shatter my car window to find out there was nothing to take. Tough break.

- Julie Schell (Jane's mom, my beloved aunt)
awwwwwwww Roo!!! so sorry!

- Jodie Schell (Jane's older sister)
GOD THAT MAKES ME SO MAD!!! i hate when people mess with my sister!!!!

- Jessica Sullivan (?)
hahaha

- Kelly McMann (?)
Do I need to make a visit to Seattle and kick some ass?

- Me (Me)
Hey, how do you know it was a man, Jane?
(I'm just kidding ... that's awful. He was probably ... high ... on life. Hopefully he cut himself on those Chevy windows or something.)

I suck....

High Stakes at High Noon on High Mountain

Jane Hamsher on this critical moment for the Progressive caucus in the House as all signs point to the cave-in from the White House on a public option in health-care reform:

... if Progressives cave now, no one will ever take them seriously again. If the 60 members who signed a letter saying they "simply cannot vote for such a proposal" that does not have a public option don't abide by that promise, they are rendering their entire caucus powerless in every battle to come.

I agree. If they're going to let Rahm Emanuel run all over them with the Blue Dogs at this point in the young Obama administration during a supremely crucial debate (that was part of the referendum that swept Obama into office), why should they ever expect any respect in the future? They'll prove themselves irrelevant.

It's Always the Leadership

Check out Roll Call's crack reporting on this one (sub. req.):

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) signaled a new willingness to deal on health care reform last week when she said she had no non- negotiable demands for the over­­haul.

It appeared to mark a shift from her position, stated unequivocally for weeks, that she needed a strong public insurance option to pass a bill through the House.

“This is about a goal. It’s not about provisions,” she said Thursday.

For longtime Pelosi watchers, the change in tone followed a familiar script: In leading a liberal-heavy Caucus, she has frequently staked out left-leaning positions in big debates only to moderate them when political reality necessitated.

The question now is whether she is following a pattern or whether it is something entirely different.

Some people close to Pelosi said she has not abandoned the public insurance option and is only seeking to create some breathing room for the various wings of her fractious Caucus in advance of a final negotiating push. Pelosi showed no new flexibility on the provision in an occasionally tense private huddle with leading fiscally conservative Blue Dogs last week, people familiar with that session said.

But the Speaker also cautioned liberals not to draw lines in the sand in a separate meeting with leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, suggesting she could be warming to a “trigger” that would only authorize a government-backed plan as a fallback.

That, together with Pelosi’s moderate public comments, suggested the old movie may be playing again. “She’s a good leader because she knows her Members and understands what their tolerance is,” Democratic lobbyist Steve Elmendorf said. “She’s acknowledging the reality that they don’t have much willingness to do more than the Senate will do.”

In the past, Pelosi has only inched toward the center after it became clear the debate had moved irreversibly in that direction — and there were ample signs of that happening with health care reform last week.

Elmendorf. What do we know about him? He's a lobbyist feasting on Pelosi's brains.

But that may not have been the big story there. Despite on sourcing lobbyist Elmendorf only, I think the story has a real point about Pelosi and standing strong for progressive policies. She talks tough until it actually matters. In that regard, I'm not doubting the implication of the story.

Like a Dog

Look at this asshole:

Obama on Wall Street today. That's like sending a child molester to speak at a kindergarten class.

-- Neil Boortz, radio host, via Twitter feed

Waaahhhh! Leave those corporations and Wall St. alooooooooooooone!

Please. This guy is acting like nothing but a "peasant," part of a middle-class America clearly getting screwed at every turn, groveling at the hands of the nobility in this country. They will defend the royalty despite the fact that they are the ones exploited and ruined.

Dear Boortz: Thanks for knowing your role, good mongrel. Signed, Corporate America.

(Glenn Greenwald blows this peasant mentality of the water.)



(Photo: 365 Project, Day Ten, 9/14/09: Obama Power at some tire and lube station in North Baltimore.)

Here's a Good One

I was driving to work (too early to bike after a Saturday night of drinking) this morning around 8:15. I come to a stop light near Union Station. I stop, I'm a little anxious about working that morning for some dumb reason, and I recognize the guy, talking with what looked like a staffer, crossing the street in front of me. It was, I knew for sure, Rep. Joe Wilson, the new chief Republidick, crossing directly in front of my car at a rather early, desolate time of a Sunday morning in downtown. I could've done it ... I could've run my Versa straight up Joe Wilson's ass, right there on his way to do "Fox News Sunday" with Chris Wallace. He was on his way to the studio to "not apologize again" for what he understands was rude and disrespectful, but will continue to assert that he was right about and isn't really sorry for.

What a jerkoff.

Of course I wasn't going to hit him but, you know, it was immediately a humorous, Seinfeldian moment in my thinking. I'm not mowing anyone down, I swear. I bike.

Just Following the Example

Today on the Sunday talk shows, many Democrats and moderate Republicans, the only hope for any GOP support, expressed disdain for the public option, or they signaled a willingness to easily give up the fight for a public option. Sens. Mary Landrieu, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins pretty much stated they had no taste for it (not ultimately surprising). And of those that said they did support the public option, Sens. Shaheen, Feinstein, McCaskill all showed tepid backing of anything better than triggers (though I may be overstating McCaskill's feelings there).

Hey, they're just following the administration's orders. Gibbs, Axelrod and Sebelius pretty much said the same thing.




(Photo: 365 Project, Day Nine, 9/13/09: Through the hole in the wall....)

Nothing New

This piece of satirical theatre, a group that calls themselves Billionaires for Wealthcare, is brilliant. Why didn't I think of this concept? That's what separates funny and truly talented to the mediocre. A abundantly-creative move, to show these teabaggers who they're really fattening and whose pockets they're padding. The richest of Americans, nowhere near burdened by the everyday economic constraints of the vast majority of the country. For the life of me, I don't get it.



Well, now we've seen how Maureen Dowd called it in today's New York Times column:

I’ve been loath to admit that the shrieking lunacy of the summer — the frantic efforts to paint our first black president as the Other, a foreigner, socialist, fascist, Marxist, racist, Commie, Nazi; a cad who would snuff old people; a snake who would indoctrinate kids — had much to do with race.

I tended to agree with some Obama advisers that Democratic presidents typically have provoked a frothing response from paranoids — from Father Coughlin against F.D.R. to Joe McCarthy against Truman to the John Birchers against J.F.K. and the vast right-wing conspiracy against Bill Clinton.

But Wilson’s shocking disrespect for the office of the president — no Democrat ever shouted “liar” at W. when he was hawking a fake case for war in Iraq — convinced me: Some people just can’t believe a black man is president and will never accept it.

After the tea party demonstrations of yesterday, 9/12, others are noticing the institutionalized disturbance this is for the Republican party. They're saying, "this isn't exactly shocking to everyone, is it?" I think I can agree with them.

Glenn Greenwald:

It's also why I am extremely unpersuaded by the prevailing media narrative that the Right is suddenly enthralled to its rambunctions and extremist elements and is treating Obama in some sort of unique or unprecedented way. Other than the fact that Obama's race intensifies the hatred in some precincts, nothing that the Right is doing now is new. This is who they are and what they do -- and that's been true for many years, for decades. Even the allegedly "unprecedented" behavior at Obama's speech isn't really unprecedented; although nobody yelled "you lie," Republicans routinely booed and heckled Clinton when he spoke to Congress because they didn't think he was legitimately the President (only for Ted Koppel to claim that it was something "no one at this table has ever heard before" when Democrats, in 2005, booed Bush's Social Security privatization proposal during a speech to Congress).

And Emptywheel:

Now Glenn is describing what the institutional right does to undermine the legitimacy of Democrats and government in general, and to the extent that we're comparing the strategic choice to discredit Obama by mobilizing paranoia and hate, I absolutely agree with him.

But race is important because of the way it has enabled the institutional right, in its efforts to protect corporations, to mobilize paranoia and resentment as a "grassroots" effort directed at Obama. And because the Village (MoDo now excepted) is not yet ready to talk about race, they instead claim the opposition really reflects opposition to Obama's policies. They claim it's ideological.

And the refusal to call racism what it is one of the key means by which the Village continues to portray the public option as unpopular even while 70% of the country supports it.

This is ridiculous.

The Teabaggers Unite

Well, here they are:







(Top photo: 365 Project, Day Eight, 9/12/09 - And they want to talk about indoctrinating children....)

(All photos from a conservative rally in Washington. View many more photos on my Flickr page.)

Where's the Left?

The Teabagger Express runs through Washington today. The demonstration begins later this morning, going from Freedom Plaza down Pennsylvania toward the Capitol. I'll definitely be there with a camera to chronicle these boorish bunch of old, white cranks.

But this demonstration reminds me of what seems to have been a complete communication breakdown in left-wing activism over this health-care fight. Where's the support from the Left, from the youth, from the machine that pulled quite the effort to put Barack Obama in office? A few things:

1. The Democrats in Congress, as well as Obama, botched the effort from the start, not outlining what the goals are.

2. Without a clear definition of what to fight for, activists had really no idea on how to defend it. One can't defend legislation if it doesn't really exist and remains ambiguous.

3. This confusion, made possible by Democratic wafflers like Pelosi and Reid, contributed to the rise of teabagging loons, who were able to shape the debate, with the help of the media, into whatever they wanted. They could say anything (Death panels! Nazis! Socialism! Tyranny!) without clear pushback from the Left.

So here we are. Harold Pollack wants those forces of the Left to rise up and fight, because despite the complexity and ambiguity of the health-care issue (and debate), this is highly important for everyone. The ramifications of legislation will affect all of us. Pollack calls for action, especially among the youth that were so enthusiastic during the presidential campaign:

Where are these same young people today? Polls indicate that 18-29-year-olds strongly support the President. Yet young people seem fickle and strangely passive, watching from the sidelines as others wage the political knife fight required to get this done.

We can all offer some reasons why: It's hard for 20-somethings to get excited about free colonoscopies or co-ops and the public plan option. Some of this stuff is mind-numbing in its complexity--particularly if you feel decades away from needing most of the medical care we are now discussing. Maybe my own move from HuffPo to tnr.com has soured the younger demographic. Maybe it's summer vacation.

Whatever the cause, young activists need to get past it and step up. It has been embarrassing to see loutish Tea Party types dominate public debate. It was more embarrassing that our wonderful movement that elected America's first African-American president couldn't make a better showing. The absence of energetic young people is palpable. I have been to several town halls. Almost everyone there was over 50. Most were markedly older.

Seniors are doing exactly what they should be doing: getting involved. What about you, young people? Will your voices be heard?

The Left has an opportunity, beginning today with these teabagggers, to answer the lunacy.



(Photo: Starting Saturday morning right, with a scrambled egg/turkey sausage/rice/onion/tomato burrito ... fuel to withstand teabaggers' inanity.)

The Continued Curbing of Expectations

David Sirota chronicles a seemingly small, typical Washington activity, one that is glossed-over so often by the media and our political elite: the exclusive fundraiser available only to those with very deep pockets and a very strong message. In this case, it's Nancy Pelosi that's involved, and at such a crucial time.

Some background: She has positioned herself as a lead defender of a public option in Washington during the effort to reform health care in America. Time and time again, she's said she will push for a public option. “There’s no way I can pass a bill in the House of Representatives without a public option,” Pelosi has said as recently as a few weeks ago, as if Progressives in the House were uniting to force a public option now that they suddenly found a spine to share.

But on Thursday, there was a different message from the Speaker. CNN on Pelosi showing signs of reticence on pushing for that public option she once vigorously called for:

Pelosi, who said as recently as Tuesday that a public option was essential for passing a health-care bill in the House, on Thursday used language on the issue similar to Obama's speech.

"This is about a goal. It's not about provisions," Pelosi said, adding that as long as legislation meets goals of "affordability and accessibility and quality … then we will go forward with that bill."

She said she still thinks a public option is the best way to achieve those goals, but when asked if inclusion of a public option was a non-negotiable demand — as her previous statements had indicated — Pelosi ruled out any non-negotiable positions.

(Emphasis mine)

What drastically changed in that time period from Tuesday to Thursday, when she said this? Obviously, Obama's speech fell in between. And the White House has made it pretty clear that while Obama says he favors the inclusion of a public option, they won't really fight for that sliver of sanity in the final version of legislation. Now Pelosi seems to have adopted that minimized position. She said a public option was absolutely necessary for reform legislation to pass through the House, and now this carefully manicured statement signaling otherwise.

Now, finally, to Sirota and the fundraiser e-mail from Steve Elmendorf, a registered lobbyist for UnitedHealth, that magically appeared after Pelosi's statements on the public option:

This announcement came just hours before Steve Elmendorf, a registered UnitedHealth lobbyist and the head of UnitedHealth's lobbying firm Elmendorf Strategies, blasted this email invitation throughout Washington, D.C.

And the e-mail invitation Sirota obtained:

From: Steve Elmendorf [mailto:steve@elmendorfstrategies.com]
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 8:31 AM
Subject: event with Speaker Pelosi at my home

You are cordially invited to a reception with

Speaker of the House
Nancy Pelosi

Thursday, September 24, 2009
6:30pm ~ 8:00pm

At the home of
Steve Elmendorf
2301 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Apt. 7B
Washington, D.C.

$5,000 PAC
$2,400 Individual

To RSVP or for additional information please contact
Carmela Clendening at (202) 485-3508 or clendening@dccc.org

Steve Elmendorf
ELMENDORF STRATEGIES
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS SOLUTIONS
900 7th Street NW Suite 750 Washington DC 20001
(202) 737-1655

That's depressing. Sirota again:

The sequencing here is important: Pelosi makes her announcement and then just hours later, the fundraising invitation goes out. Coincidental? I'm guessing no - these things rarely ever are.

I wrote a book a few years ago called Hostile Takeover whose premise was that corruption and legalized bribery has become so widespread that nobody in Washington even tries to hide it. This is about as good an example of that truism as I've ever seen.

Bold, naked and very legal bribery is what that is. Democrats = two-faced clowns.

Big Decisions

Just in time for September 11th, the Guardian on implications of the near-death of Al Qaeda:

Amid a mood of cautious optimism, some experts talk of a “tipping point” in the fight against al-Qaida. Others argue that only Bin Laden’s death will bring significant change. But most agree that the failure to carry out spectacular mass attacks in the west since the 2005 London bombings has weakened the group’s “brand appeal” and power to recruit.

“In order to stay relevant al-Qaida have to prove themselves capable and they haven’t been able to do that,” said Norwegian scholar Brynjar Lia.

Popular sympathy, which drained away because of sectarian killings in Iraq, has dwindled further this year. In Saudi Arabia, according to a recent intelligence report, 60-70% of information about al-Qaida suspects now comes from relatives, friends and neighbours, not from security agencies or surveillance.

Spencer Ackerman on the Guardian:

Indeed, this was the consensus from last year’s New America Foundation conference on counterterrorism: al-Qaeda is a spent force. I recall Peter Bergen, who knows as much about al-Qaeda as any U.S. analyst, predicting that it would cease to exist within the next five years. According to the Guardian, which admittedly may be too optimistic, the core al-Qaeda in Waziristan could be as few as six people. If we kill them, and if they can’t find someone to take their place, and if they can’t recruit, congratulations, America: war is over, we win. And this was the organization we used to think of as a generational enemy. So much for the “Long War” or whatever.

But even if the Guardian is only 50 percent right, is it necessary to pursue, for instance, a second escalation of combat troops this year in Afghanistan, if the goal is to destroy safe havens across the Pakistani border for a handful of dudes who can’t attract competent recruits any more? So much of bipartisan U.S. strategy has rested on the presumption — and committed such overwhelming blood and treasure — that these people are an overwhelming security threat. Now they just look pathetic. Will our habits force us to implicitly inflate their danger?

Important points here. If true, why would we still have troops there, or anywhere in the Middle East, especially Afghanistan? Obama has some important choices coming up. And he seems poised to continue pushing down into that spiral.

(Photo: 365 Project, Day Seven, 9/11/09 - A snowglobe released around 9/11/01 that my roommate was given. He says they -- I think an airline -- discontinued it soon after.)