She turns 92 today, a reminder of days in Washington when an honest, caring human being could command universal respect without the malice and spite that now infect everything.
Isolated in infirmity since the death in 2006 of her husband, Gerald Ford, who was president for only two and a half years, Elizabeth Anne Bloomer is a woman for all time who made her mark in American culture by showing a human face in the White House.
Betty Ford came there unexpectedly and never stopped being herself, unlike those who could have passed for inflatable life-sized dolls permanently positioned to stare adoringly at their husbands.
She spoke openly about everything, from equal rights for women to abortion to what she would do if her 18-year-old daughter were sexually active. But by example, she went beyond politics and set new standards for openness about her own life.
Undergoing a mastectomy for breast cancer, Betty Ford spoke about it in public and wrote an article for me in McCalls to encourage women to go for early screening. When she later had to seek treatment for addiction to alcohol and painkillers, the magazine ran an article blaming years of neglect by a clueless husband. Instead of complaining about it, Mrs. Ford "sent copies to every politician's wife I know" and then spent years founding and promoting the Betty Ford Center for substance abuse sufferers.
She will undoubtedly get birthday greetings from today's First Lady, Michelle Obama, who has reason to be grateful to the woman who made staying human in the White House a bipartisan issue.
From the rest of us watching from the sidelines as well: Happy Birthday, Betty Ford.
Thursday, April 08, 2010
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
Nuclear
Barack Obama is trying to do something about the word George W. Bush couldn't pronounce, but his revision to the US stance on nuclear weapons only underscores the near-impossibility of a neat solution to a problem that presidents have wrestled with for more than half a century.
In one of his last interviews, John F. Kennedy pointed out that Eisenhower had tried to limit testing in 1959 and failed but that, soon after averting a nuclear exchange in the Cuban Missile Crisis, he himself had succeeded in getting a test-ban treaty with the Soviets four years later.
"We can't get quickly discouraged," JFK said. "We can't accept the idea of the inevitability of a nuclear exchange. That is the ultimate destruction of the human race. That is what we have to avoid."
Now, a new president in a new century is still inching toward that goal with a new policy "to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons."
The new Obama approach will not satisfy those who urge him to announce that the United States would never use nuclear weapons first or the other side sure to be dismayed by his making deterrence of a nuclear strike the "sole objective" of our use, leaving other threats to be dealt with by conventional weapons.
As he has shown time and again, this president favors rational and measured solutions in foreign policy, so this announcement should be no surprise.
Asked about what has been called "The Cuban Missile Crisis in Slow Motion," Obama's answer to dealing with Iran is typical.
"This isn't a football game," he said. "So I'm not interested in victory, I'm interested in solving the problem."
JFK would have approved.
Update: On Thursday, the President was in Prague, signing a new nuclear-arms control treaty with Russian President Dmitri A. Medvedev, who signaled a harder line with Iran, "We cannot turn a blind eye to this," on Tehran's nuclear ambitions.
In one of his last interviews, John F. Kennedy pointed out that Eisenhower had tried to limit testing in 1959 and failed but that, soon after averting a nuclear exchange in the Cuban Missile Crisis, he himself had succeeded in getting a test-ban treaty with the Soviets four years later.
"We can't get quickly discouraged," JFK said. "We can't accept the idea of the inevitability of a nuclear exchange. That is the ultimate destruction of the human race. That is what we have to avoid."
Now, a new president in a new century is still inching toward that goal with a new policy "to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons."
The new Obama approach will not satisfy those who urge him to announce that the United States would never use nuclear weapons first or the other side sure to be dismayed by his making deterrence of a nuclear strike the "sole objective" of our use, leaving other threats to be dealt with by conventional weapons.
As he has shown time and again, this president favors rational and measured solutions in foreign policy, so this announcement should be no surprise.
Asked about what has been called "The Cuban Missile Crisis in Slow Motion," Obama's answer to dealing with Iran is typical.
"This isn't a football game," he said. "So I'm not interested in victory, I'm interested in solving the problem."
JFK would have approved.
Update: On Thursday, the President was in Prague, signing a new nuclear-arms control treaty with Russian President Dmitri A. Medvedev, who signaled a harder line with Iran, "We cannot turn a blind eye to this," on Tehran's nuclear ambitions.
Monday, April 05, 2010
Strangelove Strategy for Financial Reform
One of the economy's Terminators is back, bringing Ayn Rand and memories of mid-20th century movies with him.
Preparing to testify before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, Alan Greenspan reaffirms absolute faith in his mentor's me-first market philosophy in "The Fountainhead" and adds a note from "Dr. Strangelove."
Asked if the meltdown disputes Rand's theories, Greenspan says no, it was not the fault of free markets, that "the major mistake was assuming what the nature of risk would be. And the reason it was missed is we have had no experience of the type of risks that arose following the default of Lehman Brothers in September 2008.
"That's the critical mistake. And I made it. Everybody I know who works in this business made it."
This is straight out of "Strangelove" in which a clueless general defends the fail-safe system that has allowed impending nuclear destruction of the planet: "I don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up."
Beyond that, Greenspan should read Michael Lewis' new book, "The Big Short" and enlarge his circle of acquaintances to include those described therein who foresaw the bursting of the mortgage bubble and profited from it.
To make financial reform "fool-resistant," Congress will have to go beyond conventional wisdom and put restraints on the money manipulators that really work.
One step would be to break down Wall Street's old boys' network, where an estimated only two to three percent of finance-related chief executives are women, and reach across gender barriers for regulation of the system.
In choosing someone to oversee such activity, they would be well-advised to go beyond Greenspan's crowd and look to someone like Elizabeth Warren or Sheila Bair as a czarina who would bring to the macho game of grabbing profits at everybody else's expense a different perspective.
But not Ayn Rand's.
Preparing to testify before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, Alan Greenspan reaffirms absolute faith in his mentor's me-first market philosophy in "The Fountainhead" and adds a note from "Dr. Strangelove."
Asked if the meltdown disputes Rand's theories, Greenspan says no, it was not the fault of free markets, that "the major mistake was assuming what the nature of risk would be. And the reason it was missed is we have had no experience of the type of risks that arose following the default of Lehman Brothers in September 2008.
"That's the critical mistake. And I made it. Everybody I know who works in this business made it."
This is straight out of "Strangelove" in which a clueless general defends the fail-safe system that has allowed impending nuclear destruction of the planet: "I don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up."
Beyond that, Greenspan should read Michael Lewis' new book, "The Big Short" and enlarge his circle of acquaintances to include those described therein who foresaw the bursting of the mortgage bubble and profited from it.
To make financial reform "fool-resistant," Congress will have to go beyond conventional wisdom and put restraints on the money manipulators that really work.
One step would be to break down Wall Street's old boys' network, where an estimated only two to three percent of finance-related chief executives are women, and reach across gender barriers for regulation of the system.
In choosing someone to oversee such activity, they would be well-advised to go beyond Greenspan's crowd and look to someone like Elizabeth Warren or Sheila Bair as a czarina who would bring to the macho game of grabbing profits at everybody else's expense a different perspective.
But not Ayn Rand's.
Sunday, April 04, 2010
American Rebounds
The weekend's irresistible sports metaphor is the NCAA final, "Duke vs. Butler," which sounds like a sequel to "Remains of the Day," "Gosford Park" and all the dramas juxtaposing lives of the privileged with those fated to serve them.
On the eve of a confrontation between American biggies and little guys from nowhere, it's tempting to translate that battle into the counterpart of Wall Street vs. Main Street but, in the real world, life is more complicated.
On the Sunday talk circuit, the Obama Administration is cautiously touting economic recovery, with Economic Adviser Christine Romer claiming "there's just been a tremendous increase in the labor force...over the last three months, we've added more than a million people to the labor force...people that might have been discouraged, dropped out because of the terrible recession have started to have some hope again and are looking for work again."
At the same time, another White House adviser, Lawrence Summers, is cautioning that "the economy has a long way to go" before jobless numbers are back down where they should be.
Unlike basketball, there is no time clock or scoreboard for economy recovery, and politically it's hard to score points with such arguments as Dr. Romer makes about "the biggest fiscal stimulus in American history," cash for clunkers, extending the first-time home buyers credit, the HIRE Act's tax incentive for hiring and a pending $30 billion small business lending program, among other moves.
Democrats will have a hard time winning in November with the slogan, "The recession would have been worse if we hadn't spent trillions to turn it around."
But the nation's Number One basketball fan knows that and, as he watches the NCAA finals, Barack Obama may find some consolation in seeing little Butler, founded by an abolitionist and now ranked high nationally in academic quality, going head to head with the hereditary lords of Duke, whose $50,000-a-year costs to attend are undoubtedly being provided in some part by parents raking it in on Wall Street.
But on Monday night, at least, the playing field will be level.
On the eve of a confrontation between American biggies and little guys from nowhere, it's tempting to translate that battle into the counterpart of Wall Street vs. Main Street but, in the real world, life is more complicated.
On the Sunday talk circuit, the Obama Administration is cautiously touting economic recovery, with Economic Adviser Christine Romer claiming "there's just been a tremendous increase in the labor force...over the last three months, we've added more than a million people to the labor force...people that might have been discouraged, dropped out because of the terrible recession have started to have some hope again and are looking for work again."
At the same time, another White House adviser, Lawrence Summers, is cautioning that "the economy has a long way to go" before jobless numbers are back down where they should be.
Unlike basketball, there is no time clock or scoreboard for economy recovery, and politically it's hard to score points with such arguments as Dr. Romer makes about "the biggest fiscal stimulus in American history," cash for clunkers, extending the first-time home buyers credit, the HIRE Act's tax incentive for hiring and a pending $30 billion small business lending program, among other moves.
Democrats will have a hard time winning in November with the slogan, "The recession would have been worse if we hadn't spent trillions to turn it around."
But the nation's Number One basketball fan knows that and, as he watches the NCAA finals, Barack Obama may find some consolation in seeing little Butler, founded by an abolitionist and now ranked high nationally in academic quality, going head to head with the hereditary lords of Duke, whose $50,000-a-year costs to attend are undoubtedly being provided in some part by parents raking it in on Wall Street.
But on Monday night, at least, the playing field will be level.
Saturday, April 03, 2010
The Pope's Red Herrings
On Good Friday, of all days, the Pope's priest, of all people, stirs blood memories of hatred by invoking Jews as "victims of collective violence" to bewail his spiritual leader's ordeal of criticism for failing to protect the victims of ordained pedophile predators.
As quickly as the Vatican has moved to distance itself from this crackpot comparison, it reverberates in the mind of one who, as a child 80 years ago, was beaten by an enraged bigger boy, never before seen, from a Catholic neighborhood.
An older friend of mine explained, "They say we killed Christ." "Did we?" I asked. "How the hell should I know?" he shrugged. "It happened a million years ago."
This Easter weekend's brouhaha, following Vatican complaints against the New York Times for "its attack mode about Pope Benedict XVI," brings a flash-forward to the 1950s when my college classmate Abe Rosenthal began to write bylined stories for the paper and was told to pick a middle initial, even though he had none.
The Sulzbergers, the owners, were sensitive about Jewish-sounding bylines, and so my friend became A. M. Rosenthal, just as a decade earlier another fine reporter had morphed into A. H. Raskin. If the Great Emancipator had been writing for the Times then, he would have been known as "A. B. Lincoln."
Now, more than half a century later, for one shaped by such experiences, it's hard not to see a subtext of all this in the statement of a Cardinal close to the Pontiff that the Times reporting of his failure in the child abuse scandal and an editorial were ""deficient by any reasonable standards of fairness."
That editorial said: "Pope Benedict XVI’s latest apology for the emerging global scandal of child abuse by predatory priests--an issue that the Roman Catholic Church should have engaged years ago--is strong on forgiveness but far short of the full accountability that Catholics need for repairing their damaged church."
Would the Vatican have seen an "attack mode" in such words from a newspaper not famously owned by a Jewish family, and would the Pope's priest have chosen to read a letter by any other than a "Jewish friend" to point out that the "use of stereotypes, the passing from personal responsibility and guilt to a collective guilt, remind me of the more shameful aspects of anti-Semitism”?
Catholics themselves will have to decide on the merits of the priestly abuse scandal but, just this once, is it too much to ask that Jews be excused from being dragged into someone else's mess as, forgive the ethnicity, red herrings?
As quickly as the Vatican has moved to distance itself from this crackpot comparison, it reverberates in the mind of one who, as a child 80 years ago, was beaten by an enraged bigger boy, never before seen, from a Catholic neighborhood.
An older friend of mine explained, "They say we killed Christ." "Did we?" I asked. "How the hell should I know?" he shrugged. "It happened a million years ago."
This Easter weekend's brouhaha, following Vatican complaints against the New York Times for "its attack mode about Pope Benedict XVI," brings a flash-forward to the 1950s when my college classmate Abe Rosenthal began to write bylined stories for the paper and was told to pick a middle initial, even though he had none.
The Sulzbergers, the owners, were sensitive about Jewish-sounding bylines, and so my friend became A. M. Rosenthal, just as a decade earlier another fine reporter had morphed into A. H. Raskin. If the Great Emancipator had been writing for the Times then, he would have been known as "A. B. Lincoln."
Now, more than half a century later, for one shaped by such experiences, it's hard not to see a subtext of all this in the statement of a Cardinal close to the Pontiff that the Times reporting of his failure in the child abuse scandal and an editorial were ""deficient by any reasonable standards of fairness."
That editorial said: "Pope Benedict XVI’s latest apology for the emerging global scandal of child abuse by predatory priests--an issue that the Roman Catholic Church should have engaged years ago--is strong on forgiveness but far short of the full accountability that Catholics need for repairing their damaged church."
Would the Vatican have seen an "attack mode" in such words from a newspaper not famously owned by a Jewish family, and would the Pope's priest have chosen to read a letter by any other than a "Jewish friend" to point out that the "use of stereotypes, the passing from personal responsibility and guilt to a collective guilt, remind me of the more shameful aspects of anti-Semitism”?
Catholics themselves will have to decide on the merits of the priestly abuse scandal but, just this once, is it too much to ask that Jews be excused from being dragged into someone else's mess as, forgive the ethnicity, red herrings?
Friday, April 02, 2010
Mideast Muddle of Democracy
In what turns out to have been no April Fool's joke, Hamid Karzai blames fraud in Afghanistan's recent elections on "foreigners," and President Obama's national security adviser is not amused.
Brushing off such allegations, retired Gen. Jim Jones tells Jim Lehrer that that the Afghan president's progress against corruption is "very embryonic," citing the people's need "to pay bribes to do business, or pay off officials, or pay police for protection...in order to exist."
After eight years of fighting there, Americans are still lecturing its government about basic decency, as the President undoubtedly did on his trip last weekend, and hoping that the high cost in lives and money will somehow make the US safer against terrorism.
Against Iran, an impatient Obama is pressuring China to help "ratchet the pressure" against Teheran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, another Mideast project that has borne no fruit after years of alternating threats and negotiation.
Back in Iraq, a war presumably won by Gen. David Petraeus' counterinsurgency genius, the post-election climate is muddier than ever with the Shiite militant Moktada al-Sadr reappearing to take advantage of the close election victory of Ayad Allawi by threatening to hold his own election for prime minister--a development that has the potential for a renewal of violence in Baghdad.
In the past weeks, with Americans mesmerized by the machinations of their own politicians in the bizarre struggle over health care reform, the project to bring democracy to the Mideast, inherited from master strategists George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, has been continuing at its own deadly pace.
Back here, the stakes in civil disarray are votes in November but, as always, for our young people over there, much higher.
Brushing off such allegations, retired Gen. Jim Jones tells Jim Lehrer that that the Afghan president's progress against corruption is "very embryonic," citing the people's need "to pay bribes to do business, or pay off officials, or pay police for protection...in order to exist."
After eight years of fighting there, Americans are still lecturing its government about basic decency, as the President undoubtedly did on his trip last weekend, and hoping that the high cost in lives and money will somehow make the US safer against terrorism.
Against Iran, an impatient Obama is pressuring China to help "ratchet the pressure" against Teheran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, another Mideast project that has borne no fruit after years of alternating threats and negotiation.
Back in Iraq, a war presumably won by Gen. David Petraeus' counterinsurgency genius, the post-election climate is muddier than ever with the Shiite militant Moktada al-Sadr reappearing to take advantage of the close election victory of Ayad Allawi by threatening to hold his own election for prime minister--a development that has the potential for a renewal of violence in Baghdad.
In the past weeks, with Americans mesmerized by the machinations of their own politicians in the bizarre struggle over health care reform, the project to bring democracy to the Mideast, inherited from master strategists George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, has been continuing at its own deadly pace.
Back here, the stakes in civil disarray are votes in November but, as always, for our young people over there, much higher.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Curing Universal Unhappiness
From a fertile week for pop psychology comes news that social trust is declining at a time when personal connection is more important than worldly success.
As always, David Brooks draws on arcane research to prove that "countries with high social trust have happier people, better health, more efficient government, more economic growth, and less fear of crime."
But where are those countries? Worldwide acting-out of rage and hatred, from Washington to Moscow, suggests a new Age of Anxiety, starting with the terror of September 2001 and exacerbated by a global economic meltdown seven years later.
Damage to the human psyche goes well beyond politics as clinical anxiety becomes the most common mental illness in America, suffered by 40 million, according to the National Institute of Mental Health, and affecting millions more with, as one report describes it, "a kind of fear gone wild, a generalized sense of dread about something out there that seems menacing--but that in truth is not menacing, and may not even be out there."
As medicine struggles to understand and treat such distress in individuals, signs that it is undermining the whole society are everywhere:
*A pathological response to the passage of health care with verbal violence and a spate of acting out against bipartisan Congressional targets from Anthony Weiner to Eric Cantor (anti-Semitism, anyone?).
*Morphing of terrorism from political grievance to personal madness--from Jihad Jane to the current flavor of the week, the addled Michigan militia.
*Growth of the Tea Party movement, based less on issues than enormous free-floating dissatisfaction that, in its inchoate stage, is threatening Democrats electorally but has the potential to disrupt both parties with Sarah Palinish purging.
In this atmosphere, David Brooks cites studies showing that "daily activities most associated with happiness are sex, socializing after work and having dinner with others" and that "being married produces a psychic gain equivalent to more than $100,000 a year."
Those get-a-life moves may not be panaceas for all the disruptions of our time, but for crackpots, online and elsewhere, who are fueling social madness, they suggest a start.
As E. M. Forster put it a century ago, only connect.
Update: New figures show U.S. prescription sales rose by 5.1 percent to $300.3 billion in 2009, compared to a 1.8 percent growth the year before, with antipsychotics leading the way with $14.6 billion and antidepressants at $9.9 million. In between were acid-reflux regulators and cholesterol-lowering drugs--all in all, a high price for trying to maintain a sound mind in a sound body.
As always, David Brooks draws on arcane research to prove that "countries with high social trust have happier people, better health, more efficient government, more economic growth, and less fear of crime."
But where are those countries? Worldwide acting-out of rage and hatred, from Washington to Moscow, suggests a new Age of Anxiety, starting with the terror of September 2001 and exacerbated by a global economic meltdown seven years later.
Damage to the human psyche goes well beyond politics as clinical anxiety becomes the most common mental illness in America, suffered by 40 million, according to the National Institute of Mental Health, and affecting millions more with, as one report describes it, "a kind of fear gone wild, a generalized sense of dread about something out there that seems menacing--but that in truth is not menacing, and may not even be out there."
As medicine struggles to understand and treat such distress in individuals, signs that it is undermining the whole society are everywhere:
*A pathological response to the passage of health care with verbal violence and a spate of acting out against bipartisan Congressional targets from Anthony Weiner to Eric Cantor (anti-Semitism, anyone?).
*Morphing of terrorism from political grievance to personal madness--from Jihad Jane to the current flavor of the week, the addled Michigan militia.
*Growth of the Tea Party movement, based less on issues than enormous free-floating dissatisfaction that, in its inchoate stage, is threatening Democrats electorally but has the potential to disrupt both parties with Sarah Palinish purging.
In this atmosphere, David Brooks cites studies showing that "daily activities most associated with happiness are sex, socializing after work and having dinner with others" and that "being married produces a psychic gain equivalent to more than $100,000 a year."
Those get-a-life moves may not be panaceas for all the disruptions of our time, but for crackpots, online and elsewhere, who are fueling social madness, they suggest a start.
As E. M. Forster put it a century ago, only connect.
Update: New figures show U.S. prescription sales rose by 5.1 percent to $300.3 billion in 2009, compared to a 1.8 percent growth the year before, with antipsychotics leading the way with $14.6 billion and antidepressants at $9.9 million. In between were acid-reflux regulators and cholesterol-lowering drugs--all in all, a high price for trying to maintain a sound mind in a sound body.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Financial Reform: The Opacity of Hope
The glaring area in which this Administration has been Change-challenged is up next, and the question is whether the President will direct his new-found audacity at the money manipulators who have been wrecking the economy.
Unlike health insurers, the financial industry has little public support after the meltdown, but obfuscation is rife and will get worse as lobbyists pour tons of money into pressuring Washington lawmakers already on their payroll, running ads and petition drives.
What's worse is that the White House, led by former Wall Streeters Geithner and Summers, has so far shown little appetite for the kind of real reform advocated by former Fed chairman Paul Volcker, who is only unleashed on rare occasions to lend them credibility.
In Congress Chris Dodd, who opened the door to disaster back in 1991 with an amendment that, in the words of Pulitzer Prize-winning Gretchen Morgenson, "expanded the cast of institutions that could call on the Federal Reserve's emergency backstop powers if they were ever to get into trouble," is heading the Senate Banking Committee's reform efforts and, while making grand promises, is also warning against "excessive regulation."
Even with his imminent retirement, Dodd and his Senate colleagues are short of what Morgenson calls regulatory DNA, offering bills that are "half-baked and really do not address some of the crucial elements of reform that are needed if we want to prevent this kind of crisis from happening again," prompting her interviewer Bill Moyers to suggest that the whole process sounds like making arsonists the new fire chiefs.
The real hope in all this is that Barack Obama, with a zest for combat sharpened by his health-care victory, will abandon caution and take on an industry that caused a meltdown, took billions of bailout money and is back doing what caused the crisis in the first place.
“He goes into these into these negotiations, and into these legislative battles, with a stronger hand," says White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, "because people understand that he’s going to fight for what he believes in.”
Some Republicans may join him, Gibbs believes: “Understanding that what they got out of the health care thing was virtually nothing, I think they may think twice on financial reform.”
Those who have lost much of their life savings in the past two years won't be ready to bet what remains on that.
Unlike health insurers, the financial industry has little public support after the meltdown, but obfuscation is rife and will get worse as lobbyists pour tons of money into pressuring Washington lawmakers already on their payroll, running ads and petition drives.
What's worse is that the White House, led by former Wall Streeters Geithner and Summers, has so far shown little appetite for the kind of real reform advocated by former Fed chairman Paul Volcker, who is only unleashed on rare occasions to lend them credibility.
In Congress Chris Dodd, who opened the door to disaster back in 1991 with an amendment that, in the words of Pulitzer Prize-winning Gretchen Morgenson, "expanded the cast of institutions that could call on the Federal Reserve's emergency backstop powers if they were ever to get into trouble," is heading the Senate Banking Committee's reform efforts and, while making grand promises, is also warning against "excessive regulation."
Even with his imminent retirement, Dodd and his Senate colleagues are short of what Morgenson calls regulatory DNA, offering bills that are "half-baked and really do not address some of the crucial elements of reform that are needed if we want to prevent this kind of crisis from happening again," prompting her interviewer Bill Moyers to suggest that the whole process sounds like making arsonists the new fire chiefs.
The real hope in all this is that Barack Obama, with a zest for combat sharpened by his health-care victory, will abandon caution and take on an industry that caused a meltdown, took billions of bailout money and is back doing what caused the crisis in the first place.
“He goes into these into these negotiations, and into these legislative battles, with a stronger hand," says White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, "because people understand that he’s going to fight for what he believes in.”
Some Republicans may join him, Gibbs believes: “Understanding that what they got out of the health care thing was virtually nothing, I think they may think twice on financial reform.”
Those who have lost much of their life savings in the past two years won't be ready to bet what remains on that.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Obama on Offense
"Winning isn't everything," football coach Vince Lombardi famously said, "it's the only thing." Half a century later, as Republicans adapt that gridiron philosophy into a threat of political gridlock, Barack Obama is signaling it may not be a winning strategy.
As Congress left town this weekend, the President did an end run around their blocking of his executive choices by making 15 interim appointments.
“The United States Senate has the responsibility to approve or disprove of my nominees,” he said. “But if, in the interest of scoring political points, Republicans in the Senate refuse to exercise that responsibility, I must act...I simply cannot allow partisan politics to stand in the way of the basic functioning of government."
If that sounds exaggerated, consider John McCain's reaction to passage of health care, “There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year. They have poisoned the well in what they’ve done and how they’ve done it.”
As they take up the rallying cry of "repeal, replace and reform" of what House Leader John Boehner has called "Armageddon," Republicans see themselves in a battle of Biblical proportions that calls not just for defeating enemies but obliterating them.
After a weeklong acting out of rage and resentment by a Tea Party minority across the country, what Richard Nixon used to call "the Silent Majority" of Americans may be ready to recoil and get behind a President who is going about the business of acting in their interests to strengthen the economy and deal with international threats such as nuclear weapons.
When they do, the irrationality will fade and Democrats' losses in November may be minimized, but the long-term damage of winning as "the only thing" will linger on.
Paul Krugman put it best: "In the short run, Republican extremism may be good for Democrats, to the extent that it prompts a voter backlash. But in the long run, it’s a very bad thing for America. We need to have two reasonable, rational parties in this country. And right now we don’t."
Vince Lombardi knew that it takes two teams to play the game.
Update: To underscore his new political posture, the President makes a surprise visit to Afghanistan today to pressure Hamid Karzai and encourage American troops there. In the face of all-out GOP opposition, Obama seems to be echoing Admiral Farragut's classic response in the heat of Civil War battle, "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!"
As Congress left town this weekend, the President did an end run around their blocking of his executive choices by making 15 interim appointments.
“The United States Senate has the responsibility to approve or disprove of my nominees,” he said. “But if, in the interest of scoring political points, Republicans in the Senate refuse to exercise that responsibility, I must act...I simply cannot allow partisan politics to stand in the way of the basic functioning of government."
If that sounds exaggerated, consider John McCain's reaction to passage of health care, “There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year. They have poisoned the well in what they’ve done and how they’ve done it.”
As they take up the rallying cry of "repeal, replace and reform" of what House Leader John Boehner has called "Armageddon," Republicans see themselves in a battle of Biblical proportions that calls not just for defeating enemies but obliterating them.
After a weeklong acting out of rage and resentment by a Tea Party minority across the country, what Richard Nixon used to call "the Silent Majority" of Americans may be ready to recoil and get behind a President who is going about the business of acting in their interests to strengthen the economy and deal with international threats such as nuclear weapons.
When they do, the irrationality will fade and Democrats' losses in November may be minimized, but the long-term damage of winning as "the only thing" will linger on.
Paul Krugman put it best: "In the short run, Republican extremism may be good for Democrats, to the extent that it prompts a voter backlash. But in the long run, it’s a very bad thing for America. We need to have two reasonable, rational parties in this country. And right now we don’t."
Vince Lombardi knew that it takes two teams to play the game.
Update: To underscore his new political posture, the President makes a surprise visit to Afghanistan today to pressure Hamid Karzai and encourage American troops there. In the face of all-out GOP opposition, Obama seems to be echoing Admiral Farragut's classic response in the heat of Civil War battle, "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!"
Thursday, March 25, 2010
High Profiles: Pelosi and Palin
The two feistiest figures in politics today are doing it without a Y chromosome.
On the PBS News Hour, the Speaker of the House evoked that old Feminist slogan to sell cigarettes, "You've come a long way, baby" as an energized Nancy Pelosi took a victory lap on health care.
Meanwhile, in the era when a woman couldn't make it to the White House, Sarah Palin is one of the few Republicans actually winning anything, her latest triumph a million-dollar-an-episode contract for a reality show on the Discovery Channel.
During the health care campaign, the President was making the speeches, but Pelosi was in the trenches fighting for every vote and now is offering no apologies.
"Bipartisanship," she tells Jim Lehrer, "is not more important than a little child who is sick, being deprived of coverage because he has a preexisting condition. It's not more important that...just being a woman is no longer a preexisting medical condition, that if you lose your job, you lose your insurance, that, if you want to start a business...or change jobs, you're not job-locked, that insurance companies can...increase your rates, and you're at their mercy."
On the other side of the ideological divide, Palin has come a long way from the knowledge-deprived Vice-Presidential candidate and is now, on a Facebook page, targeting by name 20 Democrats, vowing that in November "we’re going to print pink slips for members of Congress as fast as they’ve been printing money," even as she has to rebut charges of inciting violence against health care supporters.
As much as Pelosi and Palin may rub those who disagree with them the wrong way, together they exemplify how much the American political landscape has changed in half a century since a young John F. Kennedy wrote "Profiles in Courage" and failed to include even one woman.
To make amends, he wrote an article for McCalls, highlighting Jeannette Rankin, the first of her gender ever elected to the House of Representatives and the only member to vote against entering World War I. She lived to be 92, helped women get the vote and never stopped fighting for causes she believed in.
The next young politician to write about women as leaders in this century will have a much wider choice.
On the PBS News Hour, the Speaker of the House evoked that old Feminist slogan to sell cigarettes, "You've come a long way, baby" as an energized Nancy Pelosi took a victory lap on health care.
Meanwhile, in the era when a woman couldn't make it to the White House, Sarah Palin is one of the few Republicans actually winning anything, her latest triumph a million-dollar-an-episode contract for a reality show on the Discovery Channel.
During the health care campaign, the President was making the speeches, but Pelosi was in the trenches fighting for every vote and now is offering no apologies.
"Bipartisanship," she tells Jim Lehrer, "is not more important than a little child who is sick, being deprived of coverage because he has a preexisting condition. It's not more important that...just being a woman is no longer a preexisting medical condition, that if you lose your job, you lose your insurance, that, if you want to start a business...or change jobs, you're not job-locked, that insurance companies can...increase your rates, and you're at their mercy."
On the other side of the ideological divide, Palin has come a long way from the knowledge-deprived Vice-Presidential candidate and is now, on a Facebook page, targeting by name 20 Democrats, vowing that in November "we’re going to print pink slips for members of Congress as fast as they’ve been printing money," even as she has to rebut charges of inciting violence against health care supporters.
As much as Pelosi and Palin may rub those who disagree with them the wrong way, together they exemplify how much the American political landscape has changed in half a century since a young John F. Kennedy wrote "Profiles in Courage" and failed to include even one woman.
To make amends, he wrote an article for McCalls, highlighting Jeannette Rankin, the first of her gender ever elected to the House of Representatives and the only member to vote against entering World War I. She lived to be 92, helped women get the vote and never stopped fighting for causes she believed in.
The next young politician to write about women as leaders in this century will have a much wider choice.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Final Scenes of the Farce
Senate Republicans have sent David Vitter out to do to health care what he was caught doing with minions of the DC Madam almost three years ago.
By this grotesque logic, John Ensign should be up next instructing small business owners in better ways to cover their workers in good faith.
Even strait-laced Tom Coburn is getting into the spirit of the thing with an amendment barring coverage of Viagra for sex offenders.
If the GOP's last stand is taking on the look of a Feydeau bedroom farce, it's only fitting for an enterprise that has as much to do with reality as the racing around and slamming of doors in "Hotel Paradiso."
Unlike the House performance of breast-beating drama, members of the Upper Chamber will at least provide some comic relief before making their exits and letting the Democrats' production of health care reform play out on the national stage.
Their antics may be no more successful than Vitter's solo attempt to block Hillary Clinton's confirmation as Secretary of State but will provide Americans with an entertaining demonstration of the old Arab proverb, "The dogs bark but the caravan moves on."
By this grotesque logic, John Ensign should be up next instructing small business owners in better ways to cover their workers in good faith.
Even strait-laced Tom Coburn is getting into the spirit of the thing with an amendment barring coverage of Viagra for sex offenders.
If the GOP's last stand is taking on the look of a Feydeau bedroom farce, it's only fitting for an enterprise that has as much to do with reality as the racing around and slamming of doors in "Hotel Paradiso."
Unlike the House performance of breast-beating drama, members of the Upper Chamber will at least provide some comic relief before making their exits and letting the Democrats' production of health care reform play out on the national stage.
Their antics may be no more successful than Vitter's solo attempt to block Hillary Clinton's confirmation as Secretary of State but will provide Americans with an entertaining demonstration of the old Arab proverb, "The dogs bark but the caravan moves on."
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
From Now to November
According to pundits, Americans will be marking time for eight months, waiting to vote next fall in "a referendum on the most significant social legislation enacted in half a century."
But like most conventional wisdom, that's too simplistic a view of the political landscape in a confused, angry and volatile time.
As the President prepares to sign an interim bill and the Senate girds for its bound-to-be-ugly vote, the health-care battleground with all its smoking wreckage has only days left as the center of partisan conflict.
After that, other issues will predominate, and the sad spectacle of a disintegrating two-party system will move on to butchering them--Democrats reaching and probably overreaching for legislative solutions, Republicans locked into a solid opposition that is betting on gridlock as a winning strategy.
Looking at the challenge "to save this country from stagnation and fiscal ruin," David Brooks, while not exonerating the GOP, despairs of Democrats: "With the word security engraved on its heart, the Democratic Party is just not structured to cut spending that would enhance health and safety. The party nurtures; it does not say, 'No more.'”
Yet voters, persuaded that both parties are more motivated by politics than policy disagreements, may not be susceptible to arguments about ideology.
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel sees the President's victory this weekend in visceral terms: "Part of the test here at the end wasn't this policy or that policy. It was 'Did he have the capacity to deliver?' That question mark around him and the presidency has been answered."
In any case, the electorate will not be in a state of suspended animation over this spring, summer and fall. No matter to how high a pitch Republicans can raise their rhetoric ("Freedom dies a little bit today" and "baby killer"), they will eventually have to engage on the substance of such issues as immigration and controlling Wall Street or risk losing the support of Independents not suffering from brain damage.
Meanwhile, it's much too early to start counting November votes.
Update: The post-passing of the bill begins with Gallup now showing "By Slim Margin, Americans Support Healthcare Bill's Passage," a reversal of last week's polls. The twists and turns between now and November will be many and varied, and anyone who tries to predict what will happen then should run his crystal ball through a car wash.
But like most conventional wisdom, that's too simplistic a view of the political landscape in a confused, angry and volatile time.
As the President prepares to sign an interim bill and the Senate girds for its bound-to-be-ugly vote, the health-care battleground with all its smoking wreckage has only days left as the center of partisan conflict.
After that, other issues will predominate, and the sad spectacle of a disintegrating two-party system will move on to butchering them--Democrats reaching and probably overreaching for legislative solutions, Republicans locked into a solid opposition that is betting on gridlock as a winning strategy.
Looking at the challenge "to save this country from stagnation and fiscal ruin," David Brooks, while not exonerating the GOP, despairs of Democrats: "With the word security engraved on its heart, the Democratic Party is just not structured to cut spending that would enhance health and safety. The party nurtures; it does not say, 'No more.'”
Yet voters, persuaded that both parties are more motivated by politics than policy disagreements, may not be susceptible to arguments about ideology.
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel sees the President's victory this weekend in visceral terms: "Part of the test here at the end wasn't this policy or that policy. It was 'Did he have the capacity to deliver?' That question mark around him and the presidency has been answered."
In any case, the electorate will not be in a state of suspended animation over this spring, summer and fall. No matter to how high a pitch Republicans can raise their rhetoric ("Freedom dies a little bit today" and "baby killer"), they will eventually have to engage on the substance of such issues as immigration and controlling Wall Street or risk losing the support of Independents not suffering from brain damage.
Meanwhile, it's much too early to start counting November votes.
Update: The post-passing of the bill begins with Gallup now showing "By Slim Margin, Americans Support Healthcare Bill's Passage," a reversal of last week's polls. The twists and turns between now and November will be many and varied, and anyone who tries to predict what will happen then should run his crystal ball through a car wash.
Monday, March 22, 2010
A Disaster That Didn't Happen
The Democrats celebrated an overtime victory in the health care Super Bowl in subdued fashion--no champagne corks popped in the Oval Office, no one dumped Gatorade on Nancy Pelosi--a suitable response to winning by not losing.
When the cry of "baby killer" at Bart Stupak had faded and the last vote was counted, the significance of a year-long struggle was that Republicans had failed to bring down the Obama Administration with a crushing defeat.
In our cut-your-losses age, this is no small matter, but passing a convoluted package of "reforms," most of which won't kick in for years, is hardly the equivalent of bringing Americans Social Security and Medicare, as Democratic leaders claim.
The bill, says a New York Times editorial, "represents a national commitment to reform the worst elements of the current system...Our hope and belief is that this reform will in the end accomplish its great objectives. Right now, the good news for all Americans is that despite all the politics and the obstructionism, the process has finally begun."
There is much to be said for "hope and belief," but as with the economic stimulus and jobs bill, this Obama accomplishment will be a long time in putting bread on American dinner tables.
That said, the President deserves credit for not wavering in the face of Tea Party rage and the Scott Brown surprise in taking over the seat of Ted Kennedy, whose widow praised the House victory in his memory.
But not losing is far from winning and, in the months ahead, Democrats will have to work hard to persuade dispirited voters that, despite total Republican obstructionism, something is better than nothing.
If they had lost yesterday, it would have been a political disaster.
When the cry of "baby killer" at Bart Stupak had faded and the last vote was counted, the significance of a year-long struggle was that Republicans had failed to bring down the Obama Administration with a crushing defeat.
In our cut-your-losses age, this is no small matter, but passing a convoluted package of "reforms," most of which won't kick in for years, is hardly the equivalent of bringing Americans Social Security and Medicare, as Democratic leaders claim.
The bill, says a New York Times editorial, "represents a national commitment to reform the worst elements of the current system...Our hope and belief is that this reform will in the end accomplish its great objectives. Right now, the good news for all Americans is that despite all the politics and the obstructionism, the process has finally begun."
There is much to be said for "hope and belief," but as with the economic stimulus and jobs bill, this Obama accomplishment will be a long time in putting bread on American dinner tables.
That said, the President deserves credit for not wavering in the face of Tea Party rage and the Scott Brown surprise in taking over the seat of Ted Kennedy, whose widow praised the House victory in his memory.
But not losing is far from winning and, in the months ahead, Democrats will have to work hard to persuade dispirited voters that, despite total Republican obstructionism, something is better than nothing.
If they had lost yesterday, it would have been a political disaster.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Obama By Heart
Without advance text or notes, the 44th president of the United States did yesterday what he should have done a year ago in the struggle that will decide the fate of his tenure.
On the eve of their vote on the unholy mess that health care reform has become, Barack Obama took moral leadership of his party and, in a "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" moment, invoked Lincoln for his theme: "I'm not bound to win, but I’m bound to be true. I’m not bound to succeed, but I’m bound to live up to what light I have.”
To the confusion of critics and more objective commentators alike, the President relied less on rational argument than an appeal to the hearts of Washington wheelers-and-dealers who are held in rock-bottom opinion poll esteem by Americans they represent.
Abandoning his hopeless quest for bipartisanship, he reminded fellow party members why they were there: "Something inspired you to get involved, and something inspired you to be a Democrat instead of running as a Republican. Because somewhere deep in your heart you said to yourself, I believe in an America in which we don’t just look out for ourselves, that we don’t just tell people you’re on your own, that we are proud of our individualism, we are proud of our liberty, but we also have a sense of neighborliness and a sense of community and we are willing to look out for one another."
With empathy for their "tough vote," Mr. Obama echoed Frank Capra's Jefferson Smith's urging them to live up to "what Man's carved out for himself, after centuries of fighting. Fighting for something better than just jungle law, fighting so he can stand on his own two feet, free and decent, like he was created, no matter what his race, color, or creed."
As this President spoke, patriots outside with a Tea Party sense of "neighborliness" and "community" were spewing racial epithets and gay slurs at lawmakers.
As he spoke, bishops of the American Catholic Church, while professing their social compassion, were instructing Congressmen of their faith to vote "no" in order "to ensure that health care reform respects the life and dignity of all, from conception to natural death."
As he spoke, Republicans were reassuring supporters yelling "kill the bill" that, in Mike Spence's words, "whether victory will come on the third Sunday in March or on the first Tuesday in November...victory will come.”
Barack Obama has made many tactical mistakes in a year's struggle over health care, failures that have led to overly complicated and convoluted policy and process but, facing today's climactic vote, he has earned the right to ask Congressional colleagues to "make good on those promises that you made in all those town meetings and all those constituency breakfasts and all that traveling through the district, all those people who you looked in the eye and you said, you know what, you’re right, the system is not working for you and I’m going to make it a little bit better."
On the eve of their vote on the unholy mess that health care reform has become, Barack Obama took moral leadership of his party and, in a "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" moment, invoked Lincoln for his theme: "I'm not bound to win, but I’m bound to be true. I’m not bound to succeed, but I’m bound to live up to what light I have.”
To the confusion of critics and more objective commentators alike, the President relied less on rational argument than an appeal to the hearts of Washington wheelers-and-dealers who are held in rock-bottom opinion poll esteem by Americans they represent.
Abandoning his hopeless quest for bipartisanship, he reminded fellow party members why they were there: "Something inspired you to get involved, and something inspired you to be a Democrat instead of running as a Republican. Because somewhere deep in your heart you said to yourself, I believe in an America in which we don’t just look out for ourselves, that we don’t just tell people you’re on your own, that we are proud of our individualism, we are proud of our liberty, but we also have a sense of neighborliness and a sense of community and we are willing to look out for one another."
With empathy for their "tough vote," Mr. Obama echoed Frank Capra's Jefferson Smith's urging them to live up to "what Man's carved out for himself, after centuries of fighting. Fighting for something better than just jungle law, fighting so he can stand on his own two feet, free and decent, like he was created, no matter what his race, color, or creed."
As this President spoke, patriots outside with a Tea Party sense of "neighborliness" and "community" were spewing racial epithets and gay slurs at lawmakers.
As he spoke, bishops of the American Catholic Church, while professing their social compassion, were instructing Congressmen of their faith to vote "no" in order "to ensure that health care reform respects the life and dignity of all, from conception to natural death."
As he spoke, Republicans were reassuring supporters yelling "kill the bill" that, in Mike Spence's words, "whether victory will come on the third Sunday in March or on the first Tuesday in November...victory will come.”
Barack Obama has made many tactical mistakes in a year's struggle over health care, failures that have led to overly complicated and convoluted policy and process but, facing today's climactic vote, he has earned the right to ask Congressional colleagues to "make good on those promises that you made in all those town meetings and all those constituency breakfasts and all that traveling through the district, all those people who you looked in the eye and you said, you know what, you’re right, the system is not working for you and I’m going to make it a little bit better."
Friday, March 19, 2010
A Fox News Foaming-at-the-Mouth Weekend
Rep. Steve King calls Sunday's health care vote sacrilegious "to take away the liberty that we have right from God," and Glenn Beck agrees that it is the work of "a group of people that have so perverted our faith and our hope and our charity, that is a--this is an affront to God."
Just the kickoff for a foaming-at-the-mouth festival in Murdochland as Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal applauds Brett Baier's sassing of the President on Fox News, while disclosing that "Fox is owned by News Corp., which also owns this newspaper, so one should probably take pains to demonstrate that one is attempting to speak with disinterest and impartiality, in pursuit of which let me note that Glenn Beck has long appeared to be insane."
Her column accompanies another Journal piece titled "Whether or Not Congress 'Deems,' Public Is Steamed" asserting that "brawling" on health care "has fed a public unhappiness with the institution of Congress that now borders on disgust."
How strongly their master, the former Australian Rupert Murdoch, feels about fomenting revolution here is reflected in the fact that, although he recently starting charging readers for such gems online, both links were available free at the time of this writing.
The start of the decisive health care weekend promises to be a test for First Amendment purists as well, as Fox News et al pull out all the stops in what used to be called advocacy journalism but has morphed into anarchic attacks on a president and his party.
How far all this has gone can be judged from the news that Bill O'Reilly is now seen as a moderate.
"You've become in some ways the voice of sanity here," Jon Stewart noted during a recent appearance on O'Reilly's show, which is "like being the thinnest kid at fat camp."
But this weekend, the fat kids will be gorging.
Just the kickoff for a foaming-at-the-mouth festival in Murdochland as Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal applauds Brett Baier's sassing of the President on Fox News, while disclosing that "Fox is owned by News Corp., which also owns this newspaper, so one should probably take pains to demonstrate that one is attempting to speak with disinterest and impartiality, in pursuit of which let me note that Glenn Beck has long appeared to be insane."
Her column accompanies another Journal piece titled "Whether or Not Congress 'Deems,' Public Is Steamed" asserting that "brawling" on health care "has fed a public unhappiness with the institution of Congress that now borders on disgust."
How strongly their master, the former Australian Rupert Murdoch, feels about fomenting revolution here is reflected in the fact that, although he recently starting charging readers for such gems online, both links were available free at the time of this writing.
The start of the decisive health care weekend promises to be a test for First Amendment purists as well, as Fox News et al pull out all the stops in what used to be called advocacy journalism but has morphed into anarchic attacks on a president and his party.
How far all this has gone can be judged from the news that Bill O'Reilly is now seen as a moderate.
"You've become in some ways the voice of sanity here," Jon Stewart noted during a recent appearance on O'Reilly's show, which is "like being the thinnest kid at fat camp."
But this weekend, the fat kids will be gorging.
Sandra, Groucho and the Oscar Love Curse
The disturbing image of the day is Sandra Bullock happily clutching her Academy Award earlier this month, only to learn days later that her husband had been cheating on her with a tattoo model whose forehead reads "Pray For Us Sinners."
The news prompts the New York Post to discover an "Oscar love curse" afflicting women who won in recent years but lost their mates--Kate Winslet, Julia Roberts, Hillary Swank, Charlize Theron, Reese Witherspoon--an observation reflecting Feminist chestnuts about men being unable to cope with powerful, successful women and macho counter-arguments about their loss of femininity.
In Bullock's case at least, that doesn't seem to be an issue as biker husband Jesse James apologizes for "my poor judgment" in his liaison with tattoo-covered "Bombshell," who works as a stripper and poses on adult web sites.
Whatever the sociological import, the sad episode brings back memories of Groucho's classic:
"Lydia oh Lydia, say have you met Lydia,/Lydia, the Tattooed Lady./She has eyes that folks adore so,/And a torso even more so.
"Lydia oh Lydia, that encyclopidia,/Oh Lydia the Queen of Tattoo./On her back is the Battle of Waterloo./Beside it the wreck of the Hesperus, too./And proudly above waves the Red, White, and Blue,/You can learn a lot from Lydia."
Sandra Bullock's marriage went awry while she was working on "The Blind Side." What would Groucho have made of that?
The news prompts the New York Post to discover an "Oscar love curse" afflicting women who won in recent years but lost their mates--Kate Winslet, Julia Roberts, Hillary Swank, Charlize Theron, Reese Witherspoon--an observation reflecting Feminist chestnuts about men being unable to cope with powerful, successful women and macho counter-arguments about their loss of femininity.
In Bullock's case at least, that doesn't seem to be an issue as biker husband Jesse James apologizes for "my poor judgment" in his liaison with tattoo-covered "Bombshell," who works as a stripper and poses on adult web sites.
Whatever the sociological import, the sad episode brings back memories of Groucho's classic:
"Lydia oh Lydia, say have you met Lydia,/Lydia, the Tattooed Lady./She has eyes that folks adore so,/And a torso even more so.
"Lydia oh Lydia, that encyclopidia,/Oh Lydia the Queen of Tattoo./On her back is the Battle of Waterloo./Beside it the wreck of the Hesperus, too./And proudly above waves the Red, White, and Blue,/You can learn a lot from Lydia."
Sandra Bullock's marriage went awry while she was working on "The Blind Side." What would Groucho have made of that?
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Ugliest Political Week in Memory
As health care fever spikes up, the body politic in woozy Washington is showing symptoms of a breakdown.
Democrats are struggling with parliamentary paralysis, Republicans are having apoplectic fits and Barack Obama is laying hands on everyone in sight with pleas to help a presidency on life support.
His agitation brought him to Fox News last night for a Tourette's Syndrome interview with someone named Bret Baier, who sat in the White House constantly interrupting the President with what the transcript describes as "cross talk" but sounded more like disrespectful baiting at cross purposes.
House Democrats have turned into babbling talking heads trying to explain "reconciliation" and "deem and pass" as stretcher bearers in the background search for arm-twisted victims to bring their body count to the needed 216.
Dennis Kucinich signed on yesterday, citing his worry that Republicans were not only attacking Barack Obama on the issue but trying to "delegitimize his presidency."
On the Daily Show, Jon Stewart offered a montage of right-wing raging, culminating in loony Rep. Steve King's call for a velvet revolution akin to the Prague uprising against Communism. But in what is called real life, Republicans are busy planning to repeal anything that passes after they take control of Congress in November.
Now that the CBO has put numbers on the proposed legislation ($940 billion over the first decade with deficit cuts of $130 billion and $1.2 trillion in the second), the stage is set for a Sunday vote that could put an end to the week's chaos that has been uglier than anything seen in Washington since the days of Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre, and we all know how long it took to recover from that.
Democrats are struggling with parliamentary paralysis, Republicans are having apoplectic fits and Barack Obama is laying hands on everyone in sight with pleas to help a presidency on life support.
His agitation brought him to Fox News last night for a Tourette's Syndrome interview with someone named Bret Baier, who sat in the White House constantly interrupting the President with what the transcript describes as "cross talk" but sounded more like disrespectful baiting at cross purposes.
House Democrats have turned into babbling talking heads trying to explain "reconciliation" and "deem and pass" as stretcher bearers in the background search for arm-twisted victims to bring their body count to the needed 216.
Dennis Kucinich signed on yesterday, citing his worry that Republicans were not only attacking Barack Obama on the issue but trying to "delegitimize his presidency."
On the Daily Show, Jon Stewart offered a montage of right-wing raging, culminating in loony Rep. Steve King's call for a velvet revolution akin to the Prague uprising against Communism. But in what is called real life, Republicans are busy planning to repeal anything that passes after they take control of Congress in November.
Now that the CBO has put numbers on the proposed legislation ($940 billion over the first decade with deficit cuts of $130 billion and $1.2 trillion in the second), the stage is set for a Sunday vote that could put an end to the week's chaos that has been uglier than anything seen in Washington since the days of Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre, and we all know how long it took to recover from that.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Memories Ever Green
St. Patrick's Day recalls lunches every year in the McCalls dining room with Guinness, Jameson and Bushmill to warm Irish friends, born and adopted, as they devoured the world's best corned beef and cabbage lovingly prepared by Kathleen McPartland. Even the boiled potatoes had a special savor.
After President Kennedy was killed in 1963, Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, "To be Irish is to know that in the end the world will break your heart."
Growing up in the Bronx of the 1930s, almost everyone I knew was Jewish. In our apartment building, there was one Irish family whose men sat on the front steps in summer, drinking beer and joking. As the evening went on, their smiles got wider, their talk louder. They seemed to be breathing some other air. They were as poor as the rest of us, but so full of life.
As a young man in Manhattan of the 1950s, I would go after work to Costello's, a saloon where you could breathe that "other air" with writers, editors and artists, a place John McNulty had made famous in the New Yorker. Pat Moynihan was sometimes there, wearing an outdated straw boater, but no one seemed to think it odd.
Tim Costello was our Irish godfather, keeping us happy but grounded and civil. When Frank McCourt, who later wrote "Angela's Ashes," came over as an 18-year-old immigrant, Tim sent him to the New York Public Library to read Samuel Johnson.
Over the years my life has been entwined with colleagues, friends and relatives by marriage--love to Fiona, Hugh, Niall et al--who have leavened my Jewish gloom with their wit and cheer, so here's a St. Patrick Day's toast to Tim Costello and all the new generations of Irish who, as an OpEd writer reminds us today, have given us gifts of words and high spirits.
As this dark winter finally starts to lighten up, we need them more than ever.
After President Kennedy was killed in 1963, Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, "To be Irish is to know that in the end the world will break your heart."
Growing up in the Bronx of the 1930s, almost everyone I knew was Jewish. In our apartment building, there was one Irish family whose men sat on the front steps in summer, drinking beer and joking. As the evening went on, their smiles got wider, their talk louder. They seemed to be breathing some other air. They were as poor as the rest of us, but so full of life.
As a young man in Manhattan of the 1950s, I would go after work to Costello's, a saloon where you could breathe that "other air" with writers, editors and artists, a place John McNulty had made famous in the New Yorker. Pat Moynihan was sometimes there, wearing an outdated straw boater, but no one seemed to think it odd.
Tim Costello was our Irish godfather, keeping us happy but grounded and civil. When Frank McCourt, who later wrote "Angela's Ashes," came over as an 18-year-old immigrant, Tim sent him to the New York Public Library to read Samuel Johnson.
Over the years my life has been entwined with colleagues, friends and relatives by marriage--love to Fiona, Hugh, Niall et al--who have leavened my Jewish gloom with their wit and cheer, so here's a St. Patrick Day's toast to Tim Costello and all the new generations of Irish who, as an OpEd writer reminds us today, have given us gifts of words and high spirits.
As this dark winter finally starts to lighten up, we need them more than ever.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Obama, Person to Person
Personalizing an issue is an old ploy, but Barack Obama has reminded so many of us why we put him in the White House.
Rallying support for health care, the President pressed the case of Natoma Canfield, a 50-year-old Ohio cancer patient. He had used her letter to him at a meeting with health insurers, and now he was telling a crowd:
"She’s self-employed, she’s trying to make ends meet, and for years she’s done the responsible thing...bought her health insurance through the individual market.
"And it was important for her...because 16 years ago, she was diagnosed with a treatable form of cancer. And even though she had been cancer-free for more than a decade, the insurance companies kept on jacking up her rates, year after year.
"So she increased her out-of-pocket expenses. She raised her deductible...she didn’t want to be in a position where, if she did get sick, somebody else would have to pick up the tab…
"But despite that, Natoma’s insurance company raised her premiums by more than 25 percent. And over the past year, she paid more than $6,000 in monthly premiums. She paid more than $4,000 in out-of-pocket medical costs, for co-pays and medical care and prescriptions. So all together, this woman paid $10,000--one year. But because she never hit her deductible, her insurance company only spent $900 on her care...
"Now, what comes in the mail at the end of last year? A letter telling Natoma that her premiums would go up again by more than 40 percent."
The climax of Obama's story is that, in January, she had to let her insurance lapse, and last week she collapsed and was diagnosed with leukemia.
Now, under all this public scrutiny, the Cleveland Clinic is saying it "will not put a lien" on Ms. Canfield's home, while seeking public assistance to help cover her costs.
Two years ago, while running for president, Obama talked about a young white woman who worked for his South Carolina campaign.
Explaining why they were there, Ashley Baia had told volunteers that when she was nine, her mother was stricken with cancer, lost her health care and filed for bankruptcy and that she "convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat."
"She did this for a year until her mom got better," Obama said, "and she told everyone...the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too."
When it was the turn of an elderly black man to explain why he was there, he answered, "I'm here because of Ashley."
That experience typified his campaign, Obama said then: “'I’m here because of Ashley.' By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough...But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger."
Since then, our union has failed to grow stronger, but despite stumbles along the way, we have a President who has held onto his humanity and is still here for the Ashley Baias and Natoma Canfields.
"To save one life," says the Talmud, "is as if you have saved the world."
Barack Obama is still trying.
Rallying support for health care, the President pressed the case of Natoma Canfield, a 50-year-old Ohio cancer patient. He had used her letter to him at a meeting with health insurers, and now he was telling a crowd:
"She’s self-employed, she’s trying to make ends meet, and for years she’s done the responsible thing...bought her health insurance through the individual market.
"And it was important for her...because 16 years ago, she was diagnosed with a treatable form of cancer. And even though she had been cancer-free for more than a decade, the insurance companies kept on jacking up her rates, year after year.
"So she increased her out-of-pocket expenses. She raised her deductible...she didn’t want to be in a position where, if she did get sick, somebody else would have to pick up the tab…
"But despite that, Natoma’s insurance company raised her premiums by more than 25 percent. And over the past year, she paid more than $6,000 in monthly premiums. She paid more than $4,000 in out-of-pocket medical costs, for co-pays and medical care and prescriptions. So all together, this woman paid $10,000--one year. But because she never hit her deductible, her insurance company only spent $900 on her care...
"Now, what comes in the mail at the end of last year? A letter telling Natoma that her premiums would go up again by more than 40 percent."
The climax of Obama's story is that, in January, she had to let her insurance lapse, and last week she collapsed and was diagnosed with leukemia.
Now, under all this public scrutiny, the Cleveland Clinic is saying it "will not put a lien" on Ms. Canfield's home, while seeking public assistance to help cover her costs.
Two years ago, while running for president, Obama talked about a young white woman who worked for his South Carolina campaign.
Explaining why they were there, Ashley Baia had told volunteers that when she was nine, her mother was stricken with cancer, lost her health care and filed for bankruptcy and that she "convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat."
"She did this for a year until her mom got better," Obama said, "and she told everyone...the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too."
When it was the turn of an elderly black man to explain why he was there, he answered, "I'm here because of Ashley."
That experience typified his campaign, Obama said then: “'I’m here because of Ashley.' By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough...But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger."
Since then, our union has failed to grow stronger, but despite stumbles along the way, we have a President who has held onto his humanity and is still here for the Ashley Baias and Natoma Canfields.
"To save one life," says the Talmud, "is as if you have saved the world."
Barack Obama is still trying.
The John Edwards Love Quadrangle
In politicians' philandering, from JFK to Bill Clinton and beyond, "love means never having to say you're sorry" (to quote the soupy 1970s movie) until your enablers run out of ways to keep you from getting caught.
Few have gone as far as Andrew Young, who tried to take a bullet for John Edwards by claiming he was the father of Rielle Hunter's baby, but greater love hath no man than...you know the rest.
In her coming-out interview in GQ, Hunter says casually, "Andrew was in love with Johnny...Beyond. And I believe he loved Johnny more than he loved Cheri [his wife]."
In their Oprah appearance last month, the Youngs confirmed their unconditional devotion. "We did everything," Mrs. Young said. "Both of us...It was extreme. We never, never said no," her husband adding, "Any time he got into any kind of hot water and needed something, he called me."
Now, with Edwards in permanent publicity hell, the quadrangle survivors are doing considerably better than their love object. Elizabeth Edwards is suing for divorce and her share of the family money, the Youngs are profiting from a best-selling book after escaping jail for possession of the infamous sex tape, while Hunter surfaces posing with her baby for a long New-Agey interview about their "profound," "till-death do us part" passion.
But there are always media flies in the ointment. Hunter, Barbara Walters tells us, cried over the phone for two hours over "repulsive" GQ photos of her in a man's shirt, string of pearls and nothing else. (But she may take some consolation from the fact that Jenny Sanford posed similarly for Vogue, looking quite elegant. But then again, since Mrs. Sanford was the wronged wife, maybe not.)
Meanwhile, Edwards was last sighted doing penance in Haiti after the earthquake, as the rest of the crew goes on with their lives, sadder but wiser.
"It's broken my heart," Andrew Young told Oprah, "that somebody who I considered my best friend lied to and then ran over me with a dump truck backward and forward."
So far, the object of Young's affection has shown no signs of saying he's sorry.
Few have gone as far as Andrew Young, who tried to take a bullet for John Edwards by claiming he was the father of Rielle Hunter's baby, but greater love hath no man than...you know the rest.
In her coming-out interview in GQ, Hunter says casually, "Andrew was in love with Johnny...Beyond. And I believe he loved Johnny more than he loved Cheri [his wife]."
In their Oprah appearance last month, the Youngs confirmed their unconditional devotion. "We did everything," Mrs. Young said. "Both of us...It was extreme. We never, never said no," her husband adding, "Any time he got into any kind of hot water and needed something, he called me."
Now, with Edwards in permanent publicity hell, the quadrangle survivors are doing considerably better than their love object. Elizabeth Edwards is suing for divorce and her share of the family money, the Youngs are profiting from a best-selling book after escaping jail for possession of the infamous sex tape, while Hunter surfaces posing with her baby for a long New-Agey interview about their "profound," "till-death do us part" passion.
But there are always media flies in the ointment. Hunter, Barbara Walters tells us, cried over the phone for two hours over "repulsive" GQ photos of her in a man's shirt, string of pearls and nothing else. (But she may take some consolation from the fact that Jenny Sanford posed similarly for Vogue, looking quite elegant. But then again, since Mrs. Sanford was the wronged wife, maybe not.)
Meanwhile, Edwards was last sighted doing penance in Haiti after the earthquake, as the rest of the crew goes on with their lives, sadder but wiser.
"It's broken my heart," Andrew Young told Oprah, "that somebody who I considered my best friend lied to and then ran over me with a dump truck backward and forward."
So far, the object of Young's affection has shown no signs of saying he's sorry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)