ON HEALTHCARE, MOBS TRY TO RULE

One of the more significant and telling parts of the healthcare debate is to watch the behavior of both sides. As Yogi once said, you can observe an awful lot just by watching.
The people engaged in opposing healthcare reform and the public option have been engaging in tactics we've seen before.

They drape themselves in the American flag, accusing those who disagree as socialist or communist, or just plain anti-American. They claim their way is the American way. They did the same thing with anyone who opposed the invasion of Iraq and everyone knows what happened there.

During the Iraq war Clear Channel dropped Nightline from their TV stations around the country when Nightline had the audacity to start showing the names of soldiers who had been killed in Iraq on a daily basis. And everyone remembers what happened to the Dixie Chicks thanks to the moronic Texas station manager who banned their music and the organized burning of Dixie Chicks CD's which looked in every way like the images of Nazi book burning.

People like this operate not only out of sheer ignorance, but part of the plan is to drown out real and useful information, keep it from getting to people and let ignorance ( and their ideology) rule. The other tactic is what is called "the big lie". Tell a lie big enough and often enough and there are a lot of people who will swallow it. And that has been having its affect as well.

What we see with the disrupters ( not protestors which is fine, but they are not protesting, their goal is to disrupt) is ironic because everything these people engage in comes right out the fascist handbook. From telling "the big lie" to trying to drown out anything that dispels it. And then they claim they are the true Americans.

If you listen to what's actually behind their opposition to the public option you learn that for most of them, it's not enough that they don't want it, they don't want you to have it. Its been made clear over and over that anyone who wants to keep their present insurance can. But that's not enough for these true believers. They dont want a public option because they dont want anyone else to have the choice. It is ideology at work. And pure utter ignorance.

How ignorant are these people who oppose reform and the public option? As Paul Krugman reports, a man in a town hall meeting in South Carolina stood up and shouted at Congressman Bob Inglis, "keep your government hands off my Medicare". When Inglis tried to explain that Medicare was already a government program, the man "wouldnt have any of it".

These are people who represent a political group whose polices were a disaster for the country the last 8 years. But to them it doesn't matter. Its the philosophy that matters not whether it works or solves problems. And what the Republicans use to motivate these people are the same tactics that have always been used to motivate a mob -- fear.

We saw another man comparing healthcare reform to Nazi Germany in the 30s, and signs showing Obama with a Hitler mustache. Limbaugh has picked up on the Nazi and Hitler theme and if anything, it is a classic example of projection with the real fascists accusing the other side of being exactly what they are.

Another problem is the news coverage. A CNN reporter interviewed a union member outsdie a town hall meeting in Maryland who opposed health care reform because he said he didnt think he should be forced to give up his insurance and take something he didnt want. In true CNN fashion, the reporter, obviously feeling it wasnt his place to actually inform anyone of anything, didnt tell this man that the plan doesnt force anyone to take anything and that the public option is voluntary. So the news media is content to let those who are completely ignorant of what is being proposed to stay that way. After all it makes for some good pictures.

It is certainly true that Obama and his White House have botched the entire health care debate beyond anything thought possible, thanks to a complete lack of leadership. And Obama has shown no ability to fight back. They allowed the Republicans to make their dishonest charges without a strong and powerful response and the result has been that the conservative mobs are either believing the lies or are simply willing to be foot soldiers in an ideological cause. CNN and Wolf Blitzer in particular have shown they are the most easily intimidated by the mob mentality.

The question now is to what extent will Obama and his White House fight back? Are they going to label the Republican position lies something they should have done weeks ago? Are they going to take them on and fight? Or are they going to just offer weak resistance like John Kerry did in 2004?

ON HEALTHCARE REFORM, WHO NEEDS BI-PARTISANSHIP?

With healthcare reform bills having been stalled and floundering in the House and senate, with three different versions coming out of committee, and with talk that some Democrats on the Senate Finance committee have been considering caving in on the public option in order to compromise with the Republicans, the most damaging approach Obama has taken on healthcare, the one thing that has caused all the slogging and confusion in congress, was to make bi-partisanship an important goal in passing health care reform.

The big question is why?

Why do the Democrats and Obama feel they need bi-partisanship? Since when does bi-partisanship have anything to do with whether an idea is good or bad or whether it will work or not? Perhaps Obama has never heard the line about a camel being a horse designed by a committee. And when your trying to do it with a bi-partisan committee, it's not only harder, the results are liable to be a lot worse..

The point is, bi-partisanship is often a worthless goal and in this case it couldnt be more worthless.

In 1992 every Republican in the House and Senate voted against Bill Clinton's 1993 budget which passed by one vote -- Al Gore's deciding vote as president of the senate. Republicans called numerous press conferences during the debate to say that Clinton's budget was going to be a disaster for the country. They said specifically it was going to explode the deficit, drive up unemployment and deepen the recession. The Republicans batted 1.000. They were wrong about everything.

Clinton's economic polices which included tax increases, eliminated the deficit, achieved a balanced budget, resulted in the lowest unemployment in 40 years, the greatest economic expansion in US history and Clinton left the country with a $5 1/2 trillion budget surplus that Bush and the Republicans blew in 3 years. something even Paul Volker, Chairmen of the Fed under Reagan, said was mindboggling.

During the Bush years, the Republicans employed policies that destroyed the balanced budget, created record deficits ,saw Bush become the first President since Hoover to lose jobs in his first three years in office and then saw all these policies lead to the greatest economic crisis since the Depression.

And Obama wants bi-partisanship?

This is taking the PR of Obama being a conciliator way too far. The only reason to have bi-partisanship is if you are afraid your idea will fail and you want to share the blame if it does.

The country elected Obama and gave the Democrats big majorities in the House and Senate because they had enough of 6-8 years of Republican ideas and governance and went to the polls and said they didn't want any more. So why are the Democrats negotiating with the Republicans? Why are they trying for bi-partisanship when the majority of the country voted for something else? What,as the saying goes, are they thinking?

Either Obama and the Democrats believe in their ideas and what they are doing on healthcare or they don't. If they don't, then drop it. If they do, then forget bi-partisanship, pass the ideas and the programs and the bills you think is best for the country, most notably the public option, and do it without bi-partisanship if the Republicans dont want to go along.

If Obama and the Democrats are right then the country will reap the benefits and the Republicans who opposed it will find themselves in a political hole they will not get out of for decades. If it goes wrong, the Republicans who opposed it will reap the political benefits. That's the way it goes. That's how the game is played. Those with the best ideas win.

Bi-partisanship is only about one thing -- spreading the blame politically if something doesn't work. It has nothing to do with whether an idea is a good one or whether it will work. The Republicans didn't look for bi-partisanship when they impeached Bill Clinton (for which they took the blame) and there was no bi-partisanship on passing the Clinton budget that turned the country's economy around and resulted in the greatest economic expansion in history.

Obama and the Democrats need to forget bi-partisanship and stand on what he and they believe. .Obama has to give up this idea of wanting everyone to like him. If the Democrats have the votes to pass the public option and other reforms they believe are best for the country, then just do it and be done with bi-partisanship related to healthcare reform.

And what Obama needs to do with the Democrats is tell them the public option is non-neogitable and not to waste time discussing compromise plans with the Republicans.

Tell them to vote against it if they dont believe in it and that they wll be held accountable politically if it passes and it succeeds. Let him be clear that he will veto any bill that does not include the public option and that their choices are to vote for it or against it but not waste any time trying to forge a bill that drops it.

Obama also has to address the lies being told by those opposing the public option and label them in no uncertain terms for what they are -- lies instead of treating it like the thing he supposedly came to Washington to change -- politics as usual. And make it clear he will hold them accountable for lying when they do..

Obama likes to remind the Republicans that the Democrats won. Its time for both he and the Democrats to start acting like it or hand over the government to the Republicans who know how to act like a majority party even if most of their ideas and policies were a disaster.

The best thing the Democrats can do is pass what they think will work with or without Republican support . And if Obama wants everyone to get along, then he can invite everyone over for a beer instead.

PROFILING SGT. CROWLEY

When by all accounts, Henry Louis Gates got into the face of Sgt. Crowley after being asked for some ID in his own home after Crowley had responded to a 911 call of a possible burglary in progress, and in the ensuing charges and accusations made by Gates, both at the time and even days later, Gates used the same prejudice, assumptions and false conclusions about Sgt. Crowley that have been used in profiling African American men by the police. In this confrontation between black man and white cop, it was the black man who was the profiler and the cop who was profiled.

Crowley wasn't judged by the content of his character or by his actions, but by the color of his uniform. Crowley wasn't judged based on the facts or what was actually occuring, but by abuses and actions of other cops in other places at other times with other people. And that is exactly what profiling is about.

Gates took every horror story he ever heard about African American men being profiled by white cops and projected them onto Sgt. Crowley. That's profiling too.

Sgt. Crowley was profiled by President Obama who admitted he didn't know the facts and didn't care -- Crowley was guilty of "acting stupidly". That is profiling. And Sgt. Crowley was profiled by every person in the country who wrongly accused Crowley of a racist act, made cowardly annonymous phone calls to Lucy Whalen calling her a racist. or accused Sgt. Lashey, the 26 year veteran of the Cambridge police and a black officer who stood by Sgt. Crowley as an Uncle Tom. They are all profilers.

None of them, not Gates, not President Obama, not any of the people who took sides against Crowley wanted to know who he is, or what exactly happened. It didn't matter. They just jumped to conclusions and made a series of assumptions. based on what they knew or heard of the abuses endured by African Americans at the hands of other cops in other places and with other people. That's profiling.

Some have tried to pass off Gates' overreactions to the fact that he had just gotten off a long flight back from China. That doesn't explain Gates calling Crowley a "rogue cop" a few days later on CNN. That was profiling too. There are rogue cops who have used profiling to roust innocent African American men and committed abuses. Most of those are in the minority. Crowley is not now nor does his record show he has ever has been one of them. In fact his record shows the opposite, that he was handpicked by a black police commander to teach recruits about the dangers of racial profiling at the police academy.

Obama has called the whole episode a teachable moment. One Democratic strategist said that it was a teachable moment for the whole country. But it wasn't the whole country that jumped to the wrong conclusions and needed the teachable moment, only a few. So one can only hope that the people who needed to learn a few things, did.

OPPONENTS OF THE PUBLIC OPTION THINK YOUR GARBAGE DESERVES BETTER TREATMENT THAN YOU.

The United States is the only civilized western country that doesn't have universal government health care. What we have instead is a market driven insurance system based on ability to pay, which makes it the most uncivilized healthcare system in the free world.

The most meaningful element to the healthcare overhaul is the government paid option which is the closest thing to the universal system that exists elsewhere. It would exist along with the private insurance companies but allow people to leave their insurance companies and opt into a government paid for health plan. This is what has been called the public option.

Those opposing the public option are people who have proved over and over that they don't oppose it on principle or practicality but are simply carrying water for the insurance companies more interested in healthy profits than healthy people.

The main issue now surrounding the public option has been how to pay for it. But how to pay for it isnt really the issue. It's the excuse those who oppose it want to use to kill it. How to pay for it shouldn't matter. What matters is getting it done. And if it means raising some taxes then that's what needs to be done.

Some Republicans and RNC Chairman Michael Steele in particular have called the public option "socialism". But is it? And if it is, would it be any more socialistic than your tax dollars paying to pick up your garbage?

The local taxes you now pay make it possible for you to take your garbage out, leave it on the curb or drop it in a garbage chute, and a bunch of guys in a big truck come by and take it away for you. No muss, no fuss. It's a good deal. And it hasn't stopped private sanitation companies from being in business either.

Having your tax dollars used to pick up your garbage is perfectly fine with the opponents of the public option. None of them, not Boehner, not Steele, not Mitch McConnell, has called government paid for garbage pick up socialism ( you can make the case that picking it up would be anti-socialism). But if your tax dollars go to saving your life or to pay for necessary medication for you or your child or elderly mother, or wellness check ups to prevent you from illness or to pay for a hospital stay so you don't have to worry about how to pay for it, that's bad. That is socialism.

Garbage yes, healthcare no.

The surest way to make up the short fall for pay for the public option is to raise taxes. The tax proposals to make up this short fall run from a nominal tax on health care insurance provided by employers to their employees, to higher income taxes for those making above $350,000.

The $300 billion needed to cover the short fall is a little less than Bush blew every year in Iraq for the last seven years (over $2.1 trillion since the invasion). None of the opponents of the public option had anything to say about the waste and no bid contracts which contributed to the cost to the taxpayers of $1 billion a day in Iraq for the last 7 years. For opponents of the public option, killing yes, living no.

Ron Paul and other conservatives who oppose healthcare reform have said health care is not a right. If that's true, neither is picking up your garbage.

As I said in an earlier article, to oppose the public option over how to pay for it is to know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. The public option would do more for the quality of life in America than almost anything since the post Depression reforms of FDR.

But congress is always more concerned about their own re-election than anything else which is why they are so skittish about raising taxes.

The way to insure they will pass the public option is for each person who wants it to let their member of congress know they want it and to tell them to simply figure out a way to pay for it even if it means raising some taxes.

There are actually some experts who believe that raising taxes might not even be neccessary, that there is much more in untapped savings that would be enough to pay for it. But if it takes some higher taxes on some thing somewhere then that's what needs to be done.

And then, just think -- when healthcare reform with a public option passes you'll be able to take your current insurance policy, the one that doesn't cover you for the things you might need the most, the one that drops you if you get a catastrophic illness, and put it exactly where it belongs -- in the garbage where your tax dollars will pay for it to be carted away and deposited where it belongs. In the dump.

OPPOSING THE PUBLIC OPTION: KNOWING THE COST OF EVERYTHING AND THE VALUE OF NOTHING

You're sitting in your doctors office. You are told some sobering news about a medical condition that needs immediate attention. You listen. Your doctor says you need to get started immediately. You nod. Then your doctors asks, " so how are you going to pay for it"? This is the absurdity of the health care system opponents of the public option want to defend.

No one, surely not the Republicans who have been the most vocal opponents of a public option, ever ask, "how are we going to pay for police protection?" Or fire protection.They never asked "how are we going to pay for a Star Wars program?" or national defense.

They would argue, and in most cases rightly, that a strong defense against anything that threatens our life,liberty and pursuit of happiness has to be a priority and you do what you have to do in order to protect it and not worry about cost. Waste yes, cost no.

But the same is true for health care. Disease and inadequate access to quality healthcare also threatens the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of American citizens. Lack of adequate health care is a threat. And fighting those things should be as important as funding our national defense.
You never heard the people opposing the public option now argue "how are we going to pay for it?" when Bush invaded Iraq. You didn't hear them say "how are we going to pay for it"? when the Bush Administration burned through $1 billion a day in Iraq, mismanaging everything, wasting tens of billions, giving no bid contracts that wasted more billions and causing chaos while exploding the deficit. But the truth is, the current health care system is a bigger threat to more Americans than Sadaam ever was.

The only, repeat only, meaningful and substantial overhaul of the health care system is the public option which will give people the choice to keep their current insurance if they want it or opt in to a government paid for health plan. But asking "how are we going to pay for it"? as a means to stop it is is the wrong question. It's like the doctor asking the patient how they are going to pay for much needed treatment before giving it and making payment the priority.

The patient now is the healthcare system which everyone agrees is very sick. The market driven system places healthy profits ahead of healthy people and makes costs and profits for insurance companies the most important thing.When it comes to most insurance, it's healthy people wanted, sick people need not apply.The insurance companies don't care if it costs you an arm and a leg even if its your real arm and real leg.

This is what makes the most immoral game in Washington the "how are we going to pay for it"? game when it comes to the public option.

How do you pay for it? There are a few plans being hammered out now. The question shouldn't be how, but a commitment that the public option is going to be a reality and how it will be paid for will be worked out. Sometimes you just do what you have to do for the public good, do what is necessary and not worry how you are going to pay for it .Because it doesn't matter how you are going to pay for it, you find a way. You just do it.

For opponents of a public option it really isn't how its paid for anyway, they just want to stop it and use the question of how to pay for it as an excuse not to do it all. We know this because their arguments in ads, TV commercials and in public forums are all generally based on lies, deception and illogic.

One group is running a commercial that says "call your congressman and say no to the public option:"

The problem with that is, the public option reform being offered already allows anyone to say no if they don't want to opt in to a government plan . It's not just that they don't want it, they don't want you to have it either. That's not about saving lives its about saving insurance companies and their bottom lines.

The whole argument about how we pay for a public option is, as Oscar Wilde once said, knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing. The money to pay for it is there. Anyone can throw around statistics but the current system is a mess and you cant possibly take numbers that exist today and project them ten years down the road and think they are going to be accurate. Any number regarding costs now can only be an estimate. And there are people who say there are unseen cost benefits down the road that will allow the public option to pay for itself.

But the benefits of reforming health care aren't an estimate. They are real and concrete and will have an immediate beneficial effect. That is the value of the public option. And, since according to a recent CNN poll, a majority of Americans would favor higher taxes to pay for a government plan,that majority seems to understand the value and aren't too worried about the cost. And neither should the congress.

CNN HIDES BAD POLL NUMBERS FOR OBAMA.

Paul Steinhauser, deputy political director at CNN did a story on new poll numbers for President Obama commissioned by CNN. According to Steinhauser 72% of those polled said that Obama inspired confidence (down from 75%).

The numbers of the poll were flashed on screen as Steinhauser spoke. Then Steinhauser said it was a different story regarding support for the Presidents policies and how confident people were with those policies. I never knew what those numbers were because, despite the fact that Steinhauser went on with his report for about another 4-5 minutes, he never gave us those deteriorating numbers nor were they shown on screen. All we heard from Steinhausers' report is that those numbers were significantly weaker than the "inspire confidence" number, and down from Obama's previous poll numbers. But Steinhauser never said what those numbers were.

I looked up the numbers and will give them to you here:

53% believe Obama has a clear plan for solving the country's problems down 11 points since February.

56% say that Obama shares their beliefs on the issues that matter to them, down 7 points since February. CNN declined to publish the opposing numbers. One could assume its 47% who don't believe that Obama has a plan ( a pretty high number) but some could have answered " I don't know", and the same is true for the 44% who say that Obama does not share their beliefs on issues that matter most.

But one has to wonder why CNN elected to only give us the 72% "inspire confidence" number and not tell viewers or show, what the other, less impressive and in many ways more significant, numbers were.

Obama's more significant and deteriorating numbers which CNN declined to report on the air were also supported by a Rassmussen poll which showed 52% approved of his job performance and 48% disapproved, his worst numbers since his presidency. And as Rassmussen pointed out , this was the first time his job approval numbers in their poll dipped below his winning percentage in the election. None of which are good signs.

But the real problem for the moment is the lack of quality, objectivity and journalistic integrity CNN has shown in covering the Obama administration, the same lack of quality we saw from all media outlets during George Bush's presidency, and a lack of quality that can be seen as directly responsible for many of the disasters Bush brought on the country, since had the press taken a more responsible role in covering Bush's failures and reported honestly about them, starting with his failures regarding 911, there is a good chance many of Bush's disasters would not have occurred since he wouldn't have had the political capital to carry them out.

CNN has shown, as they did with Bush, a distinct willingness to go into the tank for Obama and completely abdicate any journalistic responsibility to the truth. During the AIG bonus scandal when it was discovered that Obama not only knew about the bonuses being paid in advance but actually gave the go ahead to pay them, CNN heaped most of the blame on Chris Dodd who, at White House urging, put in the loophole that allowed the bonuses to be paid.

Suzanne Malveaux who covers the White House for CNN reported the day after Obama's speech to the AMA that the audience, in her words, "melted" in front of Obama. I'm not kidding. That's the word she used -- "melted". The truth is the only one who melted was Malveaux herself. I watched the speech. For the first time during any speech Obama has given he was roundly and loudly booed and more than once, the loudest boos coming from doctors who didn't like his stance on no limits for malpractice suits. They were the most hostile audience he has ever faced.

If CNN keeps up this kind of slanted and dishonest coverage it's going to continue to get exposed. And then its fair to say that their slogan just might have to change from "the most trusted name in news" to what they are slowly becoming -- "the most busted name in news"

DID OBAMA'S OWN POLITICAL PAST KEEP HIM FROM SPEAKING OUT ON IRAN?

President Obama has taken a lot of justifiable criticism for his tepid responses to the crisis in Iran. His failure to speak out forcefully on behalf of free and honest elections and support of the demonstrators have earned this criticism. But one has to wonder if his own political past is playing a role.

Obama has made the statement that voices must be heard and every vote must count. But the last time we heard Obama make that statement was during the Democratic primary battle with

Hillary Clinton where it was clear he was saying one thing and doing another.

During that primary battle he did everything in his power to suppress the votes of almost 2 million voters in Florida and Michigan because both states voted overwhelmingly against him in the Democratic primary. Both states had moved their primary election ahead of where the DNC wanted them, something other states also did but did not face the sanctions threatened by the DNC. The difference was the size of both states and the number of votes and delegates that would have gone to Hillary Clinton.

As those who remember, it was probably the most shameless moment in Democratic Party poltics since the corrupt of Boss Tweed.

The memory of Florida and Michigan protestors attending the meeting of the DNC Rules Committee and staging protests outside with signs similar to what we have seen in Iran, has not been forgotten. Nor has the excuses made that 2 million voters deserved to lose their votes because of the actions of a handful of peolple in the respective state parties who moved the elections up. ( by the way, the other states who did the same including the state of Delaware were not sanctioned or even threatened with losing their delegates).

At the time Obama, who had been campaigning using the slogan that voices must be heard and every vote must count, did all he could to make sure those 2 million votes didn't count until it didn't matter anymore. Only then did he petition the rules committee to allow the Florida and Michigan delegates to be seated something he could have done months earlier.

As events unfold in Iran,one can only wonder if Obama's own political past and images of thousands of Florida and Michigan voters taking to the streets to demand that their votes be counted, votes he was instrumental in suppressing, has in any way shaped his own reluctance to speak out and be faced with accusations of hypocrisy.