jbatch's Comments (492)

“Sorry barksalot, but Broder is dealing with a very old deck. Contemporary Republicans put Party before Country, they have no interest in governing, only in obtaining and exercising power.

Take, for example the long-standing breakfasts majority and minority leaders used to have every week to plot out how, together, they would manage the business of running government -- Gingrich unilaterlly cancelled them when the Repugs came to power in 1994 They also initiated the practice of witholding bills from the Dems until the last minute, barring them from conference, not to mention impeaching a Democratic President on a trivial matter (as oppsoed to starting a war under false pretenses, lying to th American people, violating the Constitution ...)

Now they seek only to block ... Too often these proofs of Republican perfidity are swept aside as "partisan," but they aren't. They're simply facts demonstrating how much the world has changed since 1994.

That Broder still talks of bipartisanship merely shows he hasn't a clue. That you seem to think he's got a point shows you don't either.”

“Fanned and faved. One of the most insightful comments I've seen on Huffpo or anywhere.

Raw data is like uneaten food; it provides no nourishment; results in no growth. It simply exists as a potential. To lose sight of that is to confuse bits for brains.”

“I was for Kucinich, and he's not betraying me, he's betraying his own promises, and he's betraying an historical opportunity to save this country from dangerous right-wing myths that are destroying it.”

“Are you serious? this is the rhetorical equivalnet to "So's your mother .."

It's irrelevant to the examples and arguments I used and it's baseless to boot.

Wow.”

“Nassim:

Insightful as always. The same could be said of EIA's projections on energy prices and supply. It is certainly true of Obama's economics team.

Very sad”

“Mr. Plouffe:

Obama became increasingly progressive in his words as the campaign wore on and it became expedient to do so, but his deeds do not support that rhetoric.

Gitmo still exists; 130,000 troops still occupy Iraq; we are on the verge of building up in Afghanistan.

On the home front, he's cut a private deal with Pharma (so much for transparency) similar to Bush's sell out; he's undercutting Reed and Pelosi's attempt to get a Health care Bill (the Obama White House even adopted the Orwellian phrase "insurance reform" for a while -- goog grief); he's put Wall Street interests above those of Main street (there were many pathways to rcovery that didn't pass through Wall Street); He's enabled the too big to rail crowd to get even bigger.

Obama had a moment when he could have indeed eviscerated the special interests -- then health care lobby and the finaincial interests -- but he didn't. He didn't even try.

He had a chance to be Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt in one -- something this country desperately needed -- but he chose to channel Neville Chamberlain instead.

He had a chance to put the stake in the dead heart of Reaganism, a toxic brew of selfish jingoism and racism, when it failed yet again, but he didn't. He chose to chase Snowe and sing Kumbaya, instead.

That's why Arianna calls him timid.”

“"A sentry for corporate interests" Too true and nicely phrased!”

“The presence of Summers and Geithner told me the campaign was just that -- a campaign. It's important to remember that Obama the candidate was a centrist who tacked left only when Edwards began to get traction with his progressive message. We progressives mistook a tactical maneuver for an intrinsic moral stance.

I like Obama. He's smart, he's charismatic, he's articulate, and he is principled.

But I never expected him to share my progressive politics, Plouffe's book notwithstanding.

And Summers is doing in this administration what he did in Clinton's -- killing the spirit of progressivism and environmentalism every time he has an opporunity to.

So, not to get too cynical, but I beleive Obama candidate would say, "We did and said what we had to to win."”

“I was wondering whether anyone would pick up on this -- hoisted on their own petard!”

“Exactly what "balance" are you refering to?

The one where CEO profits are balanced against providing health care?

Look, corporations have a fiduciary -- and primary -- responsibility to their shareholders first. The rest is secondary.

If you believe that "balance" in any way optimizes health care, then you, sir, are ignorant.”

“Insightful, as always, Arianna, although it is too early to urge Biden to resign. Someday, maybe soon, that may make sense, but right now, we need him there as a counterweight to Axelrod, Summers, and the rest of Obama's centrist mafia. If and when it becomes clear that he cannot be, then and only then would resigning on principle make sense. But at 9 months, that's still an open question.

Three things to add -- first, if we do get rational and focus on Pakistan, let's realize that confronting terrorism is not solely, or even primarily, a military mission -- it must be a diplomatic, economic, political and social effort first, and military last.

Second, if Feinstein is worried about women, she must advocate invading Saudi Arabia immediately, or be exposed as a hypocrite of the first degree.

Finally, when will we realize that domestic insurgencies and revolutions cannot be dealt with through occupations -- particularly when the country is a pastiche of cultures, ethnic origins and religious schisms?

When has if ever worked, anywhere?

As for McChrystal: he's in charge of trying to win wars, not deciding which wars ought to be fought, so of course he wants more troops. He should, of course, be ignored. Obescience to generals is yet another poisonous legacy from that ethical infant -- Bush.”

“You are so right. Trying to build a rational health care program on top of this irrational hodge-podge was tantamount to building skyscrapers on sand.

You propose a number of interesting models -- I still prefer the simple singel payer system, modeled on Britians'. Doctors on generous salaries, complete universal care to all, profit not part of the plan.

Some things don't lend themselves to the free-market system. It creates wealth, not health. If you cede control of health to captial markets they will always make trade-offs between maximizing profits and providing health, no matter how rational the delivery framework. Always.”

“Mr. Sheer, you note that the media -- including the "liberal" NPR -- is reporting this as some kiind of breakthrough, yet it doe little but make the now voluntary fleecing by the insurance industry mandatory.

You rightly compare it to Bush's Pharma deal, in which Bush gave up the opportunity to lower drug prices by as much as 70% through negotiation.

Here's the thing: Obama did the same deal with big Pharma to get them on-side. As for praising Snowe? It's a crime. And because Obama has sacrificed principles for the hollow victory of a Bill -- any Bill -- and the mediaereports on the food fight and not the meal, no one really understands how much of a rip off this bill is.

Look, bi-partisanship is not an end , health is-- with the majorities we have, we should be able to deliver a good bill that helps people, not corporations.

And yes, this probably is a three card monty scam to keep our eyes off something far more pernicsious -- the corporatization of American governance.

Say goodbye to Jefferson, Franklin, and Madison. That's so old school.”

“No, but believing we are entitled to repeat (regardless of whether others have or have not) before any of some 150 countries get even a first shot at hosting either is.”

“We've been eclipsed?

Let's see, there are about 190 nations in the UN; three other countries have hosted a World's Fair since we last did. So somehow it's our turn again, and we've been "eclipsed" if we don't get to host a world's fair every third time, damn the other 187 countries?

How's that logic work, exactly?

Man, you're so jingoistic it hurts.”

“Thanks for saying this, Joe.

But at the risk of being partisan, equating the eight year Republican witch hunt that marked Republican response to Clinton's election with the Bush years is a false equivalency.

Republicans spent $50 million hounding Clinton and then impeached him on a minor pecadillo -- one that many of the sanctimonious accusers shared with him.

Democrats were very supportive of Bush until he hounded us into a war based on lies, subverted the first and fourth amendments, authorized torture (violating the Genva convention -- a law of the land) and basically turned the White House into a 24 hour a day political machine. Despite all this, no impeachment proceedings were brought against him, beacuse the speaker thought it would be disruptive and not in the best interests of the country.

I raise this because we must first undersand the problem before we can solve it. And the problem is, the Republicans have been putting Party over country for more than10 years now.

And the problem is, Republicans”

“Saying that Bjorn Lomborg's Cool It, is well-reasoned and bi-partisan is tantamount to calling Glenn Beck the supreme rationalist. Lomborg has been debunked so often and so well it's astounding -- and revealing -- that you would resort to him as a source for your call to skepticism. The Scientific American devoted two issues to debunking his first book, it was so riddled with errors, lies and sophistry.

It's also revealing that you endorse the mid-level IPCC projections -- since virtually all the scientists involved now say they were way too conservative and that global warming is coming sooner and going to be worse than even the worst-case IPCC projections.

Indeed, most of the IPCC now say sea-level will be several meters (not a foot) by 2100, and that temperatures will rise by about 10 F (not 4.7).

As for Nordhous? He's basically a laughing stock among serious economists for his foolishness.

Skepticism is healthy, and valuable. But your dependence upon totally discredited sources smacks more of denier ignorance than real skepticism.”

“Yes they are. And you marshall an impressve argument -- with factual underpinning -- to bolster your case. In fact, I am looking more skeptically at his actions. And I must say, when Summers and Geithner showed up, I had my doubts.

Still, it is possible that the contirbutions went to him because he was ahead, not because he was making deals. K-Street is notorious for throwing their money at the projected winner, regardless of their position, in the hopes of getting their foot in the door. And it works. If this is the case, then what you take as being owned by the corporatists might only be a sign of being ahead.

At any rate, thanks for a great, reality -based argument, McIntosh. I am applying a different lens to Obama as a result.”

“I would say the questions are: Who pays? How? and How much? Because the bottom line is, the most expensive option is the current option.

And it's good to see such clear and incisive comment from you, Dr. Weil. Too many doctors are conflating healthy behaviors with health care.

Whether we have single payer, universal care, the existing hodge podge of criminally irresponsible insurance, or some compromise, Americans must put down the Big Mac and get off the couch. That's a given.

But we can move from the Ayan Rand kill-the-weak to something humane without waiting for people to suddenly become responsible -- after all, look at the Brits. They still wash down bangers and chips with soda and cider, but at least they've managed to figure out a rational way to pay for the consequences.”

“You know, I support the notion of taxing securities and love the notion of populist rage at the insane machinators of finance.

And while I know there were some bad apples in the mortgage industry, I think we have to acknowledge the role our own greed and ignorance played in the mortgage meltdown. People wanted stuff they couldn't afford -- they knew they couldn't afford it; so they took the same kind of foolish risks Wall Street took.

Look at credit card debt; look at people driving around in luxury cars -- people who make less than $50K per year in top of the line Beemers.

Sorry, but we own part of this mess, and if we don't acknlowedge it we won't fix it.”

“Why not tax short-term holdings at a higher rate -- or alternatively apply the tax only to instruments held for less than 6 months?

We'd quickly move to an economy that created investment capital for productive capacity, rather than one which creates currency for the sake of having more currency.”

“Making health insurance mandatory will not reduc costs -- it will increas them, absent other containment measures. It's simple supply and demand -- more demand, same number of suppliers = higher prices.

And why should we pay a 15% carrying cost when 3 different government programs procide the same -- no, better service -- for only 3.5%?

Single payer was the way to go -- absent that, real competition and real capapcity to bargain are all that's left.”

“Wow. From a tactical perspective, there couldn't be two things less alike than Clinton's and Obama's approach to getting health care through. You need to review your history.”

“I came away from Obama's speech with a new insight for the man's moral center -- and with a conviction that I disagree with him on both his goals and his tactics.

It is more important to Mr. Obama to end the divisiveness which is tearing our country apart, than it is to foster the progressive and liberal agenda our country so desperately needs if it is ever to be great again.

As one of the bloggers on Huffpo put it yesterday-- I believe it was Bob Reich -- "Sometimes the best way to win the center is to move the center," or words to that effect.

Mr. Obama is still trying to split the difference, not because he's owned by corporate interests, as the Republicans are, and not because he's held in thrall by Rahm Emanuel -- he's doing it because he honestly believes it is the most important thing he can do.

He's wrong in this, but David, it's not about Emanuel's knee jerk deal making; it's about the President's agenda -- bringing the country together. That's what he meant by changing the way Washington works.

We progressives had something else in mind. Something more like Roosevelt. We saw what we wanted to see in Barrack, not what was actually there.”

“Dan:

The only way the public option could become a "takeover" is if it were cheaper and provided better results. And if it does that, why on Earth wouldn't we want it to takeover?

I thought you conservatives loved competition?

Look, if the public option is better, it should take over. If it isn't, it won't.”