You're Doing a Heck of a Job, Janet

Although she may not be the best person to run DHS, I disrespectfully disagree.



Grenell's post is typical terror-groupie scr33d - offering inane, fat-headed analysis, borne of ignorance and misinformation, all typed under abject fear of boogiemen everywhere.



The wannabe terrorist boarded a plane in Niger, transferring in Amsterdam. It is the African and Netherlands's security failure to catch the guy boarding the plane - unless we have staffed TSA agents in every airport in the world where passengers can possibly transit to get to the country. But that's a minor point.



Does her quote make sense? Well, it makes no sense if your expectation is that some agency (even a big gub-mint one... remember, all gub-mint is bad and totally incompetent... right Richard?!) can prevent every possible act perpetrated by any individual or group. The expectation is as ridiculous as thinking that police presence will prevent all crime. Lock your doors at night anyway, d00fus.



It's incumbent on everyone to be alert - just like the passengers on the Detroit flight were - to help each other out. Perfect security will never exist. You will never be 100% safe. Never, ever, ever. Anyone telling you otherwise is a liar. Anyone expecting it is delusional. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you can maybe get rid of the adult depends.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Republicans' Disdain for the American People Should Be the Story of 2009

For the sake of civility, I concede the point about who's being more indignant.



However, the bottom line is that the President needs to do something other than play the game as it's been played for 20 or so years. As many folks have argued, he can't govern or get much done because of the absurd cloture rules and the existence of deliberate, solutionless obstructionism by the repugs.



The repugs use little if any "reason" in their discourse. It is full-tilt fear-mongering and hyperbole. Obama can NOT let them be the only ones in the spotlight. He has ceded the repugs all the air time to pitch their "side." Ignoring them - like how Kerry ignored (he 'didn't dignify their allegations') the swiftboater slanders - has been proved to deliver election losses. Kerry was ahead until the swiftboaters came - don't forget that.



So how is Obama going to get ANYTHING done AT ALL if we lose seats in the Senate (at least the seats not being taken up by the useless 'blue dogs')? How can he govern if he doesn't invest the time and energy needed to blunt the baseless dribble from the Rs?



I submit that he CAN'T govern if he doesn't fight this fight. Maybe this is chicken or the egg, but really, if he has good sr. officers to run daytoday, he can't afford to cower from the gauntlet laid down by the pugs.
About Health Care
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Republicans' Disdain for the American People Should Be the Story of 2009

Yup, it should be the job of the press. But they won't do it. So you can be as indignant as you want about it - but it won't change the fact that the repug transgressions and extrem1.sm will remain unnoticed.



Taking on fox news gave Obama's base some desperately needed reassurance that he's able to stand up to the propagandists.



Overall, sometimes the kids fail at their chores and the adults have to step in and take care of the mess. That's just the way it is. Obama needs to step it up and your consternation in and of itself does nothing to deal with the mess - NOTHING.
About Health Care
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Republicans' Disdain for the American People Should Be the Story of 2009

I have no quarrel with Mr. Bard's assertion of media malpractice.



However, the violin solo for the oh! so unfairly maligned Obama is totally out of place and offbase. You write like Obama was frozen in a block of ice for 2008, thawed in January 2009, and thrown into a dizzying mess. Please! Obama knew what he was getting into and had been preparing for months. Let's stop all this pity party silliness because it crushes credibility.



Further, Obama knows what the media is about just as clearly as we do. While I see him doing sensible things like shunning fox news, he hasn't done nearly enough to call out the republicans for the list of grievances that you laid out. Why? What is there to gain by idly (and thereby, implicitly) condoning the very practices the republicans have refined to performance art and the practices that the media have leveraged into an amalgam of corporatist propaganda and professional-wrestling caliber good v. evil sensationalism?



When Obama dissed fox news, it made huge news. The president PROVED he has the power to make all these issues cited in the article "news." He has the power to cut the repugs off at the knees - and at the same time lay the foundation upon which Dems can campaign in 2010.



Or he can just play the game.



He has the power. He needs to use it.



Until he does, it's dishonest to defend him by saying there's nothing he can do.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Democrats Do Not Need to Become More "Moderate" to Win in 2010 - Four Rules for Victory in November

Wrong. This is how you guys enable people like Obama to capitulate on principle. "Economic centrism" is a meaningless term.



One of the basic issues here is purpose. The purpose of the ultras on the right is to preserve the wealth of the insanely rich. They believe that they are the only people who can and should be entrusted to it. If you give a peasant a dollar, they will waste it. Liberals/progressives believe that the playing field should be level and everyone should have a fair shot at making a decent living - and that massive concentration of wealth is anathema to true capitalism.



There are extreme left-side folks... I'm not talking about them. The progressives that I know are not in financial trouble. Unless serious illnesses occur, they don't spend beyond their means. This is due to a common underlying trait of progressives: basic common sense.



It has NOTHING to do with "economic centrism" and EVERYTHING to do with simple law of reason. What used to belong to the Dems is problem-solving logic and pragmatism. Now what they have mostly is political expediency and fear of reaction.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Democrats Do Not Need to Become More "Moderate" to Win in 2010 - Four Rules for Victory in November

When you consider that Richard Nixon championed and signed into law policies that are radically more liberal than any of those laid out here, the inanity of your comment starts to become more clear.



People were getting doses of Love Canal and other environmental nightmare stories and demanded action. Didn't matter that the President was D or R - action was needed and he presided over a massive strengthening of environmental laws.



The majority of the people want problems to be solved in ways that are pragmatic, realistic, and cost effective. They aren't as shallow as you appear to be - pigeonholing policy into silly philosophical boxes and then screaming about them.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama, the Fallen Messiah

I think the thing that disappoints me the most about Obama isn't the failure to adequately deal with the staggering problems of our day (you noted a few of those) - but it's the laissez faire approach he has taken to the solutions.



Decorum is really nice - especially after having to watch a ment@.lly repressed frat-boy for 8 years. But there's a time and place for taking folks out to the wood shed to settle scores. Though I know some folks abhor that sort of imagery and cringe at conflict, sometimes you've gotta go to the mat for what you believe in. And maybe I'm wrong for seeing it this way, but if there is no fighting, then there's probably no one leading.



In the meantime what we get from Mr. Reid and some members of the administration is whining and defeatism and surrender. Like you said about FDR, he found ways to get things done. Maybe not the best ways, but he fought hard for progress. With Obama we get, "well, we don't have the 60."



We also have no one on offense here... at all.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama, the Fallen Messiah

LOG, I think your assessment of progressives is spot on. But I think your conclusion is off base.



I had not been convinced that Obama was even a little liberal. In fact, he struck me as frequently spineless during the prez campaign. But I still knew that he'd be better than a mccain administration, so the choice was easy. And I tried very hard to give the man time to strut his stuff.



I think a year is plenty of time to start making judgments. And I think that the moment you stop critiquing politicians you have failed in your duty as a citizen. Maybe your definition is different than mine, but the right is vilifying, not critiquing. Many progressives are critiquing Obama.... analyzing his body of work - and that is healthy, if not necessary. The blindly loyal can't seem to tolerate any "disparaging word," but apologizing for someone isn't strength or commitment.



As far as "pushing" him goes, I'm not buying it. With all the DLC Clinton mafia firmly entrenched in the administration, diversion from their pro-corporation (how much for goldman? how much to help working families- even if just to stave foreclosure for a year?) positions is just not going to change by us "pushing." And I think that is where folks like me are frustrated. Just being better than dubya doesn't help me - nor does it motivate me to stop looking for someone who's MUCH better than dubya in 2012.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Take the First Step and Support the President

Your comment has little to do with what I wrote.



This president had a voter mandate, popular support (just look at all the posts from the blind loyal crew to this comment page!), and the polls all suggested tremendous support for a public option - especially if a mandate is involved. Obama had the wind at his back on this issue. And he's chosen to give away single payer immediately and start compromising the solution into a poor one.



In short, he sold us out.



Whether or not this or another takes it up again is a pointless prediction. I'm sure someone with heart and integrity would have pushed for the right regulations and rules (strip anti-trust exemption) to be in the bill - and they would have put it all on the line to get it done.



And although I (and probably everyone else) agree that the antitrust exemption must be lifted (why any industry would ever get one is beyond comprehension... but whatever), what sort of confidence can anyone have that any insurance company would be pursued? What makes you think that the DOJ would actually lift a finger?



That said, I understand anti-trust is a big deal right now. I'd love to eat crow over that, but I doubt I will have to.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Take the First Step and Support the President

Mr. Simmons, with all due respect, your comparison to the path taken toward sentencing reform and a parasitic industry that literally (!) condemns tens-of-thousands of people to early or outright death is a bit weak.



It's not that your reform agenda wasn't appropriate, but the two just aren't on the same level. Folks in prison have access to some sort of medical treatment - which is more than those without insurance can look forward to when this thing gets enacted.



You blithely wave away lives in the process of cheerleading ineffectual regulations. That's shameful. My experience from working in the health insurance industry says that they will find loopholes and exploit them. Republicans, if in charge of either house in Congress, will cite the legislation as the problem, and work to strike it down. So if we don't get the thing fixed in conference or next year before the next elections, the loophole exploitation will overrun the bill's effectiveness.



In addition, the helpful industry folks who Obama dined with will also work to have the legislation overturned. And while the challenge to the constitutionality of mandating every man, woman, and child to pay a tax to private companies, how much money will the President spend to vigorously defend this new tax? How much effort will he put into killing that challenge by instituting a public option?



Maybe in the end, Obama will come through. But how many more people will needlessly die while he tiptoes down the road?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Mark Schmitt: Victory At What Cost?

So much nonsense in there among a few Mr. Obvious moments. I'll just comment on this:



"A fierce, aggressive liberalism, the counterpart to the high point of conservative exercise of institutional power in the middle of this decade, was not going to succeed. Recall, that such an approach ultimately failed conservatism."



This is utterly devoid of honesty. A fierce aggressive conservatism didn't fail conservatism - there are virtually no conservatives in Congress! What failed conservatism is the fact that radical extremists with horribly bad policy ideas and obsc3.ne egos took over and accelerated the country's decline to the point of implosion.



In other words, "aggression" had little to do with any failures. Horrifically poor decisions and legislation had EVERYTHING to do with the failures.



So in effect, the statement equates the completely success-proof policies of the bush years with liberal policy initiatives. And although you could debate what specific policies are part of "liberalism," most aren't anywhere near the caliber of fail-certain effectiveness as the bush "conservatives."
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Leadership, Obama Style, and the Looming Losses in 2010: Pretty Speeches, Compromised Values, and the Quest for the Lowest Common Denominator

The repugs are a mess - no doubt.



But whether we like it or not, the easiest way to get ahead in the corporate and political world is to officially be against everything proactive that anyone else does. Law of averages says that the nay-sayers will frequently be correct. People ruminate over the mistakes/disasters far more energetically than the successes. So what they want (and are getting) from Obama is failure to enact effective legislation.



So when campaign season is upon us and the repugs say that the stimulus didn't work (partly true because Obama caved to them on the poison pill of tax breaks instead of more infrastructure projects), that health care is still out of control, etc., there will be traction for the message. I don't agree with it personally, but it will be enough to swing the pendulum back to the repug candidates trying to unseat Dems in conservative-leaning districts.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Leadership, Obama Style, and the Looming Losses in 2010: Pretty Speeches, Compromised Values, and the Quest for the Lowest Common Denominator

Go back a few months and read about the discussions surrounding the use of the "nuclear option" (budget reconciliation) whereby the public option could have 'legally' been put up for a filibuster-proof majority vote. Why not go that path?



Accepting your description of the unprecedented repuglican position, Obama would have a mountain of evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that their party's goal is failure and that all means necessary MUST be employed against the filibuster to address the nation's problems. It's a "can't miss" position for the president - even if the public option legislation ended up losing too many Dems to get 51 votes, at least voters would know who's got their backs for the next set of elections and Obama can honestly say that he tried.



Or you can surrender and pass something lame and follow that up with a PR barrage to make it look like you've just performed a miracle.



The only miracle will be Dems keeping control of Congress in 2010 after this continuous string of let-downs and eye-pokes.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Are Progressives Just Whiners? Saving Lives Is What Matters

Sell out to the insurance companies in order to get 60 votes for cloture to pass a bill that 60% of the population opposes - or adopt a bill with 51votes (that number would have probably been closer to 55, but I'm just guessing) that 60% supports. And somehow you conclude that the adoption of a bill with a public option that has far greater support from the voters will put the republican party back in control of Congress.



To put it as mildly as I can, your argument pushes logic beyond the point of collapse.
About Health Care
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Leadership, Obama Style, and the Looming Losses in 2010: Pretty Speeches, Compromised Values, and the Quest for the Lowest Common Denominator

You're going to pick on one tactic that I listed which is open to the President to strong-arm votes. You've got to do better than that if you want to show that Obama is powerless.



Besides, if the "Democratic" Senator from Nebraska is asked to kowtow to the ill-informed opinions from the reddest of red state populations, then what's the difference between having a Republican from Nebraska?



And who's to say that threats are the only option? Obama could promise a position in his administration if Nelson were to be voted out (don't know when his term is up - don't care either) in return for supporting a more effective plan.



Last, going the path of Budget Reconciliation would bypass lieberman and Nelson entirely. So we could have gotten a better bill without ever having to deal with those two.



In short, if your position is that Obama is doing all he can, your position has no support in facts. And my goal isn't to elect tightrope walkers in Nebraska - it will be to get replacements for the corporate sellouts in my state and work for a new president who is both progressive AND equipped with a pair.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Leadership, Obama Style, and the Looming Losses in 2010: Pretty Speeches, Compromised Values, and the Quest for the Lowest Common Denominator

The only thing missing in this otherwise outstanding post, is the neat-o tactic from the Obama administration that sends out vigilantes to attack the credibility and content of respected experts and journalists when they differ from Obama's talking points. The attacks on Krugman a little while ago and the recent ones on Dr. Dean come to mind...



Although unwilling to do battle with anyone in public, the President is very comfortable with guerrilla warfare against his enemies.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Leadership, Obama Style, and the Looming Losses in 2010: Pretty Speeches, Compromised Values, and the Quest for the Lowest Common Denominator

Uh, all these "compromises" were done in order to get past cloture. There are many things Obama could have done to make deals. He could have been an active advocate of "reform" instead of "tuning." He could have threatened to have their seats challenged if they hung up what was supposed to be the President's signature piece of legislation. He could have openly pushed for the Dems to get most of the job done by bypassing the "traditional" path where cloture isn't an option and only requires 51 votes.



In short, he could have played hardball and used his position to justify why it was necessary (the fact that we're up to around 40-60% of all senate business is being filibustered would be more than ample justification). How many Executive branch appointments are still being actively hung up by Repugs? He could have re-ignited the passions of his base by doing so AND gotten a better result for the nation.



It really is THAT easy. And you're only focusing on ONE piece of legislation whereas the author's detailed analysis of several major efforts are insurmountable with your meager excuses. You have very low expectations - but that doesn't mean the rest of us should have low expectations, too.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Are Progressives Just Whiners? Saving Lives Is What Matters

I want you to have the courage to, if this bill is left largely intact and results in the many problems dissenters from your opinion have predicted, posthumously admit that you were wrong and offer a lengthy apology to me and others who so dared defy your self-worshiped opinion.



Your ego is a bit inflated when contrary concepts (which have more basis in fact as they are rooted in an understanding of a history of the industry and public corporations) are referred to as what you just wrote. And, by the way, I wouldn't be allowed to successfully post the same text you submitted and how you characterized my perspective. So kudos to you!



If this mess goes through to get signed into law and it all fails, you know where to find me, OK?
About Health Care
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Are Progressives Just Whiners? Saving Lives Is What Matters

Wow.



Millions of people will be fined for not buying a plan from a private company. What do you tell them? Not only do they lose the money that they need to survive, the government puts a gun to their heads and forces it into a corporation.



I laid out how this bill is a dead end. Others have postulated that a republican congress will gut or repeal it. Industry insiders made commented here that the loopholes will be exploited and although some people will be helped, overall it will be ineffective.



And all you can do is parrot the same flawed talking points.



And thanks for piling on Ms. Monk. How about both of you promise to never post a comment again if my predictions don't come to fruition? And if I'm wrong and the industry competes honestly and it's a success, I will delete my accounts and be forever silent. Deal?
About Health Care
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Are Progressives Just Whiners? Saving Lives Is What Matters

The poor argument postulated by Ms. Monk from the perspective misses the deadly political aspect.



Look at the stimulus bill. Obama gave into repugs and spent around 40% of it on tax cuts that we all knew weren't going to provide any sustained, long-term benefits to the economy. Why did the repugs vote against it? Because in 2010 and especially 2012, they will ironically blanket the airwaves with how wastefully ineffective the bill was and that they fought against it. They knew tax cuts would fail to help, so they let Obama swallow the poison pill and will reap the political benefits.



This bill is no different. The changes made by nelson and lieberman on behalf of repugs leave open many avenues for abuse by the companies who have proved themselves to be enthusiastically willing to abuse. Unless some substantial changes are made in conference for a public option and/or serious cost controls (some up, some down), this bill will not help the intended people. And although it won't likely immediately harm those who have insurance, we'll be fed a steady diet of stories of failure by the repug candidates in 2010 and 2012.



And with those two 'biggest accomplishments' will return Congress to the republicans again.



After that, how and when will we be able to make the next round of changes to fix the flaws in the bill?!?!



THAT is why this should be fixed or killed.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Fire Robert Gibbs...Or At Least Make Him Apologize to Howard Dean

"Is this the beginning of Obama's version of Clinton-era triangulation?"



I think it's safe to say that the triangulation "officially" began the moment he brought in rahm and the rest of the clintonista crew to run the ship.



Obama is clearly very comfortable using his bully pulpit to call out Democrats. He has also hit the Repugs, to be sure. But he heaps adulation on the "moderates." I can see that he absolutely wants control of K street and keep the money flowing from lobbyists. I can only conclude that he's going to continue the divide and conquer strategy employed by clintonistas and their offspring (DLC) to help kick incumbent, progressive Dems out of Congress and promote players (even if it means losing to repugs).



Problem with the strategy is that the corporate powers were happy to help the economy under clinton by splattering venture capital money around and boosting employment. Unless they do the same thing for Obama (which they haven't done yet), he will be a one-term president.



The other thing that is different today than 1993 is the amount of information flow that we have now. All these coincidences like a secret pharma deal are adding up to "evidence" now and blinders are coming off many of the unwashed. Few of Bubba's deals leaked.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why We Lost Healthcare

Absolute nonsense.



Not even sure where to start on this - mainly because many folks have already made great comments.



First, since when does a "leader" have a finite amount of "political capital?" What an eye-popping concept! Leaders accrue political capital through ACCOMPLISHMENTS. If they sell out/fail, they lose capital. They don't lose it by displaying passion and leadership on an issue.



Second, solution A insures all and saves consumers $800 billion. Solution B insures most and saves consumers only $400 billion. Solution C insures all but pumps public money into private corporations and only saves about $80 billion.



So if the decision were essentially boiling down to these three choices, isn't it illogical to conclude that Solution C is the best one because maybe a republican would vote for it? And why would anyone in a position of "leadership" even contemplate compromising from Solution A for a split second?!



No, Neffinger's diagnosis is flat wrong. The problem isn't marketing - the problem is cowardice and corporate entrenchment in Congress. Please...
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Harry Reid's Slavery Remark 'Ignorant,' Says Michael Steele

Reid BETTER NOT apologize!



He's set off a great media frenzy. He needs to throw more gas on the fire.



The attempts to gently coax the system into a more ethical and cost-effective one have all failed. Just as with the emancipation of slaves in this country, the entrenched beneficiaries of these reprehensible "industries" fight bitterly to preserve the status quo.



Reid should tell the media those words and state that not only is his previous comment extremely accurate, steele makes himself the embodiment of the old slave-owners who perpetuated a national, immoral system that allowed unconscionable acts resulting in the death and maltreatment of innocent citizens.



Perhaps mr. steele believes that murder by lynching is worse than murder by denial of medical treatment. Perhaps mr. steele believes that the eviction and disbursement of your worldly possessions to pay for medical bills is slightly more moral than the conscription of people into servitude. Maybe so.



But to be completely unable to see the clear parallels between slavery and health insurance industry shows an mora| and 1ntellectua| bankruptcy that doesn't deserve the dignity of an apology - AND once again proves that there is no credible leadership for the Republican party.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Right in the Middle

It's sometimes hard to read, uh, "posts" like this and know whether to laugh or cry.



jmpurser and others have explained how the post is inaccurate, but I haven't the patience to add my observations to support theirs - other than to say that equating the works of Noonan to Dowd is all anyone really needs to know about the veracity of the thing.



Instead, all I will offer to you, Mr. Davis, is a little advice. Pat your DLC-self on the back firm and proud today. Enjoy it and celebrate it.



Because when mid-term elections roll around, I doubt very much you'll be wanted by candidates. Similarly, I doubt that any Dem candidates are going to want Obama to come out to campaign for them. Revert back to these comments in order to understand why.



And then, when the next Presidential election rolls around, expect to carry a more befuddled and somber countenance as massive numbers of the folks who so diligently supported Obama defect to support someone who is willing to fix problems instead of the President's stool-polishing approach. Re-read these comments to your past posts and then write for us a touching, "whoops - what was i thinking" retraction.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost