Fresh Air interview on Obama administration collaboration with the health insurance and health care provider industry

I have to say that I was pretty shocked today to listen to the interview today by Terry Gross on the NPR radio interview show "Fresh Air" with Paul Blumenthal, from the open government non-profit, the Sunlite Foundation, about the Obama administration's secret collaboration with the health care industry to try and keep them from lobbying against health care legislation.

While one may not blame Obama for being a bit proactive and trying to engage the health care industry, according to this interview, it went way beyond this. For one thing, the administration enlisted people way to entrenched with the health care industry to negotiate on behalf of the administration. The result of that was the administration caved on probably one of the biggest aspects of what the average people are concerned about in health care, which is the cost of their insurance. 

The average citizen is willing to pay a fair price for health insurance, and in most cases, that would be a certain affordable percent of their income. But the insurance companies keep raising premium rates, whether you have a lot of claims or not. In fact, for example, there has been some news recently about heat that Anthem is coming under for arbitrarily raising premium rates across the board in California. But it isn't just California. Anthem just raised Kristi's rates in Illinois pretty significantly, and she hasn't even had a claim. 

Cost containment means putting the squeeze on these arbitrary rate increases, especially when the insurance companies are making huge profits. But according to Gross's interview, Obama agreed to back off on "cost controls" which apparently is the lingo for controlling premium increases. But that is the number one issue with the average person - either being able to afford the premiums in the first place, or being priced out of the market all together by out of reach premiums.

And then, if that deal with the devil wasn't enough, Blumenthal says that the health industry trade association agreed to spend a lot of money, I think he said 100 million dollars, on advertising in favor of the legislation. And, if that isn't suspicious enough, according to the interview, the contract to develop the advertising campaign went to a company in which top Obama consultant David Axelrod has a strong interest.

I can't say that I absolutely believe what I heard, especially without hearing the other side. But I think this interview and Blumenthal's book raises questions that Obama has to answer. Already he is alienating his base big time with his overzealous outreach to republicans. This is threatening to undermine his strong majority, and if he can't get anything progressive done with such a majority, then what he might eek out in terms of legislation with a lesser majority or even a minority seems like not much.

Obama, you need to answer to this information, as well as the messages flying around the internet about you and your top aides connections to Exelon and your recent endorsement of nuclear power, or your escalation of the war in Afghanistan. If you completely alienate your base, you will be a one term president. So you need to think about this carefully. If you are going to be the advocate for reinstating open government and reducing the influence of big money and special interests, then you have to do it, not just say it and then do what all the other politicians have done.

Sunday News Shows

The Sunday News shows were pretty good - better than average today. I thought David Gregory’s interview with Gen. Petraeus was pretty weak. But their round table discussion had several good moments talking about the conservative movement. 

To the Contrary had a very cutting edge discussion about genetic profiling, and some of the present and potential pros and cons of having your genetic profile taken and what that might mean. There should be more of this kind of analysis of up and coming issues in the talk shows.

Inside Washington didn’t have one of it’s best weeks, but it had it’s moments. McLaughlin Group again was the most controversial and interesting. I guess the bombshell of the day was that Zuckerman is thinking about running for the U.S. Senate seat from New York. He didn’t deny it, and McLaughlin mused that this would be a good time for an “outsider” to come and run against the establishment. 

I had to laugh when McLaughlin said that Zuckerman would come and clean up the mess in Washington. Um, didn’t Zuckerman lose a bunch of money to Bernie Madoff? (and it wasn’t all his, either, from what I understand). Zuckerman is very much pro Israel to the point of imbalance and bias. That isn’t what we need right now. No doubt, though, that Zuckerman, with his high media profile and connections with monied interests, could probably raise a lot of money, especially if he catered to the Tea Party folks. But I’d be surprised if he could win the seat. I could see him getting a more than trivial percent of the vote.

I also thought that the distance between Pat Buchanan and Monica Crowley on Iran was very interesting. Buchanan was for a hands off policy with Iran, declaring them no “threat” to the U.S. Crowley wants to bomb them. What a disaster that would be.

Obama just plain wrong on nuclear power

Generally, I have a lot of respect for President Obama. I think he has and is making some tactical errors in dealing with his majority, but all in all, I think he and the first lady are honest and trying hard to do the right thing. But this initiative to accomodate republicans and give public money to build new nuclear plants based on some kind of propaganda that now nuclear plants are suddenly "safe" and we need them to counter global warming is so far outside of reality that it really has me scratching me head.

I'd like to see how Obama is going to lift the entire nuclear fuel cycle out of the coal cycle. It takes a lot of coal to produce the nuclear fuel rods. These so called "new generation" of nuke power plants will use fission, and will be reliant on the same old fuel rods as the existing plants. While it is true that a new enrichment is being built in New Mexico, it won't be online for years, and the Paducah facility is one of the biggest energy hogs in the country. And what about the conversion plant in Metropolis, the Kotter yellowcake facility in Canon City, Col., and the fuel fabrication facilities? What about all the cleanups that are ongoing at these facilities which are far from being cleaned up yet billions of taxpayers dollars have already been spent? 

I know Obama needs to get people to work, and a superficial analysis of this might suggest that it isn't the worst thing we could be doing. But money going to this form of electrical generation means money not spent on more environmentally sound techniques. I'm diappointed to the core in Obama's very public actions, providing the public with misleading (at best) information and spending public money on the wrong thing.

Sacred Olympics at crossroads

I think the Olympics are great. I have followed both the summer and winter Olympics for most of my life. So I have noted the changes over the years - in events, in technology, in media. 

I think the Olympics do represent a really good side of humanity, and considering how bad the world is, there still seems to be Olympics. But the "brand" is threatened by absurd, unbelievable, and obviously money-driven sponsorships. One example is some of the ads for McDonald's. These ads insinuate that if you eat McDonald's food, you can be an Olympic champion. Being really generous, that lacks credibility - so much so that it threatens the Olympics. 

And when Olympic officials are so worried about their liability in the death of the young Georgian luge slider that they are overly quick to blame the young man while they are out in the dark of the night making corrections to their course that should have been obvious, it doesn't speak well for the organization running them. So the Olympics need to remember how sacred their brand is, and treat it with the respect that it deserves. Excellence has little to do with money. It has to do with the human spirit striving to satisfy itself by being the best that it can be. 

Sure it costs money to put on an Olympics, but if the Olympics really want to be "green" they will scale back some of the extravagant costs of their venues. It doesn't take millions of dollars in contraptions to figure out who the best athletes are. Let's get down to the nitty gritty, respect the earth and natural processes, and thumb our noses at those that want to use excellence for personal wealth and adulation. The Olympics is at a crossroads. Either it proves that it isn't just for corporate profits or it loses its credibility and becomes just one more corporate advertising platform. I hope that doesn't happen, but I can't say I'm confident that it won't.

Sunday News shows

I watched all of the news shows that I can. It was a better than average Sunday. I even thought that Meet the Press had a good roundtable. Usually I think Meet the Press is boring, because it has people like Andrea Mitchell and her husband, Alan Greenspan, big name folks who have a very narrow view of events. 

Low and Behold, today they had a panel with some different folks, and there were some really good give and takes. David Brooks was the one over exposed talking head on the panel. The others were the youngest U.S. congressman, from central Illinois, Rep. Aareon Schock, former Memphis congressman Harold Ford, now New York political talking head, Wall Street consultant, and likely candidate for the U.S. Senate in New York, running against the party candidate, and MSNBC political commentator Rachel Maddow. 

That discussion spanned a wide range of viewpoints. I think Maddow scored the best political blows against Schock when first she said that she had seen videos of Schock at a ribbon cutting ceremony for a new facility at a community college in his district which was paid for by stimulus dollars, making political points from it, when he voted against the stimulus and had been vocal criticizing Obama for federal spending. Secondly, Maddow point blank asked Schock what was wrong with giving someone their Miranda rights. In both cases, particularly the first one, Schock seemed off guard and without a good answer.

To the Contrary had a great discussion and piece on environmental justice. Their panel went so far as to blame it on housing segregation. I thought that was a great piece. In fact, their feature example - an African American family in Dixon, Tennessee of which I am aware and have had some contact. This case was first brought to my attention years ago when Alton McDonald, a vice president of the National Action Network whom I met when he was in our region several years ago to help bring some folks to justice in the Jessica Currin murder case. I give the family great credit in elevating this issue. But, in reality, sadly, it is but one of thousands of such cases across our country. We simply do not take environmental protection seriously.

McLaughlin tried to make a big picture observation about the Washington D.C. city government’s response (or lack thereof) to the + or - 50” of snow they had in a couple days being tied to founding father’s designations of Washington D.C. in the constitution. He further tried to tie that to the probability that it indicates that D.C. is not prepared for a terrorist attack. I do think, over all, that he is onto something, but it needs refining. You can’t ignore the fact that much of the D.C. city residents are minority and low income.

I do give McLaughlin credit for bringing up the importance (or lack thereof) of our relationship with Russia, in the context of the announcement that the U.S. wants to move its missile shield to Romania. But, there was scant discussion about how we were courting Russia to join us in sanctions of Iran, and how that may be impacted by this proposal. It’s going to pretty much insure that Russia is going to drag their feet on sanctions against Iran. 

I was also surprised that there was not ONE mention of the death of the Georgian luge athlete who died at the Olympics on Friday. There will be political ramifications of that - especially because Canada with the US media joining right in - quickly tried to say “it wasn’t our fault.” That was crass, especially while, at the same, they are slinking out in the middle of the night to do some obvious safety changes which should have been obvious, especially considering the ongoing concerns about the difficulty and speed of the track. We haven’t heard the last of this.

Iran and nukes

I just think we are screwing it up with Iran. We just don't want to get down to nitty gritty about what this is all about. We want Iran to not have nuclear weapons, but we have them. (and in "we" I include Israel). It's like asking someone to fight a fight where you have a gun and they don't, and when they ask to have a gun to make it more fair, you say, "hell no, you can't have one." It's just not the kind of situation that is stable at all.

There's several reasons why cracking down on Iran is not going to work. First, we won't be able to get consensus in the UN Security Council. And why is that? Because, for one, we have been in China's face over various things. That isn't the smartest tact to take against a power that we owe so much money. Oh yeah, and we've been in Russia's face too. First, with Bush's plan to put missiles in Chechloslovakia or whereever in eastern Europe, which really pissed off the Russians. 

And then Obama was being the nice guy and pulling back on that. But now he wants to put them in Romania, as if that would be ok. Don't we get it? And then we have done nothing to make real progress that is public on the Israeli-Palestianian conflict. So we've really not made any substantial gains in PR on the Arab front. So really and truthfully, we have some of the western Europe countries on our side, but they are puny compared with Russia and China. If they both squeeze us in Afghanistan, which they probably are, and which is why we aren't just rolling over the rag-tag taliban, and squeeze us economically, we can be reduced to embarassment internationally. In fact, this ploy of wanting to talk to the taliban, which was reported again tonight on some of the national media, shows me that we are really wanting a way out. I told Kristi that whenever I was in litigation against the federal government, that when they came forward and wanted to settle, that you knew they felt really weak and you had a great chance to get some good terms. I can only imagine the same with the taliban.

And with Israel, it isn't just that they continue to occupy and unjustly treat the palestinians. It's that they have this way out of proportion military for the size of their nation, including, what most analysts believe, are some nuclear weapons, and they will use it if necessary. All of this has to be dealt with before we will gain any serious trust with the arab world as a whole. 

If we or Israel attack Iran, there will be no peace with that part of the world for the rest of my lifetime and probably beyond. And if we think we can wipe them off the face of the earth and the rest of the world will think that is ok, that's a pretty big risk to take. We need to be talking to Iran about balance of power and how that can relate to peace. About global nuclear disarmament, and not just a few powerful countries with nuclear bombs and no one else. That just isn't going to work. But we are on a very precarious path with Iran, and a couple more slips and we could have a serious, but avoidable, disaster on the world's hands.

republicans playing a dangerous game

It seems to me that the republicans are overplaying the "do nothing" hand toward Obama. I don't think the public is going to tolerate forever this do nothing and then complain about nothing getting done attitude that the republicans are trying to exploit. 

Take for example today. The republicans are trying to get away with totally rejecting every single aspect of what the democrats have done. While some of the parts of the dems bill are disposable, the whole bill isn't. Even the USA Today editorial staff agreed with that. And Obama says he's willing to include some of the republican's measures in the bill. But the republicans, trying desperately to keep this pseudo-momentum going, are saying that the "whole bill has to be scrapped and start over." This is just a code name for do nothing. Obama is going to win this cat and mouse game over time. The republicans are looking just like they really are - phoney, not interested in solving problems, and playing the lowest kind of political game. 

It's a dangerous game, and one which could lead a lot of pundits to have egg on their face come november.

republican arrogance going to backfire?

Obama is really pressing the republicans to work together. The republicans are still trying to say that Obama has to do what they want totally in order for there to be any working together. Of course, with Sarah Palin as the head cheerleader, the republicans are feelings the illusion of grandeur. But illusion is all that it is. They can't just get away with this kind of totally uncooperative spirit. The American people are easily duped, but not that easily. We may just see the republicans snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in the November elections through their arrogance.

Sunday News Shows

It wasn't the most interesting Sunday, but it wasn't the least interesting either. The main subjects were the deficit in the context of Obama's budget proposal, the republicans vs. the democrats, and the tea party and Palin. As I wrote last night, I think Palin is getting way too media compared to her ability to intelligently contribute to a debate about what the nation and the world should do to meet our challenges. There were a few interesting discussions.

It was amazing to hear women on Too the Contrary criticize Obama's budget because it emphasized assistance for working class and poorer females and not the more advantaged females. And hearing Colby King, on Inside Washington, who was a banker for ten years, say that bankers are not smart, was very interesting. And to hear Monica Crowley on McLaughlin say that Eric Holder should be fired (for what I'm not sure - it used to be that attorney generals would only get fired when they did something illegal) was pretty far out.

I was happy to hear some of the discussion about the deficit admit that some economists, such as Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman of the NY Times, (and admitted to by Mort Zuckerman, who I think has no place on these talk shows) believe that running deficits to try and stop the downward cycle of the economic downturn is the right thing to do. At least that got mentioned. 

With the overcoverage of the tea party stuff, not only have the deficits, which I think are bad, been stuck to Obama unfairly, but the other side of the coin has been completely ignored - that the spending has helped to stabilize the economy. 

It's amazing how the republicans are unwilling to agree with Obama about anything. They are out to destroy him. But I do agree with Jeanne Cummings, from Politico, who stated on Inside Washington that it was very politically risky for the republicans to be seen as siding with the banks and wall street in blocking reforms that could keep such a collapse and bailout from ever being necessary again. It all depends on how well Obama can shame them publicly. But, the tea party and the right wing taking credit and making something bigger out of the Scott Brown election in Massachusetts than it really was, constitutes undeserved arrogance. It will backfire.

All in all, I think McLaughlin had the most interesting show that I saw. I'd give the Sunday a B.

Sarah Palin in Nashville

I have to admit that it kinda gives me the creeps to think that Sarah Palin is in music city, Nashville, to address the so called "Tea Party" convention. What gives me the creeps is to think she is so close. I just can't believe how much attention to this the national media is giving it. They are giving this so-called Tea Party convention, and Palin, way more coverage than they deserve. This is not a movement that is going to go deep into mainstream U.S. culture. 

But for some reason, it seems like the mainstream media wants it to become powerful. Why is that? I can't understand it. But there are some pretty big hints as to how the mainstream is hyping this up. For example, a recent New York Times story about the Tea Party movement reported that out of the so-called Tea Party movement nationally, a number of entities had already been formed, including a number of Political Action Committees. Yet, the fact that the Nashville convention decided to form a PAC was given big news, like it was something unique and important. And all of that pretty much solely because Palin was coming there. That's a crock! This is just one wing of a very splintered more or less libertarian movement that is against taxes and Obama. There's a whole psychology to that I don't want to go into in this column. 

Come on mainstream media. Get it right. Quit screwing it up.

Illinois primary results

No big surprises in the Illinois Primary. I guess I'm a tad surprised that Quinn did manage to hold onto the nomination for the Democrats. I thought that maybe the Democratic machine would shove him out. It still isn't officially over, but I suspect that in the end Quinn will end up on the ballot. If he sticks to him plans to do a lot of tax increasing, he'll lose the election. 

Giannoulious got the nomination for Obama's seat for the senate. I don't know if he is the best candidate, but Obama is behind him, or at least was when he ran for state treasurer a couple years ago. He'll be running against Mark Kirk, who is popular republican congressman from near Chicago. The Dems could lose that. But Obama will be running hard to keep his seat. It will be really dirty.

tomorrow's Illinois Primary

I'm like so out of it in our Illinois primary. But I will vote. I always do. I guess I'll take a democratic ballot. I have no idea who I am going to vote for. Quinn or Hynes? Jackson, Hoffman, or Giannoulias? How about none of the above? They haven't spent a lot of money on advertising down here in deep southern Illinois. And what advertising I did see was mostly negative. It's no wonder the Democrats are in trouble. If they blow it in Illinois, like they did in Massachusetts, then they have what is coming. It's just that all the rest of us are going to suffer.

Friday Night news stuff

I just have to comment about some of the news and news shows that I saw this evening. I thought it was really fascinating. 

First, David Brooks lipstick, on Jim Lehrer's News Hour, matched his tie, which I thought was very interesting. I didn’t know conservative male icons went for lipstick. But, from a fashion wise statement, it was very much color coordinated.

Second, I have to stick my tongue out at Judy Woodruff, who let some republican congressman, I don’t remember his name, say that Obama had “nationalized” health care without even questioning the statement. Give me a break. By any honest definition of “nationalizing” what Obama is proposing isn’t anywhere close. And in the context of Obama’s statement today before the republican retreat that they made his health care proposal seem like something “Bolshevic,” the fact that Woodruff wasn’t more sensitive to the kind of hyperbolizing of the issue is amazing. Was she asleep?

Finally, on McLaughlin, the fact that McLaughlin himself gave Obama two A’s on his state of the union address - one for style and one for substance - was the most amazing moment of the evening. He gave Obama better grades than even Clift and Page - the two “liberal” panelists. I’m not sure I agree with McLaughlin, but the fact that he said it is very significant.

John Boehner NPR interview

If I hear John Boehner or any of the other spewing republicans who lately have been saying that "the people" and demanding this and that as if they are speaking for "the people," I think I'm going to hurl. I'm a "people" and he sure doesn't speak for me. 

Boehner is one of the most disingenuous persons I have ever heard. First, their whole angle toward what is going on is total BS. They are saying that taxes are too high and therefore there should be no tax increases. Then they complain about the deficit, which was run up by the failed economic policies of the Republicans when they controlled the presidency and congress under George W. Bush, and which is being run up even more as Obama desperately tries anything to put people to work. But they want that portion of the stimulus that hasn't been spent yet to be withdrawn And then, on top of it, Boehner wants to give back a bunch of the federal government's money to everyone through some kind of tax rebate or something of the like. But then they say that Obama's "stimulus" hasn't worked to bring the economy back, and we need jobs, while complaining about the deficit. 

Ok, so let's add this up. No new tax revenues, but a tax rebate. No new stimulus. In fact, their answer is "reducing spending." OK, so that means a bunch of government jobs are going to be cut. I'm sure there are plenty of government jobs that are superfluous, but how is this going to cut unemployment? While I've written before that I have a hard time understanding how getting further and further in debt is going to solve the problem of too much debt in the system. But, the government taking on debt is a little different than the cumulative effect of individuals taking on debt that isn't sufficiently collateralized, which is what has brought this economy to a near standstill as everyone tries to figure out what they have is actually worth in terms of dollars. One thing seems inevitable to me, and that is interest rates rising. Frankly, I don't think that will be such a bad thing. Sure, there will be some initial negative reaction to it, but there is a lot of up side to it also. But that's what's coming. 

It's very complicated with no easy answers. The consequences affect billions of people worldwide. Nevertheless, instead of rolling up their sleaves and pitching in, Boehner and the republicans haven't helped Obama and the democrats at all. In fact, it's no secret that it is their political strategy not to help Obama at all in hopes that he will fail. 

That blows my mind. It's like someone watching a building burn and not helping to put out the fire because they want the property and thinks it will be easier to get if the building burns. Most people in the U.S. think that we should be working together to try and figure out how to deal with all these serious problems facing our nation. Some people may not like Obama's ideas, but at least he seems to be trying. The republicans aren't coming off good at all by being perceived as standing to side when so much needs to be done.

I think that is why the republicans have the highest negatives of all, compared to Obama, them, and democrats, at least according to the NBC Wall Street Journal poll that was reported this morning on the Today Show. And trying to say that the Massachusetts election means something profound nationally is wishful thinking. While there is some reflection of the mood of nthe country in that election, there is a significant portion of site specific details that helped to shape that race. 

In any case, Mr. Boehner, I'm a "people" every bit as much as you, and you don't speak for me at all. So quit saying it!

Obama, the Massachusetts election, health care, and the mood of the nation

Just when you think that things can't get much stranger in this country, they do. Who could have imagined a scenario where health care was the finest hair from being signed into law by the president, only to be blocked by a republican being elected to Ted Kennedy's senate seat in Massachusetts? The ironies are almost palpable.

But if I was the republicans, I wouldn't be making more of this than it is. It was the coming together of a bunch of different things that may not come together ever again. And if Mitch McConnell thinks that Scott Brown, who has to keep his Massachusetts constituency happy, which is nothing like a Kentucky constituency, is going to walk locked step with him, he has to be delusional. Brown will do what he has to do to stay in office in Massachusetts, and a drift too far to the right will be political suicide for him. 

I think one of the lessons from this that Obama should take home is that this is the kind of thing that happens when he pretty much ignores the needs of his base - which, whether he wants to admit it or not, was the progressive wing of the democratic party. He's continually moved to the middle, which hasn't served him well at all. If you doubt that, then you are ignoring the facts of where Obama is politically at the moment. He's staked the early years of his presidency on getting health care reform through, and he now been ground to a halt. 

The democrats should take heed also, as a party. Letting conservatives like Baucus and Lieberman shape the health care bill made it little more than a corporate giveaway - not much better than we could expect from the republicans. These guys have gotten untold contributions from these health care special interests, and they gave them the farm, so to speak, when they wrote the bill. There was little in there to actually protect the little guy in the long run. The insurance companies were going to get millions of new customers, with little if any restrictions on raising premiums over time. It scared a lot of people.

There are a helluva lot more lower and middle income people than there are upper income and rich. If the democrats would stick to their roots and actually try to stand up to the big money corporations and get some of their huge money holdings away from them and into the hands of the lower income people, they actually might fire them up enough to come out and vote their pocketbook. But that isn't happening. It just seems that things get harder and harder for most people, and easier and easier for the rich. And, no one is doing anything to change it. 

Obama gave the conservatives the troop buildup in Afghanistan. He's giving them Guantonamo. He's given them no public option in health care. He's given them a lot. But he hasn't given a lot to the more left wing of the party. And see what he got in one of the bluest states? A slap at a time that he desperately a kiss. I'm afraid this may continue if Obama keep trying to please everyone. That's a recipe for political disaster.

Sunday News Shows

The moment of the day in my view was Bob Woodward, on Meet the Press, saying that any prognostication about Obama’s political future was “crap”. He based it on a book written by well known Reagan biographer, Lou Cannon, who wrote an obscure book about Reagan after his first year. Cannon, who came to be a great admirer and “official” biographer of the late President, had written Reagan off after his first year as a failed one-termer. 

But the earthquake in Haiti is the biggest item in the news. McLaughlin asked on a 0 - 10 scale, what was the probability that within 10 years the U.S. would have a major military base in Haiti. The answers ranged from less than 0 (Page) to 10 (McLaughlin and Crowley). I’d say that maybe Haiti will be the 51st state. On second thought, the republicans would never allow that - Haitians are too poor and would like be mostly democrats. But the democrats will probably not allow a base. No doubt, we are going to spend a lot of money there. But in 10 years it may be China that is building a base there.

To the Contrary had an interesting discussion about Michelle Obama’s announcement of her “major initiative” in reducing childhood obesity. It was pretty much consensus that it was a good initiative for Michelle Obama. But Kristi and I both didn’t like the first lady referred to as “thin” because really, she isn’t thin. She’s just about right, and looks to be in excellent condition. 

Linda Chavez, Fox News, one of the regular panelists, made more than average outrageous comments. I know the show likes to balance further ends of the scale, but can’t they do better than Ms. Chavez?

The race in Massachusetts was next on the agenda. So much hangs on that election. I already wrote about this, and I haven’t changed my opinion. Obama is speaking today in Boston, and seeing if he can “fire up the base.” This is where his ignoring the more left wing of the Democratic party could come back to haunt him. He needs a decent turnout, and if people think that there isn’t much difference in policies, they will choose the personality. And, from all accounts, Coakley isn’t charismatic. 

You can bet that the news will be all around the results starting Tuesday night and on into Wednesday. I have my doubts about the polls, considering the Massachusetts is such a Democratic state, but the Republicans are setting this up as a good chance for an upset, therefore, upping significantly the expectations game. If they lose by anything but the most razor thin margin, it is going to intensify the loss.

Sunday News Shows

Several of the news shows that I watch are taped on Friday. That means that last week, they didn't get to discuss the Tucson shooting, which meant that today is the main topic of discussion. On a strictly political level, there is one thing that has picqued my curiosity - and that is why all the main republican pundits were lauding Obama for his speech in Tucson.

I mean, it was across the board, and while the democrat pundits all also said it was a good speech, it was remarkable how the republican pundits lined up in support of Obama. And, the whole trigger of the congratulations was the fact Obama had basically exonerated Sarah Palin by saying that there wasn't any kind of political motive to what the Tucson shooter had done. 

Palin seemed pretty desperate to not be tied to this action at all, not even in the most theoretical way. Of course, some of the more liberal pundits had criticized Palin for keeping her map of "targeted" congressional districts, with those districts identified by what looks like a gunsight target. Bny now, this map has become infamous. Palin, the dummy, kept it up on her website not just after the election, when it was moot, but it was still up when the shooting occured. 

As soon as it was starting to show up in media that her map was still up, it was reported that she took it down. But by then it was too late. A video of a news interview with Gifford a couple months before where basically said she didn't like it that Palin was using the gunsight crosshairs to show these targeted districts started playing over and over. There was no question that Gifford wanted Palin to change the sybolism, but she didn't. She left the bull-eyes in place. 

After she was criticized for this in the media, and some did try to link that to the shooting, which was premature, she posted a blistering video speech on her facebook page where she came off as trying to sound like she was the victim, using the term "blood libel," to describe what was happening to her. I didn't realize the significance of the term, but many pundits and interest groups have gone public saying that the use of the term was inappropriate for the moment. She just didn't come off good. 

You know, fair enough that there "isn't any evidence" that the Tucson shooter had been unduly influenced by Palin specifically. But, the fact is, that she did use symbolism that was gun based. She used it in the context of other gun based symbolisms that she had been using in her advocacy. She did not show any compassion for Ms. Gifford's concerns and fears, because she didn't change her map at all even though Gifford, who was specifically in one of the crosshairs, was expressing discomfort and concern at being targeted with the crosshairs. And I don't believe that anyone is criticizing Palin for actually identifying congressional seats that she thinks are important and wants to try to get a candidate favorable to her election. Lots of interests do that. It's using the gun symbols in doing it. 

Palin could have used lots of symbols to mark those districts which could have portrayed a strong message without being overtly hostile and potentially violent. Even in the face of the concerns by Ms. Giffords, she chose to continue with that symbolism. She must have known that it looked pretty bad for her if she took down the map quickly after the shooting. If it was ok, then why not leave it up?

The other republicans, including the pundits of which I speak above, do not want to be painted with this kind of brush. They were so relieved when Obama exonerated them by saying that the shooting was non-political, that they were willing to cheer Obama to the hilt. I find it fascinating. But they have to know deep down that Palin was wrong to do that, whether it had any direct impact on the incident in Tucson. Hopefully, this close brush with responsibility for the unthinkable will lead them to rethink this kind of harsh political behavior.

Kennedy's senate seat

While I, for the most part, really disdain the U.S. Senate as an elitist, out of date institution, I do take interest in the election this coming Tuesday for a temporary replacement to the senate seat held by the late Ted Kennedy in Mass. Mass is such a strong Democratic state, that if in fact the Dem loses, which by the way, just happens to be the 60th vote needed to invoke cloture in the senate, it will be huge. It has been described as potentially a political earthquake, and I have to say yes, I think it would be.

But I have a hard time believing that when push comes to shove, Mass. is going to elect a republican at this time. If they do, the Dems are in deep do do - a lot deeper than I thought.

The Sunday News Shows and politics

I thought the Sunday News shows last Sunday were BORING. It's all the same people all the time with their ivory tower point of view. Gosh, haven't I done my civic duty in analyzing them for all these weeks? 

I had written back a number of weeks that Colby King, from Inside Washington, had described Harry Reid as "the worse majority leader ever." I think I wrote that I basically agreed with him. His quotes that got out to the public about Obama confirm that. The guy is not a 21st century guy, and yet he has profound influence on us. You would think that he would know better than to use the word "negro" if nothing else. What a maroon. If health care doesn't get passed, we will know why.

I am interested in whether congress will actually inform the public at all about the fall of the big banks and insurance companies, the government bailout, and just what happened. But I'm not confident that we will learn the truth.

For example, just today I heard a report on NPR that the Federal Reserve was not reporting some kind of billions of dollars of profits on these loans that they made to these huge financial institutions. Oh really? And is that being applied toward deficit reduction, or is it really true what the Ron Paulers have been saying - that the Federal Reserve is really outside the government and out of control.

Well, no doubt, some of these big Wall Street firms have gone from needing to be bailed out to avoid bankruptcy to now reporting billions in profits - IN LESS THAN ONE YEAR! Oh yeah? How? Let's get the details of every transacvtion that lead to these losses being wiped out and replaced with billions of dollars of profits in just a few months. I really want to know how they did it. And, if the government money facilitated it, then don't I have a right to know? But i'm not confident that this congressional committee will give us the truth. 

Oh yeah, and the headline in today's USA Today is that we are kicking ass in Afghanistan. Yeah, I've heard that before. We'll see. 

It's going to be interesting to see what Obama has to say about the upcoming Martin Luther King birthday holiday. Is he really living up to the dream?

"Tea Baggers and 'populist anger' "

by Berry Craig

I wish the media would quit saying "populist anger" is fueling the Tea
Bagger movement. It's giving the real Populists a bad name.

The Tea Baggers are on the side of millionaires. The Populists of the 1890s
weren't.

I teach history, but I used to be a reporter. Good reporters dig deep when
they write stories. They even read history books.

Granted, there are some similarities between Tea Baggers and Populists. Tea
Baggers are anti-government. So were Populists. Most Tea Baggers aren't
rich. Neither were most Populists.

But the Tea Bagger movement and Populism are fundamentally different.
Tea Baggers want government to step aside and let the "free market" prevail.
Millionaires love it.

Most Populists were poor farmers and laborers victimized by America's new
industrial order. They wanted government to step in and safeguard ordinary
citizens against the union-busting millionaires who, thanks to the "free
market," had gotten rich by impoverishing those who toiled in mines and
mills or tilled the soil. 

The Populists called millionaires "Robber Barons." Tea Baggers would
probably call Populists "socialists." "Socialist" is, of course, the Tea
Baggers' big-time slam.

A lot of Populists didn't consider "socialist" a slur. Many of them became
socialists after their movement died.

Populists roundly denounced millionaires like John D. Rockefeller and the
politicians - Republicans and Democrats - they paid handsomely to keep
unions and government regulations off the back of big business.

In 1892, the Populists got so mad that they started their own party,
officially the People's Party. They didn't pull punches in the preamble to
their party constitution: "The fruits of the toil of millions are badly
stolen to build up colossal fortunes for a few, unprecedented in the history
of mankind; and the possessors of these, in turn, despise the Republic and
endanger liberty. From the same prolific womb of governmental injustice we
breed the two great classes-tramps and millionaires."

The Tea Baggers, like millionaires, rail against "big government." At their
rallies Tea Baggers wave signs urging the "SOCIALIST OBAMA" to "LET THE FREE
MARKET WORK," demanding that "LEFTIST PARASITES" carry their "OWN WEIGHT!!!"
and mourning the death of "CAPITOLISM [sic]."

A lot of Republicans love the Tea Baggers, too. The GOP, many millionaires,
and Tea Baggers have made common cause against health care reform.

The Tea Baggers have bought into Social Darwinism, the 19th century gospel
of the rich and powerful that extolled the "free market" as almost divinely
inspired. "God gave me my money," Rockefeller said.

Social Darwinists said if you're poor and powerless, it's your own fault.
Some Tea Baggers feel that way about health care. "YOUR HEALTH YOUR
PROBLEM," said another sign at a Tea Bagger rally.

Rockefeller hated the Populists. So would the Tea Baggers.

"We believe that the power of government-in other words, of the
people-should be expanded (as in the case of the postal service) as rapidly
and as far as the good sense of an intelligent people and the teaching of
experience shall justify, to the end that oppression, injustice, and poverty
shall eventually cease in the land," the Populist platform also said.

"We have witnessed for more than a quarter of a century the struggles of the
two great political parties for power and plunder, while grievous wrongs
have been inflicted upon the suffering people. We charge that the
controlling influences dominating both these parties have permitted the
existing dreadful conditions to develop without serious effort to prevent or
restrain them."

No doubt, Rockefeller and the other high rollers of the 1890s would have
helped bankroll the Tea Bagger movement as some millionaires are doing
today.

Of course, the Robber Barons wouldn't have invited the "impeach Obama and
his socialist comrades in Congress" crowd to dinner or a round of golf at
the country club. I doubt many big bucks backers of the Tea Bagger movement
hobnob with actual Tea Baggers.

Anyway, the Robber Barons would have found the Tea Baggers useful
working-class foils for the Populists. The millionaires and well-heeled
Democratic and Republican pols were scared the Populists, who were strongest
in the Southern and Western farm states, would somehow unite all poor people
of all races at the ballot box.

The Populist Party collapsed about the time of the Spanish-American War of
1898. ".Where a threatening mass movement developed, the two-party system
stood ready to send out one of its columns to surround that movement and
drain it of vitality," Howard Zinn wrote in A People's History of the United
States. "And always, as a way of drowning class resentment in a flood of
slogans for national unity, there was patriotism."

At the same time, white supremacist Dixie Democrats split the Populist's
powerful Southern wing by playing the race card. Democratic legislatures in
the old Confederate states passed laws making African Americans second class
citizens by denying them the vote and segregating them from whites.

Not coincidentally, not to me anyway, almost every Tea Bagger is white.
Pointedly racist signs are not uncommon at their rallies.

But the powers-that-be have always been good at dividing working folks
against each other. When Yankee railroad tycoon Jay Gould employed
strikebreakers - unions call them "scabs" -- he boasted, "I can hire half of
the working class to kill the other half." (I read that one blogger called
the Tea Baggers "corporate scabs and the enemy of the working class.")

Anyway, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka knows history. "For corporate
America, dividing workers wasn't simply a tactic; it was fundamental to its
success," he said.

Meanwhile, some people - "liberal elitists" to the Tea Baggers and their
Republican friends -- see a ton of irony in the Tea Bagger movement. Joseph
Palermo does.

He teaches history at California State University-Sacramento. Last spring,
the prof turned Huffington Post reporter at a Tea Bagger rally in
Sacramento.

Palermo wrote that he heard speakers bash unions and the Employee Free
Choice Act, even though "most of the people in the crowd were clearly
working class."

His post on the Internet newspaper concluded: ".Therein lies the beauty of
the whole Tea Bag movement. Affluent people like [ultra-conservative
commentator, blogger and writer] Michelle Malkin and [far-right-wing
economist] Grover Norquist and the army of radio 'personalities' convince
working people, most of whom have a relative or are themselves on Medicare
or Social Security, to denounce taxes on affluent people. Many of the people
at the rally were from the eastern foothill communities that are pretty
impoverished and would benefit from Obama's health care, economic, and
education policies. The foreclosure rate alone east of Sacramento would lead
one to think that far more people in this region could use some government
help."

Anyway, John D. Rockefeller and Jay Gould would have been crazy about the
Tea Baggers, too.