Lanny Davis's Rent-a-Wisdom
Lanny Davis has wasted no time trying to spin MA voters’ rejection of Obama’s focus on corporations rather than people into an attack on progressives. He starts by ignoring that aspect of the liberal complaint and (as the Administration is doing) blaming all of this on Coakley.
Liberal Democrats might attempt to spin the shocking victory of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts by claiming that the loss was a result of a poor campaign by Martha Coakley. Would that it were so.
Then, incredibly, Lanny says something I agree with:
This was a defeat not of the messenger, but of the message—and the sooner progressive Democrats face up to that fact, the better.It’s the substance, stupid!
But from there, Lanny makes several mistakes of analysis you’d expect from someone with a history of selling out real Democratic values.
Lanny says backroom deals sunk Coakley; but then says this is the fault of progressives (Ben Nelson? Hello!!!)
Lanny turns on the insurance industry’s second-biggest champion after President Lieberman, President Nelson, and disowns his smarmy deals.
Then there were the two “deals” that put congressional Democrats in a worse light than the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere”—as impossible as that might have seemed—as an emblem of the special interest politics Barack Obama ran against. We Democrats had to explain to Massachusetts voters and other Americans why non-Nebraskans and nonunion members have to pay more taxes, while Nebraskans and union members get to pay less. Those two deals seem to have alienated most people across the political spectrum.
It is true that voters soured significantly on Coakley after Ben Nelson got his deal. Of course, one big reason for that is that, after MA primary voters picked Coakley partly for her very strong stance defending choice, her election would simply have empowered people like Nelson to gut choice. But somehow Lanny ignores both the demands Nelson made on choice as well as Nelson’s and Lieberman’s insistence that insurance companies not face any competition from Medicare or a public option.
Lanny says a deal that had not yet happened–the excise tax deal–and actually explicitly benefited more than unions was the cause of Coakley’s loss because it painted unions as exceptionalists?
And then there’s Lanny’s attempt to throw the unions–who have been negotiating a deal on the excise tax–in with Ben Nelson. Thing is, that deal, unlike Nelson’s deal, hasn’t happened yet! Not to mention the fact that the deal proposed between the unions and the Administration would have helped all middle class families by exempting dental and vision coverage, making sure older and sicker workers weren’t unfairly punished, and raising the amount at which the excise tax kicked in.
Lanny celebrates getting everyone health insurance–but not care
Then, Lanny makes the mistake that many supporters of the insurance friendly bill make: confusing health insurance with health care.
The Democrats have a simple message on health care that has still not really gotten through: If our bill passes, you never have to worry about getting, or losing, health insurance for the rest of your life.
Thing is, people from Massachusetts know better, because they’ve already got precisely the kind of system that ensures everyone has health insurance even if 21% of those paying lots of money to insurance companies can’t actually afford to use that insurance. MA voters know better than many that having health insurance doesn’t necessarily mean you can get health care.
Lanny mysteriously talks about an Obama plan that didn’t include EITHER a public option OR a mandate–yet there was no time when that was true (and polling still says the PO was the only thing that made this palatable)
Finally, Lanny invents a mythical Barack Obama who at one point supported neither a mandate nor a public option.
The purists on the left of the Democratic Party who demanded the “public option” or no bill at all apparently forgot that candidate Obama’s health-care proposal did not include a public option; nor did it include a government mandate for everyone to either purchase insurance or pay a significant tax approximating the cost of that insurance—the “pay or play provision” in both the Senate and House bills.
Candidate Obama supported a public option with no mandate. President Obama supported a mandate and paid lip service to a public option. But at no point did “his plan” lack both a public option and a mandate. Though I guess Lanny is distinguishing here between the mandate in Obama’s bill (up to 2% of income) and the mandate–like the one in MA’s program!–that is tied to the cost of insurance premiums. I’m not sure why that distinction would be relevant to MA residents though.
And of course, polling still shows that having a mandate is more popular when people can choose not to give their money (20% of which can go to profit and marketing) to private insurance companies.
Now, I don’t blame Lanny for staying up all night to try to spin Coakley’s loss as a call to move to the center. The more logical lesson to draw from it is that Americans are sick of corporatists like Lanny Davis (he rather amusingly adopted the label “liberal” for himself in this piece, though I suspect WSJ may have just stripped the “Neo-” that came before it). Which is precisely what Lanny’s extensive parsing tries to deny.
For the record, the Amish (who do not attend school beyond 8th grade) pay 0% to private insurance companies. If they have it figured out, why can’t the rest of us?
Often Amish barter services for medical care.
And, there is a practice of creating a pool of funds within the community to invest and cover community members’ health expenses.
We have. It’s called shared risk.
People like the Amish live medieval lives. Poor, Nasty, Brutish and Short.
I’m not sure where you got this but I’ve met a few Amish and Mennonites and their lives are not especially brutish, short or nasty. In this part of upstate NY there are itinerate Amish that contract out their work to other Amish in other states and Canada. One of my wife’s relatives takes various Amish folks to buy stuff and even to doctor’s appointments from time-to-time. Not my kind of life but certainly not like being a drug addict on 45th Street.
Progressive accountability did not hurt Coakley. Obama not acting in an accountable fashion due to Rahm, did impact this outcome.
Progressives stand firm on health care.
How many millions did Rahm make mixing it up with the $$$ thugs?
$30 million.
It would be very interesting to get a look at Lanny’s 1040 (and those of his various consultancies) and see the list of corporations paying him.
I really fcking hate this guy Jim, and I think we should take time over the coming year to focus on him.
Ah, Lanny Davis — whom last we saw agitating for the guys who overthrew Honduras’ elected president, Manuel Zelaya, for the crime of raising the minimum wage. Such a charmer!
That same Lanny Davis who would never tell us “who is paying you” Uncle Lanny
Jane knocked Lanny Davis out in this round. And then Laura Flanders wiped the deck. As someone said on a FDL thread. Jane digs, Ed Sets, Laura spikes the ball. Game point
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAMsNg_x9Uk
What I keep thinking about is how Senator Kennedy kept the lid on the pro fetus crowd in Mass (Boston) and the racist element that still exist in hot spots around Boston. Coakley thought she could ride in on the Kennedy coat tails.
Pro Life…support health care for all
Pro Life…living wages
Pro Life… access to a quality education
Big difference between pro fetus and pro life
Hey Lanny, what about the PhRMA deal?
Lanny is, of course, full of crap. His meme on the unions’ deal over the excise tax echoes right-wing talking points about union exceptionalism. In fact, from many workers’ point of view, Trumka’s deal was a sell-out, trying to reform what was already a reactionary ploy. Even the American Prospect article you quote, EW, in a surprised fashion notes how “modest” the gains by the unions in the deal were. The fact that we don’t know, or rather they can’t say, exactly how they will index older workers, with a “trust us” shrug of the shoulders, is not cause for confidence.
Workers have negotiated back money and benefits to feed the greedy owners and try and stave off layoffs. They repeatedly are called to go back into their wallets and give “for the better of the company.” Everyone’s hero Sully took the opportunity of his appearance on Jon Stewart sometime back to make the point that the pilots are at the breaking point when it comes to givebacks.
Here’s the deal: first put out an outrageous proposal, then soften it a little, and if anyone complains, they are obstructionists, or holding back helping others. What BS!
Workers, despite the fact no one likes to talk about class anymore, have a rudimentary sense of class consciousness: they know that if anyone will get screwed, it’s them. The polls show that the “middle class” went with Brown in MA. I think a lot of them are workers with fair to good jobs, struggling to keep their heads and homes above water, and they have figured out this health care program will be implemented off their backs, and not really to their benefit (cheaper programs, less benefits).
The Democrats made their bed on this one. (If only the party would have gone with the tax on high incomes like they first proposed, but that’s looking more like it was a bait-and-switch to draw the suckers in.) I hope that something like what Jane is proposing on the front page of FDL occurs, but to believe Congress and the WH will suddenly embrace a crusade in the teeth of opposition from the insurance companies and Big Pharm is to put a lot of hope in the same people who have let us down.
Having lived through two weeks of ads, phone calls, and conversations as a resident of Massachusetts, I can’t say that at any point did either the Nebraska deal or the union deal come up as a political point on one side or the other.
The town-by-town data, I think, makes clear what happened: Republicans had close to 100% turnout, Democrats had close to 60% turnout. This is fairly consistent with polling done before the race.
Turning out all of your supporters in a special election is a spectacular acheivement, and we better not overlook that enthusiasm on the other side. But it should not be confused with “winning swing voters” or with voters “rejcting the message”. Republican voters rejected the message.
The Democratic party can either cede the field to those Republican voters, or give its own voters a reason to head to the polls.
Lanny Davis is taking the surrender-monkey route.
“The Democratic party can either cede the field to those Republican voters, or give its own voters a reason to head to the polls.”
I’m ready to vote any place any time, but I’m worried that Rahm’s job is appointed, instead.
Good points. I read a few weeks ago that polling showed 40% of Dem voters won’t vote in the next National elections either.
Agreed.
I heard that there were about 1 million less voters in this election
than the 2008 Presidential.
Most of these were of the Democratic persuasion…
They stayed home.
Thanks for supplying some facts useful to the analysis.
Not really a surprise wrt to the differential in the turnouts, but it is always good to look at the numbers.
Of course the blame game was scripted before the vote, these or any other facts will have no impact on what is advanced as the explanation for what happened in MA.
“Lanny Davis is taking the surrender-monkey route.”
But Lanny is a general, and has some concrete responsibility for the tactical and strategic fiascoes that face the party.
Sorry professor, those figures are not a reason. They are a number for sure. But WHY didn’t those other 40% turn out and why did the other side come out 100% as you say?
You will find it relates to issues, candidates, etc.
THAT is the reason for loss. Not the numbers reason.
Well, let’s also keep in mind that you would never expect the same turnout in a single candidate special election that you would a general on a presidential year, especially the incredible level there was for 2008. So it is not really the numbers; actually the sheer total number of people voting seems pretty decent all things considered. The tell is in who came out and why, not the total number.
Lanny Davis wrote:
(my bold)
Wow, I think I am witnessing a disinformation campaign against people doing research and exposing facts.
Trying to “couch fact finding” as extremism is an attempt at trying to shut the fact finding down.
What facts might Lanny be trying to suppress?
Interesting use of the word “change.”
Professor Foland,
Thank you for your comment @ 10.
“The question is, will we stop listening to the strident, purist base of our party who seem to prefer defeat to winning elections and no change at all if they don’t get all the change they want.”
That would be 60% of Americans Lanny is referring to.
When will these folks get it the “public option” IS the compromise.
No single payer
No public option
No expansion of medicare
“all the change they want” Where?
Here is the exit polling results
I am one of the 86% who believe that it’s better to pass the bill before Congress rather than nothing at all.
Reason: My assumption that it will not return for 5-7 years.
I could be way off, but no one has come forward to convince me otherwise.
“Health care has been a huge issue in this election. Fifty-two percent (52%) of Brown voters say it was the most important issue in determining their vote. Sixty-three percent (63%) of Coakley voters say health care was the top issue:
• 78% of Brown voters Strongly Oppose the health care legislation before Congress.
• 52% of Coakley supporters Strongly Favor the health care plan. Another 41% Somewhat Favor the legislation.
• 61% of Brown voters say deficit reduction is more important than health care reform.
• 46% of Coakley voters say health care legislation more important than deficit reduction.
• 86% of Coakley voters say it’s better to pass the bill before Congress rather than nothing at all.
• 88% of Brown voters say it’s better to pass nothing at all.
• 22% of Democrats voted for Brown. That is generally consistent with pre-election polling.”
Do we know how much funding Brown was receiving from the insurance companies? the Financial sector?
Haven’t seen any definitive numbers, but I bet investigative journalists
are taking a look see.
thanks for another great post. i agree completely with your analysis. from this liberal/progressive’s point of view, dissatisfaction with the dems over health care reform is all about backroom deals and the lack of at least a public option.
professor Roland @10
At last, some useful information to help us start understanding what happened in
Ma.
Thanks
The universal Healthcare in Massachusetts (Romney Care),passed into legislation in 2006, had as one of its key architects an economist named Jonathan Gruber.
Yes, the SAME Jonathan Gruber whose propretary modeling is being used in the national HCR.
So, the folks in Massachusetts have had a pay for preview look . And a lot of them don’t like what they have seen.
This is where it gets tricky.
In his press conference about an hour ago, Brown said that 98% of folks
are covered by insurance in Mass. Seems to say that Mass residents are
happy with the status quo, and that any health care reform should be on a state-by-state basis…
I strongly disagree. If he is saying that it is good for Mass, why not the entire country…
Everybody spins cuz health care reform has so many moving parts, it is a haven for spinners.
Post up the links for the media coverage of this fact when you find them please.
Since the media didn’t discuss this before the loss, I’m sure it can’t be
missed as they search for additional facts to report on this most shocking electoral result.
states would have difficulty adopting the Massachusetts approach without levying new fees on hospitals and insurers to create a similar pool or raising taxes, several policy specialists said.
“It was a great plan in Massachusetts, but the notion that you could do this nationally is simply laughable,” said Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economist and member of the Health Insurance Connector Authority board that oversees the Massachusetts program. “If you’re going to cover the uninsured nationally you’re going to have to raise new funds.”
Gruber added yesterday, “He gets credit for a brilliant plan here in Massachusetts but he should be honest about what it takes to create such a plan nationally.”
Romney Health Plan Difficult to Copy”,Michael Levenson, Globe Staff
11/03/07
Romney’s universal healthcare idea can’t be copied in most states …Nov 3, 2007 … Romney health plan difficult to copy … The free care pool in Massachusetts “made it feasible to put this approach together without any …
http://www.boston.com › News › Nation – Similar
Romney’s universal healthcare idea can’t be copied in most states …Nov 3, 2007 … Romney health plan difficult to copy … He has also pointedly criticized universal healthcare plans offered by Senator Hillary Clinton, …
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/…/romney_health_plan_difficult_to_copy
ot
Scott Horton interview over at Democracy now
Casting Doubt on US Claims of Suicide, Attorney Scott Horton Reveals 3 Gitmo Prisoners Died After Torture at Secret Site
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/20/casting_doubt_on_us_claims_of
That was a really good show today with Amy talking with the doctor from Partners in Health and her stand-in talking with Horton. Too bad that show doesn’t have a wider audience. Good reason to donate to Democracy Now!, Free Speech TV and LINK TV (because those two carry DN) on satelitte (I don’t know about cable) because of the coverage they provide.
She is a gift from heaven. Committed to the truth. Last year I attended the Peace Ball after the Presidential inauguration just across from Union station in D.C.. (forget the name of the building) Bellafonte, Joan Baez all speakers. Amy I believe was the main speaker. She was pounding on the Israeli government for the slaughter in the Gaza. She grabbed onto the jugular and would not let up. I watched many mostly men walking out of the Peace Ball. They could not stand her truth telling
Haiti being hit again
http://airamerica.com/news/
I don’t know how it factored in in ma,
But at least some dem votes Obama got in 2008 were from folks dems who vote indifferently and infrequently,e.g., the young.
That provides a testable hypothesis given all the voting breakouts available after American elections.
Who stayed home?
Why is a harder question to answer and is not the place to start.
Romney, Clinton health care plans similar-experts
Fri Oct 5, 2007 Jason Szep
BOSTON, Oct 5 (Reuters) – When it comes to health care, Republican Mitt Romney loves to take swipes at Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton
Romney is quick to remind supporters of the U.S. senator from New York’s dramatic 1993 failure to reform U.S. health care, which many Americans felt overstepped the role of first lady.
Despite all that, experts say Clinton’s plan borrows heavily from one Romney signed into law when he was governor of Massachusetts, which made the liberal state the first in the United States with near-universal health insurance.
“Hillary’s plan is just like the Massachusetts plan. There’s not a whole lot of difference,” said Jonathan Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economics professor who was an adviser to Romney on the state’s health care reform law.
Like Clinton’s plan, the law Romney signed in April 2006 is underpinned by an “individual mandate” compelling people to buy health insurance. Both plans entail subsidies and government regulations. For those in Massachusetts earning less than the federal poverty level of $9,800, free coverage is provided.
But health policy experts and independent political analysts say Massachusetts’ health care costs rose after the law was introduced.”The plan is much more expensive than it was originally expected. If you have a lot of government mandates, it pushes up the cost,” said Sally Pipes, president Pacific Research Institute, a think tank that promotes free-market policies.State government spending on health care from 2001 to 2007 rose 25 percent in real terms, according to a June report by the New England Healthcare Institute.
Linky to follow
THAT’S why we MUST have a Public Option. Free market structure is fine if you have competition and the PO provides that. Senate Communist Conservatives don’t want competition or price controls of any kind.
@#31
Romney, Clinton health care plans similar-experts | ReutersBOSTON, Oct 5 (Reuters) – When it comes to health care, Republican Mitt Romney loves to take swipes at Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN17331819 – Cached
NOTE: My personal opinion is that Davis is being called in as wagonmaster to circle the wagons re: the HCR.
For the record, Lanny Davis was/is closely affiliated with the Clintons.
Secondly, Gruber worked in the Clinton White House in 1997-1998.
I get the feeling that Jane’s question to Uncle Lanny still applies “who is paying you?” Who is paying you?
I’m going to make this quick because I’ll be spending most of the rest of the afternoon giving presentations for my real job. Lanny Davis is wronger than all the other pundits and his b.s. just more transparent. I disagree with both Lanny and Marcy about the defeat of the message, not the messenger. There’s just no evidence to support that theory.
Almost everything people ‘know’ about politics is wrong. Senate elections are never ‘national elections’. When there is a open Senate seat, the election is always about the candidates and the campaign. Coakley’s biggest mistake was letting the Republicans think they could win. The blue states are never as blue as they appear (same is true for the red states). Just look at what happened in Indiana in 2008.
When one side has no hope of winning, some of their voters stay home. Take a look at the state polls in the 2008 presidential election. The battleground state results were all well within the margin of error for polls in that state. In the really Red and really Blue states, the ‘home’ team consistently did better than expected every single time. In a Presidential election the effect is only about 2-3% because a lot of people will show up for that race no matter what. In off-year elections the effect can be much greater.
The biggest mistake that the Dems could make is acting like a bunch of failures because that plays into a long term perception of the party. I’m not quite sure why they are so stupid. The best thing to do now (politically) is to try to ram through a health care bill and when Joe Lieberman stabs them in the back, they should throw him out of the party. Tacking back and forth after every special election makes the Dems look weak and inconsistent. The Dems have a huge demographic advantage coming up in the next few years and they seem determined to squander it. Bleh!
Coakley started hemorrhaging support the day Obama started capitulating to Lieberman and Nelson. And a huge number of people on both sides say the HCR was central to their voting decision.
Then there’s the poll that showed of Obama voters who voted yesterday, 18% voted for Brown, and of those, over 60% said HCR was central to their reasons for voting for Brown.
I came across this interview ,and thought it might be of interest to you.
Jonathan Gruber and Me, David Henderson | EconLog | Library of …Jonathan Gruber has gotten some negative press for not revealing that he received substantial payments from the Obama Administration while also writing a … economist with President Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers, agrees. …
econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/01/gruber_and_me.html – Cached
link did not work for me.
I think this might be it. Link:
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/01/gruber_and_me.html
Thank you qweryous.
The interesting part to me is the mention of David Cutler .
David Cutler,also of Harvard, has collaborated with Gruber on MANY studies.
If you type Gruber and Cutler into der Google, there are MANY interesting links.
As a side note, I am wondering if that “Proprietary modeling “was incorporated(no pun intended) into devising the Clinton Health Plan?
13% of Democrats voted for McCain, which has to somehow be taken into account when trying to estimate the crossover/swingvote contribution. Scott Brown outperformed McCain by 32 points relatively (but only by about 5% absolutely).
So Scott Brown overperformed McCain somewhere between 5 and 8 points among Democrats / Obama voters. Depending on how you distribute that over the independents, that would make up 10-20 points of a 32 point overperformance relative to McCain. Leaving you with 12-22 points of just raw “showing up”.
It is the economy, stupid, and the sooner Obama grasps that, the better for his and the nation’s prospects. A new Wall Street Journal/NBC poll finds that “Americans ranked job creation and economic growth as their clear top priority for the federal government, well above national security and deficit reduction. Health care, Mr. Obama’s top domestic priority in 2009, now ranks fourth, closely trailing the deficit and government spending.”
Of course, the public is right. In the midst of the worst economic crisis in 70 years, why waste enormous political capital battling to pass a health care plan that is modeled on a proven failure in Massachusetts, as voters there clearly registered? Meanwhile, the president has dropped the ball in the effort to make bankers act responsibly by forcing them to forego outrageous bonuses and help homeowners stay in their homes.Robert Scheer: What Massachusetts Got RightJan 20, 2010 … The president got creamed in Massachusetts. No amount of blaming this disastrous outcome on the weaknesses of the local Democratic candidate …
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…/what-massachusetts-got-ri_b_429298.html – 10 hours ago
The public isn’t always right. If we only responded to immediate needs and never put away for the future, then the Republicans would always keep us on the edge of disaster, so we could only respond with the military and tax cuts (so businesses can keep employing people at slave-wages).
Doing the HCR in the face of that Republican strategy is necessary to break their stranglehold on the budget and on policy during Dem years.
Allow them this one thing and we will never get anything done.
Thanks for that link. Is there a timeline to this disaster/victory/event in the works?
re: Lieberman ,Clinton and Davis-as per Wiki
Lanny Davis is the Treasurer for Joe Lieberman’s Reuniting Our Country PAC. [2]
Davis started his legal career as an associate at Patton Boggs in 1975 and became a partner in 1978. He served as special counsel to the President from 1996 to 1998,* during which time he also was the spokesman for Clinton in issues regarding campaign finance investigations and other legal issues, including President Clinton’s impeachment trial.
After leaving the White House, Davis returned to Patton Boggs. As part of his work there, he worked as a lobbyist for the nation of Pakistan prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001.[8]In 2006, through opinions expressed in the Wall Street Journal (August 8, 2006) and on Fox News, Davis strongly supported longtime friend Joseph Lieberman in his losing bid against Ned Lamont for the Democratic Party nomination for the post of U.S. Senator from Connecticut.** He then continued to support Lieberman when he ran and won the General Election as an Independent.
In 2008, Davis supported Senator Hillary Clinton in her race for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States, and has appeared on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC as a surrogate for her. After Clinton conceded, Davis went on to support Barack Obama.[9]
He is a senior advisor and spokesman for the Israel Project, and serves as a lobbyist for the Pakistani government.
Davis is currently engaged in lobbying efforts for the Latin American Business Council of Honduras (CEAL), defending the Honduran military authorities’ removal of President Zelaya from power in the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis,[11] which Davis has argued was constitutional and proper.
*-The same time frame Gruber was working in Clinton White House .
** Coincidentally, the same year the Romney Care of Massachusetts was passed into legislation.
Please deposit another $75,000 for more Lanny Davis wisdom.
Yes, but use the link on the right of this page to make that donation. We’ll make sure it gets to Lanny….
Having some roots on eastern seaboard, it was clear to me that the lassitude factor mentioned in professor Foland*s review was to be a key element in the outcome of the election. MA will not settle for a Republican senator for very long. The longevity of EMK*s tenure was a natural influence in a national bipartisan system to weight the outcome toward a challenger from the party long out of office. Much has changed in society, even in New England, since a very young Ted took office. Now MA will take a fresh look at what its surrogates in the Senate are doing. In the firstpersonsingular, I avoid the anticorporate hype from the *left*, mostly; from my peripheral vantage, the mythologic proportions of the aggregate which is represented by Inc continue to embue my intellectual framework with a quantum of respect. There is room in the business world for creativity and fairness, along with profit; the Democrats could improve government oversight to encourage the business sector to improve ethics. Even though Copenhagen was a jumble, I thought Obama brought the focus where it belonged by aggregating the most polluting nations* leaders to address one of Bushco*s primary grievances, though Bushco simply treated that administration*s avowed disinterest in Kyoto as utilitarian empty rhetoric and an excuse to continue avoidance of environment. In the state where I have lived a long time, there are two longtime senators which represent a similar risk to the Democratic party in the next few election cycles as what occurred in MA. The two party system craves a counterpoint phase, even if, as in this state, the Republican party comprises only 2/5 of the votership. That the Republican minority in the Senate has become so nonamorphous as to wield a cloture based threat at every Democratic party initiative signifies a deeper malaise in government effectiveness, as if the art of compromise finally has been cast out of the quiver of any Republican, save a few, from New England.
@#40
Incidentally, for purposes of the record, Mr.Gruber’s position in the Clinton White House,circa 1997-1998 was the Assistant Deputy Secretary for Economic Policy for the US Treasury.
Lanny’s a lobbyist, whatever other uniform he wears from time to time. That he’s working for Holy Joe on a Newt Gingrich like contract-agreement-pact-hand slap-spit handshake with America, pretty much tells you whose perspective he’s selling today.
Changing topics briefly to rant about actually governing the country, I see that Errol Southers has withdrawn his nomination to head the still headless TSA. You know, the guys and gals who control little things like airport security. The GOP had blocked his appointment for months, thanks to South Carolinian Jim DeMint’s hold. Funny how outside of Hilton Head’s private air strip(s), the best airport in South Carolina is in Charlotte (NC).
If Southers has withdrawn, can Johnsen be far behind? I expect her to pull the plug in frustration within a month.
If Obama continues to let high profile appointments like this remain hijacked by obstructionist senators (GOP’ers or Lieberputz), he will endanger the country by refusing to take them on and overpower their objections. His job is to properly staff his government, not to beg permission from his lifelong opponents. Harsh words and honey won’t do it; it will be up to Obama and Reid to force some of these appointments through without empty comity or a 60-vote majority.
Ship captains who can only sail in calm winds and smooth waters are ensigns promoted well beyond their competence.
Well, it doesn’t help when you are sailing without a compass…a moral compass, that is.
Heh, you have to wonder about how that magic wand that suddenly confirms Johnsen is going to work now. And if, perchance, Collins or Snowe will vote for cloture, I would sure like Mr. Obama’s explanation for why he couldn’t have gotten it done last year. Not that I have been thinking about this little issue since early last evening or anything…..
OT, or not.
Since such a high percentage of folks are plugged in and multi-tasking as we watch the talking heads, and since most talking heads and/or their shows have websites, why not post their “who’s paying you” info so we can learn in real time who’s under the skin of the Lanny or Moe or Curly Joe face. Kinda like The Terminator after Arnold’s run in with the gasoline tanker.
This seems like the kind of thing Rachel might be interested in, and it’d be useful to know that while Jane is flesh and blood, Lanny is titanium and pharmaceuticals (or insurance contracts of adhesion, or whatever.)
Taking it a step too far, hosts could superimpose corporate sponsorships on the T-Heads, a la NASCAR drivers, with logos proportional to $$ contributions.
{whew, three pint cuppas before 11 a.m. really sets me off!}
hilarious and true.
OT–
Tamron Hall, today on MSNBC:
“Its not a reality show, its the real thing.”
I am shocked, shocked, to learn that reality shows aren’t the real thing. What next???
This has been another chapter in the degradation of the English language.
Bob in AZ
fwiw, healthcare was probably my #1 issue (as part of the corporate bailout and screw the public agenda) yesterday because both the house and senate bills as far as i can tell are worse than romneycare.
coakley campaigning on obamacare was not something that encouraged my support.
I just love that “Monty Burns” Davis vs Jane Hamsher video-still. Cracks me up every time I see it.
Lanny Davis or Monty Burns.
I’ve just lost a bunch more confidence in Obama — as if that was possible. I just read this over at TPM:
WTF!? He must have heard about this poll:
WTF is up with 41% not knowing why they opposed it? FOX listeners?
it’s insanity.
The essential feature of “comity”, a concept Mr. Obama clings to as if it were his right arm, is reciprocity – the behavior of extending to someone else the recognition, respect and courtesy one demands oneself. In Mr. Obama’s case, that would start with respect for the validity of his election and his right to the privileges of his office, and professional respect for his conduct and demeanor as president.
More practically, it would mean agreement that promoting the common welfare of all Americans was a goal of right and left, however much the parties might argue and disagree about the means and method of doing so.
Today’s GOP concedes not an iota of that to Barack Hussein Obama. It objects to his name and everything else about him and his presidency. For them, he is the Rodney Dangerfield of presidents.
Mr. Bush once famously muffed an old saying that goes, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” Mr. Obama must be wondering what happens when you allow yourself to be fooled again and again into thinking that the GOP will cooperate on anything. That he is unfailingly polite to the Right and equally unfailingly impolite to the left should cause all Americans to pause and question his priorities and competence. That he keeps turning the other cheek and that both of his keep getting redder in the process should make him pause and consider that in America, politics and the bible go hand in hand only when both are in white Republican hands.
Perhaps there is some confusion, in the “sanctum sanctorum”.
A revisiting of the significant difference between comity and appeasement might just be what the doctor ordered.
And although Ayn Rand is not one of my usual quote sources, she scores a bullseye in these excerpts:
Appeasement — Ayn Rand Lexicon
Do not confuse appeasement with tactfulness or generosity. Appeasement is not consideration for the feelings of others, it is consideration for and …
aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/appeasement.html – Cached – Similar
The truly and deliberately evil men are a very small minority; it is the appeaser who unleashes them on mankind; it is the appeaser’s intellectual abdication that invites them to take over.
When a culture’s dominant trend is geared to irrationality, the thugs win over the appeasers. When intellectual leaders fail to foster the best in the mixed, unformed, vacillating character of people at large, the thugs are sure to bring out the worst. When the ablest men turn into cowards, the average men turn into brutes.
“Altruism as Appeasement,” The Objectivist, Jan. 1966,
NOTER: Earl I was not referring to YOUR “sanctum sanctorum.” *G*
here’s the poll off of the DFA page
as I said in any earlier thread, there’s lots in this poll
Agree-needs careful look.
This is amazing and worth repeating!
dick c wrote:
Aside from the ‘wtf’ response to the 41 percent who don’t know why they oppose it…
Were the 36% who thought it didn’t go far enough Dems who voted for Brown? Or, were they really Republicans who thought the reforms needs the Public Option?
Enquiring minds want to know.
Don’t these assholes ever get tired of whoring themselves for corporations?
That was a rhetorical outburst, obviously. Sorry.
Can Lanny be shipped as a gift to RNC headquarters. And could we do the same for Mark Penn and Bob Schrum?
“Finally, Lanny invents a mythical Barack Obama who at one point supported neither a mandate nor a public option.”
Maybe lanny the lying corporate lobbyist is hearkening back to the “early” obama campaign days ( like well into july 08) when he HAD NO PUBLISHED health care proposal at all. But that shouldnt count either. but who knows with people like lanny?
Lanny Davis and his fucking Corporatist well heeled “insider” crap is whats KILLING the Dems. once again. This is going to be 1994 all over again. This time with the Tea baggers standing on the steps of the Capitol promising the moon and the stars just like the Gingrich Contract on America crowd. Its total BS but u can thank the likes of Lanny and Rahm and the rest of the Presidents Corporatist pals for the coming beating the party is going to endure. How little they’ve learned all these yrs. The problem is they keep running left and governing rt. and they think since it worked OK in the 90’s they’ll just pull it off again. Not this time. America is in far worse shapre then in 1994.
The Amish have pretty good technology. They just choose what they want to have. (Steam-driven stuff and pneumatic devices over electric and gasoline-powered devices, for expmple.)
(Don’t confuse them with medieval society, because they aren’t.)
TPM is reporting the Dems in the Senate are now crying about not having the votes to pass anything.
Funny: last time I looked, 59 was still a lot more than 41, and a majority in the Senate.
If they actually listened to their constituents and did their f*cking jobs, they’d be passing bills every day, instead of whining as if they were the ones with 41 votes.
The Dem response to the Coakley fiasco will be right out their playbook: double down on the whoring in the hopes they can get enough fat cat $$$ to survive the beating that awaits them in November. Yeah, it’s a stupid losing strategy. But hey, we’re talking Democrats here folks.
STILL smokin’ in the back room?
Big Tobacco Seeks Deal in Federal Racketeering Case
January 19, 2010
A secret meeting between U.S. Justice Department officials and representatives of major U.S. tobacco firms included talks about both sides dropping planned Supreme Court appeals of a major racketeering case, the Associated Press reported Jan. 16.
Tobacco executives reportedly asked Solicitor General Elena Kagan to drop an appeal of a lower-court ruling that the government couldn’t collect a requested $280-billion in past industry profits or compel the companies to fund a $14-billion nationwide stop-smoking campaign. In return, the tobacco firms discussed the possibility of the industry dropping its own appeal of the lower-court case, which found tobacco firms guilty of racketeering.
Internal documents show that the Justice Department is considering a deal, although possibly one including a multibillion-dollar settlement from tobacco firms.The decade-long racketeering lawsuit ended with U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler ruling that the industry falsely denied the health impact of smoking, hid evidence about the addictiveness of nicotine, and manipulated nicotine levels in cigarettes to encourage addiction. Those findings were later upheld by a federal appeals court.
Links to follow
To everyone here:
Lanny sucks. I’d say it to his face. Shit, like Raven, I’ve faced much worse in Viet Nam.
The big question here is Jane. I think she’s a fox and would pursue her.
But she hews to the Dem line.
We need a fucking revolution, folks. Not more of the same.
Of course Lanny Davis is in the pockets of big pharma… but he is not alone. Dems and Repubs are eating from the trough too. We have a corptocracy not a democracy and the only green party with a chance is the one with all the money.
This was not just about insurance or choice.
It was also about the taboo healthcare debate:
Marijuana.
Coakley’s given lip service to medical marijuana.
Well, that might have been good enough in the 90s or the 00s.
This, however, is 2010 and the people of Massachusetts know how Prohibitionomics™ works:
1. Prohibit
2. Provide
3. Prosecute
4. Profit
80% percent of of all voters support medical marijuana.
Progressives support recreational marijuana.
Democrats need to figure that out.
Or they need to go bye-bye.
Marijuana = economic issue.
Marijuana = environment issue.
Marijuana = health issue.
Marijuana = liberty issue.
Davis was just trying to be the first
With a narrative for explaining what happened. His narrative is designed as a defense to
Prevent Lieberman from playing a starting role in ” who lost MA”.
And guess what.
He succeeded. It’s his narrative we’re discussing.
And I forgot to mention the big draw. There are a lot of Amish and Mennonite farms and the one thing they have in common is they believe that usury is unacceptable. When they buy property they pay cash.
I remember reading that they make the sons buy the land they intend to farm, rather than giving it to them, as many other groups would.
Big Tobacco Seeks Deal in Federal Racketeering Case – 18 hours ago
… US tobacco firms included talks about both sides dropping planned Supreme Court appeals of a major racketeering case, the Associated Press reported Jan. …
JoinTogether.org – 362 related articles »
Big Tobacco makes secret plea to avoid payout – Addictions- msnbc.comJan 16, 2010 … Big Tobacco makes secret plea to avoid payout. Industry wants to keep Supreme Court out of racketeering lawsuit …
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34894780/ns/health-addictions/ – Cached
Regardless of all the polls the biggest one is the one where people voted. Its very true that it is not the end of the world, but progressives must listen. We need to stop the appearance of apologizing for what we want and start shoutin like the right wing does at our rallies. They have one guy or girl they pay just to go and scream and yell and disrupt our speakers and our meetings when the camera.s are running so we look disorganized and defensive. We dont like it and we rarely do it at their meetings, but we need to start….
And stop listening to all the negative folks. Hey, we still have both houses of congress and the executive….so what are we doing about it? Stop sitting on your hands Dems and start passing some bills like health care….now !!! We need to UNITE…because the t-bag barb and t-bag bob are ready to pounce if we don’t !!!
There’s a whole lot more room in a “tent” than a TEApee.
ask lanny to explain these numbers from MA.
What happened to the nearly 1 million MORE folks who went to the polls?
By no coincidence they voted for Obama a year ago.
Scott Brown got the same vote total as Obama, but Coakley got 900k fewer votes.
Dem turnout and independent turnout disappeared.
here is some food, rather, numbers for thought:
MA Election results
2010 election
1,168,000 brown
1,059,000 coakley
20,000 others
2,247,000
2008 election
1,109,000 mccain
1,904,000 obama
100,000 others
3,113,000 total
Brown wins with about the same vote as McCain got.
Where were the 900k or so voters that didnt show up at all and who just a year ago gave Obama the win. Brown ran identical numbers to McCain, but Coakley drew 900k fewer.
There are about 1.5 million Dems, .5 million Goopers, and 2 million no party voters in MA.
Thank you Jane for fighting the fight. These guys are use to being able to hide the largess they receive. The internet has changed this.
You did a great job exposing Lanny. His credibility is shot now.
Bravo!
Lanny should only be allowed on MSNBC’s Morning Joe as he is Fox News DNA all the way.
But if Jane needed to knock him down, better it should be on Ed’s show.
I saw Beck say he looked at the new Senator Brown – and now expects a dead intern in Brown’s future. Which brings me back to why not to go on Morning Joe – it may not be safe for women – even ladies not smitten by Joe’s charms/
I do recall that just for the record,- – the women found dead in MSNBC’s Morning Joe’s office when he was a Republican Congressman – and obviously before his divorce – a locked office – was not an “intern” – it was Lori Klausutis, a 28-year-old office worker for Rep. Joe Scarborough (R-Fl),- and this was not really reported very well in the media – Joe’s hometown newspaper, the Pensacola News Journal only ran three brief articles buried within the newspaper. The cut on her head was from “falling and hitting her head on a desk” – – and while no sex/rape kit findings were reported – and while violent sex with a mistress was perhaps guessed – the police “found no evidence of foul play”. The divorce accusations were not made public. Perhaps this is the problem Beck was referring to?
In any case I prefer Jane stick to Ed’s show as I do not see much deterrence from what has happen in the past to ladies that knew Morning Joe. I doubt that whatever happens re Beck’s “bodies in the office”, Senator Brown need not worry as long as he stays a republican.
So going off topic a bit – Jane – only confront Lanny on Ed’s show – avoid Joe’s show – and could we get Lanny confined to Fox shows?
my error….on the 4th line that should read:
Brown got the same number of votes as
ObamaMcCainLanny might not have had a good explanation, but at least it was better than the one Obama gave of having lost contact with the people. Saying he thought if he put the policy out there people would understand the reasoning behind it.
That might work if he had been a hermit or something. But he was out there talking and town halling all through the year. On health care alone he gave several speeches and town halls.
No, people can understand no public option. People can understand mandated buying of a private vendor’s product. People can understand back room deals.
If he really believes what he said, he is in more trouble than he thinks.
If they don’t pull their heads out of where the sun don’t shine this loss is going to be a day in Disneyland compared to what is coming. Spin it however you want Lanni. You should all walk around with a huge L on your foreheads.
Everybody looks and sees their own reason for the loss. And that reason they come up with is generally designed to make them right somehow. We didn’t do this and we didn’t do that. And each of the this’s and that’s happen to be whatever that person supports. Or, it was the candidate–meaning what I was doing was right, it was what she was doing that was wrong.
So, it is with the state of political analysis these days.
peterboy @84
nice work. those numbers give us the basic picture of what happened.
somebody, actually several hundred thousand somebodys, wasn’t interested in voting this time around.
wonder if we will see this pattern repeat itself in other states?
if so, that might suggest that a fair proportion of obama votes in 2008 were a fluke, a oned-time thing, a one-night stand by a highly-aroused populace.
Answer: Lanny Davis
Question: Who’s a bigger political punditry whore than Dick Morris?
For the love of God, if this administation who ran on the platform of change,transparency,and accountabilty can’t or doesn’t WANT to understand that there are goddamn consequences to bait-and-switch…then WHAT LOGICAL reason is this admisitration providing for we taxpayers for continuing to CTA?*
*Cover their asses
If the Dem leadership moves any further right, I see no alternative but a progressive third party. Having a majority means nothing if you are going to compromise all your core beliefs.
Move to the Right? Why would they do that? Maybe worse, HOW would they do that? There’s no more votes there and we had to give away the tent to get any HCR out of the Senate. It’s pointless.
Of course, there’s nowhere to the Left to get more votes either.
The answer is that nothing the minorities oppose will get out of committee.
We’re into administration & foreign policy and small-ball legislating now. Well…, after HCR is squeezed out in some form or other.
Lng term leaqse Lanny is on Mr. Ed- MSNBC -right now!
Lanny is a complete MORON.
Lanny lives in La La Land, he thinks the current Senate HCR scam Bill is to liberal.
Forget Joe the Weasel liberman, Ben the Dummy Nelson, we progressive dems need to reach out to John McCain? What?
Lanny this HCR scam Bill must makes you a lot of money.
Lanny ends the discussion with a great joke! Lanny says he is a liberal.
That was my reaction. He seems to favor throwing ourselves at McCain’s feet and begging him to tell us how to fix health care. How well has that worked, so far?
What a piece of crap. This guy Lanny is a joke.
Bob in AZ
I had a reaction that was much more basic:
F*ck Lanny Davis.
And the white elephant he rode in on.
Lanny Davis is one of the bad guys: a Wall Street elite who uses the two-party system to rob us blind.
Any suggestion that what happened yesterday should be interpreted as a need for the democrats to move to the right is arrant horseshit.
But, I could type for a month and I couldn’t beat this piece by Dr. Drew Westen of Emory University. And I don’t think anyone else will, either.
For all of us who are bitter and angry and frustrated, I believe the simple act of reading the stone truth about the Massachusetts election, will be some consolation, and a little balm for our ravaged senses. Here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/obama-finally-gets-his-vi_b_429232.html
Peter Dreier: “Go Out And Make Me Do It”Sep 10, 2009 … Echoing FDR, Obama was saying, “Go out and make me do it.” Peter Dreier teaches Politics at Occidental College in Los Angeles. …
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…/go-out-and-make-me-do-it_b_281631.html – Cached – Similar
@105
Folks, is this guy for real?
The best spin I heard today was from Cong. Grayson (OK, I like the guy) who said on Ed Shultz’s radio show that Coakley lost because she didn’t have a knowlege of sports, said knowledge being really important to Bostonians.
Tanbark @103
Your’re right. This is a fine commentary, the wisest I’ve read today.
I would add a personal observation about Obama that I noted when he first went national:
The guy does not have any passion for anything. His speeches, which commenters slaver over as eloquent, seem to
Me to lack any display of strong personal caring.
Well,is it syncronicity that this occured on the eve of the one year anniversary of Obama’s adminisration?
Haven’t heard that fact mentioned.
Type in Obama first year anniversary into der Google for some other folks’ opinions.
Lanny Davis reminds me of Glenn Beck.
I would like to see him cry now about the Mass. defeat of another corporatist shill.
So, who actually won?
http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/8/80830.html
With the thought that laughter IS the best medicine, or one of them, I commend this to all of us. It’s from Driftglass, and I aint shittin’ you an inch; it’s gonna be the photoshoppe of the year. I’m laughing so hard I can hardly type. :o) :o) o)
http://driftglass.blogspot.com/2010/01/where-did-we-go-wrong-rahm.html