There is a rueful note in today's New York Times report of impending White House triumph in "a process that has at times seemed on the brink of anarchy":
"After months of plodding work by five Congressional committees and weeks of back-room bargaining by Democratic leaders, President Obama’s arms-length strategy on health care appears to be paying dividends, with the House and the Senate poised to take up legislation to insure nearly all Americans."
One criticism of all this chaos can be easily dismissed--that, as Matthew Yglesias shows, "Obama needs to be nicer to Republicans." Lack of bipartisanship on health care is like accusing the President of refusing to play tennis when nobody is on the other side of the net.
More important is the reality of Democratic Sen. Benjamin Cardin's observation, “When you are seeking 60 votes, every person is a kingmaker."
For only one example out of many, there is loathsome Joe Lieberman who, after being allowed to keep his committee chairmanship despite campaigning for McCain last year, is threatening to filibuster against any public option in totally predictable loyalty to the insurance companies that dominate his state rather than the President who forgave his own disloyalty.
Meanwhile, as the Wall Street Journal rails against "The Worst Bill Ever" ("Epic new spending and taxes, pricier insurance, rationed care, dishonest accounting: The Pelosi health bill has it all"), it's hard to refute those epic distortions about the many thousands of dense pages that are working their way through both houses of Congress.
These coming weeks will be a test for the Obama "arm's-length strategy," his instinct for consensus rather than strong leadership from the top.
According to one of his favorite philosophers, Reinhold Niebuhr, "Moral reason must learn how to make coercion its ally without running the risk of a Pyrrhic victory in which the ally exploits and negates the triumph."
But on the other hand, the mid-20th century's most eminent Protestant theologian never had to contemplate the arm-twisting that passes for reasoning with both allies and foes on Capitol Hill.
As in the debate over Afghanistan, the President is going to have to step up with decisiveness and persuade all the competing interests to follow his leadership.
Showing posts with label Nancy Pelosi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nancy Pelosi. Show all posts
Monday, November 02, 2009
Friday, August 07, 2009
Unhealthy Debate About Health Care
Left and right, anxiety over the ugly turn of American politics this month is provoking conflict about the conflict.
Paul Krugman decries "recent town halls, where angry protesters--some of them, with no apparent sense of irony, shouting “This is America!”--have been drowning out, and in some cases threatening, members of Congress trying to talk about health reform."
Across the ideological divide, Peggy Noonan finds, "What the protesters are saying is, 'You are terrifying us,'" expressing "a feeling of rebellion, an uprising against change they do not believe in."
Both sides agree that some of the outrage is trumped up--by "well-heeled interest groups...crass as they come" (Krugman) or the White House itself (Noonan), compiling an "enemies list" with an "email address to which citizens are asked to report instances of 'disinformation' in the health-care debate."
According to The Hill, "The showdowns between lawmakers and constituents have not only fueled the high-stakes battle over healthcare reform but also started a debate over the authenticity of the interruptions.
"With websites like EmbarrassYourCongressman.com encouraging activists to upload video and pictures from the heated meetings, Democratic members are asking Speaker Nancy Pelosi whether they should continue holding town hall meetings with large numbers of people...
"The Speaker has advised her rank and file to do what they deem appropriate. She said scheduled town hall meetings should go ahead as planned. There are other ways to get the message out, including tele-town halls, interviews, one-on-one meetings with constituents and news conferences, leadership aides said."
We are a long way, as Krugman notes, from the Norman Rockwell painting illustrating FDR’s "Four Freedoms" that "shows an ordinary citizen expressing an unpopular opinion. His neighbors obviously don’t like what he’s saying, but they’re letting him speak his mind."
For an historical parallel, we have to go back even more to William Butler Yeat's post-World War I poem, "The Second Coming":
"Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;/Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.../The best lack all conviction, while the worst/Are full of passionate intensity."
Paul Krugman decries "recent town halls, where angry protesters--some of them, with no apparent sense of irony, shouting “This is America!”--have been drowning out, and in some cases threatening, members of Congress trying to talk about health reform."
Across the ideological divide, Peggy Noonan finds, "What the protesters are saying is, 'You are terrifying us,'" expressing "a feeling of rebellion, an uprising against change they do not believe in."
Both sides agree that some of the outrage is trumped up--by "well-heeled interest groups...crass as they come" (Krugman) or the White House itself (Noonan), compiling an "enemies list" with an "email address to which citizens are asked to report instances of 'disinformation' in the health-care debate."
According to The Hill, "The showdowns between lawmakers and constituents have not only fueled the high-stakes battle over healthcare reform but also started a debate over the authenticity of the interruptions.
"With websites like EmbarrassYourCongressman.com encouraging activists to upload video and pictures from the heated meetings, Democratic members are asking Speaker Nancy Pelosi whether they should continue holding town hall meetings with large numbers of people...
"The Speaker has advised her rank and file to do what they deem appropriate. She said scheduled town hall meetings should go ahead as planned. There are other ways to get the message out, including tele-town halls, interviews, one-on-one meetings with constituents and news conferences, leadership aides said."
We are a long way, as Krugman notes, from the Norman Rockwell painting illustrating FDR’s "Four Freedoms" that "shows an ordinary citizen expressing an unpopular opinion. His neighbors obviously don’t like what he’s saying, but they’re letting him speak his mind."
For an historical parallel, we have to go back even more to William Butler Yeat's post-World War I poem, "The Second Coming":
"Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;/Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.../The best lack all conviction, while the worst/Are full of passionate intensity."
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Makings of a Mismatch
Hearty laughs are so scarce these days that political observers should be grateful for news that John Boehner has ordered his House pygmies to attack President Obama directly instead of aiming their fire at Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a "triangulation" strategy.
Unleashing the likes of Eric Cantor and Mike Spence, who launched the effort by taking aim at Obama's campaign promise about earmarks, will remind old timers of the movie, "The Mouse That Roared," in which the world's smallest nation, on the brink of bankruptcy, attacks the US with a handful of warriors in chain mail and carrying long bows, to get attention and some kind of reparations.
Boehner, apparently miffed by the White House emphasis on Rush Limbaugh as the face of the Republicans, wants the spotlight back.
“This," he said after rallying his troops, "is nothing more than a distraction created by the administration to take people’s attention away from the fact that they’re going to raise taxes and grow the size of government.”
If the GOP is aiming for comedy, they will get more slapstick from House Republicans, but Limbaugh is better at delivering punch lines.
Update: In the Washington Post Friday, Boehner pushes the blame-Obama charge with an OpEd piece claiming "in a carefully calculated campaign, operatives and allies of the Obama administration are seeking to divert attention toward radio host Rush Limbaugh, and away from a debate about our alternative solutions on the economy and the irresponsible spending binge they are presiding over." Bring on the long bows.
Unleashing the likes of Eric Cantor and Mike Spence, who launched the effort by taking aim at Obama's campaign promise about earmarks, will remind old timers of the movie, "The Mouse That Roared," in which the world's smallest nation, on the brink of bankruptcy, attacks the US with a handful of warriors in chain mail and carrying long bows, to get attention and some kind of reparations.
Boehner, apparently miffed by the White House emphasis on Rush Limbaugh as the face of the Republicans, wants the spotlight back.
“This," he said after rallying his troops, "is nothing more than a distraction created by the administration to take people’s attention away from the fact that they’re going to raise taxes and grow the size of government.”
If the GOP is aiming for comedy, they will get more slapstick from House Republicans, but Limbaugh is better at delivering punch lines.
Update: In the Washington Post Friday, Boehner pushes the blame-Obama charge with an OpEd piece claiming "in a carefully calculated campaign, operatives and allies of the Obama administration are seeking to divert attention toward radio host Rush Limbaugh, and away from a debate about our alternative solutions on the economy and the irresponsible spending binge they are presiding over." Bring on the long bows.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Obama in Democratic Crossfire
Not everything is Change in the new Washington. When Attorney General Eric Holder had the temerity to mention gun control the other day, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid shot him down with a hair-trigger NRA response.
To Holder's suggestion of reinstating the 1994 ban on assault weapons, Pelosi harrumphed, "I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now" as Reid's spokesman hastened to reaffirm the Majority Leader's votes against the original ban and the effort to reinstate it on expiration in 2004.
During the campaign, Obama took heavy flak for his remark that during hard times some people "get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them" and it cost him the Pennsylvania primary.
In Congress, there are still long memories of the National Rifle Association's ability to mobilize opposition to any member who votes against the God-given American right to hunt squirrels with automatic weapons and, in the absence of any recent Virginia Tech massacre, our lawmakers will take on Wall Street, Detroit, health care lobbyists but not the self-appointed protectors of the Second Amendment.
To Holder's suggestion of reinstating the 1994 ban on assault weapons, Pelosi harrumphed, "I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now" as Reid's spokesman hastened to reaffirm the Majority Leader's votes against the original ban and the effort to reinstate it on expiration in 2004.
During the campaign, Obama took heavy flak for his remark that during hard times some people "get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them" and it cost him the Pennsylvania primary.
In Congress, there are still long memories of the National Rifle Association's ability to mobilize opposition to any member who votes against the God-given American right to hunt squirrels with automatic weapons and, in the absence of any recent Virginia Tech massacre, our lawmakers will take on Wall Street, Detroit, health care lobbyists but not the self-appointed protectors of the Second Amendment.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Obama's Body Language
By my count, Barack Obama kissed at least two dozen women on his way in and out of the House last night, but the affectionate post-speech highlight was a quick back rub from Sen. Barbara Boxer, who had been seen having an ecstatic reaction during the President's words on health care reform.
There were hugs, too, many of them for men, including his polar political opposite, Republican Sen. Tom Coburn, for whom Obama expressed friendship during the campaign.
Not to make too much of it, but all this body language reflects an extraordinary ability to connect with people beyond the routine political pressing of the flesh with a wary fixed smile.
During the speech, some reactions from Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden were animated well beyond the usual, but apparently Obama's sensory appeal has its limits. Close-ups of Mitch McConnell and John Boehner showed them looking blank and immobilized, pretty much the way they had been during the weeks of debate on the stimulus bill.
It looks like we have a long way to go before Republicans get all touchy-feely.
There were hugs, too, many of them for men, including his polar political opposite, Republican Sen. Tom Coburn, for whom Obama expressed friendship during the campaign.
Not to make too much of it, but all this body language reflects an extraordinary ability to connect with people beyond the routine political pressing of the flesh with a wary fixed smile.
During the speech, some reactions from Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden were animated well beyond the usual, but apparently Obama's sensory appeal has its limits. Close-ups of Mitch McConnell and John Boehner showed them looking blank and immobilized, pretty much the way they had been during the weeks of debate on the stimulus bill.
It looks like we have a long way to go before Republicans get all touchy-feely.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Taking Over the Banks
Call it "partial" or "temporary," the momentum for nationalizing US banks is growing across the political and economic spectrum.
President Obama, Paul Krugman writes, is "going to have to decide how bold to be in his moves to sustain the financial system, where the outlook has deteriorated so drastically that a surprising number of economists, not all of them especially liberal, now argue that resolving the crisis will require the temporary nationalization of some major banks."
This follows George Soros' call for "partially nationalizing" banks, a step that "would clear the air and restart the economy."
In today's New York Times, business columnist Joe Nocera recalls the Resolution Trust Corporation, which took over and sold bad assets during the S. & L. crisis of the 1980s, quoting Tim Ryan, who helped direct the response to that fiasco:
"Did the S.& L. crisis cost the taxpayers money? You bet it did--some $130 billion. But, said Mr. Ryan, 'it would have been triple that' without the R.T.C...
"But to carry out this kind of program, the government has to be in control of insolvent banks...Then it can do the same thing the Office of Thrift Supervision did in the early 1990s: close down the worst, sell others to healthier institutions and recapitalize the strongest. You can shovel capital into banks until you’re blue in the face and they are not going to lend so long as they have toxic assets on their books. They are going to hold onto their capital, fearing new losses."
As the Obama Administration prepares to tighten regulation across the financial system with stricter rules for hedge funds, credit rating agencies and mortgage brokers, and more oversight of derivatives and credit default swaps, the banks remain at the heart of the problem.
At some point--and it had better be soon--pouring taxpayer money into the maws of Citicorp, Bank of America et al will have to be accompanied by enough control to get them lending again instead of just fattening balance sheets, merging and paying themselves obscene bonuses.
It will be more complex than FDR's brief bank holiday in 1933, but something dramatic is on the horizon.
Update: On the Sunday talk show circuit this morning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi actually used the N word. “If we are strengthening them," she said about the bailouts, "then the American people should get some of the upside of that strengthening. Some people call that nationalization."
“I’m not talking about total ownership,” she quickly added. “Would we have ever thought we would see the day when we’d be using that terminology? ‘Nationalization of the banks?'”
Yes, and not a moment too soon.
President Obama, Paul Krugman writes, is "going to have to decide how bold to be in his moves to sustain the financial system, where the outlook has deteriorated so drastically that a surprising number of economists, not all of them especially liberal, now argue that resolving the crisis will require the temporary nationalization of some major banks."
This follows George Soros' call for "partially nationalizing" banks, a step that "would clear the air and restart the economy."
In today's New York Times, business columnist Joe Nocera recalls the Resolution Trust Corporation, which took over and sold bad assets during the S. & L. crisis of the 1980s, quoting Tim Ryan, who helped direct the response to that fiasco:
"Did the S.& L. crisis cost the taxpayers money? You bet it did--some $130 billion. But, said Mr. Ryan, 'it would have been triple that' without the R.T.C...
"But to carry out this kind of program, the government has to be in control of insolvent banks...Then it can do the same thing the Office of Thrift Supervision did in the early 1990s: close down the worst, sell others to healthier institutions and recapitalize the strongest. You can shovel capital into banks until you’re blue in the face and they are not going to lend so long as they have toxic assets on their books. They are going to hold onto their capital, fearing new losses."
As the Obama Administration prepares to tighten regulation across the financial system with stricter rules for hedge funds, credit rating agencies and mortgage brokers, and more oversight of derivatives and credit default swaps, the banks remain at the heart of the problem.
At some point--and it had better be soon--pouring taxpayer money into the maws of Citicorp, Bank of America et al will have to be accompanied by enough control to get them lending again instead of just fattening balance sheets, merging and paying themselves obscene bonuses.
It will be more complex than FDR's brief bank holiday in 1933, but something dramatic is on the horizon.
Update: On the Sunday talk show circuit this morning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi actually used the N word. “If we are strengthening them," she said about the bailouts, "then the American people should get some of the upside of that strengthening. Some people call that nationalization."
“I’m not talking about total ownership,” she quickly added. “Would we have ever thought we would see the day when we’d be using that terminology? ‘Nationalization of the banks?'”
Yes, and not a moment too soon.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Doomsday Minus Twelve
The Barack Obama countdown to saving the American economy continues today, this time with his warning, "A bad situation could become dramatically worse."
In what the transition team describes as a major speech at George Mason University this morning, the President-Elect says:
"I don’t believe it’s too late to change course, but it will be if we don’t take dramatic action as soon as possible. If nothing is done, this recession could linger for years. The unemployment rate could reach double digits. Our economy could fall $1 trillion short of its full capacity, which translates into more than $12,000 in lost income for a family of four. We could lose a generation of potential and promise, as more young Americans are forced to forgo dreams of college or the chance to train for the jobs of the future. And our nation could lose the competitive edge that has served as a foundation for our strength and standing in the world."
On Day One minus twelve, Obama is rallying public support for the coming Congressional battle to deploy up to $1 trillion more to stop the economic slide.
Yesterday, Democratic legislators were warned by what the New York Times calls "a startling range of name-brand economists...to think more boldly than ever before."
Afterward, the "shell-shocked" chairman of the House Budget Committee, Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. of South Carolina, told a reporter, “The thing I wanted to ask was if there was some limit which we should be wary of? Is there some limit in terms of how much borrowing and debt creation we should take on?”
The answer to his unspoken question seems to be no, but Congressional Republicans are scrambling to find their role in the process as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi predicts a bill by the middle of next month and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell promises "to make certain that any dollar spent to stimulate the economy will in fact achieve that outcome and produce jobs and opportunity."
After years of torpor on Capitol Hill, it's beginning to look like one of those speeded-up silent films with everyone racing around to get something done. It will be fascinating to hear what comes out after January 20th when they add the sound.
In what the transition team describes as a major speech at George Mason University this morning, the President-Elect says:
"I don’t believe it’s too late to change course, but it will be if we don’t take dramatic action as soon as possible. If nothing is done, this recession could linger for years. The unemployment rate could reach double digits. Our economy could fall $1 trillion short of its full capacity, which translates into more than $12,000 in lost income for a family of four. We could lose a generation of potential and promise, as more young Americans are forced to forgo dreams of college or the chance to train for the jobs of the future. And our nation could lose the competitive edge that has served as a foundation for our strength and standing in the world."
On Day One minus twelve, Obama is rallying public support for the coming Congressional battle to deploy up to $1 trillion more to stop the economic slide.
Yesterday, Democratic legislators were warned by what the New York Times calls "a startling range of name-brand economists...to think more boldly than ever before."
Afterward, the "shell-shocked" chairman of the House Budget Committee, Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. of South Carolina, told a reporter, “The thing I wanted to ask was if there was some limit which we should be wary of? Is there some limit in terms of how much borrowing and debt creation we should take on?”
The answer to his unspoken question seems to be no, but Congressional Republicans are scrambling to find their role in the process as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi predicts a bill by the middle of next month and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell promises "to make certain that any dollar spent to stimulate the economy will in fact achieve that outcome and produce jobs and opportunity."
After years of torpor on Capitol Hill, it's beginning to look like one of those speeded-up silent films with everyone racing around to get something done. It will be fascinating to hear what comes out after January 20th when they add the sound.
Friday, December 05, 2008
Post-Partisan Depression
With Democrats ascending, the wordplay in Washington is improving even if the economy isn't. Pressuring Barack Obama to be more aggressive, Congressman Barney Frank said yesterday, "At a time of great crisis with mortgage foreclosures and autos, he says we only have one president at a time. I'm afraid that overstates the number of presidents we have."
He also chided the President-Elect's policy of reaching across party lines: "Having lived with this very right-wing Republican group that runs the House most of the time, the notion of trying to deal with them as if we could be post-partisan gives me post-partisan depression."
No worries about an excess of wit or a partisanship gap, however, on the part of Democratic Congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who sent George W. Bush a gotcha letter on the Detroit bailout, urging him to use "the TARP funds, or to work with the Federal Reserve to make available assistance through its existing lending programs, or both."
Translation: We can't or won't do anything until our man takes over the White House, so if the situation gets worse, it's your fault if you don't do something but, if you do, we get credit for pushing you into doing it.
When President Obama is finally in charge, he will have more than one kind of partisanship to overcome.
He also chided the President-Elect's policy of reaching across party lines: "Having lived with this very right-wing Republican group that runs the House most of the time, the notion of trying to deal with them as if we could be post-partisan gives me post-partisan depression."
No worries about an excess of wit or a partisanship gap, however, on the part of Democratic Congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who sent George W. Bush a gotcha letter on the Detroit bailout, urging him to use "the TARP funds, or to work with the Federal Reserve to make available assistance through its existing lending programs, or both."
Translation: We can't or won't do anything until our man takes over the White House, so if the situation gets worse, it's your fault if you don't do something but, if you do, we get credit for pushing you into doing it.
When President Obama is finally in charge, he will have more than one kind of partisanship to overcome.
Monday, October 27, 2008
The One-Party Rule Scare
In this desperate week of fighting to hold onto Washington power, the GOP will play its last card--to arouse voter fear of what one-party rule would do to the country, of what the "Socialism" of Barack Obama would mean if supported by filibuster-proof majorities that would give Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid a free hand.
By implicitly acknowledging the defeat of their White House ticket, Republicans could make the argument in an attempt to save such endangered Senate seats as those of Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina, Saxby Chambliss in Georgia and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in Kentucky.
Since Americans have an innate mistrust of concentrated power, the notion could gain traction for voters with short memories. They would have to forget the past two years of "checks and balances" that prevented extending health care to impoverished children and setting reasonable timetables for withdrawal from Iraq, among other majority desires.
Some might look at the first six years of the Bush Administration with a compliant Congress that produced a disastrous war, a ruined economy and an assault on the Constitution. That was one-party rule with a vengeance, but does that make the case for an impotent divided Washington or for putting the future in the hands of a party that won't abuse its power?
No reasonable person would be willing to trust an Obama Administration and Democratic Congress with unlimited power but, in cleaning up eight years of Bush wreckage, it makes sense to let them start doing the job without their hands tied.
By implicitly acknowledging the defeat of their White House ticket, Republicans could make the argument in an attempt to save such endangered Senate seats as those of Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina, Saxby Chambliss in Georgia and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in Kentucky.
Since Americans have an innate mistrust of concentrated power, the notion could gain traction for voters with short memories. They would have to forget the past two years of "checks and balances" that prevented extending health care to impoverished children and setting reasonable timetables for withdrawal from Iraq, among other majority desires.
Some might look at the first six years of the Bush Administration with a compliant Congress that produced a disastrous war, a ruined economy and an assault on the Constitution. That was one-party rule with a vengeance, but does that make the case for an impotent divided Washington or for putting the future in the hands of a party that won't abuse its power?
No reasonable person would be willing to trust an Obama Administration and Democratic Congress with unlimited power but, in cleaning up eight years of Bush wreckage, it makes sense to let them start doing the job without their hands tied.
Monday, September 29, 2008
The Perfect Political Storm
Congress and Wall Street both crashed today as politicians' fears and public rage collided over the American economy. House members, overcome by genuine doubt as well as panic over self-preservation five weeks before facing reelection, narrowly defeated the financial rescue bill, sending the Dow into an historic dive.
Everybody lost today--the lame-duck Bush Administration, Congressional Democrats for failing to find a convincing compromise, John McCain for prematurely bragging about his leadership in persuading Republican legislators to get on board and Barack Obama, fairly or not, for being helpless on the sidelines.
Watching the numbers on cable TV split screens was an ugly experience and, when the House count was over, Republican leaders John Boehner and Roy Blunt added insult to injury by blaming Democrats for their failure to produce enough votes for passage.
"We could have gotten there today had it not been for the partisan speech that the speaker gave on the floor of the House," Boehner said, claiming Speaker Nancy Pelosi's words "poisoned our conference, caused a number of members that we thought we could get, to go south."
Democrat Barney Frank responded with disbelief: "Because somebody hurt their feelings, they decided to punish the country?"
Before the vote, Frank had said, "Today is the decision day. If we defeat this bill, it will be a very bad day for the financial sector of the American economy and the people who will feel the pain are not the top bankers and top corporate executives but average Americans."
If Washington was broken before today, it is now in shambles as so-called national leaders race to reassure worldwide investors that the American economy is still working.
It may be time to call in older and wiser heads--Warren Buffet, Mike Bloomberg et al--to oversee this mess before it sinks us all.
Everybody lost today--the lame-duck Bush Administration, Congressional Democrats for failing to find a convincing compromise, John McCain for prematurely bragging about his leadership in persuading Republican legislators to get on board and Barack Obama, fairly or not, for being helpless on the sidelines.
Watching the numbers on cable TV split screens was an ugly experience and, when the House count was over, Republican leaders John Boehner and Roy Blunt added insult to injury by blaming Democrats for their failure to produce enough votes for passage.
"We could have gotten there today had it not been for the partisan speech that the speaker gave on the floor of the House," Boehner said, claiming Speaker Nancy Pelosi's words "poisoned our conference, caused a number of members that we thought we could get, to go south."
Democrat Barney Frank responded with disbelief: "Because somebody hurt their feelings, they decided to punish the country?"
Before the vote, Frank had said, "Today is the decision day. If we defeat this bill, it will be a very bad day for the financial sector of the American economy and the people who will feel the pain are not the top bankers and top corporate executives but average Americans."
If Washington was broken before today, it is now in shambles as so-called national leaders race to reassure worldwide investors that the American economy is still working.
It may be time to call in older and wiser heads--Warren Buffet, Mike Bloomberg et al--to oversee this mess before it sinks us all.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
The Money Pit and Cat in the Well
After pulling an all-nighter, the low-approval gang in Washington this morning will give us their new, improved version of the $700 billion gamble nobody understands but practically all are sure is needed to keep the sky from falling.
The 1980s Tom Hanks movie, "The Money Pit," comes to mind as Congress and the Administration enthuse over the financial structure we're buying with a $250 million down payment that may or may not stand up until their successors move in next January.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi congratulates the negotiators for "the great work they have done" to "insulate Main Street and everyday Americans from the crisis on Wall Street” while Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson gets up off his knees to celebrate "a deal which will work and be effective in the marketplace.”
But as the happy couple prepare for the Housewarming, the grumpy former tenant Newt Gingrich stands outside bitching that "it’s probably impossible, without the president getting a new secretary of the treasury, to get to a good deal...We’re taking an immediate tummy ache, and we’re in danger of turning it into cancer.”
So much for the mixed metaphors, but perhaps the most apt commentary might be that of a voice from the past, the 1960s Senate Leader Everett Dirksen, who may or may not have said, "A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money."
Dirksen had all kinds of folksy anecdotes to warn about wild-eyed government spending, including the one about the schoolboy asked to figure out how long it would take for a cat that had fallen into a well 100 feet deep to get out if it climbed up one foot and then fell back two feet.
After reams of calculations, the answer was, "If you give me another 30 minutes, I'm pretty sure I can land that cat in hell."
Dirksen is long gone, but he may have a good sense of direction about where Washington spending was heading.
The 1980s Tom Hanks movie, "The Money Pit," comes to mind as Congress and the Administration enthuse over the financial structure we're buying with a $250 million down payment that may or may not stand up until their successors move in next January.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi congratulates the negotiators for "the great work they have done" to "insulate Main Street and everyday Americans from the crisis on Wall Street” while Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson gets up off his knees to celebrate "a deal which will work and be effective in the marketplace.”
But as the happy couple prepare for the Housewarming, the grumpy former tenant Newt Gingrich stands outside bitching that "it’s probably impossible, without the president getting a new secretary of the treasury, to get to a good deal...We’re taking an immediate tummy ache, and we’re in danger of turning it into cancer.”
So much for the mixed metaphors, but perhaps the most apt commentary might be that of a voice from the past, the 1960s Senate Leader Everett Dirksen, who may or may not have said, "A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money."
Dirksen had all kinds of folksy anecdotes to warn about wild-eyed government spending, including the one about the schoolboy asked to figure out how long it would take for a cat that had fallen into a well 100 feet deep to get out if it climbed up one foot and then fell back two feet.
After reams of calculations, the answer was, "If you give me another 30 minutes, I'm pretty sure I can land that cat in hell."
Dirksen is long gone, but he may have a good sense of direction about where Washington spending was heading.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
The Offshore Snake Oil Bonanza
Republicans are tapping into a gusher of voter gullibility. According to the Rasmussen Reports, almost two-thirds of Americans approve of offshore drilling and believe that finding new sources of oil is more important than reducing the amount of energy they now use.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is waving the white flag by telling Larry King she might vote for drilling as part of a larger energy package, even as she proclaims, "I will not subscribe to a hoax on the American people that if you drill offshore, you're going to bring down the price at the pump. Even the president says that's not true."
The case for an easy fix is so compelling that the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund is taking out full-page newspaper ads to decry offshore drilling as "George W. Bush's Gasoline Price Elixir" that is "100% Snake Oil" and urge letters to Congress saying, "I am not buying the lie...that sacrificing the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and America's coastal waters to oil drilling would make a real difference in gas prices--either today or twenty years from today!"
The Washington Post editorial page, ever faithful to the Bush Administration, starts out to debunk the ad but ends up agreeing that "the United States cannot drill its way to energy independence."
Offshore oil won't bring down prices at the pump (the current drop is showing that only lower demand can do that) but, as long as there are November votes buried in the issue, McCain and Congressional Republicans will keep hammering away.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is waving the white flag by telling Larry King she might vote for drilling as part of a larger energy package, even as she proclaims, "I will not subscribe to a hoax on the American people that if you drill offshore, you're going to bring down the price at the pump. Even the president says that's not true."
The case for an easy fix is so compelling that the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund is taking out full-page newspaper ads to decry offshore drilling as "George W. Bush's Gasoline Price Elixir" that is "100% Snake Oil" and urge letters to Congress saying, "I am not buying the lie...that sacrificing the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and America's coastal waters to oil drilling would make a real difference in gas prices--either today or twenty years from today!"
The Washington Post editorial page, ever faithful to the Bush Administration, starts out to debunk the ad but ends up agreeing that "the United States cannot drill its way to energy independence."
Offshore oil won't bring down prices at the pump (the current drop is showing that only lower demand can do that) but, as long as there are November votes buried in the issue, McCain and Congressional Republicans will keep hammering away.
Friday, May 09, 2008
Hillary Clinton's Nixon Moment
Who will tell her it's time to go? Certainly not her husband, whose dynastic hopes will die hardest. Nor the limp leaders of Congressional Democrats, although Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein have been clearing their throats. Al Gore is too busy saving the planet and Howard Dean is just trying to hang onto his job as party chairman.
As Barack Obama now takes the lead in the slow dribble of superdelegates into his pledge pool, there is no one to do for Hillary Clinton what Republican leaders did for Richard Nixon in August 1974, when the Senate Minority Leader, House Minority Leader and Barry Goldwater, the former presidential candidate, went to the White House and told him that hanging on was hopeless. Nixon stepped down the next day.
But the Clintons are not good listeners and, as their desperation grows, she is openly relying on race, telling USA Today that "Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again...There's a pattern emerging here."
One of her non-fans, Peggy Noonan, writes in today's Wall Street Journal: "The question 'Who will tell her, who can make her go?' is really the question 'Who will save the Democratic Party in 2008?' It cannot be doubted at this point that real damage is being done to its standard-bearer and to all those who will be on the ticket with him."
But with friends like its weak-kneed nabobs, the Democratic Party doesn't need enemies. When will its leaders do for Hillary Clinton what Republicans did for Richard Nixon before he took his own party down in flames?
As Barack Obama now takes the lead in the slow dribble of superdelegates into his pledge pool, there is no one to do for Hillary Clinton what Republican leaders did for Richard Nixon in August 1974, when the Senate Minority Leader, House Minority Leader and Barry Goldwater, the former presidential candidate, went to the White House and told him that hanging on was hopeless. Nixon stepped down the next day.
But the Clintons are not good listeners and, as their desperation grows, she is openly relying on race, telling USA Today that "Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again...There's a pattern emerging here."
One of her non-fans, Peggy Noonan, writes in today's Wall Street Journal: "The question 'Who will tell her, who can make her go?' is really the question 'Who will save the Democratic Party in 2008?' It cannot be doubted at this point that real damage is being done to its standard-bearer and to all those who will be on the ticket with him."
But with friends like its weak-kneed nabobs, the Democratic Party doesn't need enemies. When will its leaders do for Hillary Clinton what Republicans did for Richard Nixon before he took his own party down in flames?
Friday, February 15, 2008
Superdelegates Tilt Toward Obama
If Hillary Clinton can't stop the primary dominoes from falling, the superdelegates won't save her.
The latest defection is Congressman John Lewis, an icon of the Civil Rights era, who had endorsed Sen. Clinton, but now says, "Something is happening in America and people are prepared and ready to make that great leap...I’ve been very impressed with the campaign of Senator Obama. He’s getting better and better every single day.”
Lewis' switch, following that of Rep. David Scott, signals the Clintons' loss of one of its most loyal constituencies, the Black Caucus, and foreshadows a possible further erosion in support from Democratic Party insiders, who weeks ago seemed to be solidly behind the former First Lady.
David Wilhelm, who managed Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign, has announced he will vote for Obama. Christine Samuels, a former Clinton superdelegate from New Jersey, yesterday did the same.
Perhaps the most ominous sign is what the most powerful woman in American political history, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has remained neutral, said last week:
"I don't think it was ever intended that superdelegates would overturn the verdict, the decision of the American people."
No one ever accused politicians of remaining loyal until the last dog dies.
The latest defection is Congressman John Lewis, an icon of the Civil Rights era, who had endorsed Sen. Clinton, but now says, "Something is happening in America and people are prepared and ready to make that great leap...I’ve been very impressed with the campaign of Senator Obama. He’s getting better and better every single day.”
Lewis' switch, following that of Rep. David Scott, signals the Clintons' loss of one of its most loyal constituencies, the Black Caucus, and foreshadows a possible further erosion in support from Democratic Party insiders, who weeks ago seemed to be solidly behind the former First Lady.
David Wilhelm, who managed Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign, has announced he will vote for Obama. Christine Samuels, a former Clinton superdelegate from New Jersey, yesterday did the same.
Perhaps the most ominous sign is what the most powerful woman in American political history, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has remained neutral, said last week:
"I don't think it was ever intended that superdelegates would overturn the verdict, the decision of the American people."
No one ever accused politicians of remaining loyal until the last dog dies.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Casting Call for GOP "Christmas Carol"
Looking for redemption in Bush's final year, the White House Art Players might plan a new production of the Dickens classic starring the President as a kinder, gentler Scrooge.
A Nixon impersonator would be perfect for Jacob Marley, dragging the chains of Watergate, to open W's eyes with visits from the ghost of Christmas past (a Reagan lookalike as Fezziwig) Christmas present (Mitch McConnell or any endangered Senate colleague) and Mike Huckabee as Christmas future in the Republican graveyard.
On Christmas morning, a new Bush would awaken with SCHIP insurance for Tiny Tim, a veto-proof new signing pen to show Nancy Pelosi and a symbolic fruitcake to send to his new best friend, Ahmadinejad.
They could ask Dick Cheney to understudy the lead, if he promises not to shoot any of the other actors.
A Nixon impersonator would be perfect for Jacob Marley, dragging the chains of Watergate, to open W's eyes with visits from the ghost of Christmas past (a Reagan lookalike as Fezziwig) Christmas present (Mitch McConnell or any endangered Senate colleague) and Mike Huckabee as Christmas future in the Republican graveyard.
On Christmas morning, a new Bush would awaken with SCHIP insurance for Tiny Tim, a veto-proof new signing pen to show Nancy Pelosi and a symbolic fruitcake to send to his new best friend, Ahmadinejad.
They could ask Dick Cheney to understudy the lead, if he promises not to shoot any of the other actors.
Sunday, December 09, 2007
Torturing Questions
News today that members of Congress, including Nancy Pelosi, failed to protest when they were briefed about waterboarding and other harsh techniques of interrogation five years ago recalls the disturbing Milgram experiments of the 1960s.
A Yale professor wanted to find out how much pain people would inflict on others for what they believed to be a good cause.
"Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' strongest moral imperatives against hurting others," Prof. Stanley Milgram reported, "and, with the subjects' ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation."
We still don't know the answer to that question, which was originally raised in an effort to see behind the Eichmann defense for Nazi atrocities during World War War II, "I was only following orders." But we should keep trying to find out.
Today's revelation about waterboarding further underscores how dicey individual morality can become under social pressure. According to the Washington Post, "officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support.
"'Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing,' said [Porter] Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. 'And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement.'"
All this is clearly intended to relieve pressure on the Administration for its secrecy, including the destruction of torture tapes, but if involving lawmakers clears the air of some holier-than-thou posturing, it doesn't absolve anyone or lessen the need to move forward in the public debate on what kind of people we are and want to be.
What Stanley Milgram wrote in 1974, looking back on his experiments, might be as good a place as any to start:
"There was a time, perhaps, when people were able to give a fully human response to any situation because they were fully absorbed in it as human beings. But as soon as there was a division of labor things changed. Beyond a certain point, the breaking up of society into people carrying out narrow and very special jobs takes away from the human quality of work and life. A person does not get to see the whole situation but only a small part of it, and is thus unable to act without some kind of overall direction. He yields to authority but in doing so is alienated from his own actions.
"Even Eichmann was sickened when he toured the concentration camps, but he had only to sit at a desk and shuffle papers. At the same time the man in the camp who actually dropped Cyclon-b into the gas chambers was able to justify his behavior on the ground that he was only following orders from above. Thus there is a fragmentation of the total human act; no one is confronted with the consequences of his decision to carry out the evil act. The person who assumes responsibility has evaporated. Perhaps this is the most common characteristic of socially organized evil in modern society."
As today's furor over torture goes on, it might help to think about that.
A Yale professor wanted to find out how much pain people would inflict on others for what they believed to be a good cause.
"Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' strongest moral imperatives against hurting others," Prof. Stanley Milgram reported, "and, with the subjects' ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation."
We still don't know the answer to that question, which was originally raised in an effort to see behind the Eichmann defense for Nazi atrocities during World War War II, "I was only following orders." But we should keep trying to find out.
Today's revelation about waterboarding further underscores how dicey individual morality can become under social pressure. According to the Washington Post, "officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support.
"'Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing,' said [Porter] Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. 'And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement.'"
All this is clearly intended to relieve pressure on the Administration for its secrecy, including the destruction of torture tapes, but if involving lawmakers clears the air of some holier-than-thou posturing, it doesn't absolve anyone or lessen the need to move forward in the public debate on what kind of people we are and want to be.
What Stanley Milgram wrote in 1974, looking back on his experiments, might be as good a place as any to start:
"There was a time, perhaps, when people were able to give a fully human response to any situation because they were fully absorbed in it as human beings. But as soon as there was a division of labor things changed. Beyond a certain point, the breaking up of society into people carrying out narrow and very special jobs takes away from the human quality of work and life. A person does not get to see the whole situation but only a small part of it, and is thus unable to act without some kind of overall direction. He yields to authority but in doing so is alienated from his own actions.
"Even Eichmann was sickened when he toured the concentration camps, but he had only to sit at a desk and shuffle papers. At the same time the man in the camp who actually dropped Cyclon-b into the gas chambers was able to justify his behavior on the ground that he was only following orders from above. Thus there is a fragmentation of the total human act; no one is confronted with the consequences of his decision to carry out the evil act. The person who assumes responsibility has evaporated. Perhaps this is the most common characteristic of socially organized evil in modern society."
As today's furor over torture goes on, it might help to think about that.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Gut Check Time for Democrats
The party that could win the White House and extend its majorities in both houses of Congress next year is in disarray.
In confronting a President with abysmal approval ratings, Democrats have managed to lose every major battle this year--over the war in Iraq, children's health insurance and illegal wiretapping--and dissipate the mandate that gave them legislative control last November.
Now the internal bickering is on. Today a sappy memo from a House aide blames it on semantics. "Why,” writes Dave Helfert, who now works for Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii). “are we defending S-CHIP instead of advocating a ‘Healthy Kids’ plan?...Republicans have been kicking our rhetorical butt since about 1995.”
But imitating Frank Luntz won't solve the party's problems. True enough, as a new book "The Political Brain" argues, Democrats may be too cerebral instead of going for the gut. But their real problem is not language but leadership.
On the surface, Bush's intransigence and their narrow margins in both houses have tied their hands, but no more so than the failure of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to get beyond playing it politically safe.
Their approach to S-CHIP is symptomatic. Yesterday they passed another bill that inches toward the White House position with an Oliver Twist-like, "Please, sir, we want some more."
As for slowing the war in Iraq or stopping a new one against Iran, they have not only given up trying but talking as well. On the overriding issue of our time, Democrats have been cowed by accusations of "not supporting the troops" if they block funding. It's past time for someone to step up and rally them to try.
There are signs that something is stirring. Chris Dodd is threatening a Senate filibuster of FISA bill provisions to grant telecoms retroactive immunity for helping Bush-Cheney spy on Americans, and other '08 candidates may join him. Not exactly "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," but it could be a start.
What's the point of winning it all in '08 if Democrats don't show the will and courage to change course between now and then?
In confronting a President with abysmal approval ratings, Democrats have managed to lose every major battle this year--over the war in Iraq, children's health insurance and illegal wiretapping--and dissipate the mandate that gave them legislative control last November.
Now the internal bickering is on. Today a sappy memo from a House aide blames it on semantics. "Why,” writes Dave Helfert, who now works for Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii). “are we defending S-CHIP instead of advocating a ‘Healthy Kids’ plan?...Republicans have been kicking our rhetorical butt since about 1995.”
But imitating Frank Luntz won't solve the party's problems. True enough, as a new book "The Political Brain" argues, Democrats may be too cerebral instead of going for the gut. But their real problem is not language but leadership.
On the surface, Bush's intransigence and their narrow margins in both houses have tied their hands, but no more so than the failure of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to get beyond playing it politically safe.
Their approach to S-CHIP is symptomatic. Yesterday they passed another bill that inches toward the White House position with an Oliver Twist-like, "Please, sir, we want some more."
As for slowing the war in Iraq or stopping a new one against Iran, they have not only given up trying but talking as well. On the overriding issue of our time, Democrats have been cowed by accusations of "not supporting the troops" if they block funding. It's past time for someone to step up and rally them to try.
There are signs that something is stirring. Chris Dodd is threatening a Senate filibuster of FISA bill provisions to grant telecoms retroactive immunity for helping Bush-Cheney spy on Americans, and other '08 candidates may join him. Not exactly "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," but it could be a start.
What's the point of winning it all in '08 if Democrats don't show the will and courage to change course between now and then?
Monday, October 22, 2007
Losing the Anti-War War
Evidence that the Iraq narrative has turned is everywhere.
“Victory Is Within Reach in Iraq,” a Wall Street Journal headline enthuses this weekend, claiming that “highly respected officers including the commander of Special Forces in Iraq, Gen. Stanley McCrystal, reportedly feel it is justified by the facts on the ground.”
The Washington Post reports “The Next Challenge in Iraq,” quoting Adm. William Fallon, head of the U.S. Central Command:
"I look at the numbers, and I say the success that General Petraeus and the guys have made is amazing. But how do we leverage that to get the Iraqi government to take decisions that will provide enduring security? How do we help them take advantage of this?"
The Los Angeles Times cites, “Tough going for antiwar Republicans,” reporting that “Despite months of pressure, no more than eight Republican lawmakers in the House and Senate have backed any measure that mandates a troop withdrawal. And GOP strategists predict that is unlikely to change.”
How much our situation in Iraq has changed is highly debatable, but the battle is Washington seems to be lost. What do Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi do now?
Bush’s stubbornness and their own ineffectual legislative maneuvering have put them in a bind. To persist in railing against the war may only feed charges that they are “defeatist.” To back off efforts to get us out of Iraq will enrage those who gave them control of Congress to do just that.
In coming months, they will undoubtedly concentrate on domestic issues--health insurance, housing, tax reform--to persuade voters that Democrats can get something done.
Meanwhile, the dying in Iraq goes on. The numbers may be slightly smaller, but the blood is just as real as it was before Americans lost hope of stopping it anytime soon.
“Victory Is Within Reach in Iraq,” a Wall Street Journal headline enthuses this weekend, claiming that “highly respected officers including the commander of Special Forces in Iraq, Gen. Stanley McCrystal, reportedly feel it is justified by the facts on the ground.”
The Washington Post reports “The Next Challenge in Iraq,” quoting Adm. William Fallon, head of the U.S. Central Command:
"I look at the numbers, and I say the success that General Petraeus and the guys have made is amazing. But how do we leverage that to get the Iraqi government to take decisions that will provide enduring security? How do we help them take advantage of this?"
The Los Angeles Times cites, “Tough going for antiwar Republicans,” reporting that “Despite months of pressure, no more than eight Republican lawmakers in the House and Senate have backed any measure that mandates a troop withdrawal. And GOP strategists predict that is unlikely to change.”
How much our situation in Iraq has changed is highly debatable, but the battle is Washington seems to be lost. What do Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi do now?
Bush’s stubbornness and their own ineffectual legislative maneuvering have put them in a bind. To persist in railing against the war may only feed charges that they are “defeatist.” To back off efforts to get us out of Iraq will enrage those who gave them control of Congress to do just that.
In coming months, they will undoubtedly concentrate on domestic issues--health insurance, housing, tax reform--to persuade voters that Democrats can get something done.
Meanwhile, the dying in Iraq goes on. The numbers may be slightly smaller, but the blood is just as real as it was before Americans lost hope of stopping it anytime soon.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Dumbed-Down Democracy
Watching Rep. Eric Cantor, the House Republican Chief Deputy Whip, on PBS’ News Hour last week was a depressing experience. He was debating Rahm Emanuel on the S-CHIP legislation and, with an infuriatingly smug smile, making Bush’s “philosophical” case for denying needy children health care.
Now here we are this week without enough votes to override the President’s heartless, brainless veto. Why? A USA Today/Gallup poll today shows how, in this age where You are Time’s Person of the Year, too many you’s are not motivated to get past slogans and charades on an issue that affects millions of children’s lives.
Although 49 percent have been following news about the bill “not too closely or at all,” 55 percent are concerned that “expanding this program would create an incentive for middle-class Americans to drop private health insurance for a public program.”
The Gallup people, by framing the question this way, are contributing to the confusion and their USA Today partners are still doing what mass media have been doing throughout the Bush years, letting the Administration set the specious terms for public debate.
Through the obfuscation, a solid majority of voters still manage to get the point and “have more confidence” in Democrats than Bush to handle the issue, by 52 to 32 percent, but with a President who listens only to himself, that won’t be enough.
Nancy Pelosi talks about fighting on, but the lack of enough public outrage will force Democrats to accept a defeat masked as a compromise.
If sanity in both parties can’t prevail on an issue this clear, we are in deeper trouble than any of the ’08 candidates is willing to admit.
Now here we are this week without enough votes to override the President’s heartless, brainless veto. Why? A USA Today/Gallup poll today shows how, in this age where You are Time’s Person of the Year, too many you’s are not motivated to get past slogans and charades on an issue that affects millions of children’s lives.
Although 49 percent have been following news about the bill “not too closely or at all,” 55 percent are concerned that “expanding this program would create an incentive for middle-class Americans to drop private health insurance for a public program.”
The Gallup people, by framing the question this way, are contributing to the confusion and their USA Today partners are still doing what mass media have been doing throughout the Bush years, letting the Administration set the specious terms for public debate.
Through the obfuscation, a solid majority of voters still manage to get the point and “have more confidence” in Democrats than Bush to handle the issue, by 52 to 32 percent, but with a President who listens only to himself, that won’t be enough.
Nancy Pelosi talks about fighting on, but the lack of enough public outrage will force Democrats to accept a defeat masked as a compromise.
If sanity in both parties can’t prevail on an issue this clear, we are in deeper trouble than any of the ’08 candidates is willing to admit.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Bush Makes Republicans French Toast
He did it this morning, without comment or news coverage, an act that proves George Bush to be, depending on your politics, either the most steadfast or stubborn, the most principled or heartless of American Presidents in memory.
But there is common agreement in Congress that, by vetoing the bipartisan bill that would have dramatically expanded children's health insurance, a lame duck Head of State has committed the most politically selfish act since Louis XV proclaimed, “Apres moi, le deluge” before the French Revolution.
Now Congressional Republicans, facing a guillotine at the ballot box in 2008, are scrambling to limit the damage. Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott talks bravely about a “compromise” with an Administration that takes no prisoners.
The Senate has enough votes to override, but House Minority Whip Roy Blunt is "absolutely confident" that the House will be able to sustain Bush's veto as Democrats keep trying to convince more than a dozen members on the other side of the aisle to switch their position.
If not, Nancy Pelosi can start practicing her knitting for the role of Madame DeFarge, as Republican incumbents go by on their way to the tumbrel in the George Bush revival of “A Tale of Two Cities” next fall.
But there is common agreement in Congress that, by vetoing the bipartisan bill that would have dramatically expanded children's health insurance, a lame duck Head of State has committed the most politically selfish act since Louis XV proclaimed, “Apres moi, le deluge” before the French Revolution.
Now Congressional Republicans, facing a guillotine at the ballot box in 2008, are scrambling to limit the damage. Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott talks bravely about a “compromise” with an Administration that takes no prisoners.
The Senate has enough votes to override, but House Minority Whip Roy Blunt is "absolutely confident" that the House will be able to sustain Bush's veto as Democrats keep trying to convince more than a dozen members on the other side of the aisle to switch their position.
If not, Nancy Pelosi can start practicing her knitting for the role of Madame DeFarge, as Republican incumbents go by on their way to the tumbrel in the George Bush revival of “A Tale of Two Cities” next fall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)