I guess my issue with that argument is that we already have a gigantic clusterfuck. Doctors, lawyers, insurance companies, and the pharmaceutical industry are scheming to milk every last penny out of us. They've built a system that is so complex and confusing, that it's almost easier to just wave the white flag during any major issues. They've talked our government into limiting options and creating a system where we have no say.

So I'd argue that all the complaints about what would happen under a single-payer system is stuff we already have right now. We have tons of layers with complicated interactions of different entitites. We don't have much choice when it comes to insurance companies, plans, doctors, drugs, and so forth. And while the argument has been that the private sector does everything more efficiently which reduces costs, that has not played out when it comes to health care. In fact, the private industry is getting curbstomped by just about every other industrialized nation who handles it themselves.

You can measure effective tax rates, but I can't find that info past 1979.

In case anyone was interested, the HC 'summit' just started up.

No surprise, but between Obama's passive-agressive comments concerning partisanship and Lamar Alexander's counter statement to open for the Republicans, there's not going to be anything accomplished with this meeting.

Man, I thought Lamar Alexander would never finish.

Hm... House pushed the health care anti-trust exemption repeal through yesterday 400-something to a few?

SI

Obama looked like he was going to fall asleep there

SI

Now I remember why it's better for Pelosi to be out doing legislative leg breaking (which she's quite good at) rather than speaking.

SI

....and, sadly, she is 10X the public speaker that Harry Reid is.

I actually think that Obama comes off pretty well in things like this, but Congress (on both sides) just look like the out of touch millionaires that they all are, for the most part.

+1

This is a nice touch. Watch a stream of the health care summit with a list of the donations from healthcare companies for everyone that speaks!

http://www.sunlightfoundation.com/live/

Wow. Max Baucus trying to sneak in "well, our bid had a state opt-out to the plan". I didn't see any news one way or the other with the Obama bill but I didn't hear anything about a state opt-out.

EDIT: Dear god, just don't let Baucus talk.

SI

Very nice touch - this is actually a way to limit the impact the constitutional free speech corporations enjoy regarding donation - if enough of us cared to vote based on this kind of stuff.

Well, Jon Kyl brings everything to a screeching halt and I have a feeling this is where the civility (read: mostly dog and pony show) breaks down.

Oh well. Paperwork is done for the morning and real work needs to happen so I guess I'll miss the rest of this "fun".

SI

I still remember the Online Gambling hearings a couple of years ago when Baucus starting asking questions. It was like he didn't even know what the internet was. I felt like I was trying to explain to my 90-some year old grandmother what e-mail was like. Painful to say the least.

Nothing can top Stevens.

That explains why my internet is so slow today... it sprung a leak. I have internet spilling all over the place, I need to call a network plumber.

The lack of even half-hearted commentary in this thread ought to sum up for everyone how meaningless today's hearings were. A photo op for both sides (or are there actually three sides, after all, "Because I'm the President" )that's about it.

A classic case of nothing-to-see-here-keep-moving-along

I felt pretty honored that President Obama took the time to text message me last night about this, but I had more pressing concerns.

I dunno - I'm interested to see more about how they went, but I've been busting my ass working all day.

A bunch of politicians got together to posture for cameras?

Yeah, I'm with Jon on this one.

I heard they fixed healthcare!

hehe:funkychickendance:

And reading up on Rangel I think he should frickin' resign and if the phone call by the Gov in NY is true he should resign too!

Rep. John Linder (R-GA) surprised pretty much everyone today by announcing that he will not seek re-election.

In addition to the usual suspects from the ranks of state politics & Linder staffers, the GOP is reportedly considering an effort to draft John Smoltz to run for the seat.

edit to add: Meanwhile don't be too surprised if Linder, a champion of the Fair Tax, doesn't end up making the rounds on the Tea Party circuit.

where's MBBF to scream the 'writing's on the wall'?

so dumb.

Agreed. Any assertion that this anything other than a retirement because he's too damn old is 'so dumb'.

slant much? One side retires = writing's on the wall, other side retires = anything but.

no one paints the corner youre in but you.

Eh, I'd say it's close to 50-50 that this is knowing that he's got a better chance of influencing the Tea Party et al into pushing Fair Tax than he does of getting the GOP to really push it without being forced to.

Let the record show that this thread did not get much slant until post #9240.

BTW, Smoltz tells the AJC's political reporter (via text message) that he's not interested in running for the seat.

I understand that its obvious but Im still remiss to allow it to slide because people assume that it is already taken with such slanted context. Thats what he wants, for the viewers to get lazy. :D

The only lazy assertion was your generalized statement that had no basis in fact.

Oh, the irony.

Please. Flasch makes me look intelligent in this thread. That's saying something.

I think we're well beyond the point of anyone looking intelligent in this thread.

We're starting to resembling the politicians running the show in that regard.

Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA) will leave Congress in order to focus full-time on his previously announced bid for Governor.

In his case, with what is shaping up to be a brutal primary fight that has at least four legitimate contenders (and two that are running ahead of Deal atm) it seems like the logical call. The seat seems awfully secure with 6 or 7 GOP candidates already declared & running, presumably most or all of them will seek to fill the unfinished portion of the term.

edit to add re: "secure" -- Deal won re-election 75-25 last time out, virtually identical margin by which McCain beat Obama in the district.

1. I had no idea Roy Barnes was running for governor again, should be a fun primary against Thurbert Baker.

2. I had no idea that Deal defended the Proof of Citizenship Law by saying that they were getting complaints from all the ghetto grandmothers.

3. Deal is apparently corrput, which makes him an excellent candidate to succeed Sonny.

4. Deal used to be a democrat and won the district fairly easily in 92 and 94 as a (D).

5. I had no idea that when Sonny and the republicans won control of the governorship and state senate, they voted to strip the Lt. Governor of all power (who was a democrat).

Is the parallel the Democrats' persistent ability to blow slam-dunk presidential elections?

Also, Obama's kind of like this decade's version of Gary Hart. Where's the Beef?

done.

Maybe I can't read, because it sure seems like you're using Obama's failures to argue that he will win handily in 2012. And that would just be dopey, so yes, the problem must be my reading.

So what happened in '84? Better Economy/Mondale, I guess. The equivalent to that in 2012 would be if the economy improves and the Republicans nominate Sarah Palin. Which could definitely all happen. (I only compare Mondale to Palin in terms of a party's disastrous nomination, not their qualifications)

Hart/Mondale in '84 was a lot like Clinton/Obama in 2008. Flash v. Substance. With different results.

OK, so if

Obama = Hart

and

H. Clinton = Mondale

then who's Reagan?

I'm so confused.


Seriously, though, for someone so keen on harping on about style over substance, you really need to re-read about how lightly Reagan was thought of during at least the first two years of his presidency.

I'll concede the point that the Democrats have a penchant for running truly terrible candidates: Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry and... Coakley. :D

I think the broader point is that early 2010 is way too soon to make predictions for 2012. Lots of things can happen in two years that negate the status quo of today.

Did someone call Walter Mondale "flashy?" :)

The GOP blocked a federal judicial nominee for months that today won confirmation 99-0.

Nice principles.

It's just stupid.

Panerd walks in the room... "Vote third party?" :)

I'd be curious as to their rationale beyond...business as usual.

Too bad the GOP didn't remove the ability to filibuster (a.k.a. the "nuclear option") back when they were in the majority and were threatening it. :D

Seriously though, I saw somewhere where the filibuster has now been used more in this session of Congress than in any other previous session. So much for the party of the "up and down vote".

I think George Washington would be severely disappointed in our present Congress. Partisan bickering over something that can get a 99-0 vote?

Discomfitting the enemy is rarely a bad thing.

Nobody remembers obstructionism, while everyone remembers votes, since the voting record is what gets used during elections.

I thought this was funny albeit somewhat slanted

FWIW if the Daily Show bet is on this was a bad week for the under since Stewart was crushing the Dem's.

That's fucking awesome. Is that Jim Carrey as Reagan?

It's inevitable that this will happen, because it's really the only option. Still, i wonder if there will be any non-ACLU Democratic party backlash. Probably not a lot. We've seen a lot of this in Obama's foreign policy: Have a plan, learn reality, change plan. I'm glad he's willing to at least change these plans, that does show character. But I'll always wonder if he knew reality earlier and pandered to the left, or was really this ignorant.

White House considers military trial for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - CNN.com

Washington (CNN) -- White House advisers are considering recommending alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed be tried in a military court instead of a civilian one in New York City, a senior administration official told CNN on Friday.

In November, Attorney General Eric Holder announced his intention to try Mohammed in a New York civilian court.

"I am confident in the ability of our courts to provide these defendants a fair trial, just as they have for over 200 years," Holder said last month. "The alleged 9/11 conspirators will stand trial in our justice system before an impartial jury under long-established rules and procedures."

A firestorm of opposition erupted from both New York officials and top Republicans after Holder's announcement.

New York police have estimated the cost to the city would exceed $200 million per year in a trial that could last years. They have said, among other things, that they would need to install more than 2,000 checkpoints in Lower Manhattan.

Also, some congressional leaders have argued Mohammed should not be entitled to all the protections and privileges a defendant receives in civilian court. Last month, several lawmakers tied funding to close the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to holding a military trial for Mohammed and other suspected terrorists.

To try Mohammed and others "as common criminals, giving them the constitutional rights of American citizens in our courts, is justice according to 'Alice in Wonderland,'" said Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, argued that "our military justice system is best able to protect the American people."

Holder said last month the Justice Department "will have to take into account" the views of other political leaders and residents. "At the end of the day, wherever this case is tried, in whatever forum, what we have to ensure is that it's done as transparently as possible and with adherence to all the rules."

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Friday the administration was evaluating its options "based on New York City logistical and security concerns."

Gibbs and senior presidential adviser David Axelrod have said previously that President Obama believes the trial should take place in a criminal court instead of before a military tribunal.

The senior administration official emphasized that no final recommendation has been given to the president and therefore no final decision regarding the 9/11 terror trial has been made.

The official said administration advisers hope a decision will be made before the president leaves for an overseas trip on March 18.

Progressive activists blasted the potential administration switch.

"If this stunning reversal comes to pass, President Obama will deal a death blow to his own Justice Department, not to mention American values," said Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

"If the president flip-flops and retreats to the Bush military commissions, he will betray his campaign promise to restore the rule of law, demonstrate that his principles are up for grabs and lose all credibility with Americans who care about justice and the rule of law."

I believe it is, I also think Ron Howard directed

Criticize Obama all you want for the economy, but I'm actually impressed/surprised with his foreign policy strength so far. He's very conservative in this arena.

President Obama is the best thing that has happened to Bush's foreign policy strategy. With Bush out of the picture, the Bush plan is getting implemented without resistance from anyone. We've increased troop strengths, renewed the Patriot Act, increased our presence in the Middle East, reduced protestors to zero here and abroad, removed all discussion of withdrawal deadlines, kept Gitmo open, and now we've approved military tribunals without contest from the Democrats. It's even won President Obama the Nobel Peace prize. Brilliant!

I am more than satisfied with President Obama's handling of foreign policy so far.

I have to agree with this. I can't imagine one thing McCain would have done differently here - yet he would have been fought every step of the way. If we can just find a way to jumpstart the economy, I'm not sure Obama can't get out of this hole we're in. Hopefully, it happens soon.

That's one way of looking at. I too, am quite relieved that Obama has basically just continued Bush's foreign policy (piece by piece), and that does offset, to some degree, my annoyance with message of "change" that got him into the white house. That shouldn't bug me though, as his supporters were the ones that were duped, not me (and they don't seem to care).

I think Obama is brilliant enough though, for all of this to have been calculated in advance. I can't wait to see what his approach will be in 2012.

Bah I only wasted a vote on Obama in the off-hope we could get out of a useless and expensive war (that doesn't make us a bit safer, despite what testosterone junkies might say). That he has co-opted Bush has only made me determined to undermine the political system as much as possible in the future.

I don't think Obama's supporters were duped so much as they weren't born in 2008 and never saw a presidential campaign before, and they also didn't randomly forget everything John McCain said during his campaign.

This Obama supporter doesn't feel duped at all, as I felt Obama would be pragmatic on foreign policy. I highly doubt he would have gone into Iraq in the first place but that is just speculation. But when he was handed a war that for all intents and purposes is winding down, I don't see how much deviation there would be from the previous administration.

I still think we will see some differences in foreign policy, especially in regard to a country like Cuba and the ridiculous embargo. Not saying it will be lifted completely, but we've already seen some easing of restrictions whereas Bush strengthened restrictions.

Lot of recliner generals in this country that politicians need to appease.

You're absolutely right this was calculated. Very similiar to how the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were calculated. We knew very well that Bush could initiate this and his replacement could apologize it away. We get what we wanted from the Middle East, endured a few years of protest from our economic competition, and then praise, reward, and Peace prizes from those same competitors when we get the new guy in office.

It's all working out fantastically so far.

I'm sure this comes as a great comfort to the families of all who died, not to mention the actual people who have been permanently injured.

I'm sure it doesn't at all. I'm not sure what that has to do with Obama backing off the values and platforms he presented to those people about his foreign policy though.

:+1:

I feel like I have to explain this every five pages or so, but despite how you guys want to paint Obama supporters, the vast majority of us didn't expect the troops to come home and Gitmo to be closed in February, 2009. Oh, and ponies.

I mean, by this logic, I have to assume that those of you who voted for Bush in 2000 did so expecting him to implement a Christian conservative theocratic state, right?

And I'm not sure how some of you can think that Obama is simply continuing Bush's foreign policy when there are a number of substantial differences. Unlike Bush, Obama's team have taken a tough line with Iraq's government and started to draw down troops regardless of that government's ability to meet its targets.

Unlike Bush, Obama's team has paid attention to Afghanistan and implemented an actual strategy to engage the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. And critically, unlike Bush, Obama's team has managed to engage and work closely with Pakistan to execute this strategy.

And in fact, that last example is an indicator of the greatest shift of all, from unilateralism to multilateralism. If people can't see what a big shift that is, then I'm not sure you really understand some of the basic concepts of foreign policy in the 21st century.

Read for context.

Dutch's post (and things he's said on this topic in the past) intimates that it's OK to effectively dupe a whole population in order to conduct a war that they'll eventually all resent. Further, it's a bit of a slap in the face to those who served and died under what were, effectively, false pretences.

It's also, um, a bit elitist, don't you think? I thought that kind of elitism was only reserved for Obama....

So it's Bush's foreign policy, but it's Obama's economy? That's one of the more pure examples of partisanship I've seen in a while, well done.

I'm a very big Obama supporter and I never expected him to pull out 130,000 troops immediately. That's just plain idiotic. There would be an immediate vacuum left within Iraq where a war displaced over 3 million people. That would truly make Iraq ground zero for any Anti-American terrorist groups. No law, no order and Iran licking their gotdamn chops if we left Iraq in shambles.

So instead of focusing the troops in an unjust war, he is actually leading a tough charge against the very people who claim to have committed 911 and you guys are knocking him for that? I don't get it.

Did you expect them out within the 16 month timeframe he promised in the campaign?

I'm not knocking him for his actual actions here, just the now-forgotten rhetoric that got him in the white house. He's like a salesman who just has to beat the price offered by his competition. When he was running in the primaries, against other Democrats, he had to promise a lot more to distinguish himself from them. Once the competition was just McCain, he could scale back those promises and still offer "more" than McCain, from the liberal prospective. Now, in office, he can (and has) scale back those promises even more, because his only competition is a Republican in 2012, and he's only going to be judged against the prior, terrible administration.

And I never quite understood the whole "Afghanistan = good war", "Iraq = bad war" angle. Wherever we are, the "very people who claim to have committed 9/11" will come to fight us. Certainly, it would have been more prudent to choose Afghanistan as the primary battlefield years ago. But now, we have two places teetering the line between stablity and extremist takeover. It seems to me there's more at stake in Iraq. A Taliban takeover of Afghanistan puts us back to where we were pre-9/11. Which wasn't a good state of affairs, but Afghanistan at least isn't a signficant country with an infrastructure to cause problems beyond what terrorists can come up with in a shithole in the middle of nowhere. 9/11 could have been planned from anywhere. Iraq is wealthier, has more infrastructure, is a much more loaded potential prize for extremists.

And what did ever happen to those Iraq timelines for withdrawal that were such a heated issue under Bush?

Anybody that listens to campaign promises from either side is a moron.

Campaign promises are meant to be broken. Didn't Bush campaign against nation building?

Campaigning should be cut down to one month so we don't have to listen to the diarrhea that comes from the mouth of both candidates about stuff that will never happen.

molson, your point again seems to be that Obama told my campaign promises that he couldn't fulfill.

I don't think you would find many here that would be surprised by that.

gotta say that i kinda agree with you here. far too much campaigning versus actual governing going on in politics these days.

I was being dramatic for effect, of course.

But yeah... Surprise elections would be ideal. Nobody knows they are coming.

It's not just that - it's how this image he projected for himself WAS the thing that got him the nomination, and eventually the presidency.

Obama started the campaign as a super-liberal, and got more and more moderate as his Democratic challengers got knocked off.

Every presidential candidate does that to some extent, but Obama used this stuff to distinguish himself from fellow Democrats. That's why he got this shot at the nomination so early. He was exciting, different, and promised way more than anyone else.

Maybe others should take notes.

It was a very well run campaign, no argument from me there.

I thought there was still a timeline of combat troops starting to leaving Aug. 2010 and last combat troops out Aug. 2011, with 35k still around for the long haul?

Honestly I don't see what the problem is. He tried to change the things he wanted early but didn't know real politics in Washington. Young idealist runs 100 mph into a rock called Washington.


I think he's doing fine, 1/4 of the way through his presidency.

Sixteen months was a goal, not a timetable. If he wasn't making any progress on that front I'd be concerned. Contrary to popular belief, those of us on the left can also be grounded in reality on such matters.


Interesting idea you raise here. Maybe we should want them to "come here" so we can fight them on our home turf. :D


You're mixing two things. The Afghanistan = good war / Iraq = bad war thing stems from how they came about, not their current situation.

And honestly, if 9/11 could have been planned from anywhere (and let's face it, it wasn't planned in Afghanistan), maybe we should invade some place like Saudi Arabia instead?


Yeah, like molson.

George "No nation building" "compassionate conservative" Bush

Bill "Third Way" Clinton

George "No New Taxes" Bush

Ronald "Small Government" Reagan


I'm going to channel Jon for a moment and suggest that you expunge the alluvium from your genital canal.

You can make that case now, but not before the war. That's I guess where Iraq = Bad in the mind of many. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and in fact, most terrorists like Bin Laden despised Saddam. Now it might be a terrorist hot bed thanks to us going in there and starting a war. We made things worse in the Middle East and in Iraq. That's why I think there is more mental fatigue in relation to Iraq.

That's exactly my point - Afghanistan is still widely considerd the "correct war", even though things have changed. I presume this is for political reasons, since the Iraq war is less popular, just because of the ways the wars started.

The way the wars started shouldn't effect the way they're fought now.

That's wrong. Afghanistan is considered the "correct war" because it's the one that we should have gotten into in the first place based on events at that time. The one that wasn't sold to the public based on lies.

Right, and because of the idealism, he made promises, (or as flere-imsaho calls them, "goals"), that convinced others to vote for him over more competent Democratic candidates who did understand Washington. So at best, the only reason he's in the White House is his ignorance about reality (though I lean more towards it being intentional deception).

So because it was the right war almost 10 years ago, it continues to be the correct war forever?

Dola - What we're doing in Afghanistan now isn't what we went there to do. It's a different war now. It's a war about stabilization - just like Iraq.

Either we want to stabilize these places or we don't. I don't think Iraq is less important to stabilize just because it was a mistake to go in there in the first place.

I'm not sure where you get this "correct" and "incorrect" monikor from. I've NEVER heard them referred to that way.

No, I don't think it continues to be the correct war forever. I just think that the tag of "correct" is probably lingering. The value-judgement implied by it is not one that's constantly being reassessed, but rather one that was made shortly after it began.

Honestly, now that we went into Iraq and messed it up even more, we should be there just as much as we should be in Afghanistan.

I think that's absolutely right. And for that reason, Afghanistan will always be the more popular war, just because that's everybody's habit. That's why we're ramping things up there and slowing down things in Iraq. And Iraq dragging out will hurt Obama more politically than Afghanistan going badly.

I disagree re:Iraq/Afghanistan political fallout.

I also think that Iraq has a higher probability of being able to assist with its own stabilization than Afghanistan has currently. Iraq is much closer to being a functioning country than Afghanistan is.

I mostly agree. Certainly others would at least be more experienced, and perhaps better at manuvering the realities of Washington. But otherwise, that's kind of my point. The only positive thing that truly seperated Obama from the pack were the big ambitions.

lol -- i just couldn't resist posting this

Not forever, but at least until we capture/kill bin Laden and his sidekick.

All good points.

I think though, that when people getting into comparing Obama with the past, and "that's just how it is" kind of stuff, that's what I think affirms my point, and things just get us to the agree/disagree level.

To me, that Obama campaign promised so much more, a new America, etc, and the wild celebrations after the election confirmed to me that a lot of people bought into it. He was supposed to be something different than we've had before, someone uncomparable to past presidents. If you read those old campaign speeches.... I'm convinced that those expectations is what got him a lot of the votes from the masses (though not from those in this thread, but certainly enough to get him the election), and other disagree...

If that's still the primary objective of the war, we're certainly going about things a strange way over there....

I'm not sure how the possible presence of bin Laden in Afghanistan justifies another expensive military quagmire with no exit strategy, no clear objectives - all the things that are/were bad about Iraq.

I'm no fan of the nation building part of the strategy, but the increased attacks on AQ and Taliban leaders are exactly what we should have been ding years ago IMO.

Of course it's political. The wars were political and Obama carrying them on is political. There is an element of society that wants us to blow people up from the comfort of their recliner.

It's naive to believe you can end terrorism by pointing to a few lines on the map and saying "blow it up". That's essentially what they're doing and it's dressed up to gain political points.

It's been a year and two months. Let's see how badly I did. :D


More or less completely wrong here, but they were hopes.


I'd say about 50% here. Some of the stuff could still happen. Interestingly, if you change the last bullet from a stimulus bill to HCR, I'm more-or-less spot on! :D I mean, it was even "passed", though not as a whole.


The hopes were more-or-less a joke, but I'm 1/3 for calling retirements, and I think Sotomayor more-or-less conforms to the description of a replacement justice. She also had an easier confirmation than I figured.


A complete miss except for Afghanistan, where it's clear that the U.S. and Pakistan are working together and seeing big success against the Taliban in the border regions. Good stuff!


Too early to tell on most, but prospects for my predictions look good, I think. I should note that apparently shuttle diplomacy is actually currently underway in Israel/Palestine.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!


Almost exactly right except for the Senate seat total.