The Guns of August: How the Republican Right Fired on Health Care

Robert Reich
The Huffington Post
September 1, 2009

What we learned in August is something we've long known but keep forgetting: The most important difference between America's Democratic left and Republican right is that the left has ideas and the right has discipline. Obama and progressive supporters of health care were outmaneuvered in August -- not because the right had any better idea for solving the health care mess but because the right's attack on the Democrats' idea was far more disciplined than was the Democrats' ability to sell it.

I say the Democrats' "idea" but in fact there was no single idea. Obama never sent any detailed plan to Congress. Meanwhile, congressional Democrats were so creative and undisciplined before the August recess that they came up with a kaleidoscope of health care plans. The resulting incoherence served as an open invitation to the Republican right to focus with great precision on convincing the public of their own demonic version of what the Democrats were up to -- that it would take away their Medicare, require "death panels," raise their taxes, and lead to a government takeover of medicine, and so on. The Obama White House -- a veritable idea factory brimming with ingenuity -- thereafter proved unable to come up with a single, convincing narrative to counteract this right-wing hokum. Whatever discipline Obama had mustered during the campaign somehow disappeared.

This is just the latest chapter of a long saga. Over the last twenty years, as progressives have gushed new ideas, the right has became ever more organized and mobilized in resistance -- capable of executing increasingly consistent and focused attacks, moving in ever more perfect lockstep, imposing an exact discipline often extending even to the phrases and words used repeatedly by Hate Radio, Fox News, and the oped pages of The Wall Street Journal ("death tax," "weapons of mass destruction," "government takeover of health care.") I saw it in 1993 and 1994 as the Clinton healthcare plan -- as creatively and wildly convuluted as any policy proposal before or since -- was defeated both by a Democratic majority in congress incapable of coming together around any single bill and a Republican right dedicated to Clinton's destruction. Newt Gingrich's subsequent "contract with America" recaptured Congress for the Republicans not because it contained a single new idea but because Republicans unflinchingly rallied around it while Democrats flailed.

You want to know why the left has ideas and the right has discipline? Because people who like ideas and dislike authority tend to identify with the Democratic left, while people who feel threatened by new ideas and more comfortable in a disciplined and ordered world tend to identify with the Republican right. Democrats and progressives let a thousand flowers bloom. Republicans and the right issue directives. This has been the yin and yang of American politics and culture. But it means that the Democratic left's new ideas often fall victim to its own notorious lack of organization and to the right's highly-organized fear mongering.

I suppose I'm as guilty as anyone. A few weeks ago I casually mentioned in a web conversation on Politico's web page that if supporters of universal health care and a "public option" felt their voices were not being heard in our nation's capital they should march on Washington. A few moments later, when someone wrote in asking when, I glanced at a calendar and in a burst of unreflective enthusiasm offered September 13. I didn't check with anyone, didn't strategize with progressive groups that have been working on health care for years, barely checked in with myself.

I was deluged with emails. Many people said they were planning to march. Someone put up a web page, another a Facebook page, a member of Congress announced his support. But most people said they couldn't manage September 13. It was too soon. It conflicted with other events. It followed too closely behind a right-wing march against health care reform already scheduled for September 12. It was a day AFL leaders were out of town, so couldn't lend their support. Many who emailed me wanted another day -- September 20, or the 27th, or early October. Others said they'd rather march on their state capital, in order that local media cover it. When I finally checked in with the heads of several progressive groups and unions in Washington -- all with big mailing lists and the resources to organize a big march -- they said they were already planning a march, for October. But they still haven't given me a date. (I will pass it on as soon as I hear.)

August is coming to a close, and congressional recess is about over. History is not destiny, and Democrats and progressives can yet enact meaningful health care reform -- with a public option. But to do so, we'll need to be far more disciplined about it. All of us, from Obama on down.

Copyright 2009 HuffingtonPost.com

COMPROMISING ON LIFE & DEATH

Bob Cesca
Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog
August 31, 2009

Without falling into the "Obama should do X" trap and at the risk of joining the cacophony of theories about the recent polls, I think it's pretty clear why the president's numbers are sagging.

While Americans tend to say to pollsters that they're sick of partisan bickering and the like, they actually kind of dig it from the perspective of wanting someone -- anyone -- to stand up and take strong leadership role. (Americans, despite what they say, also like fighting and competitions. See also the ratings of various reality shows.)

And on healthcare reform we're essentially being told, and thousands per day are experiencing first hand with great pain, the life and death nature of healthcare reform. Yet we're also told that such life and death matters can be compromised, and that compromise ought to be negotiated with a group of politicians who want to crush reform. In other words: here's the life-saving solution, but the solution needs to be weakened for some reason.

If a patient is having a massive heart attack, this is not unlike negotiating away one of the defib paddles. Well, maybe one paddle will do the trick because Dr. Wingnut McGooper doesn't agree that the patient is dying and, in fact, thinks saving the patient's life is a secret plot to kill the patient.

It's absurd and it has to stop. Now.

This is a matter of life and death. The equivalent of 9/11 casualties every two months due to our broken system. No more compromise. No more bipartisanship porn. Save this patient.

Copyright 2009 Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog

THE SPACE BETWEEN INFLUENCE AND SELF-DEFEAT

Bob Cesca
Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog
August 28, 2009

Something struck me while watching Bill Maher tonight. Not because of anything Maher, Moyers or Jay-Z said specifically. It was just a thought that occurred to me while watching.

When Republicans are in power, liberals attack the Republicans with ferocity. When Democrats are in power, liberals attack Democrats with the same ferocity.

Honestly, I don't know if this is good for the nation or good for liberalism or what. Seriously. As near as I can tell, attacking Democratic leaders from their left flank is a major aspect of the liberal/progressive style, especially since the Democratic Party now spans such a broad stretch of the ideological spectrum and many of our party leaders are still closer to the middle than they are to the left (the Republicans, on the other hand occupy a rapidly shrinking and crazy part of the spectrum).

So how do we adequately influence Democratic leadership to pay more attention to the left without blowing up the whole thing in the process -- a chain reaction that has, in the past, contributed in some way to the rise of despotic Republican administrations (Examples: LBJ disillusionment leading to Nixon, Clinton disillusionment leading to Bush)?

I suspect there's a sweet spot in the space between necessary influence and self-defeat that we haven't quite locked onto yet. I hope we find it.

Copyright 2009 Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog

Ted Kennedy, 1932-2009

BocaGuy: We're going to miss you Ted - 'Lion of the Senate' .

"This is the cause of my life. For four decades I have carried this cause — from the floor of the United States Senate to every part of this country. It has never been merely a question of policy; it goes to the heart of my belief in a just society." —Ted Kennedy on healthcare reform
Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog

Copyright 2009 Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog

The Guns of August

Frank Rich
Op-Ed Columnist
The New York Times
August 22, 2009


“IT is time to water the tree of liberty” said the sign carried by a gun-toting protester milling outside President Obama’s town-hall meeting in New Hampshire two weeks ago. The Thomas Jefferson quote that inspired this message, of course, said nothing about water: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” That’s the beauty of a gun — you don’t have to spell out the “blood.”



The protester was a nut. America has never had a shortage of them. But what’s Tom Coburn’s excuse? Coburn is a Republican senator from Oklahoma, where 168 people were murdered by right-wing psychopaths who bombed a federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995. Their leader, Timothy McVeigh, had the Jefferson quote on his T-shirt when he committed this act of mass murder. Yet last Sunday, when asked by David Gregory on “Meet the Press” if he was troubled by current threats of “violence against the government,” Coburn blamed not the nuts but the government.


“Well, I’m troubled any time when we stop having confidence in our government,” the senator said, “but we’ve earned it.”


Coburn is nothing if not consistent. In the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, he was part of a House contingent that helped delay and soften an antiterrorism bill. This cohort even tried to strip out a provision blocking domestic fund-raising by foreign terrorist organizations like Hamas. Why? The far right, in league with the National Rifle Association, was angry at the federal government for aggressively policing America’s self-appointed militias. In a 1996 floor speech, Coburn conceded that “terrorism obviously poses a serious threat,” but then went on to explain that the nation had worse threats to worry about: “There is a far greater fear that is present in this country, and that is fear of our own government.” As his remarks on “Meet the Press” last week demonstrated, the subsequent intervention of 9/11 has not changed his worldview.
I have been writing about the simmering undertone of violence in our politics since October, when Sarah Palin, the vice-presidential candidate of a major political party, said nothing to condemn Obama haters shrieking “Treason!,” “Terrorist!” and “Off with his head!” at her rallies. As vacation beckons, I’d like to drop the subject, but the atmosphere keeps getting darker.


Coburn’s implicit rationalization for far-right fanatics bearing arms at presidential events — the government makes them do it! — cannot stand. He’s not a radio or Fox News bloviator paid a fortune to be outrageous; he’s a card-carrying member of the United States Senate. On Monday — the day after he gave a pass to those threatening violence — a dozen provocateurs with guns, at least two of them bearing assault weapons, showed up for Obama’s V.F.W. speech in Phoenix. Within hours, another member of Congress — Phil Gingrey of Georgia — was telling Chris Matthews on MSNBC that as long as brandishing guns is legal, he, too, saw no reason to discourage Americans from showing up armed at public meetings.


In April the Department of Homeland Security issued a report, originally commissioned by the Bush administration, on the rising threat of violent right-wing extremism. It was ridiculed by conservatives, including the Republican chairman, Michael Steele, who called it “the height of insult.” Since then, a neo-Nazi who subscribed to the anti-Obama “birther” movement has murdered a guard at the Holocaust museum in Washington, and an anti-abortion zealot has gunned down a doctor in a church in Wichita, Kan.


This month the Southern Poverty Law Center, the same organization that warned of the alarming rise in extremist groups before the Oklahoma City bombing, issued its own report. A federal law enforcement agent told the center that he hadn’t seen growth this steep among such groups in 10 to 12 years. “All it’s lacking is a spark,” he said.


This uptick in the radical right predates the health care debate that is supposedly inspiring all the gun waving. Nor can this movement be attributed to a stepped-up attack by Democrats on this crowd’s holy Second Amendment. Since taking office, Obama has disappointed gun-control advocates by relegating his campaign pledge to reinstate the ban on assault weapons to the down-low.


No, the biggest contributor to this resurgence of radicalism remains panic in some precincts about a new era of cultural and demographic change. As the sociologist Daniel Bell put it, “What the right as a whole fears is the erosion of its own social position, the collapse of its power, the increasing incomprehensibility of a world — now overwhelmingly technical and complex — that has changed so drastically within a lifetime.”
Bell’s analysis appeared in his essay “The Dispossessed,” published in 1962, between John Kennedy’s election and assassination. J.F.K., no more a leftist than Obama, was the first Roman Catholic in the White House and the tribune of a new liberal order. Bell could have also written his diagnosis in 1992, between Bill Clinton’s election and the Oklahoma City bombing. Clinton, like Kennedy and Obama, brought liberals back into power after a conservative reign and represented a generational turnover that stoked the fears of the dispossessed.


While Bell’s essay remains relevant in 2009, he could not have imagined in 1962 that major politicians, from a vice-presidential candidate down, would either enable or endorse a radical and armed fringe. Nor could he have imagined that so many conservative intellectuals would remain silent. William F. Buckley did make an effort to distance National Review from the John Birch Society. The only major conservative writer to repeatedly and forthrightly take on the radical right this year is David Frum. He ended a recent column for The Week, titled “The Reckless Right Courts Violence,” with a plea that the president “be met and bested on the field of reason,” not with guns.


Those on the right who defend the reckless radicals inevitably argue “The left does it too!” It’s certainly true that both the left and the right traffic in bogus, Holocaust-trivializing Hitler analogies, and, yes, the protesters of the antiwar group Code Pink have disrupted Congressional hearings. But this is a false equivalence. Code Pink doesn’t show up on Capitol Hill with firearms. And, as the 1960s historian Rick Perlstein pointed out on the Washington Post Web site last week, not a single Democratic politician endorsed the Weathermen in the Vietnam era.


This week the journalist Ronald Kessler’s new behind-the-scenes account of presidential security, “In the President’s Secret Service,” rose to No. 3 on The Times nonfiction best-seller list. No wonder there’s a lot of interest in the subject. We have no reason to believe that these hugely dedicated agents will fail us this time, even as threats against Obama, according to Kessler, are up 400 percent from those against his White House predecessor.


But as we learned in Oklahoma City 14 years ago — or at the well-protected Holocaust museum just over two months ago — this kind of irrational radicalism has a myriad of targets. And it is impervious to reason. Much as Coburn fought an antiterrorism bill after the carnage of Oklahoma City, so three men from Bagdad, Ariz., drove 2,500 miles in 1964 to testify against a bill tightening federal controls on firearms after the Kennedy assassination. As the historian Richard Hofstadter wrote in his own famous Kennedy-era essay, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” these Arizona gun enthusiasts were convinced that the American government was being taken over by a “subversive power.” Sound familiar?


Even now the radicals are taking a nonviolent toll on the Obama presidency. Obama complains, not without reason, that the news media, led by cable television, exaggerate the ruckus at health care events. But why does he exaggerate the legitimacy and clout of opposition members of Congress who, whether through silence or outright endorsement, are surrendering to the nuts? Even Charles Grassley, the supposedly adult Iowa Republican who is the Senate point man for his party on health care, has now capitulated to the armed fringe by publicly parroting their “pull the plug on grandma” fear-mongering.


For all the talk of Obama’s declining poll numbers this summer, he towers over his opponents. In last week’s Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll, only 21 percent approve of how Republicans in Congress are handling health care reform (as opposed to the president’s 41 percent). Should Obama fail to deliver serious reform because his administration treats the pharmaceutical and insurance industries as deferentially as it has the banks, that would be shameful. Should he fail because he in any way catered to a decimated opposition party that has sunk and shrunk to its craziest common denominator, that would be ludicrous.


The G.O.P., whose ranks have now dwindled largely to whites in Dixie and the less-populated West, is not even a paper tiger — it’s a paper muskrat. James Carville is correct when he says that if Republicans actually carried out their filibuster threats on health care, it would be a political bonanza for the Democrats.
In last year’s campaign debates, Obama liked to cite his unlikely Senate friendship with Tom Coburn, of all people, as proof that he could work with his adversaries. If the president insists that enemies like this are his friends — and that the nuts they represent can be placated by reason — he will waste his opportunity to effect real change and have no one to blame but himself.

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

Stating The Obvious

BocaGuy: It's time to get tough!


distributorcap NY

TUESDAY, AUGUST 18, 2009

Here is the obvious - the Health Care Reform debate has gotten away from President Obama. It is as if he opened Pandora's box, but instead of only the ills of the world's escaping - he let the lunatics out of their padded cells and completely take over the asylum.

I don't know if it was hubris, arrogance, laziness or just plain ignorance that allowed Obama - who proved during the campaign that he understood clarity of message and control of the data flow better than any politician in a generation - to let one of the most crucial piece of his platform fall into such disarray.

The mistakes have been so numerous and so damaging (egged along by a media that enjoyed watching this twist in the wind), I don't think it can be rescusitated into anything other than a Pyrrhic victory - a victory his team can celebrate and the rest of the country will eventually end up regretting.

So Mr. Obama, my ideas - I think it might be too late - but you might want to consider. Remember this is a country that buys bottled tap water.

1. Finally get into your skulls that the combination of Republican crook Richard Nixon and Republican moron Ronald Reagan really made a lot of people - including some people considered liberal/progressive - not trust hate the government. 35 years after Nixon and 20 years after Reagan, the country has not forgotten the criminal activity of 37th President and the disdain shown to federal activity by the 40th. Hating the government is a whole cottage industry.
   
2. Job #1 - assume your audience is stupid. Never indicate they are, but assume they are. Explain and give examples. Never get mad at them, but allow yourself to actually get mad at the opposition. But always assume the public really doesn't understand what you are trying to do.
3. Hold the party to one message. It seems every leading Democrat said something different, then would change their minds and then would disagree with another Democrat. Even someone like myself, who supports this reform, found the whole message process ridiculously confusing and extremely inconsistent. Again egged on by the media - the spokesmen for reform fell right into the "media loves theater" trap and let the media call the shots. As bad as Bush was in everything he did, the one thing his administration mastered was staying on message - an evil and vile message, but a consistent one.
4. The message HAS to be something along the lines of "you need this," not "We want to do this for you." There is a big difference. That is how Bush/Rove sold the war - "we have to go to war," not "we want to go to war."
   
5. There are way too many spokespeople, way too many egos, and way too many chiefs. Obama, Conrad, Baucus, Sibelius etc. Then as the message got muddled more people spoke out - Wiener, Feingold, Blue Dogs, etc. One or two people should have been the point people - appearing on every media outlet and being the voice and brains of the plan. Let the opposition have too many voices. Obama should have picked his messengers and said to the rest of the party - defer to them and say nothing else. The perfect two would have been Howard Dean and Kathleen Sibelius. Everyone else would just say, "Mr. Dean will comment on that, or Ms. Sibelius has the details." or they would say nothing. Problem is Rahm Emanuel hates Dean and the rest of the Democrats just love air time too much.
6. You should have thought about the title, you would be surprised how critical this is. From day one it should have been calledHealth Finance Reform. Never say Health care reform - sounds too much like actual medical procedures would be subject to legislative fiat, when it really is just about the money side - finance, payments and costs. And once they started with the right title - NO Democrat should ever call it anything other than Health Finance Reform. This one small step would have saved an incredible amount of tsoris.
7. Make the plan simple and short - just like a resume - one page only. Make a plan that is easy to describe to the millions of brain damaged folks in this country - you know the ones that would actually vote for Sarah Palin or actually believe there would be forced euthanasia. Anyone who believes that these Death Panels were on the 'docket' belongs in asylum. When you have a portion of the population that fails to understand their own stupidity - you need to not only make the message clear, but simple and short. The 1,000 page (or so) bill that appeared only made matters worse - it makes even the smarter people suspicious of hidden and buried "treasures." As awful as the "Contract of America" was in its content, it was brilliant it is simplicity and terseness. That is exactly what Obama should have rolled out - a plan even a Sarah Palin lover could understand.
8. Stop making everything that comes out of the White House look like it is a campaign for 2012. This sure did to me.
9. Never stop talking about Medicare and Veteran's health care being government programs. Force the Republicans who do not want government run health financing to state what they would do with Medicare and the VA. Do not relent on this. Exposing hypocrisy is probably the most valuable tool in the arsenal - and for some reason the Democrats are just loath (or don't know how) to use it.
10. Understand that the entire media is NOT on your side and proceed from there. Even the "liberal" media would rather have fights and battles for good theater, rather than an honest and open (and boring) conversation for good legislation. From what I see - virtually every politician would rather participate in Battle of the Network Politicians than actually make policy.
11. Never stop taking about how that Joe the Plumber and Jane the Ignorant Slut would save money with a low overhead and less expensive public option. Whether you get the public option is almost irrelevant - it more important that the people not hate the public option that actually have one. It is all about perception.
12. Not only make the plan simple and have a clear message - but how about having real conversations. The amount of sidestepping and euphemistic language that was used would make George Orwell proud. I actually think Obama was afraid to broach some subjects - for fear of offending potential 2012 voters (see above). As stupid as I think many Americans are, there are millions who are intelligent and actually appreciate more plain and honest language. For example - instead of letting the Death Panel accusations take a life on of its own - the Dean/Sibelius team could have educated those same people about the true cost of keeping people alive in the final months.
13. Understand that Americans really hate change and really like to be entertained. The media made this a circus because they need to sell soap. Americans made this a fiasco because any change to them means disruption. Even if the disruption will actually benefit them, it means disruption.
14. It is actually OK to have some policies that might seem socialist - and you shouldn't be embarrassed by that. Remind people that - Medicare, the police, the fire dept, the highways, the military, the sewers, FEMA, the National Institute of Health, their free Swine Flu shots, etc. are all socialist.
15. And finally please stop thinking the Republicans will work with you - they won't - even if it is to the country's advantage. The GOP is Butch to your Spanky and Alfalfa. The Republicans have only one point in their entire playbook or platform - defeat Democrats at all costs. They simply could give a rat's ass about anything else. Stop taking their dangling carrot. If you walk away from them once - they might actually come running to you for some cover.

Copyright 2009 distributorcap NY

AND THEN THEY CAME FOR THE CO-OP

Bob Cesca

Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog

August 18, 2009

Lesson in Republican politics.

You give up the voluntary end-of-life reimbursements and they come for the public option. You cave and give up the public option, and they come for the co-ops. (Another item here.)

When does it end?

Unless the bill privatizes Medicare, abolishes Social Security and replaces Secretary Sebelius with Kelly Prejean, Republicans will vote against any healthcare reform bill.

I don't agree that the White House and the Democrats need to employ the crazy, illegal tactics of the Bush administration. But crumbling and capitulating every time the Republicans make a loud noise is disgraceful.

Copyright 2009 Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog