Recently, world leaders announced some deeply disturbing news: they gave up on reaching a binding climate deal at the upcoming Copenhagen conference. [1]
A major impediment was the refusal of President Obama and Congress to enact tough cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
Right now, the most ambitious target that Obama has endorsed is a 3.5% reduction in emissions by 2020. [2]
That's pathetic, compared to the 25-40% reduction that we need to have a 50:50 chance of avoiding disastrous runaway global heating, according to the International Panel on Climate Change. [3]
The United States ought to lead by example. We can do it with strong emission reductions.
Since August 15th, President Obama's job approval rating has mirrored the results of the 2008 election almost precisely. By superimposing the results of the 2008 election over Pollster.com's graph of Obama job approval rating since August 15th, you can see just how little has changed politically over the past year:
The graph adjusts for the undecideds in Pollster.com's job approval rating by multiplying the 2008 results, Obama 52.87%--45.60% McCain, by 0.9633. (This figure is derived by taking the 5.2% undecided in the Pollster.com graph, subtracting the 1.53% that voted for a third-party candidate in 2008, and then subtracting the resulting 3.67% from 100%.)
For the past 95 days, President Obama's approval rating has hovered in a very tight range, between about 50.5% and 52.0%. Similarly, his disapproval has also hovered in a narrow range, from about 42.5% to 45.0%. Both narrow ranges are neatly bisected by the results of the 2008 election, when those results are adjusted for undecideds.
For President Obama, essentially nothing has changed politically since November 4th, 2008. He has as many supporters as he did back then, and as many opponents. From November 5th through August 14th, his approval rating was unnaturally inflated by soft supporters who had actually backed McCain in 2008. Now, however, his coalition has shed all of those soft supporters, and has entered a period of balance nearly identical to that just before the 2008 elections.
The same can not be said for Congressional Democrats. One year ago, House Democrats won the national popular House vote by 8.88%, but are currently leading Republicans by just 3.19% in the national House ballot. Similarly, the Democratic edge is partisan self-identification stood at 10% (39%-29%) on Election Day, 2008 (according to exit polls), but now stands at 6% (40%-34%).
So, it would appear that President Obama has been able to maintain a bit more buoyancy than the rest of his party. This could perhaps be viewed as a political benefit to taking a relatively hands-off, "congressionalist" approach to major legislation such as the stimulus, climate change and health care. Then again, one could counter that passing that major legislation earlier, and making that legislation stronger, would have been more of a political benefit and could have been accomplished with a more hands-on approach.
We strive to be, if anything, a participatory space around here, and I've had a question come to my inbox that is very much deserving of our attention.
To make a long story short, our questioner wants to know why, on the one hand, despite the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, also known as the "stimulus"), unemployment in the construction industry continues to increase, and, on the other hand, why there is such a giant disparity, on a state-by-state basis, in the cost of saving a job?
They're great questions, and, having done a bit of research, I think I have some cogent answers.
(* With 10% of the country following some form of vegetarian diet, this number is based on the assumption that vegetarians break Democratic 3-1, which is a margin very similar to the LGBT community, non-Christians, and not "white non-Hispanic."
Also note: Women are also disproportionately Democratic. However, unlike all the other groups listed here, women make up a significant percentage of Republican voters, too.)
Even though there is some overlap between these categories, the vast majority of Democrats fall into at least one of these five. And by "vast majority," I mean "over 70%."
Now, of course there is still a not-insignificant straight, meat-eating, non-union, white Christian contingent within the Democratic Party rank and file. However, that group is older than the rest of the party, and as such continues to shrink as an overall percentage of Democratic voters. Non-whites, non-Christians, LGBTs and vegetarians are all disproportionately under the age of 50, which will make future incarnations of the Democratic Party even more skewed toward these groups. This process is accelerated even further by Republicans targeting their messaging, and making the vast majority of their gains, among Americans who do not fit into one of those five categories.
I write--or at least attempt to write this--in a value-neutral sense. It isn't good or bad, it is just who the Democratic Party is at this point. It is significantly not-"white non-Hispanic," and the "white non-Hispanic" segment is significantly vegetarian, non-Christian or non-straight. Among Democratic voters who fit into neither of these groups, it is significantly union. Further, demographic and political trends will only make this more so in the future. The end result will be a Democratic Party that looks much more like that Congressional Progressive Caucus, and a Republican Party that includes the Blue Dogs and Conservadems.
This last diary in the 2008 Electorate series has bits and pieces that I didn't develop into full diaries, mainly maps from the exit polls. Below you'll find a bit about Democratic loyalty, education gaps in voting behavior, and where rural voters liked Democrats.
Much of the debate on health-care reform has concerned the creation of the "public option," which is limited in scope and would not take effect until 2013, and the amendment demanded by Catholic bishops that would expand the prohibition on federal funds paying for abortions to also prohibit subsidized private insurance coverage for abortions. But HR 3962 (the Affordable Health Care for America Act), as it emerged from the House on Nov. 7, would provide important help for middle-income families immediately. Effective Jan. 1, it would stop insurance companies from arbitrarily rescinding coverage when patients file claims. It strips the health insurance industry of its exemption from antitrust laws covering market allocation, price fixing and bid rigging. And the bill would end lifetime caps on how much insurers will cover, which is a leading cause of family bankruptcy
Democrats Lose Elections. Wake Up Little Susie, The Party's Over.
Imagine working in the media right now. Every single time they check their e-mail, they're wondering if they'll find a pink-slip with their name on it. The entire profession is being thrown out of work, replaced by pornographic-spewing paranoid schizophrenic rent-boys working at Rupert Murdoch's whore house. No wonder the media is so desperate to try to increase public interest that they resort to whatever worked last: Elections!
So we've seen much coverage in recent weeks about these "critical" elections taking place "around the country" (not really) and pundits talking endlessly about whether the election results will signal whether Obama and the Democrats are succeeding or failing in keeping the public's loyalty. Much like the daily polls that we are fed telling us how much the public has been deceived and manipulated by the corporations. Example: do you favor affordable healthcare? 67% say no. Then the politicians say: Well, what can we do, the public doesn't want it. What a con they've got going between the corporate PR system, Rupert Murdoch's whorehouse, and the other one in D.C.
What elections were being held? Pardon everyone if you failed to notice. A dog catcher here, commissioner of elections there, school superintendent in some other place. Do any of these people have the power or authority to get a national healthcare system for Americans, to end these illegal wars, to invest in our own country and create good paying jobs? No. Not at all. But we see the governor of Virginia and New Jersey moved from the D column to the R column. Is this significant? Who knows. Who cares?
I suspect the Democrats will claim that because of these "disappointing" election results, they will have to do even less than they have already done, and since they've done nothing, that's a real challenge. You know, bi-partisanship and all. They pretend that they want the Republicans' support, but only 20% of the public is Republican. The Democratic leadership is ignoring the Democratic voters, their own voters, the progressives, the people who elected them.
Here's my advice to the Democrats: Wake up little Susie, the party's over.
We already heard one of the Democratic leaders in Congress say that a vote on a healthcare system is unlikely by the end of the year. Why? Just vote on the pending proposals for medicare for all. Or just implement the same type of system they have for national healthcare in Israel. Get a xerox copy of it and vote "yes." They don't even have to do any real work, because other countries already have the blueprint for how to make it work.
Take Israel, for example. Doesn't everyone in Congress love Israel, or at least love all the money they get from Aipac, love the Israeli program of genocide against the Palestinians? If Congress loves Israel so much, why don't they just adopt for Americans the same national healthcare program that Israel provides to its own people? Which, by the way, includes dental for the kids. I think we should have dental for everyone, since it now is being shown that dental care is related to many serious health issues such as heart disease and diabetes.
But let's just start with free flu shots. Do you understand that there is a deadly pandemic that could kill millions of people, and our own government refuses to get vaccines and provide them free of charge to all American citizens? Why do they hate us so much?
The Democrats should not only lose the next election, they should be disbanded, their leadership thrown into prison or at least have their heads shaved and be sent into exile. Honestly, what else do they deserve? They had a huge percentage of the public out raising money, donating, campaigning to get them in charge. Then we have a strong majority in the Senate and House, control of the white house and many of the States. The Republicans are down to 20% of the population.
What have the Democrats done with this overwhelming public mandate for change? They've used their dominance to solicit bribes from the big corporations, wall street, and all the rich people in the country, to enrich themselves and ensure that they can continue to buy their position in future elections. They have conducted what can only be described as shake-down operations of every major financial organization involved in healthcare. Obama holds secret meetings with the insurance companies, promises not to pass single-payer or medicare for all, and in return the insurance companies pay huge bribes to the Democratic party. Repeat the same scenario with the doctors' groups, the drug dealers, the hospital owners.
What have the Democrats done for the public to "reform" healthcare? If they compel 40 million Americans to buy health insurance, that will be another $50 Billion a year (per Kucinich) or up to $200 Billion a year (my calculations) stolen from the public and given to the Medical Industry, to the insurance companies, to the doctors, to the hospitals. What do I get out of this "reform?" Not a thing.
What have the Democrats done to create jobs for the unemployed? Nothing. What have they done to end these illegal wars in the middle east? Nothing. What have they done to rescind the Bush/Cheney evisceration of the Constitution? Nothing. What have they done to bring to justice those who started these illegal wars, those who have engaged in a program of kidnapping, torture, and murder? Nothing. Any efforts to indict, prosecute, imprison the Wall Street criminals who have stolen our money, to seize their assets and really save the country and the world? Nope. The Democrats are too busy collecting "donations" from Wall Street to enforce any laws.
As far as I'm concerned, a lifelong Democrat, I will not vote Democrat next year, or maybe ever again. I would never vote for a Republican, but I'll either vote for a progressive independent or not vote at all. Something I've never done in my life. But these Democrats have convinced me there is no point in voting, the parties are essentially the same. Corrupt.
While there is some drama in tonight's elections--most notably in Maine and New Jersey--there is little to no drama in the two prominent campaigns featuring conservative, Blue Dog style Democrats. In Virginia, Creigh Deeds is going to get crushed by Bob McDonnell. In the New York 23rd congressional district special election, Bill Owens is likely to get trounced by Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman.
Even though conservative Democrats are about to lose--and lose hard--at least one Blue Dog is none the less declaring that these defeats are a sign that Democrats as a whole should act more like Blue Dogs. Representative Jason Altmire:
Centrist Blue Dog Democrats might see their position strengthened if Democrats suffer broader electoral losses, one Blue Dog member suggested Tuesday.
Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.) argued that an election night rebuke for Democratic candidates across the nation could lead some in the party to rethink their plans on healthcare reform and other issues.
"It looks as though the anger that has been boiling up the last couple of months is going to lead to a pretty high turnout from Republicans and from people who are concerned about increased spending," Altmire said Monday evening during an appearance on Fox Business Network.
The message here is that Blue Dog losses are a sign that more Democrats should be like Blue Dogs. Presuming that Blue Dog victories would also, in the eyes of Blue Dogs, be a sign that Democrats as a whole should be more like Blue Dogs, then really there is nothing that can happen at the ballot box that would not be a sign Democrats should be more like Blue Dogs.
In a way, this is actually perfect thinking for our current system of government. Wall Street crashes the economy, so give more money to Wall Street. Health insurance costs too much, so give them more customers with little competition. Energy and agriculture conglomerates are the largest polluters in America, so construct a climate change bill that gives those conglomerates tens of billions of dollars.
Blue Dog Democrats lose, so Democrats should be more like Blue Dogs. It all makes perfect sense, as long as your goal isn't actually for Democrats to win elections.
In the House, Rep. Bart Stupak is trying to both effectively ban insurance coverage for abortion and enact a back door parental/spousal consent law that would apply to the whole country. How's that again?
In sum, the current House bill includes the Capps amendment, explained here by Rep. Lois Capps. I'm not a fan of the Capps amendment, this bill's exemplification of Democratic cowardice in defending women's rights, but one thing anyone with decent reading comprehension can gather is that it forbids federal funding for abortion by continuing the existing ban on same (the same ban that Obama now regards as a hallowed tradition, never to be challenged.) Rep. Stupak has lied, saying that the Capps amendment mandates federal abortion coverage, when it only says that at least one plan covering abortion must be available in the exchange alongside one that doesn't.
As has been pointed out repeatedly, because the majority of private plans now cover abortion, the Capps amendment is a step backward.
Stupak's main lie, popular among misogynists, is that because money is fungible, no effective barrier can be set up between federal premium dollars and coverage for abortion. This was flatly contradicted by the testimony of counsel to the Senate Finance Committee when they were marking up their version of health coverage reform. The Senators were told that not only was it possible to separate the funds, but existing plans already do this in relation to other restrictions on the use of federal money for health care.
Stupak's rule will likely have much of the same chilling effect as a spousal and parental consent law. Also, it will further stigmatize those who've had abortions, by singling out women who need the procedure. Even though the lifetime likelihood of having an abortion is nearly twice, among women, the lifetime risk of prostate cancer in men, and not much less than a woman's lifetime chances of getting diabetes.
A Capitol Hill source confirmed to me that if the House bill is opened to amendments on the floor, leadership expects that conservative Democrats and Republicans will combine forces to enact Stupak's ban on abortion coverage in the insurance exchange. If the bill goes to the floor under a closed rule, no amendments allowed, Bart Stupak will have had a lot to do with it.
Congressman Dennis Kucinich is joining 21st Century Democrats' Youth Leadership Speaker Series tomorrow (November 4 at 12:30 P.M.), inspiring and education young progressive Democrats across Washington, D.C.
We are excited to have the participation of Congressman Kucinich, one of the fiercest fighters for progress and the welfare of the American people.
Congressman Kucinich recently appeared on MSNBC's The Ed Show, where he said of the healthcare bills in Congress that mandate health insurance without a single-payer or other public option, "What we're looking at here is another way that Wall Street's speculative engine can be fueled, this time with the help of the [health insurance] premiums of tens of millions of Americans."
Tomorrow is not shaping up to be a great day for Democrats:
Virginia. Republicans will handily win the Governor's race after two terms of Democratic control. My final average on the campaign shows Republican McDonnell ahead 54.5%--40.8%, virtually identical to Pollster.com's 54.7%--41.0%
New York City. Michael Bloomberg will handily win a third term as mayor. The polls there show Bloomberg ahead by even more than McConnell, as he leads Mike Thompson. 52.2% to 37.8% (that is my average of the last five).
NY-23. No matter the endorsement that Democrat Bill Owens received from former Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava, it is likely that Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman will prevail. Of the last six polls to be released, Hoffman leads in four, and only trails by 1% in the other two. Further, Hoffman's voters are more locked-in, according to the cross-tabs of the Siena poll. Really, Hoffman has been surging for some time now, and I would be stunned if he did not win by at least 5% tomorrow.
Now, Democrats and progressives do still have decent chances in both New Jersey and Maine. As Adam and I discussed this morning, those two campaigns are almost pure toss-ups, with the odds perhaps slightly in our favor in Maine and slightly against us in New Jersey. Still, even if we win in both states, it will be more akin to holding a firewall to prevent a disaster then it will to the significant electoral gains Democrats made from 2005-2008.
On Wednesday, Democrats will be tempted to brush off these results as lacking in national meaning. There are undoubtedly local factors at play in all of these elections, and candidate / campaign quality always makes a real difference in the outcome of any election. However, as a group we should not delude ourselves. Compared to one year ago, Republicans have made measurable gains.
Across the board, Republicans have made a net improvement of about 2-3% in their national position from one year ago. Further, on top of this net Republican gain, Democrats are not as enthusiastic and well-organized as they were last year. The final Survey USA poll from Virginia shows McCain winning the likely voter pool 52%-43%, even though he lost the state 53%-46% one year ago. The final PPP poll (PDF) is less extreme, but also shows McCain voters outnumbering Obama voters in the electorate, 48%-47%.
So, Democrats are facing a twin problem of a national Republican gain of 2-3%, combined with lower enthusiasm among their own base. While it is not yet a recipe for Republicans to regain control of Congress, it is certainly a recipe for Republicans to make real gains in the 2010 elections. As a party, Democrats should address these problems rather than pretending they don't exist.
Update: Some people have asked about the special election to replace Ellen Tauscher in CA-10. The district is D+11, and the only poll shows the Democrat up by 10%. That 10% margin is a pretty good over / under to measure any national implications.
We've been waiting for Obama to make his decision on what to do with troops going into Afghanistan to attack Al Qaida (who aren't in Afghanistan any more) after the rerun of the election which was proven to be fraudulent and allowed Karzai to win.
Whew.
I'm really sick of our playing games in the world. With Karzai's brother accused of being a top Heroin Chief, with General McChrystal calling for more troops (while being criticized for his dealings with the Pat Tillman controversy), with a Civil War going on amid the Afghans that WE CANNOT CORRECT (just ask the Russians)... we are perceived as Occupiers and we should get out.
About a week ago, Paul Rosenberg posted a diary here that stated that healthcare reform doesnt have to pass this year. I have to say right now that I disagree 110% with that. Democrats must lock in reform before they lose the House and possibly even the Senate in 2010.
New polling on the 2009 Virginia Governor's election is horrendous for Democratic nominee Creigh Deeds. Of the five polls where the majority of interviews were conducted over the last ten days (that is, since October 11th), Deeds trails by an average of 12.0%. The margin is the same whether you are looking at the median or the simple mean. With only 13 days until the election, it is highly unlikely that Deeds is going to make up such a large deficit.
Perhaps the most important factor in Deeds' impending defeat will be the lack of turnout among Obama voters. In 2008, President Obama won Virginia by a margin of 52.6%-46.3%. However, two recent polls, Survey USA (by 1%) and PPP (by 6%), show McCain voters outnumbering Obama voters within the 2009 Virginia electorate.
In both the Survey USA and PPP polls, Deeds scores 80% of Virginians who voted for Obama in 2008, and 5% of Virginians who voted for McCain. McConnell has 12% of Obama voters in PPP, and 19% in Survey USA. The Republican nominee also has the support of 88% of McCain voters in PPP, and 95% according to Survey USA.
As such, if the 2009 Virginia electorate had the same 52.6%--46.3% proportion of Obama and McCain voters as it did last year, Creigh Deeds would be 9% closer in both the Survey USA and PPP polls:
Survey USA (2008 turnout model in parenthesis)
McDonnell (R): 59% (54%)
Deeds (D): 40% (44%)
PPP (2008 turnout model in parenthesis)
McDonnell (R): 52% (47%)
Deeds (D): 40% (44%)
If the Obama-voting Democratic base was an excited in 2009 as it was a year ago, Deeds would still be losing, but he would be within striking distance. Instead, he is about to get wiped out, and decided to rev up the base with statements like this from last night (more in the extended entry):
It was a long hot August for those who would like to see health care reform, as rabid "Town Hall" protesters proffered visions of public options that would lead to death panels and socialism and government tax collectors with special alien mind control powers that would use sex education and child indoctrination and black helicopters as the means for gay people to impose their dangerous agenda on the innocent, God-fearing citizens of someplace in Mississippi that I'm not likely to ever visit.
Part of the reason that opposition was so rabid was because health care interests were spending millions upon millions of dollars doing...well, doing whatever the opposite of giving a distemper shot to the angry mob might be, anyway.
So wouldn't it be great if all the CEOs of all those health care interests were to gather at one time and place so you could, shall we say, gently express your own thoughts regarding the issues of reform and public options?
By an amazing coincidence, that's exactly what's going to happen Thursday in Washington, DC, as the Patient Centered Primary Care Cooperative (PCPCC) holds its Annual Summit.
Follow along, and I'll tell you everything you need to know.
Democrats Use Their Control Of The National Government to Shakedown Businesses And Sell Out The People.
You know how they used to have all those movies about the Mafia, the Mob, the Dons, the Rackets, how they ran criminal enterprises and made money and killed anyone who got in their way.
You know why you don't hear about the mob so much anymore? Because they all put on nice suits and ran for Congress. They do the same things they always did, just in very expensive clothes.
For example, the Shake-Down. This is how it worked. Guido and Carmine would pay a little visit to the enterprising young family man whose entire family had come together and put up the money to open a pizza place in the neighborhood. Sal's Pizza signs were painted on the window, the floors were washed down, and a new business opened its doors. Then Guido and Carmine would stop by and explain how it worked: "We'd hate to see someone burn your place down, Sal, but if you pay us protection money, we'll make sure that doesn't happen. Say 10% of your gross." If Sal pays every week, everything's okay. If Sal doesn't pay, Guido and Carmine will send a friend to burn down Sal's Pizza. It's just that simple.
And that is the business model for the politicians in Washington D.C. The Democrats have perfected the model under the leadership of Bill Clinton who argued that the Democratic Party should take money from corporations and do their bidding, and abandon the working people, the poor, the excluded, the minorities, the unions, the traditional Democratic base. Bill's thinking must have been like this: "The corporations are the ones with all the money. If we want money, we need to go join their side."
I've said all along that the Democrats are just doing shake-downs since they got into office. First they had the big "Credit Card Reform" shakedown. They went out into the public and got the unwashed masses all riled up saying that Congress was going to get tough, they were going to pass some laws to "reform" the credit card industry. Then the Democrats went to the credit card industry, which is really the loan shark industry except the people wear more expensive suits. And instead of busting your kneecaps, they take the food off your kids' plates.
But the Democrats went to the credit card loansharks and said Look, either you pay us off bigtime or we will pass some laws to "reform" your loansharking industry. Thus the fix was in, the deal was made, the people betrayed. And instead of "reforming" the credit card and loansharking industry, in the only significant way needed, which is to limit the amount of interest they can charge, the Democrats made some meaningless administrative changes that will help no one. From now on, the loansharks have to send you a letter before they come over to your house to bust your face in. "Notice" is what you get. Thanks for nothing.
This whole "health care reform" craziness we've been hearing about for months now? Wash, rinse, repeat. It's the same deal as the credit card reform. Even worse, actually. The Democrats met secretly with the major corporations in the medical care industry: doctors' lobbies, health insurance industries, hospital owners, pharmaceutical companies (aka drug dealers) and cut a deal with them within 2 months of taking control of the national government. It was a shake-down.
The Democrats held a series of secret meetings with the health care corporate industry and cut deals with them starting in April of this year, set up phony organizations, got money to fund them, all to promote a health care "reform" written by the corporations which will get them Billions of dollars more every year, and which will get nothing for the citizens. There will be no healthcare reform to help the people of this country. Instead, the Democrats promised they would compel, by order of law, 40 million more people to buy health insurance. Do you know how much money that is? Say $5,000 per person per year. That's Two Hundred Billion Dollars that the Democrats promised to deliver to the healthcare corporations. Say the health insurance industry takes 30% off the top (which they do), that's Seventy Billion Dollars to them, with an additional One Hundred Thirty Billion Dollars to be paid out to the doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical drug dealers. What a con. For the citizens, we get nothing.
You know what else the Democrats promised the health insurance industry? First, the Democrats will pass a law forcing all Americans to buy private health insurance, even if they can't afford it, and even if the coverage they get is worthless. But next, the Democrats also promised the health insurance industry that there would be no limits to the amount they could charge citizens for premiums every month. In other words, if the insurance company decides to charge you $10,000 per month as a premium, that's perfectly okay with the Democrats. After all, they get bribes and kick-backs from the insurance companies, so it's in their best interest to help their corporate friends loot the American public.
Who do you think came up with this brilliant idea of the secret meetings? Secret organizations set up between the White House and the health insurance industry and given phony misleading names like "Citizens for Healthcare Reform," to fool and deceive the public? The first ShakeDown meeting was in April, maybe two months after the Democrats took control of the government. They clearly had this in mind. But who? Rahm Emanuel is my guess, because he opposed healthcare reform all along, he wants to stay on the good (receiving end) side of corporate America because he plans to run for Senate, then the White House, and because the guy from the White House who attended all the planning meetings, got this whole thing going, was Jim Messina, who works directly for Rahm Emanuel.
By the way, I don't see the benefit of spending too much time berating Obama. He's Faust. He sold his soul to get the top spot, but he's had no effect whatsoever on changing anything. The people who run the Democratic party are the ones who bring in the most bribes from the corporations. That's it. End of story.
I mostly blame Congress, but hold Obama equally accountable because he's going along for personal self-aggrandizement: he wants to be reelected, he wants to claim that he got "credit card reform" and "health care reform," that he "won" the wars. I assume that when he leaves office, he wants the corporations to give him hundreds of millions of dollars, just like Bill Clinton got. His vanity and ambition seems to guide his every move. Any commitment to the public that ever did exist is no longer apparent.
The effect of the 2008 election is clear: Instead of having the Capone Family terrorize and exploit the public, we've now got the Gambino Family in charge. For your average working person, there is no change: a bunch of criminals stealing, lying, cheating, bribing law enforcement, making our lives miserable.
P.S.: the article below refers to Jim Messina from the White House being involved in these meetings. Messina works under the direction of Rahm Emanuel. Rahm Emanuel, when he was still in Congress, was known as Wall Street's favorite politician because he took more Wall Street money than anybody else. He is rumored to be planning to run for Senate from Illinois in 2012, and likely wants to run for President in 2016, and will want to have control of the big corporate money for his campaign: Wall Street (who he has protected by making sure the Obama administration gives them lots of money and does nothing to hold them accountable). And now he surely is going after the money from the medical corporations by opposing health care reform.
Emanuel already has a lock on the defense money because he supports war, loves wars, wants more war. He volunteered to work with the Israeli military during the first Gulf War but oddly chose to never serve in the U.S. military. Rahm Emanuel, chosen by Obama, is a corporate Clintonista pro-war Democrat in Name Only. As soon as Obama brought him into the White House, we should have known it was already game over. Actually, that and the decision to bring in Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, Tim Geithner, Larry Sumners -- actually almost every person selected by Obama to serve with him in the White House is a pro-war pro-Wall Street money-grubbing corporate sell-out. We expect change from this gang of thieves?
"At a meeting last April with corporate lobbyists, aides to President Barack Obama and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) helped set in motion a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign, primarily financed by industry groups, that has played a key role in bolstering public support for health care reform."
"The role Baucus's chief of staff, Jon Selib, and deputy White House chief of staff Jim Messina played in launching the groups was part of a successful effort by Democrats to enlist traditional enemies of health care reform to their side. No quid pro quo was involved, they insist, as do the lobbyists themselves."
[NOTE: THIS STATEMENT, "NO QUID PRO QUO" IS REALLY PART OF THE COVER-UP. THE LAWS WHICH CONGRESS WRITES TO GOVERN THEMSELVES SAY THAT THE POLITICIANS CAN TAKE MONEY OR SOLICIT MONEY FROM ANYONE AS LONG AS THERE WAS NO "QUID PRO QUO" INVOLVED IN THE DONATION. WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT THE POLITICIANS DON'T SAY OUTRIGHT "GIVE ME MONEY AND I'LL VOTE TO GIVE YOU TAXPAYER MONEY, OR PASS WHATEVER LAWS YOU WANT." INSTEAD, THEY ALWAYS PRETEND THAT THESE TWO THINGS ARE SEPARATE: THE POLITICIAN SAYS I WILL VOTE AS THE CORPORATION INSTRUCTS; AND THE CORPORATIONS SAYS WELL, JUST COINCIDENTALLY, WE WILL GIVE YOU HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR THE DEMOCRATIC OR REPUBLICAN PARTY, BECAUSE BOTH PARTIES OPERATE THE SAME WAY].
"The result has been a somewhat unlikely alliance between an administration that came into power criticizing George W. Bush for his closeness to Big Business and groups such as the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the American Medical Association."
"The previously undisclosed meeting April 15 at the offices of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee led to the creation of two groups - Americans for Stable Quality Care and a now-defunct predecessor group called Healthy Economy Now - that have spent tens of millions of dollars on TV advertising supporting health reform efforts."
[NOTE: THE MEETING WAS HELD AT THE DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE OFFICES. YOU KNOW WHAT THAT IS? THAT IS THE GROUP THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR RAISING MONEY FOR DEMOCRATS IN THE SENATE IN CONGRESS. I WONDER IF THE DEMOCRATS TOLD THE CORPORATE LOBBYISTS TO JUST BRING WHEELBARROWS FULL OF CASH. IT'S THAT BLATANT WHAT'S GOING ON.]
"In the most recent ad sponsored by Americans for Stable Quality Care, Obama speaks directly into the camera for 60 seconds, extolling the virtues of health care reform, while text at the bottom of the screen encourages viewers to visit the websites of the White House and the Finance Committee, which this week approved a 10-year, $829 billion health overhaul."
[OBAMA IS AN ON-CAMERA SPOKESPERSON FOR THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY, BUT THE WHOLE THING IS BEING COVERED UP BY CREATING THIS PHONY GROUP THAT IS SUPPOSEDLY "SUPPORTING" HEALTHCARE "REFORM," WHICH IS REALLY JUST A GIVEAWAY OF TAXPAYER MONEY. THE FUNNY THING IS THAT OBAMA WOULD PROBABLY NEVER HAVE GOTTEN THE GIG IF ED MCMAHON HADN'T DIED. I THOUGHT HE HAD A LOCK ON THE COMMERCIALS SELLING CRAP TO THE PUBLIC.]
... "Days after the meeting, Healthy Economy Now's website address was registered, and meeting attendees began receiving unsolicited calls asking for cash for the coalition from Baldick, whose firm - Hilltop Public Solutions - had been hired to run Healthy Economy Now. In addition to PhRMA and the American Medical Association, the strange-bedfellows coalition included AARP, the American Cancer Society, the Business Roundtable, the advocacy group Families USA and the Service Employees International Union, as well as trade groups for biotech and medical device firms." [AARP IS AN INSURANCE SALES GROUP THAT FRONTS AS A PRO-SENIOR GROUP. THE FACT THAT THE SEIU WAS INVOLVED IS UNFORTUNATELY NO LONGER A SURPRISE, SINCE THAT UNION SEEMS TO ALWAYS BE ON THE SIDE OF THE CORPORATE RULERS, NEVER ON THE SIDE OF THE PEOPLE].
[THE ARTICLE ALSO SAYS THAT PHRMA, THE LOBBYING GROUP FOR THE PHARMACEUTICAL/DRUG DEALERS, AGREED TO GIVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY IN EXCHANGE FOR THE DEMOCRATS AGREEING THEY WOULD NOT TRY TO FORCE THE DRUG COMPANIES TO LOWER THE PRICE THAT THEY CHARGE AMERICANS FOR THEIR DRUGS. WHAT A DISGUSTING DISCLOSURE].
"Allison [someone speaking on ethical issues] said that ... "What you've had was the Senate and the White House sitting down and cutting deals with special interests," he said. "I don't think that's quite what the American people signed up for when the Obama campaign said that they were going to limit the influence of special interests in this White House."
[THE COMMERCIALS FOR THESE PHONY GROUPS WERE CREATED BY]"AKPD Message and Media, which was founded by White House senior adviser David Axelrod, still owes him $2 million and employs one of his sons - and GMMB."
The following is the basis for a letter to every U.S. representative and senator, and to the executive branch, regarding health care reform (or any other issue important to the left). It's meant to put the politicians on notice of what we demand, and what the consequences will be if they don't do as they're told.
Bear in mind something that should be plain to everyone reading this: the politicians are supposed to be working for Us, the People of the United States. We do not work for them. With that in mind, here is a letter on health care reform that can be applied to practically any issue of importance to the left.
Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida, a self-proclaimed "Democrat with guts," appears unlikely to be subject to a resolution of disapproval for suggesting that part of the Republican health care plan is for Americans to "die quickly if you get sick."
The Associated Press is reporting that a spokesman for Republican Rep. Tom Price of Georgia, who drafted a resolution of disapproval against Grayson and threatened to introduce it on the House floor, is suggesting that Price does not plan to do so.
It is almost unprecedented for Republicans to back down from their demands for an apology from a Democrat. And yet, that is exactly what happened here.
As I wrote last week, other Democrats need to take notice of this. You don't have to back down when the Republican smear machine comes after you. In fact, you can pick--and win--a fight with that smear machine, if you are smart about it and know who your allies are.
"Honestly, the people I deal with, the people I actually am across the aisle with every day, I don't think they care about ordinary people. I don't think that the Republicans in Congress actually have a heart. I'll be honest with you."
"But that's not the same as saying that they want you -- I mean, let's get straight what I said," he explained. "I said their health care plan is 'don't get sick,' and if you do get sick, then die quickly. And what did I mean by that? Because if you get sick and those bills are mounting, and you're in the hospital and you're feeling weaker and weaker, and you've got no way to pay for this, then what are they gonna do for you? Nothing. They're gonna do nothing."
Senior White House officials are scheduled to be in the room throughout negotiations to merge competing Senate health care bills from the Finance and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committees, with the expectation that they will make key decisions to mediate disagreements. In advance of the floor action to follow, Obama and top administration officials have been lobbying Senate Democrats to secure support for a final package.
"The White House presence in the merger will be huge, and it has to be," a senior Democratic Senate aide said Monday. "President Obama will have to weigh in on the most difficult issues."...
Democratic sources say Obama is going to have to make the final call on the controversial issues, including whether to push for the public insurance option.
What is really remarkable about this story is how it shows dumping the public option is not something either the White House or the Democratic Senate leadership want responsibility for. This is because the public option is not only overwhelmingly popular among the Democratic base, but because many progressive grassroots organizations and members of Congress have made such a big campaign out of it. They are afraid of the base on this one, and don' want to be blamed if the public option goes down. So, expect this game of public option hot potato to continue.
Now, here at Open Left, we always knew that it would be the White House making the final call. The process and the Democratic Party pecking order meant the White House would hold final say. This is why we joined with CREDO Action to petition President Obama on the merger of the two Senate bills--a petition which now has over 80,000 signatures.
The $810 billion Wall Street Bailout is a loadstone hanging around the neck of the Democratic Party. It thwarting what should have been a realigning moment in American electoral politics. Upon regaining control over the federal government following the 2008 elections, Democrats should have been able to cement their image as, in the words of Al Gore, "the people versus the powerful." Instead, we have become complicit in perpetuating a federal government that is more responsive to the wishes of powerful moneyed interests at the expense of the vast majority of Americans. And so, our chances at realignment are slipping away.
