jump to navigation

Scream Queens on the Run! 20 August 2009

Posted by marisacat in 2010 Mid Terms, 2012 Re Election, Inconvenient Voice of the Voter, Lie Down Fall Down Dems.


😆  ALWAYS surprised at the fix they are in, in long running serial fashion.   Of whom does that remind?


“We are in the most difficult period of messaging,” Lake [Celinda Lake, D pollster] said. “We don’t have a plan we are pointing to with specifics that would garner support.”

Democrats were also still looking for a villain. With all of the major industry players still talking with the White House, it was difficult to find one, Democratic strategists said.

Double whoops.

By late July, Obama found one – the insurance industry – as he made another shift. This time, he emphasized reforms to the insurance market, which Axelrod urged senators to describe as “consumer protections.”

Sounds like he had to hunt really hard to find that villain. Out on the frozen tundra with a flashlight night after night…

Democrats had long talked about the need to focus not on expanding coverage on the 47 million uninsured, but rather the insured, who make 85 percent of voters in an election year, Lake said.

Strategists were relieved to hear Obama start talking about “health insurance reform,” rather than “health care reform.” They liked the fresh attention to promising a more stable and secure existence for middle class voters who are worried about losing their coverage or being unable to afford it.

Lawmakers had hoped to hammer home this message during the August recess, but lost ground amid the spate of angry town halls and an avalanche of claims – which have been discredited – that Obama wants to cover illegal immigrants, establish “death panels,” and guarantee federal funding for abortions.

“In recent days, we have spent additional time correcting the absolute falsehoods about reform, which is a situation aided and abetted by many in the media,” a White House official said.

And this week, Obama returned to making a moral argument to provide insurance for all Americans during a call with faith leaders, a message Democratic strategists said they thought had been dismissed as a smart messaging strategy.

“Dismissed”, but apparently not escorted out of the planning sessions (uh, were there any? real ones?). I don’t think accusations of  “bearing false witness” and thus labeling your opponents as sinners will work.

“It is not perfectly clear there is one frame targeted at the insured middle class,” Kim said. “If the message architecture were rock solid then the attack from the right wouldn’t have as much resonance.”

Well… except it did work.  Resonated, one might say…

Democrats acknowledge they were lulled into complacency.

Here it comes, confession time.

One party official cited a largely under-the-radar dust up in February when Betsy McCaughey, the former New York lieutenant governor who played an influential role in torpedoing the Clinton reform effort, wrote an op-ed for Bloomberg News in February that Obama planned to ration health care. She cited a provision in the stimulus bill to spend $1 billion on comparative effectiveness research.

No reason for it to be under their radar… I posted it here, I was not the only one.  I mentioned she was performing as an operative, even as some things she said were accurate.   My guess, they were busy being fat happy cats with salmon drenched saliva trickling down their chins..  (here kitty kitty… )

Reform advocates thought they won the fight when the money stayed in the stimulus bill, and the issue received only scant attention in the mainstream media.

Because Ob and his Oblettes live and die by the media.  They sprang forth from the media, rather like Zeus with Athena, born from his head so she is bound closer to him..

Then, in May, Republican strategist Frank Luntz acknowledged in a messaging memo to his party that they shouldn’t argue against the need for reform. If even Luntz drew this conclusion from polling, then Democrats thought they were in good shape.

Poor Democrats.. always reactive. And now they really are, with the Daddy-less Orphan Ob in the Oval. The R constantly do this to them, lay down a trail of breadcrumbs … let the Dems “find” the breadcrumbs (and then they feel really smart!) and start to follow the crumbs.  They feel so smart following the breadcrumbs that they get very happy!  They start counting chickens… even as there are no chickens in sight.

Can this get more pathetic?

Yes, when they do it over and over.

“We weren’t prepared for the level of passion coming from the other side because all signs indicated a greater national consensus on reform,” Kim said. “Luntz said don’t deny the need for health care reform. That lulled us into a sense of complacency – ‘Well, oh, the Republicans can’t say no, the impetus is too strong.’ The forces of ‘no’ were stronger than we thought.”

Mother of God… and I don’t mean poor dead S Ann Dunham. If it were up to me, I’d turn them over to Norquist and start filling the tub myself with water (aiding and abetting before the fact!).

Drown them, one and all.


The Endless Democratic Performance… 20 August 2009

Posted by marisacat in 2008 Election, 2010 Mid Terms, 2012 Re Election, DC Politics, Inconvenient Voice of the Voter, Lie Down Fall Down Dems.

A clown performs a scene from Slava’s Snowstorm in Melbourne [REUTERS]

Glenn Greenwald has a good one up, at least in part…

[O]ver the past decade, the Democratic Party has specialized in offering up one excuse after the next for its collective failures.  During the early Bush years, the excuse was that they endorsed Bush policies because his popularity and post-9/11 hysteria made it politically unwise to oppose him.  In later Bush years when his popularity plummeted, the excuse was that Democrats were in the minority and could do nothing.  After 2006 when they won a Congressional majority, the excuse was that Bush still controlled the White House and had veto power.  After 2008 when a Democrat won the White House, the excuse was that Republicans could filibuster.

Now that they have a filibuster-proof majority, a huge margin in the House and the White House, the excuses continue unabated, as Democrats are now on the verge of jettisoning one of the most significant attractions for progressives to the Obama campaign — active government involvement in the health insurance market.  The excuses for “compromising” are cascading more rapidly than ever:  We need Republican support to ensure it’s bipartisan.  The Blue Dogs won’t go along with what we want.  Centrist Senators will filibuster. There are similar excuses being made to defend Obama from accusations that he deserves some of the blame for the failure of the “public option.”  Matt Yglesias makes the typical case for shielding Obama from any responsibility:

I think there’s something perverse in the very strong desire I see among liberals to make problems in congress be about anything other than congress. It’s just not in the power of Barack Obama to make the senate anything other than what it is.

I’m really surprised that there’s anyone, especially Matt, who actually believes this — that the Obama White House is merely an impotent, passive observer of what the Democrats in Congress do and can’t be expected to do anything to secure votes for approval of the health care bill it favors.  As the leader of his party, the President commands a vast infrastructure on which incumbent members of Congress rely for re-election.  His popularity among Democrats vests him numerous options to punish non-compliant Democrats.  And Rahm Emanuel built his career on controlling the machinations within Congress.  The very idea that Obama, Emanuel and company are just sitting back, helplessly watching as Max Baucus, Kent Conrad and the Blue Dogs (Rahm’s creation) destroy their health care legislation, is absurd on its face.  snipwhippy

Clue, Blue Dogs agree with Boll Weevils.  And shams elected to office agree with them BOTH.

No shock:

[W]hen progressives refuse to toe the White House line, they get threatened.  Contrast that with what the White House does with Blue Dogs and “centrists” who are allegedly uncooperative on health care — they protect them:

The Politico’s Jonathan Martin reported this morning that Rahm Emanuel warned leaders of liberal groups in a private meeting this week that it was time to stop running ads attacking Blue Dog and “centrist” Dems on health care.

I’m told, however, that Emanuel went quite a bit further than this.

Sources at the meeting tell me that Emanuel really teed off on the Dem-versus-Dem attacks, calling them “f–king stupid.”  This was a direct attack on some of the attendees in the room, who are running ads against Dems right now.

What does that vast disparity reveal?  If anything, Blue Dogs — virtually all of whom represent more conservative districts — are more vulnerable and thus more dependent for re-election on the White House and Democratic Party infrastructure than progressives are.  If health care fails and the Obama presidency weakens, they will bear the brunt of the voters’ desire to punish Democrats.  The White House would have at least as much leverage to exercise against Blue Dogs and centrists.  They just aren’t doing so.  In fact, they’re doing the opposite:  they’re protecting them even as they supposedly impede what the White House wants on one of Obama’s signature issues. snipsnip

Someone, with a megaphone,  should have the guts to point to an elected pretzel, a Northern Black man, won with a good majority (but, admittedly, not with overwhelming numbers of states (28)).. that he is ON HIS FUCKING KNEES TO SOUTHERN AND MIDWESTERN WHITES.

I so like the much advertised Post-Racial and Bi-Partisan games..  It is very very familiar. It’s the old time Black Overseer game.

And, I would say to a few people out there, HOW’S THAT VOTE WORKING FOR YOU?

Well, I hope.  The signs were there.  Hacks come in all stripes.

L’Arc de Triomphe 18 August 2009

Posted by marisacat in Afghanistan War, Culture of Death, Inconvenient Voice of the Voter, WAR!.

Scientists begin a three-month Arctic expedition to document the effects of climate change:  Scientists walk on an iceberg… [REUTERS]

From a series at the Telegraph

I thought this one had a familiar apocalyptic feel to it. End of triumph, so to speak… Unravelment (I think I made that word up) of triumphalism.

Speaking of arcs of triumph… the Telegraph headlines, FP top, that they need more troops in Afghanistan. Why even link, the same nasty bloody dirge. Sinkhole of empires. Maybe we and they can follow their more than 150 year old breadcrumbs from the last go ’round.

What a nightmare.

Resolute… 18 August 2009

Posted by marisacat in Divertissements.

Three little Guinea pigs escape their owner and make a bolt for freedom in Central Park, New York City, before being found and placed back in their little plastic house

That resolute little march of the guinea pigs… I don’t know if they could survive in Central Park, but I was rooting for them.. but then, they were recaptured.

From a gallery at the Telegraph on unexpected animals in the urban landscape..

Promise? 16 August 2009

Posted by marisacat in AFRICOM, Culture of Death, Inconvenient Voice of the Voter, WAR!.

President Obama holds a note from his personal assistant Reggie Love as he speaks during a town hall meeting on health insurance at a high school in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

[EWEL SAMAD / AFP / Getty]


More seriously… Spiegel has a two parter (each part is just a page) on rich investors in various countries buying up, long term leasing farm land across the globe… Think catnip put up a report from one of the UK papers last week…

Part 1 The new colonialism

[E]very crisis has its winners. A group of them is sitting in the Stuyvesant Room at the Marriott Hotel in New York. The conference room, where the shades are drawn and the lights are dimmed, is filled with men from Iowa, Sao Paulo and Sydney — corn farmers, big landowners and fund managers. Each of them has paid $1,995 (€1,395) to attend Global AgInvesting 2009, the first investors’ conference on the emerging worldwide market in farmland.

According to most prognoses, there could be 9.1 billion people living on earth in 2050, about two billion more than today. In the coming 20 years alone, worldwide demand for food is expected to rise by 50 percent. “These are pessimistic prospects,” says the OECD man. He looks serious and even a little sad, as he describes the future of the world.

But for the audience in the Stuyvesant Room, mostly men and a handful of women, all of this is good news and the mood is buoyant. How could it be any different? After all, hunger is their business. The combination of more people and less land makes food a safe investment, with annual returns of 20 to 30 percent, rare in the current economic climate.

Susan Payne, a red-haired British woman, is the CEO of the largest land fund in southern Africa, which currently includes 150,000 hectares (370,000 acres), mainly in South Africa, Zambia and Mozambique. Payne hopes to raise half a billion euros from investors. She talks about fighting hunger, but the headings on her PowerPoint slides, embellished with photos of soybean fields at sunset, tell a different story. One such heading refers to “Africa — the last frontier for finding alpha.” The word alpha signifies an investment for which the return is greater than the risk. Africa is alpha country.  snip

A cotton farmer in Burkino Faso. To boost harvests and achieve annual returns of 20 percent or more, foreign landowners must operate their farms on an industrial scale. When the soil becomes depleted after a few years, many investors simply move on. Land is so cheap that they are not forced to value sustainable farming practices. [AFP]

Part 2 The investor needs a weak state

“When food becomes scarce, the investor needs a weak state that does not force him to abide by any rules,” says Philippe Heilberg, an American businessman. A state that permits grain exports despite famines at home, that is consumed by corruption or deeply in debt, ruled by a dictatorship, racked by civil war, or sends millions of workers abroad and is dependent on these workers receiving visas and jobs.

Heilberg has found such a nation: South Sudan, which is in fact a pre-nation, autonomous but not independent. The 44-year-old American, son of a coffee merchant and the founder of the investment firm Jarch Capital, is now the largest land leaseholder in South Sudan, where he leases 400,000 hectares of prime farmland in Mayom County.

The mere mention of the words South Sudan conjures up images of civil war, refugees and famine, not of a place where one would consider growing tomatoes. But Heilberg raves that his project will be more beneficial to people than the UN, and that he will create jobs and produce food. And he is adamant that Paulino Matip, from whom he has leased the land for 50 years, not be referred to as a warlord, but as a “former warlord” or “deputy army chief.” Heilberg neglects to mention that the rebels led by Matip are suspected of having committed war crimes.

Ah, war crimes… but then we have too .. committed war crimes I mean.  Brothers in arms.

Solving the problem means developing new land, which is only available in Africa, Asia and South America. – Part 1

Not hard to figure out we don’t care the least little bit who starves in the countries themselves …  Who starves now and starves tomorrow – ’til the land renews…

Probably part of the plan… less visible destruction than invasion – war – occupation.  And, bonus! – the multi-national investor class takes care of it for us.

So simple it is brilliant!

Dawn after Sabbath Night 15 August 2009

Posted by marisacat in 2010 Mid Terms, 2012 Re Election, Inconvenient Voice of the Voter, Lie Down Fall Down Dems.

Paul Corbin:“Waking up one sunday morning i found that this web had been built over night and was slap bang in the middle of our 20 foot wide garden – one ambitious spider” [Photograph: Paul Corbin]

Full size version.

hmm if it were my garden, with that ambitious a spider, I would be watching for spider filament signal towers to appear next… and MI5 (6?) to show at the door:  Ma’am.. would you step outside?  Unusual frequencies are being picked up from about the area of your garden wall, near the acanthus leaves .. Ma’am?


Speaking of Miss Valerie in her star turn at NetNutz,  in the previous thread, I noticed this in Politico (full text with embedded link to WSJ).

Does she know her Obama history?

As a close friend and senior adviser to the President, Valerie Jarrett knows her Obama trivia. But during a conversation …

… with political comedian [“comedian” ? WTF? …keep them laughing so they don’t notice?  — Mcat] Baratunde Thurston at today’s Netroots Nation event, Jarrett had a rare slip-up, according to the Wall Street Journal.

When asked what the mood was like when Tom Daschle withdrew as a candidate for secretary of Health and Human Services Jarrett said,

“It was very sad. The president was very close to Daschle. He worked with him in the senate”

But the two never served together. Obama won his seat in the same 2004 campaign cycle in which Daschle, then the minority leader, lost his to Sen. John Thune.

FOO Flub? I would say so.  Not that it matters … they are ALL lobbyists, forever in the revolving door.  If they don’t exactly know one another as an individual, they ”know” each other from interlocking projects and fixes, scams and heists.

Friday… 14 August 2009

Posted by marisacat in 2010 Mid Terms, 2012 Re Election, Divertissements.

A new born male Masai girraffe is tended to by his brother Jack, left, and father Kiva at the Houston City Zoo in Houston

A variation on mothers and sisters tending to the baby…


UPDATE, 6:23 pm on the Pacific Ocean

Oops I had meant to include this, a link to Froomkin’s second post at HuffPo…

[B]y contrast, the Obama White House was a model of transparency — for two, maybe three days. It was a brief Golden Age, reaching its pinnacle on that glorious Day Two, when the president dramatically proclaimed that “the way to make government accountable is make it transparent so that the American people can know exactly what decisions are being made, how they’re being made, and whether their interests are being well served.”

Once the White House press corps had endured a few briefings with consistently cagey Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, however, it quickly became clear that the relative guilelessness some of us had hoped for was nowhere to be found. Indeed, the internal workings of this White House have turned out to be almost as opaque as the last one.

And now comes the Obama White House’s first really major credibility crisis. If you believe that the White House made major concessions to Big Pharma in a secret deal last month — and the evidence for that is considerable — then there’s a name for the series of conflicting denials that Gibbs and others have issued in the last week. It’s called lying.

How did it come to this? I think the answer is actually quite simple. Obama, and/or Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, and/or Senior Adviser David Axelrod, and/or confidante Valerie Jarrett — in other words, whatever combination of people are actually making the decisions over there — are trying to do something impossible. They’re trying to make everyone happy in the health-care debate.  …snip…

Or make all but ObamaBots (and PhRMA types) unhappy, more likely.

And, I don’t ever want to discount the power of racism, much less nativism, in this country, but much more is swinging the pendulum, to the extent it is swinging…

It’s not surprising to me that Obama’s poll numbers are going down. Part of that is most assuredly due to a GOP-fueled resurgence of the ugliest aspects of our national character — nativism, racism, and know-nothingism — within a population that it’s hard to imagine were big Obama boosters in the first place. But I suspect the poll numbers are also reflecting a growing disillusionment among those who placed a lot of hope in an Obama presidency — disillusionment that he’s not standing up for what the people who voted for him stood up for in November.

And not just disillusionment, either. Anger, too. Professor Drew Westen, an astute analyst of the national psyche, blogged yesterday that “if Americans are starting to turn populist anger toward a White House that has doggedly refused to focus that anger where it belongs — toward the banks, the mortgage brokers, the regulators who failed to regulate, the oil companies that have blocked energy reform for decades while racking up record profits, the health insurance companies that make their profits by denying coverage and discriminating against the ill, the pharmaceutical companies whose lobbyists have negotiated away the right to negotiate, and the Republicans who bankrupted the treasury during the eight long years of the Bush Presidency and crashed the economy on their way out — I can understand why.”

As the concrete mixing trucks roll into town…


Colossal… in a sense. 13 August 2009

Posted by marisacat in 2010 Mid Terms, 2012 Re Election.

From its building to its destruction lies a time span of merely 56 years. Yet the colossus of rhodes earned a place in the famous list of Wonders. “But even lying on the ground, it is a marvel”, said Pliny the Elder. The Colossus of Rhodes was not only a gigantic statue. It was rather a symbol of unity of the people who inhabited that beautiful Mediterranean island — Rhodes.
[7 Wonders]

He’s on it!  Really

Q Can you talk about what the President is doing over the next couple of weeks on health care, other than the town halls, that you know about, the sort of public events? But what kind of role is he taking in terms of talks with lawmakers, negotiations? What’s his — what’s his sort of game plan?

MR. GIBBS: Well, obviously — and I know you asked me in addition to or other than the town hall — I would note we are doing those over the next couple of days in Montana and Colorado. We’ll do some events not yet announced over the course of the next few days after that, and I do expect throughout both the congressional break as well as the time he gets to spend with his family, that there will also be some — continue to be calls with different lawmakers about plans for what happens when we come back in the fall and continuing to make progress.

Q Well, they’re on a pretty tight schedule, right — so they come back from this recess and there’s this September 15 deadline. So you take a day like today, for example, where there’s nothing on the schedule and it’s pretty quiet, at least publicly. Can you sketch out, you know, what portion of his day is he spending kind of digging into this, whether it’s calls to lawmakers, getting into the weeds —

MR. GIBBS: He’s met with staff here today on health care. I don’t believe — I have not seen any notification about member calls. Obviously he’ll get a chance, as we talked about yesterday, Senator Baucus will be in attendance at tomorrow’s town hall. I’m sure they’ll get a chance to talk about the progress and the talks that he’s having with members of the Finance Committee. And as I said, I assume those — I know those calls will continue, again, over both his and their breaks.

Q Well, he told Time Magazine he was spending, what, like — some portion of his day, every day, on health care — I can’t remember what quantity he put on it. Is that still true, say, over the next couple weeks, that he’s going to spend this big chunk of every day —

MR. GIBBS: Look, I — yes, I mean, look — well, I will segment out for his benefit that I do think that as he’s on vacation, he will concentrate on being on vacation. I do, though, assume — not assume, that’s the wrong word — I do know [assume?  know?  No?  Yes?  –  Mcat] that he will continue to talk to lawmakers as part of that. Obviously I think when he’s up — out of here, it probably won’t be as much as he has been doing when Congress has been in town, but there’s no doubt that he’ll continue to talk to folks. I know they talked about that just a little while ago.

Q At these town halls, does he feel like he’s winning any converts?

MR. GIBBS: I think he believes very strongly, as we talked about yesterday, that it is important to address misconceptions or misimpressions that have been left out there about the bills. I do believe that the President feels strongly that when he makes his case, it helps the case for overall health care reform. So I think he feels — he felt very satisfied with what happened in New Hampshire. He was able to address concerns that people have. I think he was able to take on, as I said, the misconceptions that had been out there in the legislation. So I think he feels like we have made progress.

Such energy… focussed discipline!  He’ll get it done… he and his.  They will.


Tapper V Gibbs  (shorter version:  We Are Not In Trouble!  We’re not!)

Full text:

JAKE TAPPER:  Polls indicate that the American people are not — or a plurality of the American people are not with the president on health care reform.  He’s obviously trying to change that by campaigning.

ROBERT GIBBS:  Well, I don’t want to quibble with — I mean, again, I think…

TAPPER:  A majority of the American people are not with the president on health care reform, the bill that — the legislation he’s trying to get through Congress.  How would you say it?

GIBBS:  Well, I think if you look at — I think, not to mix networks here, but (pointing to Chuck Todd of NBC) I think if — I think your poll read…

CHUCK TODD, NBC NEWS:  They disapproved — more people disapproved of the president’s handling of health care than approved, which I think is what Jake was talking about.

GIBBS:  OK, that’s clarified the question, because the reason I was quibbling with the phrasing of the question — not to get into the phrasing of polling — but in your poll, if you asked, just straight up, here’s what health care reform — here’s what you get, here’s what it costs, what —  the number was 58/38, something like that.

TAPPER:  Right.  Theoretically, they’re with what you think you’re pushing, what you say you’re pushing, but they’re not with the president.

GIBBS:  I don’t know if it’s theoretical, but — go ahead.

TAPPER:  The polls aren’t where you want them to be.  Would you quibble with that?

GIBBS:  On some of those questions, I would not quibble with it.

TAPPER:  OK….  Why not?  Why aren’t they working?

GIBBS:  Why are they — why do I not agree?

TAPPER:  No.  If the president is pushing for something that — that the American people when you poll independently support…

GIBBS:  Right.

TAPPER:  … why are they not with the president?

GIBBS:  Look, I think part of it is some of these misconceptions. I don’t doubt that.  I think they’re — I do think people have questions.  I think that’s why — I mean, the president isn’t out doing town hall meetings just for his health.  I mean, he wants to — I think he understands the need to address concerns or misconceptions out there. I think — again, I think the president, whether it’s the NBC poll, certainly other polling will demonstrate that people want to see health care reform this year. They want to see legislation that cuts costs.  They want to see legislation that provides accessibility of coverage, that has insurance reforms.  And that’s what the president will continue to talk.

TAPPER:  Is the fact that the American people are not with the president right now — does that indicate that this pushback, whether it’s the viral e-mail you guys sent out today, or the reality check Web site you set up or whatever, does it indicate that you’re pushback is late?

GIBBS:  I don’t think so. Again, I — I — largely because your question was based on polling — polling is a snapshot in time.  It’s — the debate continues and we’ll see whether numbers move or change as a result of the continuing debate.

BILL PLANTE, CBS NEWS:  But doesn’t the fact that you’ve started pushing back indicate that you realize that the initiative is in trouble?

GIBBS:  Well, one of the reasons we’ve pushed back is because of those misconceptions. Have some of those misconceptions contributed to the poll numbers?  I — I don’t doubt that.  But at the same time, I mean, there’s a little cause and effect here, but we’re not going to stop pushing back on the misconceptions.  Whether or not the polling shows one thing or another, the president, again, strongly believes that, and has for years, that it’s — it’s better to address what people’s concerns are and taken them on head on.

TAPPER:  Can I just ask one more question?  I’m sorry. The PhRMA deal — there’s been some confusion, I think, about what exactly the White House has agreed to with Big Pharma, what they have not agreed to. Could you clarify what it is, exactly, that the White House has signed off on, whether or not you feel that the Senate Finance Committee and Senator Baucus were up front with you guys about what he agreed to? And also do you think that this was done — whatever deal this was, was this done that was done in keeping with the transparency that then- candidate Obama promised?

GIBBS:  Yes. Well, we had a little — let me take the last part of that. I think the question a few days ago, something similar to this, which is, we discussed bringing people to the table.  We discussed making sure that stakeholders that are involved in health care are part of an agreement. Look, you can’t — you’re not going to get health care legislation without involving the hospitals, without involving those that provide medications, without talking to groups that represent doctors or patients or seniors, nurses, what have you.

And we’ve talked a little bit about the PhRMA deal.  You know, the Finance Committee and PhRMA agreed to $80 billion in cost savings, part of which goes to fill the doughnut hole for seniors as part of Medicare Part D, which I think we all know is, at a certain point coverage — coverage for the purchase of those drugs stops until you basically reach a catastrophic level and the coverage kicks back in. Then some of the — some of that additional savings would be used for health care….

TAPPER:  But PhRMA said — PhRMA said that the deal was $80 billion, that’s it.  No more.  They can’t give any more.  Yet, in Portsmouth, the president said that maybe you could get more.

GIBBS:  Well, maybe you could get more savings as a result of health care reform. [Maybe?  Maybe Not?  Fierce urgency of we don’t know and we don’t care  — Mcat] I do not believe that the president meant we could take an $80 billion agreement and make it $95 billion.  I have — I’ve been fairly clear on that from here. I think as a result of the change in health care you can see health care costs and drug costs driven down.  That’s not to say we were reopening anything.


Like Colossus, it stands til it falls.

Return 13 August 2009

Posted by marisacat in 2010 Mid Terms, Afghanistan War, Culture of Death, DC Politics, Inconvenient Voice of the Voter, Pakistan, WAR!.

August 11, 2009 Pictures of the day: A mother and daughter sit at a bus terminal in Karachi as they wait to return to their home in the Swat Valley. About 1,000 internally displaced people, who fled a military offensive against the Taleban in the region a few months ago, are going back to their villages
[Akhtar Soomro/Reuters]

A thousand?  Not even a drop of the tens of thousands who fled the war and fighting, the aerial bombs.


Violence 11 August 2009

Posted by marisacat in 2010 Mid Terms, 2012 Re Election, Inconvenient Voice of the Voter, WAR!.

Clouds over the Alabama Hills and the Sierra Nevada mountains near the town of Lone Pine in central California [GETTY]

Because I raised it in the last thread, the toll taker killing was a domestic dispute… and shooter got his wife (or common law wife, not sure) and the interloper into the relationship.  When it first was reported and as details of the killing came out (he shot from outside his vehicle, with a rifle and got off several shots), it was striking if it was itinerant rage.  Toll takers are sitting ducks, in a sense.  But no, domestic.  The shooter is on the run, as of now.


From BHHM in the last thread:

Here’s the deal– I think there is going to be serious, serious trouble after this Summer Recess.
The Beholden Fucks.
WHAT WOULD THEY DO? So they Punted and RAN,
hoping the August venting of spleens will pass Left and Right….

Clue: The Anger and Hostility is REAL. And its primarily ECONOMIC.

Do I know what is coming. Surely not. But the hyperbole around the current issues is worrisome. Both sides. And whatever is coming, BOTH ”sides”, the leaders, the elites, want.

Just in the great natural flux of things, the “reaction” to Obama was going to be hard right wing populism. There never was much question of that in my mind. On the other hand, is the so called ”opposition”, currently in power to massive degrees, fostering / implying racism and threat in all or almost all opposition to Obama, oh, they are.

They are.  We have Krugman among others calling the ”birther” movement “racist”.  Oh please.  What were the Swift Boat Vets For Truth then?

February of 2008, I called it “Assassination Masturbation“.  Reading it over, I see I left out the very thing that made me settle on the words, assassination masturbation, it was a multi-page slobber in TNR by Michelle Cottle on MO.  And it did drip, all over my floor.  And, was accompanied by a magazine illustration of MO in a November 22 1963 Dallas pink pill box hat.

Don’t go there, don’t want to go there.  My guess, more and more, is they DO want to go there.  To endlessly foster how precious he is, how vulnerable.  As he carries out state business, state war, state retrenchment.  GMAFB.

Frankly this whole issue of how precious and vulnerable he is was one reason I thought he should never be president.  I want someone stronger.  Which is not an endorsement of Hillary nor McCain.  Nor witch-woman-for-all-time, Palin

Who shot Reagan?  Who shot Ford?  It swirls around them all in a volatile country where issues are never never resolved.

The “opposition” neatly forgets that in 2006 a movie came out based on the assassination of Bush 2. Not some fuzzy generic pretzel, no, the killing of Bush. IIRC it was entitled, The Killing of a President. I stumbled across it the other night at Netflix.

So my words to the Democrats would be some worn-out-girl-cat-growl of Grow the Fuck Up.

But of course their moves are as tactical as the Right Wing.

Would elites decide the country is ungovernable (or, they prefer not to govern)? They could. Perhaps they have. Why not. They would know best! Would they decide some parts, certain strata of society should have their fuses lit? Sure, why not.

Ruthless days. Dangerous days.