Don't know if you've seen this yet. It's an anonymous letter from a Hill staffer to Josh Marshall and it pretty much confirms our worst suspicions: They're "relieved" that they don't have to deliver on health care reform.

A wave election hit us in 2008 where we not only had overwhelming majorities of 59 seats in the Senate (once Republicans finally got around to letting us seat Franken) and 257 seats in the House (returning us to the same power level as when we ruled the House with inpugnity in 1992-3) but, most importantly, a President who was explicitly elected on an agenda of "change." It was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to wrench the wheel away from the abyss and really deliver on our promises. It was disheartening when it seemed that Reid was allowing McConnell's disingenuous narrative of "it's always taken 60 votes to get anything done" to take hold, but we were later even saved from that when Specter switched. But it seems we've spent the entire year moving our own goalposts farther away. Things have gotten so bad that in roaming the halls today it feels exactly as if we lost the Majority last night.

The worst is that I can't help but feel like the main emotion people in the caucus are feeling is relief at this turn of events. Now they have a ready excuse for not getting anything done. While I always thought we had the better ideas but the weaker messaging, it feels like somewhere along the line Members internalized a belief that we actually have weaker ideas. They're afraid to actually implement them and face the judgment of the voters. That's the scariest dynamic and what makes me think this will all come crashing down around us in November.

I believe President Clinton provided some crucial insight when he said, "people would rather be with someone who is strong and wrong than weak and right." It's not that people are uninterested in who's right or wrong, it's that people will only follow leaders who seem to actually believe in what they are doing. Democrats have missed this essential fact.

The stimulus bill in the spring showed us what was coming. In the face of a historic economic crisis, Democrats negotiated against themselves at the outset and subsequently yielded to absurd demands from self-described "moderates" to trim the package to a clearly inadequate level. No one made any rational argument about why a lower level was better. It would have been trivial to write "claw-back" provisions if the stimulus turned out to be too much or we could have done a rescission this year to give these moderates their victory, but none of this was on the table. We essentially looked like we didn't know what the right answer was so we just kinda went for what we could get. This formula was repeated in spades in both the Climate and Health Care debacles.

This is my life and I simply can't answer the fundamental question: "what do Democrats stand for?" Voters don't know, and we can't make the case, so they're reacting exactly as you'd expect (just as they did in 1994, 2000, and 2004). We either find the voice to answer that question and exercise the strongest majority and voter mandate we've had since Watergate, or we suffer a bloodbath in November. History shows we're likely to choose the latter.

Although I realize this is far too long to publish, if you do decide to use any of it, please keep my anonymity. Just in case I'm wrong and there is more good to do yet.

Looks like we're going to see a push to open the public option. Get on the phones and let your congress creatures know you're behind it:

Sen. Ron Wyden has doubts about the scope of the public option plan announced Monday.

"I agree with Senator Reid that health reform should give Americans more options. Now, I want to work with him to ensure that all Americans can choose those options," Wyden said. "The bottom line is that the public option can’t really hold private insurers accountable if it is only competing for 10 percent of the insurance market, because private insurance companies aren’t going to change their business practices if 90 percent of their customers can’t take their business elsewhere.

"Real reform means empowering Americans to choose insurance that works well for them and their family, while rejecting plans that don’t. Including a public option is a step in the right direction, now let’s remove the firewalls in this bill that prevent Americans from choosing it," Wyden said in a statement.

[...][Jeff] Merkley, for example, said he would be unhappy if more Americans weren't able to select the so-called public option. As a member of one of the committees that wrote a health care bill, Merkley actively supported a government-option as the best way to maintain costs and provide greater choice. Merkley said in an interview Monday that he would press for any public option to be broadly available along the lines of an amendment he successfully offered in July when the bill was in committee.

Merkley's amendment is designed to give small businesses access to newly created health insurance exchanges that, in theory, breed competition by pooling the number of customers in a specific region. Merkley estimated that his amendment would allow nearly 25,000 more businesses – employing 485,000 workers – to enter the exchanges and 32 million people nationwide.

...

That amendment would increase the size of small businesses eligible for enter the national exchange that includes a public options. He also supports giving states the right expand the size of eligible businesses even more.

"What sense does it make to keep companies from going into the exchange?" he said.

While the corporate media is praising Obama's announcement yesterday to more stringently monitor mountaintop mining, those involved in fighting the massive pollution that results from the practice say it's nowhere near enough. One group's attorney called it "rearranging the bureaucratic deck chairs." (Remember how Obama kept talking about "clean coal"? This is what it looks like, folks: powerful poison dumped into people's lives.)

Friday morning, this terrible news:

Just how bad has the coal ash situation gotten in the United States? So bad that the Department of Homeland Security has told Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) that her committee can't publicly disclose the location of coal ash dumps across the country.

The pollution is so toxic, so dangerous, that an enemy of the United States -- or a storm or some other disrupting event -- could easily cause them to spill out and lay waste to any area nearby.

And yet, for some reason, it's perfectly fine when mining companies do it! Hey, how about that "clean coal"?

There are 44 sites deemed by the Environmental Protection Agency to be high hazard, but Boxer said she isn't allowed to talk about them other than to senators in the states affected. "There is a huge muzzle on me and my staff," she said.

In other words, this is a very urgent problem. Activists say all Obama has to do is enforce the Clean Water Act that already exists.

If the Obama administration wants to protect the people and mountains of Appalachia, it needs to end the destructive practice of mountaintop mining, not settle for promises of stricter scrutiny of the mining permits, advocates say.

[...] The White House announced what it described as an “unprecedented” agreement among the Environmental Protection Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Interior Department to better coordinate and tighten the agencies’ oversight of mountaintop mining and to review the mining existing laws.

In a memorandum of understanding, the agencies promised to:

• Require more stringent environmental reviews for future mountaintop mining permits, including using the Clean Water Act to reduce contamination in streams and watersheds;

• Propose a rule change to stop allowing a type of nationwide permit that doesn’t require site-specific reviews for mining operations to dump the mineral-laden debris of former mountaintops into streams;

• Strengthen oversight of state agencies, both in their permitting and enforcement;

• And, if the U.S. District Court vacates the Bush administration’s 2008 Stream Buffer Zone Rule as requested, return to the 1983 rules restoring the 100-foot buffer zone around streams for mining waste.

These are all steps in the right direction, but they aren’t enough, says Willa Mays, Executive Director of Appalachian Voices:

"Their priorities do not take into account that mountains are being blown up today, and until mountaintop removal coal mining is ended, residents will continue to suffer from high disease rates, floods, and poisoned water supplies directly attributable to this mining practice."

Advocates across Appalachia echoed her concern.

Continue reading »

Cynics' Party: Obama panders to religious fanatics and promises a Jesus-crazy administration. He shouldn't promising to expand the corrupt and unconstitutional Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, he should be promising to investigate their rampant cronyism and close 'em down. Our friend Pastor Dan, takes a slightly different view.

mandroppings: The Department of Homeland Security has deployed 181 'terrorism liaison officers' in Colorado to keep a watchful eye out for anyone engaging in 'suspicious activity.'

TVNews Lies: Yankee Doodle Deadly

Democurmudgeon: Atom Smasher, Black Holes, Strangelets To Swallow The World?

The Satirical Political Report: Citing his Vietnam experience, Forrest Gump announces his candidacy for President.

Go read Addiction: Buying the Cure at Passages Malibu, by frequent Crooks and Liars contributor, Mark Groubert. It's terrific.

Just a little over three months ago, President Bush declared he "hadn't heard" that gasoline would soon reach $4 a gallon. Today, the milestone anticipated by all save the President of the United States came to pass:

"Drivers are paying an average of $4 for a gallon of gasoline for the first time. AAA and the Oil Price Information Service say the national average price for a gallon of regular gas rose to $4.005 overnight from $3.988. But consumers in many parts of the country have already been paying well above that price for some time."

Given the stratospheric - and uninterrupted - rise in oil and gas prices, Bush's February 28 display of ignorance is all the more jaw-dropping. Asked by a reporter about the looming arrival of $4 gas, Bush the former oil man did what comes naturally and played dumb:

Q What's your advice to the average American who is hurting now, facing the prospect of $4 a gallon gasoline, a lot of people facing --

THE PRESIDENT: Wait, what did you just say? You're predicting $4 a gallon gasoline?

Q A number of analysts are predicting --

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yeah?

Q -- $4 a gallon gasoline this spring when they reformulate.

THE PRESIDENT: That's interesting. I hadn't heard that.

Perrspectives has more on Bush's mind-numbing mindlessness and his dismal history of broken promises to "jawbone" his Saudi and Kuwaiti friends into opening the spigots.

Happy Valley News Hour: Dick Cheney sends the Terminator back in time to eliminate Joe Wilson's mother.

TBogg: Since Megan McArdle can't seem to wrap her head around this crazy little thing called "poor", perhaps she'd like to take the Food Stamp Challenge for a week or two.

American Street: The myth that Republicans are fiscally responsible stewards of the economy simply means that the vast majority of Americans know nothing about politics or economics.

D-Day: Look for the Union label...

The Opinion Mill: Bookchat

Show Me Progress: Does anyone really believe Matt Blunt's 'spend more time with my family' dodge?

The Satirical Political Report: Huckleberry promises a "WMD Roll" on the White House lawn

Fascinating post by Jesse Wendel at Group News Blog regarding the kind of language the Democratic frontrunners are using to describe themselves and their campaigns:

Workers are all about competence. Why? ...Because workers sell their ability to make and keep promises. [The Worker Candidate] talks of her competence and experience, promises she will do what she's always done, and has the policy plans and papers to prove it...Clinton uses the language of a worker, the language of deep experience and competence...She tells us you can trust her judgment, knowledge and understanding, her years and years of being on the job, wisdom and training. She is no doubt genuinely baffled that anyone would choose someone who doesn't have the competency and vetting she has.

Managers aren't about declarations. Managers are about requests...[The manager candidate] requests you elect him to fix problems, lobbies for a change so he can fix the system. Edwards is an old-style Union man so even when his words are canonically declarative, if you listen carefully, what he's really doing is making a request for you to elect him because he can't deliver on his vision unless he's President.

Executives make the fundamental declarations of the enterprise: ...What business are we in? Who are we competing with? Who is our long term strategic ally? [The leader candidate] speaks in declarations, inspires, leads. ...When Obama speaks, he creates a future of an America in which all of us together will take on the troubles we know in our heart are coming and repair the damages which have occurred. Every time Obama opens his mouth, that future is more and more real. It happens AS he speaks. Obama's speaking makes it so. By declaration.

Obama is breaking out now because he speaks the language of a leader.

Read more...

NOW takes a look at the FBI case against the "Corrupt Bastards Club," where cash and favors flowed between an Alaska-based oil services company and an Alaska Republican good-old-boy network that stretched all the way to DC.

Download | play Download | play (h/t Heather)

Two state legislators have been convicted in Federal court for accepting bribes from VECO. The FBI has video and audio evidence that reveal VECO executives shockingly handing out cash to those legislators in exchange for promises to roll back a tax on the oil industry. But that may only be the tip of the oily iceberg. NOW's Maria Hinojosa learns that dozens more lawmakers are being eyed in the growing scandal, including one of the country's most powerful politicians, Alaska U.S. Senator Ted Stevens.

Watch the complete show online here.

I was interviewed a while ago on Mr Media's blog and he asked me about my political beliefs. The idea of what a Centrist means has always baffled me as a belief system. I understand calling yourself that, but not as a bargaining tool. Right wing bloggers like Hugh Hewitt use the word "center/right" to hide their extremism to a guy like Wolf Blitzer.

ANDELMAN: I have one last question: many people find that their political views become more conservative as they get older. Are you seeing any sign of that within your own beliefs?

AMATO: What is the center? Do you know what I mean? Has anybody defined what the center is? I believe that we all through our experiences in life, we all come to decisions and conclusions which we are comfortable with morally, what we think is the right thing to do. So that’s how I’ve developed my convictions, so they are not changing, they’re only getting stronger since I’ve been involved with blogging and in the political process.

As always, Duncan nails the "Centrism" riff:

Let's be clear that "centrism" is, for the most part, a cosmetic pose for the benefit of Beltways journalists who know that The Most Important Thing Is To Be A Centrist.

In terms of what those centrists actually support in terms of policy, I'd say there are roughly 3 kinds of things. Occasionally they live up to their name and push through genuine compromises between left and right. More often than that they push fake "split the baby" compromises which achieve nothing genuine but have the appearance of doing "something."

And, most often, "centrism" is used as a cover for what amounts to bipartisan endorsement of corruption in the name of furthering the Might and Majesty of the establishment powers.

You've got to see Chris Jordan's work.

Image above shows detail of blocks made of blocks indicating the number of US children without health insurance.

From Running the Numbers, an American Self-Portrait:

This new series looks at contemporary American culture through the austere lens of statistics. Each image portrays a specific quantity of something: fifteen million sheets of office paper (five minutes of paper use); 106,000 aluminum cans (thirty seconds of can consumption) and so on. My hope is that images representing these quantities might have a different effect than the raw numbers alone, such as we find daily in articles and books. Statistics can feel abstract and anesthetizing, making it difficult to connect with and make meaning of 3.6 million SUV sales in one year, for example, or 2.3 million Americans in prison, or 426,000 cell phones retired every day. This project visually examines these vast and bizarre measures of our society, in large intricately detailed prints assembled from thousands of smaller photographs. My underlying desire is to affirm and sanctify the crucial role of the individual in a society that is increasingly enormous, incomprehensible, and overwhelming.

Chris promises to add pieces as they are completed; well worth the bookmark.