Yep, I did a double take too.

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama has tapped a former top aide of his predecessor George W. Bush to a key post on a board overseeing government-sponsored international broadcasting.

Dana Perino, the first Republican woman to serve as White House press secretary, was appointed late Wednesday to the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG).

Created in 1994, the BBG oversees all of the US government's non-military international broadcasting outlets, including Voice of America, Alhurra television, Radio Sawa, TV Marti, Radio Free Asia and Radio Free Europe. Read on...

Where to begin? I understand that President Obama campaigned on the idea of bipartisanship, but this is truly an insult. Forget that he is appointing an intellectual lightweight who ran cover for, and spread propaganda for the worst president in American history. Dana Perino stood before reporters and routinely lied to them and the world -- even defending the use of torture, calling it "effective, safe and legal."

And now President Obama believes that she has the integrity to hold a key position in an agency that oversees government-sponsored, international broadcasting?

Perino's appointment must be confirmed by the Senate, so it's not a done deal, but we have to make our voices heard. Contact your Senators and let them know your thoughts on the matter.

As Digby sez -- Perino is just a member of the club, playing the game.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (2744)

PLAYS: (3255)

The Bitter Man strikes back.

Democratic moderates who control the balance of power on health care legislation balked Tuesday at a government-run insurance option for millions of Americans, underscoring the enormity of the challenge confronting Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid one day after he unveiled the plan as a consensus product.
{}

The decision to include a government insurance option in his legislation had obvious appeal for liberals who account for a strong majority inside the Senate Democratic caucus, and it is likely to please labor unions and party activists in Nevada.

But it has gained less-than-effusive support from Obama, who is eager to have at least a dollop of bipartisanship for his signature domestic issue. Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, the only Republican who has sided with Democrats in committee this year, has announced she will not support the bill Reid drafted.

Still, if Reid is pressed in coming weeks by moderates to fall back, he can explain to liberals that he was forced to do so because his preference — a government insurance option — proved to be unobtainable in the Senate. Already, that pressure is evident...read on

Joe Lieberman is a bitter old man who was looking for some media juice yesterday when he decided to spit in the face of Americans who want real health care reform. Can you trust either his motives or what he says anymore?

Joe Lieberman has once again rolled a political hand grenade into the Democrats’ tent.

The Connecticut independent obliterated any illusion that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) can quickly ram through health care reform with a public option, telling reporters on Tuesday that he would join Republicans in a filibuster to prevent a vote on Reid’s plan if it isn’t changed first.

“We’re trying to do too much at once,” said Lieberman, who signaled he would vote with Reid on the first procedural vote that requires 60 votes, the motion to proceed.

The media will never call out Lieberman over his bullshit.

And Lieberman’s justification on this is just nonsense – the public option would SAVE money for the government, to the tune of $100 billion dollars over 10 years according to the Congressional Budget Office. It also would cost nothing to the taxpayer, being financed by individual premiums.

The public option saves money and Holy Joe knows it. And the Senate will never take action against another Senator no matter how outrageous their behavior is.

But Lieberman’s fellow Connecticut senator, Democrat Chris Dodd, who faces a tough reelection fight in 2010, dismissed the idea that Lieberman would incur any retribution.

“No, no, no. People are going to be all over the place,” he said when asked if Lieberman should be punished. “The idea that people are going to be reprimanded because somehow they have a different point of view than someone else is ridiculous. That isn’t going to happen.”

Lieberman can thank President Obama for retaining his committees and unless he gets caught in bed with a goat, he gets to do whatever he wants. The House of Lords always protect their royal status over their constituents. Well, Mr. President -- it's time to reign in this herd of Conservadems if you really want the public option. All this could be the awesome kabuki dance that pols do as they negotiate legislation through the media. Well, Mr. President, you got him -- you own him now so make him pony up. Oh, wait -- Senators are immune to any type of accountability. Sorry, I forgot what I wrote earlier in this piece.

Too bad Ned Lamont didn't win in 2006, but we forced Joe out of the Dem Party and Ned is still speaking up against Lieberman. They did debate health care and Holy Joe was for "universal health care" at the time, but now he has a Republican base to protect.

I asked Lamont if he thinks that Obama, who intervened last November to keep Senate Democrats from stripping Lieberman of his committee chairmanship, was guilty of trusting Connecticut's junior senator too much.

"I would really hope that Senator Lieberman would have returned that courtesy by talking to the president's team before walking out on this filibuster plank," he replied.

Lieberman's seat will be up in 2012. His polls numbers have improved a little this year, but they're still very shaky, a 48-45 percent approval rating among all voters in the state. But among Democrats, they're poisonous. Does Lieberman's latest move mean he's abandoning any thought of running as a Democrat again in '12?

"He got re-elected in '06 with overwhelming Republican support," Lamont said. "So I guess he's just taking care of his base."

Do me a favor and contact Joe's offices and tell him to give us an up-or-down vote on health care and not to join Republicans in a filibuster. He likely won't listen, but it's important that he hear our voices.

One Constitution Plaza
7th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
(860) 549-8463 Voice
--
706 Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-4041 Voice

And please: Donate to Blue America's Campaign For Health Care Choice so we can continue to fight for health care reform. We have several actions we're working on...

TPM reports that Reid is close to pulling off senatorial support for the public option - and the White House wants Olympia Snowe's trigger option instead.

In other words, the White House wants the plan that won't work, so they can claim it's a bipartisan plan. Or is it that the administration wants a plan that won't really work, and they're using bipartisanship as a cover? Just asking the obvious question, here:

Multiple sources tell TPMDC that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is very close to rounding up 60 members in support of a public option with an opt out clause, and are continuing to push skeptical members. But they also say that the White House is pushing back against the idea, in a bid to retain the support of Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME).

"They're skeptical of opt out and are generally deferential to the Snowe strategy that involves the trigger," said one source close to negotiations between the Senate and the White House. "They're certainly not calming moderate's concerns on opt-out."

This new development, which casts the White House as an opponent of all but the most watered down form of public option, is likely to yield backlash from progressives, especially those in the House who have been pushing for a more maximal version of reform.

It also suggests for perhaps the first time that the White House's supposed hands off approach that ostensibly allowed the two chambers in Congress to craft their own bill has been discarded.

High level White House officials have floated the trigger idea a number of times, and it seems they continue to do so, even at this, crucial stage of the health care reform process, when their involvement is greatest. That has senators who support the public option concerned.

UPDATE: Big Tent Democrat has another take. So does Nate Silver.

Queen Olympia has decided that the very thing that would make insurance exchanges work is the thing that has to go. And you know when the queen speaks, the Senate listens! (Do you ever get the impression that the Queen is actually wearing no clothes?)

Olympia Snowe looks set to reprise her role in hobbling the stimulus bill in exchange for providing the key pivotal vote for it by killing John Kerry’s amendment, “Empowering State Exchanges to be Prudent Purchasers.” Jon Cohn explains:

In the bills that passed three House committees and the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, the exchange would be a “prudent purchaser.” In other words, it would have a staff that bargained with insurers to bring down premiums — and that made sure all plans lived up to strict guidelines for coverage and customer service. In effect, any insurer that wants to offer coverage through the exchanges has to get the equivalent of a “Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval” from the administrators. This is precisely how it works in Massachusetts.

By contrast, the Senate Finance bill envisions much weaker exchanges. Instead of choosing which plans to make available, the exchange administrators would, by law, have to accept any plan that meets a relatively minimal set of standards.

There are several problems with this. One is that it’s going to be a mess for consumers. Another is that it threatens to turn the exchanges into playgrounds of implicit risk-shifting efforts wherein companies try to design policies specifically around dissuading high-need people from signing up. Thus ever-more burden is going to be placed on the untested risk-adjustment machinery that’s supposed to even this all out. Ezra Klein observes that Jon Kingsdale is basically the only person in America’s who’s run anything like the exchanges envisioned in all the different bills—he does the job in Massachusetts—and he views the prudent purchaser rule as absolutely essential. Against that Snowe is pitting, I guess, her intuition that this is too much government involvement.

TNR's Jonathan Cohn lays out his argument here:

The bills moving through Congress all set up exchanges modeled more or less on what Massachusetts has done. But there are a few critical differences. Among the most important is a difference in how the exchanges would select which plans to offer people.

In the bills that passed three House committees and the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, the exchange would be a "prudent purchaser." In other words, it would have a staff that bargained with insurers to bring down premiums--and that made sure all plans lived up to strict guidelines for coverage and customer service. In effect, any insurer that wants to offer coverage through the exchanges has to get the equivalent of a "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" from the administrators. This is precisely how it works in Massachusetts.

By contrast, the Senate Finance bill envisions much weaker exchanges. Instead of choosing which plans to make available, the exchange administrators would, by law, have to accept any plan that meets a relatively minimal set of standards.

Jon Kingsdale, who runs the Massachusetts exchange, calls that a recipe for "policy disaster," as consumers faced a dizzying array of more expensive, less regulated choices. "It would be like telling your grocery store they have to offer every single kind of bread baked by every single bakery. ... The exchanges would be nothing more than an automated Yellow Pages."

Kingsdale is among several Massachusetts-based policy experts who have been ringing the alarm bells about this flaw in the Finance bill. And it's no coincidence that it's a Massachusetts senator, Kerry, who now proposed to fix it by giving the exchanges the same powers envisioned in the House and HELP bills.

But when Kerry introduced his plan last week, he couldn't get the votes to pass it. The reason, several sources on Capitol Hill say, was opposition from Olympia Snowe, the Maine Republican who also sits on Senate Finance. Snowe seems to be concerned that a more aggressive exchange would amount to more government--which, in fact, it would be. But, as Massachusetts has shown, sometimes more government is exactly what health care needs.

Chances are reasonably good that Kerry's vision of reform will prevail, if not during the Senate floor debate then afterwards, when a conference committee merges whatever passes from the two congressional chambers. But it's not a sure thing, which is why this seemingly narrow question deserves a lot more attention.

Exchange design doesn't get the attention of controversies like the public option, abortion, or supposed death panels. In the long run, though, it could be far more decisive in whether reform works.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1349)

PLAYS: (3995)

Here's another portion of Michael Moore's interview with Wolf Blitzer from Sept. 24, 2009. Michael is exactly right about one thing here. You're not seeing the passion on the left in support of the President because he started from a compromised position instead of starting with single payer and compromising from there if need be. He is also correct that if, not when, the President ever came out for single payer, you would see massive amounts of people coming out and supporting him. You're not going to see that passion on the left for a watered down giveaway to the insurance industry.

BLITZER: That's what President Obama said back in 2003. But now he's backed away from that as president of the United States and he seems to be backing away even from the so-called public option, which would allow the government -- a government-run health insurance company to compete with the private insurance companies. Is this what you wanted?

MOORE: Well, here's the -- here's the problem with President Obama on the health insurance proposal. He's a nice guy. You know, I mean, really, I believe he came into the White House with an olive branch to the people on the other side of the aisle. He believed in bipartisanship. I mean you've got to give the guy credit. He really -- he did not come in wanting to fight. He came in saying, you know, we're all Americans here and we need to fix this and we need to put aside this partisan stuff.

The other side didn't want to put it aside. The other side wanted to fight him tooth and nail. And -- and as part of his nice guy thing, he -- he backs a half measure, a public option.

BLITZER: But that might not even...

MOORE: And we (INAUDIBLE)...

BLITZER: That might not even make the final bill that he signs.

MOORE: And that may not. Well, of course not, because any time you don't fight for the thing you want, any time that you start off compromising, you're never going to get what you want. He started off with a compromise position -- let the private insurance companies still sit at the table, have a public option. He should have started with what he truly believes in, what he believed in, what he said in 2003, a single payer, national health care system, like all other Western countries have. We should have the same thing.

I know he believes in that, but he was trying to reach out and say, you know what, I'm not just going to come in here and ram this, so I'm willing to work with you and listen to your concerns. They don't want to listen to him.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (121)

PLAYS: (336)

Andrea Mitchell ask Barney Frank if he will support a bill that will as Mitch McConnell claims, but Medicare by nearly half a trillion dollars and without a public option. Frank rejects McConnell's accessment and says Obama's mistake was trying to get any bipartisan support. He then states something that should be said over and over again.

Frank: Let's just put it this way. If we hadn't waged that foolish, expensive, devastating war in Iraq we could have paid for health care two times over, so I reject the notion that there's no other way to find the funds for health care.

Amen brother.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1161)

PLAYS: (2036)

Bloody Bill Kristol takes up for poor little old Joe Wilson on Fox News Sunday. Bill, the only "stunt" pulled here was by Joe Wilson.

Kristol: He is leading his party off a cliff and Speaker Pelosi is going to lead the party, her party off the cliff if they try to rebuke Joe Wilson. He has apologized. It will be a disgrace if they do some stunt in the House to try to humilitate this man who is in fact, has a reputation for bipartisanship on the Armed Services Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee he's on. Obama and Pelosi are leading the party off a cliff I think and I hope a lot of Democrats say slow down, let's take a look at this bill.

Nothing makes the Republicans happier than making sure regular people like us have as few rights as possible, and their obsession with "tort reform" is part of that campaign.

Remember, I used to investigate incompetent and crooked docs for a living. There are more of them out there than most people will ever know, and they cause real damage to people's lives - and it's often expensive damage. So the same Republicans who want to take away your legal right to sue to cover your care don't even pretend they want you to get the needed medical treatment, either.

And if Olympia Snowe has her way, the Democrats will roll over your legal rights in their eagerness to get a bipartisan deal on the healthcare reform bill.

ABC News' Jonathan Karl reports: Republicans have long pushed for limits on malpractice lawsuits – what advocates call malpractice reform. It’s a central element of any Republican health care plan. But to Democrats and their trial lawyer supporters, the idea has been a non-starter.

Now, it seems, malpractice reform may be back in play.

The reason: Olympia Snowe, the sole Republican Senator who seems inclined to support Democrats on health care reform, wants it.

Snowe told me today she likes the proposal put forward by Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus. “There’s a lot of promising elements in it,” she said. “It’s a work in progress.” When I asked what she wants changed, she said she’d like to see it include malpractice reform, which she called critical to controlling health care costs.

To Democrats malpractice reform may be too a steep price to pay, but Snowe right now may be the only way Democrats get the 60 votes they need in the Senate.

More Republican hypocrisy, of course. Just look at the states that have instituted the Republican version of tort reform, like Texas. Health care costs (and malpractice premiums) went up, not down. Queen Olympia knows this - she's just holding all the cards in this bipartisan poker game.

And they're playing with our lives.

Just another example of Her Royal Attitude:

On Wednesday afternoon, Olympia Snowe told MSNBC's David Shuster and Tamron Hall that she has personally asked President Obama to remove any mentions of the public option from his speech to Congress.

Snowe said she wanted the president to take the public option "off the table" because doing so "would allay the concerns of so many of whether or not there's a government takeover." Snowe added, "The point is, I don't support a public option, and none of my Republican colleagues do."

And you know what? I'll bet you she gets her way. (But hoping to be proved wrong!)

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1341)

PLAYS: (2986)

Chris Matthews talks to the AFL-CIO's Richard Trumka about the need for at minimum to have a public option in the health care bill. Trumka does a great job despite Matthews' badgering and taking a shot at union members by asking him if they're going to "pummel" (Democratic Senators who won't go along) during the interview. Way to advance that "union thugs" meme there Chris.

Matthews: Can you pass a bill like that?

Trumka: Absolutely.

Matthews: How?

Trumka: We’re working on it.

Matthews: Where are you going to get the votes in the Senate?

Trumka: Well I think the President coming out helps us.

Matthews: You think you can get sixty votes in the Senate?

Trumka: I do.

Matthews: Where? Name the Republicans. Name one Republican.

Trumka: Snowe.

Matthews: Okay, name another one.

Trumka: Well, we don’t need another one do we?

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1056)

PLAYS: (3273)

Phil Gingrey (R-Healthcare Industry) doesn't think we need any stinking regulation of the insurance industries. Just trust them if they say they're going to make changes. Why do we need any silly laws to make sure they behave? We've got their word they won't keep shafting us. Isn't that good enough?

Of course when pinned down on those statements and asked directly if we can trust the insurance industry to keep their word without any laws in place to make sure they won't keep sticking it to their customers, Gingrey retreats to attacking a "government takeover" of health care rather than answer the question.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1125)

PLAYS: (4051)

While discussing with Ed Schultz whether there is going to be a public option in the final health care bill once everything is said and done, Shultz reads off John Boehner's response from the Republicans saying that the Democrat's plan is a "government takeover" of health care. Schakowsky points out that Boehner's statement is of course complete bunk since no one is proposing single payer (sadly IMO) and they've already compromised with Republicans, so they've already got a bipartisan bill. She goes on to make one more really great point on the media's lousy coverage of this debate.

Schakowsky: Let me just say one other thing Ed about the news media. When myths are, or lies are told, it is not just he said she said. I like what you said. It is not true. It is simply a lie that this is a government takeover and I think that it really ought to be up to the media too, not to just report well this is what the Republican said then this is what the Democrat said and this is what the President said. They're telling lies! And I think they need to be called on it.

Amen sister.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (65)

PLAYS: (132)

This is a typical Villager panel discussion that makes me want to throw something through the TV set. Extoll the virtues of bipartisanship for its own sake, everything is win or lose and about politics, like it's some game, and never take any responsibility for your own network not making sure the voters are more informed.

Apparently Bob Cesca felt the same way after watching a some of yesterday's media coverage of these poll numbers. They're Hurting America:

The disconnect, as John Cole points out, is the corporate media. They've been predictably covering the politics-as-sports debate, but not the intracacies of the policy, which they ought to be doing. So it's not surprising that cable news is leading the charge in suggesting that it's the president who hasn't been forthright enough. Let it be said that the media never misses an opportunity to make excuses for its massive breaches of integrity.

But let's say for a moment that the president explained reform and the public option perfectly. Exactly like the press is prescribing. Even then, they'd very likely 1) find another anti-reform meme to inject into their "smackdowns" and half-time shows, and 2) they'd still be inviting serial liars like Mike Pence, unabashed morons like Maria Bartiromo, and centrist capitulators like Harold Ford onto their air to spread misinformation about reform and further confuse viewers.

The one thing I agree with the CNN panel on though is that the President has not done a good enough job of laying out some details of what he wants to see in this legislation, and it's helped them muddy the waters. Bob's right though. It would probably make little difference with what the media coverage looked like.

MALVEAUX: Also joining me is CNN Senior Political Analyst Gloria Borger.

What does it mean, Gloria, for the president to be losing out on these Independents?

BORGER: I think it's a real possible for him. Remember that President Obama won the election with 52 percent of Independent voters. That number is down considerably to 43 percent, and Independents are the margin of difference here for him.

Now, the key to keeping those people is, right now, they are worried about the deficit. They see the president as a big spender. They see him aligned with so-called liberal leaders in the Democratic Congress. So, what he's got to do when -- after Labor Day is kind of show them that he is the kind of so-called post-partisan president that many of them thought they were electing.

The good news for President Obama in this is that they are not realigning themselves with the Republicans yet, because the Republican Party still has very high disapproval ratings.

Now, Jessica, you've been watching something as well, which it looks like to be a generational gap in these numbers.

YELLIN: Absolutely. Well, we know the president did exceptionally well with the young during the election, and that has held strong. Sixty-five percent of the young still approve of the job the president is doing, but it's seniors that we keep talking about, especially in light of health care reform.

He has only a 42 percent approval with seniors. That's very low, and that's right now. So, our numbers don't necessarily tease out that it's because of health care reform, but it's likely that this is a direct effect of the current debate. And if the president is able to get some sort of health care bill through, if he's strong on seniors, protecting them, protecting their Medicare, we could see that number rebound.

Continue reading »

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Democracy for America has a new ad campaign aimed at moving Sen. Chuck Grassley off the dime and get him to support healthcare reform. If you can, donate here:

Meet Kevin from Iowa. Kevin voted for Reagan...and Nixon...and George W. Bush...and Republican Senator Chuck Grassley. Kevin supports the public health insurance option. And in our new TV ad -- called "Main Street Bipartisanship" -- Kevin calls out Chuck Grassley for being out-of-touch with voters back home. It's powerful.

Real health care reform is in danger right now because some Democratic senators like Montana's Max Baucus crave "bipartisanship." But in DC, "bipartisanship" doesn't mean policies that Republican and Democratic voters back home support. It means "whatever watered-down reform insurance companies will let Republican senators vote for."

Chuck Grassley, the main Senate Republican negotiator, has taken over $2.9 million from health and insurance interests that oppose reform. He's also said he won't support a public option because it would beat private insurance in the marketplace! So why are some Democrats still negotiating with Grassley and letting him water down reform -- instead of going on offense? One word: "bipartisanship."

We're redefining "bipartisanship" to mean what mainstream voters want. Thanks for being a bold progressive.

-- Stephanie Taylor, PCCC co-founder

P.S. According to a national Quinnipiac poll in August, 40% of Republicans and 64% of independents support the public option. In Iowa, the latest Des Moines Register poll showed 36% of Republicans and 56% of independents. For context, 36% of Senate Republicans would be 14 votes -- huge "bipartisanship."

Hooboy. Did you hear about the neocon stenographers...er, national paper of record that printed an op-ed that might have as well been written by Dick Cheney himself? In a jingoistic and highly questionably-sourced article, WaPo's Fred Hiatt basically insisted that torturing Khalid Sheikh Mohammad worked, damnit! And of course, the big Dick himself, Darth Cheney will be on Fox News to reinforce what a smart and wonderful thing torture is. And Princess Darth, Liz Cheney, will be on This Week's roundtable to reinforce it. Meanwhile, the legacy of Ted Kennedy will be still on everyone's mind too. Meet the Press, This Week and State of the Union will immerse themselves in the life and life's work of Kennedy. Any bets on how fast some GOPer (Orrin Hatch, I'm looking at you) will bemoan EMK's death as the end of the hope of bipartisanship on health care reform?

ABC's "This Week" - Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and John Kerry, D-Mass.

CBS' "Face the Nation" - Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Hatch; Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass.; Michael Eric Dyson, sociology professor at Georgetown University.

NBC's "Meet the Press" - Kerry; Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.; Kathleen Kennedy Townsend and Maria Shriver, nieces of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy; Doris Kearns Goodwin, presidential historian; former Kennedy adviser Bob Shrum.

NBC's "The Chris Matthews Show" - Panel: Howard Fineman, Michele Norris, Andrea Mitchell, Bill Plante. Topics: Has television forever altered American politics and changed history? Chris Matthews's special personal reflections on Senator Edward Kennedy. Meter Questions: Will outspoken fringe players dominate GOP for the rest of Obama's term? YES: 9 NO: 3; If unemployment is still high next year, will Obama revise his tax proposals? YES: 11 No: 1.

CNN's "State of the Union" - Hatch; Dodd; Red Sox president Larry Lucchino; Boston Mayor Thomas Menino; former Massachusetts Lt. Gov. Thomas P. O'Neill III; environmental advocate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., nephew of Sen. Kennedy; Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, once a Kennedy aide; Sens. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., Mary Landrieu, D-La.

CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" - An encore presentation of Fareed's Emmy nominated interview with China's Premier Wen Jiabao.

"Fox News Sunday" - Former Vice President Dick Cheney.

So, what's catching your eye this morning.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (2788)

PLAYS: (7687)

(h/t Heather.)

Krugman wonders why the Obama administration keeps taking the wrong turn - the right turn, as it were:

“We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals,” said Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1937. “We know now that it is bad economics.” And last year we learned that lesson all over again.

Or did we? The astonishing thing about the current political scene is the extent to which nothing has changed.

The debate over the public option has, as I said, been depressing in its inanity. Opponents of the option — not just Republicans, but Democrats like Senator Kent Conrad and Senator Ben Nelson — have offered no coherent arguments against it. Mr. Nelson has warned ominously that if the option were available, Americans would choose it over private insurance — which he treats as a self-evidently bad thing, rather than as what should happen if the government plan was, in fact, better than what private insurers offer.

But it’s much the same on other fronts. Efforts to strengthen bank regulation appear to be losing steam, as opponents of reform declare that more regulation would lead to less financial innovation — this just months after the wonders of innovation brought our financial system to the edge of collapse, a collapse that was averted only with huge infusions of taxpayer funds.

So why won’t these zombie ideas die?

Part of the answer is that there’s a lot of money behind them. “It is difficult to get a man to understand something,” said Upton Sinclair, “when his salary” — or, I would add, his campaign contributions — “depend upon his not understanding it.” In particular, vast amounts of insurance industry money have been flowing to obstructionist Democrats like Mr. Nelson and Senator Max Baucus, whose Gang of Six negotiations have been a crucial roadblock to legislation.

Now, if Robert Reich is right, and Obama wanted the decisions on health care reform to rest with Baucus and his cronies, that pretty clearly indicates to me that Obama's commitment to real reform is cosmetic only. (As Glenn Greenwald pointed out last week.) That's why Krugman shouldn't be surprised:

But some of the blame also must rest with President Obama, who famously praised Reagan during the Democratic primary, and hasn’t used the bully pulpit to confront government-is-bad fundamentalism. That’s ironic, in a way, since a large part of what made Reagan so effective, for better or for worse, was the fact that he sought to change America’s thinking as well as its tax code.

How will this all work out? I don’t know. But it’s hard to avoid the sense that a crucial opportunity is being missed, that we’re at what should be a turning point but are failing to make the turn.